Oh Corpies LX

[dustoff17]

I don’t get what you are in about. Obviously, pax carriers are carrying more people per jet than a Corpie. So yes, one pax jet down could kill as much as 20 Corpie jets. Irrelevant metric you are measuring.

Stupidity? How about that TEB Learjet with a CA whose every other word was a cuss word, with zero situational awareness, and a FO not even rated to fly for his company (um, LOL, what?!)

Or the Katz G4. No checklist, no flight control checks, all dead.

Or the fact a LOT of Corpie jets can’t do RNAV RNP approaches like 121. Our shop has company-specific RNP approaches that involves RF legs, circle shapes to land ona runway. Much safer than CTL in marginal conditions - which had been a huge cause of Corpie crashes.


Corpies ops can contract pilots; at 121 airlines you will only get a FO trained and rated by that specific 121 airline.

The list goes on and on. It doesn’t compare.

121 > 135 > 91

I could EASILY make a list of poor performance in 121 pilots that have resulted in WAY more damage and death. However, to what end?

You will always believe what you want to believe and you will continue to post subjective slams on Corporate Pilots and Part 91 in general. Your Corporate slams are starting to be more about trolling than about a genuine concern for overall pilot safety. Also, if it weren’t for the operations you seemingly hate, you probably wouldn‘t be a 121 pilot today.

Some 121 operators have specific RNAV approaches…big deal! So do some Part 91 operators. Most Cat-based approaches are accessible to Part 91 operators as long as they have the equipment and comply with the training requirements; doesn’t make 121 better. More importantly, we don’t have the luxury of the canned airports with the canned RNAV approaches! Must be cozy in a world where very little on-the-spot decisions have to be made.

I used to work for a 91 company that had its very own RNAV approach. And a company where we had both specific RNAV routings AND approaches, (including point-in-space). Does this make me a better pilot? Nope, just trained differently. Does this make me less safe? Nope!

You be you and please find a new hobby…

 

[KLB]

I could EASILY make a list of poor performance in 121 pilots that have resulted in WAY more damage and death. However, to what end?

You will always believe what you want to believe and you will continue to post subjective slams on Corporate Pilots and Part 91 in general. Your Corporate slams are starting to be more about trolling than about a genuine concern for overall pilot safety. Also, if it weren’t for the operations you seemingly hate, you probably wouldn‘t be a 121 pilot today.

Some 121 operators have specific RNAV approaches…big deal! So do some Part 91 operators. Most Cat-based approaches are accessible to Part 91 operators as long as they have the equipment and comply with the training requirements; doesn’t make 121 better. More importantly, we don’t have the luxury of the canned airports with the canned RNAV approaches! Must be cozy in a world where very little on-the-spot decisions have to be made.

I used to work for a 91 company that had its very own RNAV approach. And a company where we had both specific RNAV routings AND approaches, (including point-in-space). Does this make me a better pilot? Nope, just trained differently. Does this make me less safe? Nope!

You be you and please find a new hobby…

Exactly. It only cost about 20 grand to have a special approach to be built. The thing is that it's not applicable and will not fit every airport situation. A lot of circling approaches flown are into tight Valleys or "one way in or one way out" airports. How would a special approach or RNP help get into a place like RWY 26R at KSDM? It won't. It would already exist if it could.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I could EASILY make a list of poor performance in 121 pilots that have resulted in WAY more damage and death. However, to what end?

And a LOT of that is something I have written about here numerous times (with gloves off, mind you). Atlas, Colgan types. People who have NO business flying commercial jetliners, yet here we are. They fall through the cracks, the unions protect them, and/or they lie about their backgrounds. I have zero tolerance for people like that. In fact, I think I got crap here once for saying if you have 3 checkrides busted, you shouldn't be in a 121 airliner.

You will always believe what you want to believe and you will continue to post subjective slams on Corporate Pilots and Part 91 in general. Your Corporate slams are starting to be more about trolling than about a genuine concern for overall pilot safety. Also, if it weren’t for the operations you seemingly hate, you probably wouldn‘t be a 121 pilot today.

121 is what it is today BECAUSE it learns from those lessons. After numerous CTL fatal accidents in the past 3 yrs, I'm surprised not to hear some sort of industry-wide stand-down event. In the 121 world, (apparently) we have something like this coming for runway incursions. What it will entail, I don't know. But lets be honest, there have been waaaaay too many close calls. It *should* create an industry-wide event that forces everyone to re-learn, re-focus, etc.

