Ameriflight and RACCA on the pilot shortage

jtrain609 said:
Piss off, mate. The cargo carve out is BS, and the BHM crash was a whole lot of things. After a bunch of airlines pulled the data on that approach, folks realized that they were skirting disaster on a fairly regular basis. You could have three red and one white on the PAPI and still hit that hill.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there was also the FedEx MD-11 in Japan in 2009. No burning cargo. No hill. Passenger carrying wise I believe you're correct.

 
jtrain609 said:
Brah, every single airliner crash that resulted in a fatal accident in the last 10 years in the United States had somebody from Gulfstream at the controls.

The system was a huge failure.
Click to expand...

I honestly hadn't realized that until you pointed it out. Thanks.

I mean it doesn't apply to me, I'm still God's gift to airplanes...(I don't need a sarcasm tag do I?)

Gonzo said:
I agree with a lot of your post, but you also missed the mark by a wide margin on a few things. I agree the 1500/ATP rule was knee jerk and hasn't added anything to safely. But that is because what was broken with the old system is still broken and in a lot of ways even worse than it was before the 1500 hour rule. It wasn't one guy fell through the cracks, a lot of people have, we have just gotten lucky. The problem was/is the hiring practices of some companies. Companies need to start hiring people instead of logbooks.
Click to expand...

I can get on board with people vs logbooks.
 
Cal Goat said:
I picked up on that, and my post was a tad on the sarcastic side as well.

I only felt the need to mention that after watching a certain AMF thread on FB blow up, with one guy referring to regional pilots as " ". I didn't jump on that thread (because I couldn't), but having flown both varieties, I feel compelled to remind 135 cargo pilots of precisely how valued their skills are.

Nothing personal toward you. You've always been pretty civil and rational around here.

EDIT: the term in quotes was auto censored, but it was a derogatory term for female gentialia and was used to imply that regional pilots are not "real men"
Click to expand...
The Metro isn't a big deal at all to someone that takes the time to really learn it. A V1 cut with the loss of the left essential bus is probably the most intense thing a civilian pilot would ever experience, but it would be rare. That plane rears it's ugly head on the ground and an improper understanding of the systems, specifically the manual starts, renders the plane grounded at the pilot's fault.

I'm watching it right now in my base though. The Metro does require a very intelligent person to fly it and not have an incident. I have no qualms admitting that I know almost nothing about the Brasilia at this point, but it just doesn't matter. Part 23 amendment 34 or whatever vs part 25. Part 25 airplanes are indeed designed to be flown by an idiot in that comparison.
 
Last edited:
JDean3204 said:
I honestly do not feel bad for any of the companies having a hard time filling their cockpits. For years the bottom feeders have banked on people who are so passionate about aviation that they would accept poverty level wages to build time. I get it, there is time that needs to be spent getting experience but not at such low wages and definitely not paying to do so.

In a few years time, the only people that will be able to afford 60K plus in training for a sub 30K job are those who come from money. The smart ones are now investing their money And time in other careers.

I am the only one of my friends who finished the flight.training program and am now flying for a living. All of my friends said fu@% it and peeled off for better careers. They are now making more than 40K, meanwhile I am livinng paycheck to paycheck constantly behind on bills making less than 25K living the dream. I am also one of the lucky ones who found a job right after training


Maybe I am being a Debbie Downer, but hey payday was yesterday so that may be why :) I am aware that no one is forcing me to have this career, all my life I dreamed of flying and I enjoy the hell out of my job
Click to expand...
Meh, I'm not that smart and I get tons of flack for posting what I post on here, but it's either tongue in cheek or things no one wants to say and already knows.

2 years from indoc to ACP. Training captain immediately. Triple the pay of any regional, and more pay than EVERY other cargo feeder the entire time I've been here. If you're not an opportunist, freight won't work out very well. I'm an opportunist. Most that come here/work here are not.

Oh sweet, you start at 60k at Encore in a Metro. Tell me about your health insurance, jumpseat agreements, your AWESOME outstations(they suck) and ad hoc flying(that sucks), who even knows who you are outside of 135 freight, how many other opportunities are there for other duties outside of line flying, and how close your are to losing all of your contracts...

AMF is the ONLY company in the CONUS not on the verge of losing a single contract for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
Cal Goat said:
I picked up on that, and my post was a tad on the sarcastic side as well.

I only felt the need to mention that after watching a certain AMF thread on FB blow up, with one guy referring to regional pilots as " ". I didn't jump on that thread (because I couldn't), but having flown both varieties, I feel compelled to remind 135 cargo pilots of precisely how valued their skills are.

