NetJets Working on CASS Approval?

[IDEtoNJA]

FYI - No such thing as CAT III A, B, or C anymore. As a matter of fact there hasn't been CAT III A, B or C for many years.

And yes, you are right about the expense, but that holds true for any operation.


You ask to explain how a management decision based mostly on economics has any relevance to pilot capabilities?

There is a lot to consider and it's very relevent to pilot capabilities vs the equipment on the property and the market(s) the aircraft is operated in.

If all training was equal across the boards you would be correct, but it's not. Neither is the mission various carriers have. You mention Horizon and Northwest. The Northwest DC-9 pilots have a different configuation in virtually every airplane they get into and Horizon operates in miserable weather all the time. The cost decisions work alongside the hiring profile and cross section of pilots hired along with the pool of applicants. But that's just the beginning. Choices of approaches to be trained to and which are included in the training program, will it be Part 61 or AQP? Is the air carrier able to take advantage of AQP or is the turnover rage so fast that it becomes ineffective? For small air carriers that have pilots with less hours and are learning the business more training is needed than a hiring pool with more experienced pilots.

Cost is always a factor, and pilot cabilities are always part of the equation.

B19,

Please reference your claim that CAT IIIa,b, & c does not exist anymore. I find it interesting as the AIM published in 2008 still refers to the differences between the three. Additionally, the sample of CAT III approach charts I have looked at still publish minimums for three sub-categories.

So ... You are saying that the current Delta MD-80 pilots are of a lower caliber then the pilots that used to fly the MD-80 for Swissair?! Unbelievable!

Someone as connected to management as you claim to be should know better. The decision should be based purely on economic necessity! Does the cost of training and equipment override the cost of operations without said qualification for the mission at hand. Let me ask you: Why do you believe most 121 ETOPS operators across the Atlantic choose to qualify its crews for CAT III operations? Is it a cost-benefit calculation; or, is it due to the superior capabilities of the pilots flying the Atlantic?

Your claim that such qualifications for smaller operators is prohibitive may or may not be true; however, there are smaller operators of one aircraft that have the qualifications!

IDEtoNJA

 

[ozpilot]

Now if we could only have elected Ron Paul....

Or Paris Hilton ... see you at the debates bit%*es!

 

[B19 Flyer]

B19,

Please reference your claim that CAT IIIa,b, & c does not exist anymore. I find it interesting as the AIM published in 2008 still refers to the differences between the three. Additionally, the sample of CAT III approach charts I have looked at still publish minimums for three sub-categories.

So ... You are saying that the current Delta MD-80 pilots are of a lower caliber then the pilots that used to fly the MD-80 for Swissair?! Unbelievable!

Someone as connected to management as you claim to be should know better. The decision should be based purely on economic necessity! Does the cost of training and equipment override the cost of operations without said qualification for the mission at hand. Let me ask you: Why do you believe most 121 ETOPS operators across the Atlantic choose to qualify its crews for CAT III operations? Is it a cost-benefit calculation; or, is it due to the superior capabilities of the pilots flying the Atlantic?

Your claim that such qualifications for smaller operators is prohibitive may or may not be true; however, there are smaller operators of one aircraft that have the qualifications!

IDEtoNJA

Go dig up your opspecs and look at C060 if you are qualifed to operate CAT III. Op specs and equipment authorization govern how low you go, and the old language changed a long time ago although some of it is still hanging around. All of the C060 language has changed.

This was in response to the JAROPS harmonization back in '99. Go look at AC Circular 120-28D for the updated info.

On to the other subject:

I didn't make the statement about DAL pilots being of lower caliber than Swissair so don't put words in my mouth. That's unbelievable you would do that.

Qualification for CAT III ops for oceanic operations will depend on the business plan and route structure and if the operator will ever need to go below CAT I or 1800 RVR.

The fact is that every carrier has a different business plan. You can't expect a local regional flying turboprops to be looking at hiring minimums or an experience level of an international carrier, nor would you expect the cost structure to be the same. So, in essence, the cost is relevent.