Some 121 operators have specific RNAV approaches…big deal! So do some Part 91 operators. Most Cat-based approaches are accessible to Part 91 operators as long as they have the equipment and comply with the training requirements; doesn’t make 121 better. More importantly, we don’t have the luxury of the canned airports with the canned RNAV approaches! Must be cozy in a world where very little on-the-spot decisions have to be made.

Better? How about SAFER! Absolutely I would much rather do a LNAV/VNAV PTH approach to a RNP of 0.1 and getting into a tricky airport, versus, a CTL maneuver in marginal conditions. And yes, the second part you are absolutely correct: you fly into more riskier places. Smaller airports, shorter runways, bad terrain, not many good approaches. That's another checkmark in the Corpie box versus the 121 world.

I used to work for a 91 company that had its very own RNAV approach. And a company where we had both specific RNAV routings AND approaches, (including point-in-space). Does this make me a better pilot? Nope, just trained differently. Does this make me less safe? Nope!

You be you and please find a new hobby…

Again, see above. I argue that a RNP approach coupled to your lateral and vertical navigation, allowing a coupled approach to be flown pretty much to mins, is much safer than some guy trying a CTL maneuver (which he may not have practiced recently anyway).

 

[pwttogfk]

Good thing CC won’t ever have the money to employ any of us dangerous 91 pilots.

 

[form810]

We all started somewhere. My first few trips on the CJ1 I was still back at the departure airport doing the lineup checklist while the captain was joining the arrival into LAS. I came up to speed, eventually.

That's probably why I was paired with experienced captains on a single pilot ship until I had the training wheels taken off, at which point I was paired with newer captains who needed a solid FO.

But even when I was climbing the steep 152 to CJ learning curve, I like to think that I was doing my job (working radios and watching the captain's back) adequately.

I'd like to think I would have noticed if someone tried to take the runway without a clearance too. This is not jet-specific. I'd expect any solo student pilot to pick up on something like that.

The THREE RULES of Part 135 flying (handed down to me by one of those first captains saddled with bringing me up to speed):
1. Don't bend metal.
2. Don't get violated.
3. Don't be that guy.

These have served me well in the years since.

Here are my three rules. With these three rules you'll cover 99.8% of all legal code (administrative/aviation, municipal, county, state, or federal). They are generally applicable... for flying AND for life:

1. Treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself.
2.. Don't do nothing stupid.
3. Don't hit nothing.

If you're still feeling frisky and wanna fight, you can rest almost certainly assured that I'm not gonna hit you. Because that would be stupid... and not how I'd like to be treated by you.

 

[form810]

How much stupidity is trapped and mitigated by FOQA and LOSA programs in 121?

There’s a reason those programs exist in 121.

I know China loves that stuff. Great teaching tool. The beatings will continue until competence increases.

I'm more about teaching to competency BEFORE releasing stuff into the wild. Few perform well under surveillance, especially when they don't know what they are doing before being watched.

The line is certainly a place to gain important experience. It is not, and should NEVER be treated as a place for plebes to gain BASIC competency. The acquisition of basic competency is for the training environment, not the line.

 

[form810]

No. I’d still maintain you see more stupidity at the 91 or 135 level, as opposed to 121.

With notable exceptions, by and large you don't see much of anything in 121 other than McPilots, all flipping their burgers over the same degrees of heat at the same number of seconds per side per the HOM (Hamburger Operating Manual)... People who heat burgers at McDonalds are certainly NOT chefs. More worrisome, they are NOT even cooks. They are human robots, repeating prescribed actions per the manual. The end result is very consistent, but not very good. And, generally speaking, the whole operation would crash if the power to the grill went out and any adaptation was requested or required.

 

[form810]

Good thing CC won’t ever have the money to employ any of us dangerous 91 pilots.

CC just needs to stop generalizing.

And when he attempts to make specific points, those points would be better received if supported by citations and references to the source material.

There are not many folks out in the world whose personal experience induces me to hold much truck in their their personal anecdotes...

And most anecdotes are brags instead of confessions... That's generally a pretty easy tell.

