Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
To the Avantair guys/gals
- Thread starter MCOE175
- Start date
- Watchers 25
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Well it isn't popular with many flyers cause it doesn't look like a normal airplane... that is why most charter companies avoid it even though it has good numbers. Most NORMAL people want to fly something that looks like an airplane - at least when their life is on the line...
Besides Props are for boats!
mainiac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Posts
- 167
Wake up, and get a clue..
Geronimo4497
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Posts
- 591
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
And that is why we keep selling more and more shares/charter cards quarter after quarter.
AftCG182
RIP Avantair
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2003
- Posts
- 507
Go to the Bat Cave. Sit on your sled. Breath deeply to fully enjoy the smell of the burned two-stroke oil. Snow's almost here. Take another deep breath. Ahhhhh....
I can't believe that you and Geronimo took the bait from this guy and his prop-envy. Sheeesh....
fivefootnuthin
U Cant HANDLE the truth!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Posts
- 41
Having been here for years, i'll sum it up this way for prospective new hires - great plane, descent management (they promote from within to the point of In-breeding - K.B. is the only bright spot IMO), avg pay, horrible medical IF you have the family plan. Single plan cost is minimal.
My biggest problem has and will always be the performance issue. Be prepared for a half dozen phone calls when you take a look at performance out of a short or hot/high runway and say "i dont like this.." The cowboy mentality is alive and well here, and they dont want to hear about such folly as accel/go or accel/stop. They'll tell you that as a part 23 plane its not a required calculation so "dont worry about it"
And the latest brain child?? 150% of take off roll as the only criteria?? I dont even wanna think about who's butt they pulled that one out of. You decide for yourself if you're comfortable with that opinion or not before you say yes to a job offer.
My biggest problem has and will always be the performance issue. Be prepared for a half dozen phone calls when you take a look at performance out of a short or hot/high runway and say "i dont like this.." The cowboy mentality is alive and well here, and they dont want to hear about such folly as accel/go or accel/stop. They'll tell you that as a part 23 plane its not a required calculation so "dont worry about it"
And the latest brain child?? 150% of take off roll as the only criteria?? I dont even wanna think about who's butt they pulled that one out of. You decide for yourself if you're comfortable with that opinion or not before you say yes to a job offer.
Last edited:
hammer2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
Am I crazy, or does that sound crazy?
fivefootnuthin
U Cant HANDLE the truth!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Posts
- 41
Crazy? No .... just ignorant in that aspect. My favorite was a quote from an owner some time ago who said -
"I asked about Aspen, Eagle, airports like that and the salesman (he didnt say who) told me 'Oh we love going to those places. Go all the time. This plane can do things jets can't.' "
I damn near flipped when i hear that one. Just know this - the PIC puts his ticket on the line literally when he elects to blow off published performance data because the company says "dont worry about it." While it's entirely true that as a part 23 aircraft can launch legally with only runway length as criteria, therein lies the slippery slope; have an incident or worse where the performance in the POH showed insufficient accel/stop accel/go or obstacle clearance, and that PIC is toast. This is why many of the above board operators who fly king air 90's, 200's (and other part 23 a/c) opt to follow all performance data in their operational calculations. There was a big push almost 2 years ago for flying within these guidelines, and it essentially went nowhere. Such mgmt rational for this includes "its not required," "the window of danger is so small with PT-6's that's its really a non-factor," "if an engine will fail it'll do it on initial power-up," and my personal favorite "you're only missing accel-stop by 600 feet. I'd be comfortable arguing that to the FAA any day." These are all actual quotes rebutting concern for performance with PAX in the past.