Nothing personal toward you. You've always been pretty civil and rational around here.

EDIT: the term in quotes was auto censored, but it was a derogatory term for female gentialia and was used to imply that regional pilots are not "real men"
Click to expand...
SS's thread? I'm in agreement with you there. That was a poop fest!
 
UAL747400 said:
The Metro isn't a big deal at all to someone that takes the time to really learn it. A V1 cut with the loss of the left essential bus is probably the most intense thinlg a civilian pilot would ever experience, but it would be rare. That plane rears it's ugly head on the ground and an improper understanding of the systems, specifically the manual starts, renders the plane grounded at the pilot's fault.

I'm watching it right now in my base though. The Metro does require a very intelligent person to fly it and not have an incident. I have no qualms admitting that I know almost nothing about the Brasilia at this point, but it just doesn't matter. Part 23 amendment 34 or whatever vs part 25. Part 25 airplanes are indeed designed to be flown by an idiot in that comparison.
Click to expand...

What occurs when this happens.
 
Worst case, it's night time, taking off into icing conditions.

The gear won't come up. Which will kill you if it doesn't come up. You lose your electric instruments(AI, HSI, and TC) and lighting. You lose your pitot heat on your side.

All requires reaching behind you and flipping 10 *lift-to-flip* switches. While trying to fly the thing. At V1 it requires full aileron deflection, which is heavy, and almost full rudder.

There's a reason us Metro guys are "jocks" in attitude. If you can handle this scenario, you can handle any airplane under the sun. -said every Metro pilot ever :)

A Brasilia prop not feathering or any other scenario you can think of with that plane? Yawn, wake me when I start to kind of sweat...
 
Last edited:
UAL747400 said:
Worst case, it's night time, taking off into icing conditions.

The gear won't come up. Which will kill you if it doesn't come up. You lose your electric instruments(AI, HSI, and TC) and lighting. You lose your pitot heat on your side.

All requires reaching behind you and flipping 10 *lift-to-flip* switches. While trying to fly the thing. At V1 it requires full aileron deflection, which is heavy, and almost full rudder.

There's a reason us Metro guys are "jocks" in attitude. If you can handle this scenario, you can handle any airplane under the sun. -said every Metro pilot ever :)

A Brasilia prop not feathering or any other scenario you can think of with that plane? Yawn, wake me when I start to kind of sweat...
Click to expand...

I mean, has this failure ever happened? I can think of some outlandish failure modes in the 1900 and the King Air that can precipitate similar failure modes, like a simultaneous engine failure and loss of the center bus, but has it ever happened where you lose the left engine and the left essential bus at the same time? Also, if there are switches you can throw that could prevent you from essentially going dark at night with an engine failure, why wouldn't you flip them prior to takeoff so that the important stuff would remain powered through an engine failure? I dunno. I always wanted to fly a metro for just this sort of stuff. King Air's are kind of vanilla.
 
Inverted said:
No it's never happened, but that's what makes the Metro so dangerous. It makes you think that it could happen someday...
Click to expand...

Kind of what I was thinking, I mean, honestly, if I have an engine failure in the King Air or 1900 and a center bus short simultaneously I'm not going to be able to get the gear up... so there's that, but it's astronomically unlikely for that to happen.
 
Inverted said:
No it's never happened, but that's what makes the Metro so dangerous. It makes you think that it could happen someday...
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it happen my time flying the metro, but there's not much protection from having a left essential bus failure. It's been a while but the left essential bus is connected to the electrical system by one sole current limiter. If it pops due to an over voltage, I believe it is advised not to push it back in.

What makes the metro such a difficult bird to fly is that it just wasn't designed to be flown single pilot. Heck good look hand flying and fixing anything happening on the right essential bus located on FO side. I'm 6'00" with an impressive wing span and even I had trouble reaching across to find and fix problems that happened over there.
 
UAL747400 said:
The Metro isn't a big deal at all to someone that takes the time to really learn it. A V1 cut with the loss of the left essential bus is probably the most intense thing a civilian pilot would ever experience, but it would be rare. That plane rears it's ugly head on the ground and an improper understanding of the systems, specifically the manual starts, renders the plane grounded at the pilot's fault.
Click to expand...
What a lousy aircraft.

We apparently did that scenario on the Metro at the Mormon Air Force for training. I've talked to our old hands about it, and I'm unimpressed. I'll take a transport category airplane "designed" to be flown by "idiots" any day and twice on Sunday with how lousy that thing's systems are.

