Corporate Culture Not Good In Aviation

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
So you weren’t 0/0. Thanks for clarifying.

You have a HUD? Enhanced Vision? What kinda stuff you launching with at 50 ft RVR?
Click to expand...
Here clarity of you: when the report is 1000/3 and I land, I landed in VMC.

So when the report is 0/0 and I land, I landed in 0/0. Clear now? I’ll type slower in the future…

Before you were adamant, now you’re curious.

Just stop…..
 
dustoff17 said:
Here clarity of you: when the report is 1000/3 and I land, I landed in VMC.

So when the report is 0/0 and I land, I landed in 0/0. Clear now? I’ll type slower in the future…

Before you were adamant, now you’re curious.

Just stop…..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. Sounds like it would be a great way of creating a culture of always going to take a look, regardless. Cause it could be better than reported, right? And that can lead to some people pushing it more and more to see the ground/lights.


No thanks.
 
zmiller4 said:
Hey CC, could you answer my question? Have you ever gone missed—in any airplane—at minimums due to low visibility?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Difference is, the initial report to start was above/better. It subsequently got worse, obviously.

Willingly starting an approach when it is reported as low below published minimums, on the hope that you’ll find that it was better weather sounds like bad juju.


I can count on two hands the times I have had to go missed at mins because we didn’t see the lights/runway/environment since 2007 at part 121. Of course, CAT III Autoland helps tremendously when we can accept 300RVR (VX) and 400 RVR (current shop), assuming a CAT III runway.


Risk averse thing. I’d rather start an approach that’s reported above mins, than start one below mins and hope that it is better than reported.

Now since my question went UN-answered numerous times, I’ll ask you or dustoff again:


Are there part 91 Corporate jet operations/companies that operate like 121, and go above/beyond 91 and match 121 rules/regs, and maybe even above 121? Because if I had to bet, I’d bet there are. And those are the better shops. And you would not be doing these kinds of ops at those shops, the same way you wouldn’t do it at my airline.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yeah, I get it. Sounds like it would be a great way of creating a culture of always going to take a look, regardless. Cause it could be better than reported, right? And that can lead to some people pushing it more and more to see the ground/lights.


No thanks.
Click to expand...
Perfect!
Then we both agree that you should keep on your side of the park! You play in the supervised, fenced in area and I’ll play outside your fence.

I’m asking that you stop throwing stones over to our side because you’re just doing it for attention.
 
dustoff17 said:
Perfect!
Then we both agree that you should keep on your side of the park! You play in the supervised, fenced in area and I’ll play outside your fence.

I’m asking that you stop throwing stones over to our side because you’re just doing it for attention.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry. This is a Corpie bashing thread :)

Until the accident record of 91 and 135 Corp jets improves…
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yes.

Difference is, the initial report to start was above/better. It subsequently got worse, obviously.

Willingly starting an approach when it is reported as low below published minimums, on the hope that you’ll find that it was better weather sounds like bad juju.


I can count on two hands the times I have had to go missed at mins because we didn’t see the lights/runway/environment since 2007 at part 121. Of course, CAT III Autoland helps tremendously when we can accept 300RVR (VX) and 400 RVR (current shop), assuming a CAT III runway.


Risk averse thing. I’d rather start an approach that’s reported above mins, than start one below mins and hope that it is better than reported.

Now since my question went UN-answered numerous times, I’ll ask you or dustoff again:


Are there part 91 Corporate jet operations/companies that operate like 121, and go above/beyond 91 and match 121 rules/regs, and maybe even above 121? Because if I had to bet, I’d bet there are. And those are the better shops. And you would not be doing these kinds of ops at those shops, the same way you wouldn’t do it at my airline.
Click to expand...

And those times that you flew the missed approach procedure that you’d been trained to perform, did the world end?

I get that you’ve flown very few missed approaches in low IMC because of the route you took to the airlines and that may make them seem like a more serious procedure, but I think you’re missing the fact that it’s *descending below minimums* that gets people in trouble, not starting an approach with marginal weather.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the rationale behind different regulatory structures. You like to bash corporate aviation because of your own insecurities (or maybe trollishness) but the overall body of 91 flying not having as spotless a safety record a product of regulations intended to allow greater leeway to pilots and owners who don’t hold themselves out to provide passenger service.