So i dunno ....maybe it is crazy. But new pilots, FLYER BEWARE
"I asked about Aspen, Eagle, airports like that and the salesman (he didnt say who) told me 'Oh we love going to those places. Go all the time. This plane can do things jets can't.' "
I damn near flipped when i hear that one. Just know this - the PIC puts his ticket on the line literally when he elects to blow off published performance data because the company says "dont worry about it." While it's entirely true that as a part 23 aircraft can launch legally with only runway length as criteria, therein lies the slippery slope; have an incident or worse where the performance in the POH showed insufficient accel/stop accel/go or obstacle clearance, and that PIC is toast. This is why many of the above board operators who fly king air 90's, 200's (and other part 23 a/c) opt to follow all performance data in their operational calculations. There was a big push almost 2 years ago for flying within these guidelines, and it essentially went nowhere. Such mgmt rational for this includes "its not required," "the window of danger is so small with PT-6's that's its really a non-factor," "if an engine will fail it'll do it on initial power-up," and my personal favorite "you're only missing accel-stop by 600 feet. I'd be comfortable arguing that to the FAA any day." These are all actual quotes rebutting concern for performance with PAX in the past.
So i dunno ....maybe it is crazy. But new pilots, FLYER BEWARE
C425Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 357
FiveFootNuthin,
You need to stop putting so much faith in the rumor mill. Were you one of the people spreading the rumor about our doors closing on July 1?
There is absolutely no "150% of ground roll" runway requirement. The 150% thing was an idea that someone pitched to management (actually, his idea was 170% but the rumor mill distorted it). He then started telling people about his great idea and the rumor took off like wildfire.
I had a performance discussion yesterday with one of the CP's. The requirement is accelerate stop on the runway (just like the GOM says) or accerate go over the obsatcle (just like the GOM says). Perhaps you should read your GOM sometime. In my recurrent class a few weeks ago the DO reiterated the performance requirements out of the GOM and was very specific about it.
Because of Accelerate/Stop and Go issues I've changed departure airports or had to make fuel stops and there has NEVER been any repercussions over it. I've never been counseled or disciplined over it. When I tell the pax it's a safety issue they appreciated it.
I've never felt like my ticket was on the line here and I've never felt like I compromised safety with anything I've done.
Again, the 150% of ground roll is pure BS. So is the cowboy thing that you talk of.
You need to stop putting so much faith in the rumor mill. Were you one of the people spreading the rumor about our doors closing on July 1?
There is absolutely no "150% of ground roll" runway requirement. The 150% thing was an idea that someone pitched to management (actually, his idea was 170% but the rumor mill distorted it). He then started telling people about his great idea and the rumor took off like wildfire.
I had a performance discussion yesterday with one of the CP's. The requirement is accelerate stop on the runway (just like the GOM says) or accerate go over the obsatcle (just like the GOM says). Perhaps you should read your GOM sometime. In my recurrent class a few weeks ago the DO reiterated the performance requirements out of the GOM and was very specific about it.
Because of Accelerate/Stop and Go issues I've changed departure airports or had to make fuel stops and there has NEVER been any repercussions over it. I've never been counseled or disciplined over it. When I tell the pax it's a safety issue they appreciated it.
I've never felt like my ticket was on the line here and I've never felt like I compromised safety with anything I've done.
Again, the 150% of ground roll is pure BS. So is the cowboy thing that you talk of.
Geronimo4497
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Posts
- 591
Thanks for saving me a whole lot of typing. Gotta love that rumor mill...... :nuts:
fivefootnuthin
U Cant HANDLE the truth!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Posts
- 41
i'm not quoting "rumor mill" nor did i quote any rationale that i myself have not heard personally. And since part 25 aircraft require BOTH accel/go and accel/stop in their performance calculations, the standing rule of two out of three (meaning runway roll which is obvious, then take your pick of either accel/go OR accel/stop - which either one is LEAST restrictive) is just about as dumb.
And while I'm glad to hear that you've never had a call about a flight from scheduling, then the chief pilot and then possible GK and/or the DO with respect to making a trip non-stop, then kudos to you -- but others have, including me. THAT is also a fact. Any one who wants to test that theory, tell them on a questionable non-stop that since runway roll is obviously needed, the two parameters you want are accel/stop and accel/go -- see what happens.
Or better yet, question the next flight of four plus bags that is slated to go from that awesome little berm-crossed airport in Idaho to, lets say, LAX.
I appreciate your homer-esque side-chosing C425, but for you to say that the flight have never been pushed or that calls to crews have never been made makes me wonder whether or not you spend your time in the cockpit or in the office.