 

[Boris Badenov]

With notable exceptions, by and large you don't see much of anything in 121 other than McPilots, all flipping their burgers over the same degrees of heat at the same number of seconds per side per the HOM (Hamburger Operating Manual)... People who heat burgers at McDonalds are certainly NOT chefs. More worrisome, they are NOT even cooks. They are human robots, repeating prescribed actions per the manual. The end result is very consistent, but not very good. And, generally speaking, the whole operation would crash if the power to the grill went out and any adaptation was requested or required.

*Flips some burgers*. Yep, yep, same as it ever was! *ding* *flips burgers*.

 

[form810]

*Flips some burgers*. Yep, yep, same as it ever was! *ding* *flips burgers*.

Say something once... why say it again?

 

[Boris Badenov]

Say something once... why say it again?

Letting the days go by...

 

[form810]

Letting the days go by...

Burning down the house...

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

CC just needs to stop generalizing.

And when he attempts to make specific points, those points would be better received if supported by citations and references to the source material.

There are not many folks out in the world whose personal experience induces me to hold much truck in their their personal anecdotes...

And most anecdotes are brags instead of confessions... That's generally a pretty easy tell.

*sigh*

Ok, we'll wait for the accident report at Gillespie. And at French Valley.

 

[form810]

Letting the days go by...

I do so appreciate our private moments... LOL

 

[form810]

*sigh*

Ok, we'll wait for the accident report at Gillespie. And at French Valley.

You are still missing the point.

 

[SrFnFly227]

I don't understand the argument. Of course 121 is safer than 91/135. Are there outliers in there, yes. But as a general rule, 121 will be the safest.

That said, it isn't the pilots. It's the operating environment. And I don't mean the airports or the varied flying. It is less oversight, less structure, etc that allows for the bad apples to be, bad apples. The 121 environment simply doesn't allow it. Pinnacle was a great example. Two pilots who were safe in the structured 121 environment right up until that structure went away. An empty plane allowed for some bad behavior and we all know the result. Those 2 likely would have done the same thing, but earlier, in the 91 world.


Now that I've typed all that out, I'm going to go one step further. It should probably read 121=91 > 121=91=135 > 91 > 91 > 135 > 91

At 121 you pretty much know what you're going to get. At least at the large passenger operators. But there is entirely too much variety in 91 to lump it all together as unsafe. There are large Corporate operators. Multiple planes, dozen + pilots, FOQA, SMS, strict adherence to SOPs, full recurrent training every 6 months, and flying to big international airports. Then there are smaller corporate operators like mine. No FOQA going to small airports often, but a good focus on SMS and SOPs. There's 91k and there privately owned family accounts at the big management companies and accounts at small management companies. Some of those accounts may be on the 135 certificate at their management company and some are strictly 91. Then there are the big charter companies. Then there are completely self run one aircraft operations. 2 pilots with no oversight doing essentially whatever they want.

Obviously the pilots will have different amounts of oversight at all of these operators. Put the wrong pilots at the wrong operator and bad things will happen. This is true whether its 91, 121, or 135.

 

[zmiller4]

That said, it isn't the pilots. It's the operating environment. And I don't mean the airports or the varied flying. It is less oversight, less structure, etc that allows for the bad apples to be, bad apples. The 121 environment simply doesn't allow it.

I would hope that everyone on this site would recognize this, but the reason we have this discussion is because apparently this is a hard concept to grasp when you’ve never had an aviation job outside a 121 cockpit.

Pinnacle was a great example. Two pilots who were safe in the structured 121 environment right up until that structure went away. An empty plane allowed for some bad behavior and we all know the result. Those 2 likely would have done the same thing, but earlier, in the 91 world.

So this brings up a question…since a lot of airline repositioning/ferry flights are operated under 91, does this make the pinnacle pilots corpies?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

So this brings up a question…since a lot of airline repositioning/ferry flights are operated under 91, does this make the pinnacle pilots corpies?

No, and pilots being dumb-asses is not limited to any specific part of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

 

[ClearedForOption]

So this brings up a question…since a lot of airline repositioning/ferry flights are operated under 91, does this make the pinnacle pilots corpies?

Nope. Even worse. They are cautionary tale pilots.

Everyone's goal should be to have a career where you are never the main character in someone's cautionary tale story.

 

[form810]

Nope. Even worse. They are cautionary tale pilots.

Everyone's goal should be to have a career where you are never the main character in someone's cautionary tale story.

At least they checked out at the Pinnacle of their careers.