I'm watching it right now in my base though. The Metro does require a very intelligent person to fly it and not have an incident. I have no qualms admitting that I know almost nothing about the Brasilia at this point, but it just doesn't matter. Part 23 amendment 34 or whatever vs part 25. Part 25 airplanes are indeed designed to be flown by an idiot in that comparison.
Click to expand...
I sincerely hope you know something about the Brasilia. I mean, you can be an idiot and have a happy career on it as long as nothing goes wrong. But...

That electrical system can blow your crap away in a skinny minute if you don't understand what's going on up there. The propeller will also kill you and right quickly too. (You should be able to tell me, in your sleep, what a flashing BETA 1 (2) light means in flight, for instance.) System knowledge is still an integral part of any pilot's repertoire of knowledge, even on "drool proof" jets like the 175.

Also, you're wrong about being designed to be flown by idiots.

Transport category airplanes, by certification, may not require above average handling skill for any of the required things, like V1 cuts. They are still intended, however, to be flown by well-trained and qualified operators. When the aircraft's handling characteristics exceed the ability of the average pilot, the design is changed.

Case in point: Autofeather, as we know it now, is a product of the Glenn L. Martin Model 202 and 404 airliner. As it turned out, it would have required superhuman skill and crew coordination to maintain control of the aircraft and select the appropriate feathering button in a timely manner. The Air Line Pilots Association got (somewhat justifiably, mind) riled about "losing control of the feather buttons," until they went flying with the Martin Company factory pilots and suddenly became believers at that particular airplane's handling characteristics with one engine at wet takeoff power and the other windmilling around Vr. The system, as designed even in the 1950s, was more error-proof and much quicker than a human operator selecting the appropriate feathering button at a time where there was no time for delay or error. (The system was only armed above "I forget" throttle angle, and it was a drop of "I forget" BMEP torque [damn whippersnappers] for the system to activate the feathering pump, and then the automatic feather system was inhibited for the other engine, so you wouldn't wind up with both screws feathered.)

Protecting essential power on the 727 also comes to mind. (My memory fails me, but I believe that the -247 models at Western kept the standby buses, and therefore the Captain's flight instruments, mostly energized regardless of the position of the ESSENTIAL POWER selector, but recognizing a loss of all main AC power and then getting that selector over to STANDBY, and quickly is a big deal for the flight engineer.)
I will freely admit that they've made the systems better (I have very few memory items on my new whip and most of them are related to either breathing or stopping flight control-related nonsense, the latter of which I've always considered obvious actions even if there's not a big bold box drawn around them) on newer airplanes. Indeed, systems-related my hurry-up cases nowadays are mostly restricted to trim runaways and control column jams, which are largely non-annunciated failures. (Given the short duration of battery power available on the current whip, making sure the RAT is online in the event of a loss of all main AC power is also an unwritten hurry case. Better advice than "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT" should be given for that particular wart.)

So, no, I don't really want idiots driving around airplanes and I don't think there are that many idiots really running around up there, except in the case of the Gulfstream pilots who have demonstrated their immaturity; even drool-proof airliners are not really all that droolproof, and still require some brains and skill up front, even if by certification they are designed to be handled by average airmen.
 
Last edited:
ppragman said:
Kind of what I was thinking, I mean, honestly, if I have an engine failure in the King Air or 1900 and a center bus short simultaneously I'm not going to be able to get the gear up... so there's that, but it's astronomically unlikely for that to happen.
Click to expand...
The aircraft is, at that point, only required to have a positive rate of climb. We didn't say how positive.

"Good luck." ;)
 
jtrain609 said:
Oh man I DID totally forget about those. Didn't they crash a few on landing?
Click to expand...
Yes, but those were handling errors due to characteristics of the aircraft, and not necessarily just the pilots. Boeing modified the MD-11 flight control software, finally, to address this pattern.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
The aircraft is, at that point, only required to have a positive rate of climb. We didn't say how positive.

"Good luck." ;)
Click to expand...

Both planes will climb with the gear down and a prop spinning, just not very well - at least in the simulator that is...

Still, seems like a silly thing to practice for, statistically that's not what kills you...
 
ppragman said:
Both planes will climb with the gear down and a prop spinning, just not very well - at least in the simulator that is...

Still, seems like a silly thing to practice for, statistically that's not what kills you...
Click to expand...
I don't actually know, in the history of the EMB-120, if the worse thing that could happen, ever actually happened, prop-, engine- and performance-wise.

I always find it funny that we practice these things right at V1. When was the last time that happened? (Throw it to me during flap retraction or at 400', I find those more realistic scenarios.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top