As I've said, it's a great airplane - and the guys are awesome on the line. And you are right -- PAX virtually never question a change in venue where safety is concerned, and once it's clear that the PAX agreed the subject is generally dropped by scheduling. But leave the kool-aid in the packet bro, because far too many guys with more time in this bird than you know how things get for a flight if the owner is big enough or the schedule is tight. The phone WILL ring -- and the spurs WILL jingle.
One last thing ...i have made NO posts regarding closing rumors. But since you like to live on this site, I'm sure you already know that.
And while I'm glad to hear that you've never had a call about a flight from scheduling, then the chief pilot and then possible GK and/or the DO with respect to making a trip non-stop, then kudos to you -- but others have, including me. THAT is also a fact. Any one who wants to test that theory, tell them on a questionable non-stop that since runway roll is obviously needed, the two parameters you want are accel/stop and accel/go -- see what happens.
Or better yet, question the next flight of four plus bags that is slated to go from that awesome little berm-crossed airport in Idaho to, lets say, LAX.
I appreciate your homer-esque side-chosing C425, but for you to say that the flight have never been pushed or that calls to crews have never been made makes me wonder whether or not you spend your time in the cockpit or in the office.
As I've said, it's a great airplane - and the guys are awesome on the line. And you are right -- PAX virtually never question a change in venue where safety is concerned, and once it's clear that the PAX agreed the subject is generally dropped by scheduling. But leave the kool-aid in the packet bro, because far too many guys with more time in this bird than you know how things get for a flight if the owner is big enough or the schedule is tight. The phone WILL ring -- and the spurs WILL jingle.
One last thing ...i have made NO posts regarding closing rumors. But since you like to live on this site, I'm sure you already know that.
Last edited:
glasspilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,622
fivefootnuthin
U Cant HANDLE the truth!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Posts
- 41
C425Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 357
mainiac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Posts
- 167
I sure hate singing the same old tune here, but..
it's sad how the Avantair threads seem to deteriorate into negativity,
but it's really pathetic to see it coming from within! I'll back Glass, Aft and 425 on this wholeheartedly! Save the operational "gripes" for the in-house forum! If you sh*t on your own dinner plate, it's your own breath that ends up stinkin'!
About 2.5 yrs, and I approve this message
it's sad how the Avantair threads seem to deteriorate into negativity,
but it's really pathetic to see it coming from within! I'll back Glass, Aft and 425 on this wholeheartedly! Save the operational "gripes" for the in-house forum! If you sh*t on your own dinner plate, it's your own breath that ends up stinkin'!
About 2.5 yrs, and I approve this message
fivefootnuthin
U Cant HANDLE the truth!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Posts
- 41
Wow maniac...did you really come up with that ALL by yourself?
I mean seriously...this is a FORUM, where one should (barring personal attacks or racist views obviously) feel free to express his or her thoughts. Having had more FO's than should be the case say to me after a fairly short time frame "um....do they really expect this to go this way?" I thought it relevant to point out to those expecting a more structured, disciplined set up ala 121 or NJA or SC that they can expect something less regarding procedure. My apologies if it offends your sensibilities, but having been here longer than 90% of those posting from this company, my take on it is just that....MY take, based on what I'VE dealt with. As far as in-house posting goes, never done it, never will. If you honestly think that keeping it "within the unit" as it were actually gets mgmts attention with respect to issues we've been dealing with, in some cases, for YEARS now, then make yourself feel better and have it.
I mean seriously...this is a FORUM, where one should (barring personal attacks or racist views obviously) feel free to express his or her thoughts. Having had more FO's than should be the case say to me after a fairly short time frame "um....do they really expect this to go this way?" I thought it relevant to point out to those expecting a more structured, disciplined set up ala 121 or NJA or SC that they can expect something less regarding procedure. My apologies if it offends your sensibilities, but having been here longer than 90% of those posting from this company, my take on it is just that....MY take, based on what I'VE dealt with. As far as in-house posting goes, never done it, never will. If you honestly think that keeping it "within the unit" as it were actually gets mgmts attention with respect to issues we've been dealing with, in some cases, for YEARS now, then make yourself feel better and have it.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