 

[IDEtoNJA]

Go dig up your opspecs and look at C060 if you are qualifed to operate CAT III. Op specs and equipment authorization govern how low you go, and the old language changed a long time ago although some of it is still hanging around. All of the C060 language has changed.

This was in response to the JAROPS harmonization back in '99. Go look at AC Circular 120-28D for the updated info.

On to the other subject:

I didn't make the statement about DAL pilots being of lower caliber than Swissair so don't put words in my mouth. That's unbelievable you would do that.

Qualification for CAT III ops for oceanic operations will depend on the business plan and route structure and if the operator will ever need to go below CAT I or 1800 RVR.

The fact is that every carrier has a different business plan. You can't expect a local regional flying turboprops to be looking at hiring minimums or an experience level of an international carrier, nor would you expect the cost structure to be the same. So, in essence, the cost is relevent.

B19,

You are quoting AC 121-28D! However said AC does indeed discuss the differences between CAT IIIa and IIIb and its applicability! Paragraph 4.3.1 has the following sentence: "Category III landing minima are classified as Category IIIa,Category IIIb or Category IIIc" Paragraph 4.3.7 and 4.3.8 specifically discuss IIIa and IIIb.

You stated that an operator that is approved for SAAR operations makes the decision in part on other then economic reasons following a discussion of how superior one of our colleagues is, what should anyone reading infer from such a statement?!

You are mentioning regional operators with lower hiring standards! Does Austrian Arrows hire higher caliber crewmembers then Air Wisconsin due to the fact that Austrian Arrows has CAT IIIa authorization for its CRJ's? As a matter of fact the hiring minimums for Austrian Arrows have been traditionally quite a bit lower the Air Wisconsin; however, the operation in Central Europe necessitates SAAR operations. Does ExpressJet hire higher caliber crewmembers then AmericanEagle due to the fact that ExpressJet has CAT II authorization for its ERJ's?

You replied to one of my postings in which I said that SAAR operations are primarily an economic cost-benefit calculation, and are not, an indication to the caliber of crewmembers at an operation! You were the one that tried to prove me wrong! So ... Which is it? Is it an economic decision, or, is it an indication of the capabilities of the crewmembers?

IDEtoNJA

 

[glasspilot]

B19,

...Does ExpressJet hire higher caliber crewmembers then AmericanEagle due to the fact that ExpressJet has CAT II authorization for its ERJ's?

IDEtoNJA

AmericanEagle pilots signed a 16 year crap contract showing very poor decision making abilities. I would say yes, ExpressJet does hire higher caliber crewmembers.

 

[FO 4 Life]

AmericanEagle pilots signed a 16 year crap contract showing very poor decision making abilities. I would say yes, ExpressJet does hire higher caliber crewmembers.

Ask the couple hundred Express furloughs how that contract is working out.

 

[JungleJett]

Ask the couple hundred Express furloughs how that contract is working out.

WTF does that have to do with the contract?

 

[OPECJet]

It allows bottom feeders room to weasel in with lower compensation thus reducing the workforces of regionals where one can actually make a living.

Mesa sucks... Back to your regularly scheduled FI BS.

 

[acaTerry]

He's not "my man Obama"...


...He's our President.

Speak for yourself my friend.

 

[caseyd]

Nice attitude......

Honestly, I would not mind giving you 121 guys a ride if we could....even you ExpressJet folks...

The problem is that once you rode on us..we would never get the stink out!!


I kid......I kid......

This thread has jumped the track. Boys..... a 121 jumpseat generally belongs to the Captain.

Pilots share a common quality. They accept responsibility (at least with respect to their job). And that responsibility is huge. This is a tie that binds.

My jumpseat is available to any comrade who shares the same job. I don't give a crap who big your plane is, how much you make, where you go or much about you. So long as I believe you uphold my profession I will extend to you the professional courtesy of my jumpseat with no expectation of a quid pro quo.

Regards,

caseyd