Pinnacle's latest safety idea..

[IBNAV8R]

DON'T DO IT!!! In my opinion, it's NOT safe. 700/900 OK. Add -200, no way. You can get away with it in good conditions but they land quite differently - enough to bite you (and the other 52 people on board) when conditions go south. We've had at least one -200 overrun where the crew who had been flying the -700 expected different braking performance after a long float (also common in the -200 if you're not used to it). Company was mum, of course, but word got out.

 

[paddlehigh]

I do it at PSA all the time. Its totally safe if you know how to fly planes to begin with.

 

[brokeflyer]

I do it at PSA all the time. Its totally safe if you know how to fly planes to begin with.

well yeah, but it's pinnacle we're talking about here.

 

[flyboyike]

The differences between the 200 and 900 are minimal...

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there...yeah.

 

[redflyer65]

You guys do a 200 to 900? There is no 700.

 

[viper548]

I fly all 3 models all the time. It's not a big deal if you fly the different models on a regular basis, but after several months in the -200 and going to the -900 the first few landings are gonna be rough, really rough if you land it like the -200.

 

[gearupflapsup]

well yeah, but it's pinnacle we're talking about here.

Remember the Pinnacle Motto.

"NEVER COMPROMISE SAVINGS"

I think its on a big plaque in the Detroit Base Manager's Office....

 

[Smarta$$]

Are 900's operate out of ATL. Most of us in the other 3 hubs will be dual qualified in both, but never or almost never operate a 900. Then we go to MEM to do a jeopardy PC and the 200 sims are full. Have to take it in the 900 sim when you have not operated a 900 flight in 11 months, or whatever. Oh, and by the way your record and job are on the line. No think you. If we had a 50-50 or 60-40 split fleet through all hubs, maybe. But our 900's make up about 12% of our fleet.

 

[paddlehigh]

If you can't handle it well then go work at McDonalds. They all land the same in the sim anyways and if you don't have basic airmanship on the line to realize what aircraft you are in to land it appropriately, well do yourself and your passengers a favor a find a new career.

 

[Speedtape]

If you can't handle it well then go work at McDonalds. They all land the same in the sim anyways and if you don't have basic airmanship on the line to realize what aircraft you are in to land it appropriately, well do yourself and your passengers a favor a find a new career.

I bet you are fun to fly with. You sound like a real John Wayne type! Or better yet, a MGMT stool.

It is safer, over an entire pilot group, to not fly the 200 and 900. I know you have "Special Skills," but not everyone is a legend in their own mind!

Can it be done? It is done on paper. Is it a safer practice than not combining the flying, yes, it is safer to keep it separate. There have been enough documented accidents and incidents with this issue to support the argument.

 

[paddlehigh]

Why don't you cry some more that will help you on your next check ride

 

[TurboAWD]

You guys that really that think this is a great idea have an interesting attitude twords flight safety.

Even the (likely) more experienced pilots at FedEx seem to have a problem being dual qualified on the MD11/MD10, but you think that 250 hrs wonders with 2500 hr Captains should be flying 900's for months at a time and then go into a 200 and fly a CAT II to a snow covered short runway at night, or a gusty x-wind to a wet short runway in heavy rain.

Good idea.

Turbo

 

[wilde737]

SKYW flies all the variants, the 200/700/900. It's really not that hard, albeit there are some differences. It just takes some thought. I wouldn't say it's unsafe, except for the ego when you've been flying the 200 and end up in the 700. SMACK!

 

[PCL_128]

If you can't handle it well then go work at McDonalds.

Gee, there's a great attitude about safety.

Safety should be the number one priority, and jumping back and forth between the -200 and -900 is not the safest way to operate by any stretch of the imagination. Hold their feet to the fire and force them to keep separate categories.

 

[Speedtape]

The 757 and 767 cockpits and deck angles were designed from the beginning of development to have similar perspective and the least amount of differences to obtain the Common type.

The Crj 700 had too many differences noted right up to the time of certification to gain same type status. There were nearly 200 differences from what I remember. Somehow, (wink and nod), they were supposedly reduced to about 149 (not sure of the exact number) and gained certification to a lot of people's skeptcism and surprise, just under the wire of the minimum amount of differences as set for by the certification rules.

One airline I know, decided to keep it safe and keep it separate. Their FAA office was in agreement and also would not permit them to operate both aircraft. Shortly thereafter, a European crew, who was flying both, cracked up a plane on landing due to dissimilar landing perspectives in a morning landing that had some visability restrictions due to fog.

The 200 has so many ADs and Operation Bulletins out, it would be extremely difficult to fly both and keep things straight--especially with tired crews.

It's all about saving bucks. Put everybody on the lower pay scale for most pay events, and then give a paltry premium when a pilot gets to fly. For a company that is currently flying the aircraft separately, it would be a pay cut for the people on the 700, and an occasional pay increase for those who do not and usually cannot hold it. In other words, concessionary, but not shared by all. It amounts to Industrial Cannibalism.