People are allowed to have different risk tolerances. I would never want to put my family on an airliner where it’s the first officers first time getting paid to fly, but you obviously felt different.
 
zmiller4 said:
And those times that you flew the missed approach procedure that you’d been trained to perform, did the world end?

I get that you’ve flown very few missed approaches in low IMC because of the route you took to the airlines and that may make them seem like a more serious procedure, but I think you’re missing the fact that it’s *descending below minimums* that gets people in trouble, not starting an approach with marginal weather.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the rationale behind different regulatory structures. You like to bash corporate aviation because of your own insecurities (or maybe trollishness) but the overall body of 91 flying not having as spotless a safety record a product of regulations intended to allow greater leeway to pilots and owners who don’t hold themselves out to provide passenger service.

People are allowed to have different risk tolerances. I would never want to put my family on an airliner where it’s the first officers first time getting paid to fly, but you obviously felt different.
Click to expand...

Then you wouldn’t be flying on more than half the airlines in the world. You can get off your sanctimonious perch.

It isn’t me talking. It’s the accident record that speaks for itself.
 
dustoff17 said:
When the death rate of part 91 and 135 combined exceeds that of 121, chime in, otherwise stop throwing stones over the fence!
Click to expand...

That’s a dumb metric. 121 has more seating/plane.

Regardless, sure, let’s do a time frame is from 15 years ago. Feb 20, 2009 to present time. Go…
 
MikeD said:
I’m sorry. This is a Corpie bashing thread :)
Click to expand...
That's not why it started but you seem to have some sort of boner for corporate aviation and that's what you, by yourself, turned it into. This thread was meant to be about the corporate culture in aviation, not corporate aviation. You're just ignorant, that doesn't mean you're not smart or intelligent it just means you're arrogant, inexperienced and uninformed. I'd Ike to have some modicum of respect for you but I can't because it's obvious you assume you're "better than" and that sort of nonsense raises my hackles. I hope you live in the South Bay and hate every minute of it, you deserve it for the choices you've made, it's your fault you're miserable.
 
knot4u said:
That's not why it started but you seem to have some sort of boner for corporate aviation and that's what you, by yourself, turned it into. This thread was meant to be about the corporate culture in aviation, not corporate aviation. You're just ignorant, that doesn't mean you're not smart or intelligent it just means you're arrogant, inexperienced and uninformed. I'd Ike to have some modicum of respect for you but I can't because it's obvious you assume you're "better than" and that sort of nonsense raises my hackles. I hope you live in the South Bay and hate every minute of it, you deserve it for the choices you've made, it's your fault you're miserable.
Click to expand...

I agree with this except I think you’re mis-attributing a quote to miked
 
zmiller4 said:
I agree with this except I think you’re mis-attributing a quote to miked
Click to expand...
Nobody said I was a smart man. @MikeD I offer my humblest apologies for bungling up internet nonsense. I hope you can find some affordable grace that you'd spare a cretin like me. Or not, I'm fairly certain Mike has a pretty good SA picture and not only understood my fumble but also moved on before you even noticed it.
 
knot4u said:
Nobody said I was a smart man. @MikeD I offer my humblest apologies for bungling up internet nonsense. I hope you can find some affordable grace that you'd spare a cretin like me. Or not, I'm fairly certain Mike has a pretty good SA picture and not only understood my fumble but also moved on before you even noticed it.
Click to expand...

Jeez, I was just trying to help out. But keep on being you I guess.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
That’s a dumb metric. 121 has more seating/plane.

Regardless, sure, let’s do a time frame is from 15 years ago. Feb 20, 2009 to present time. Go…
Click to expand...
Well there were over 5,298 deaths from 2009 up to 2021 involving Commies. Go…
 
Last edited:
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Are there part 91 Corporate jet operations/companies that operate like 121, and go above/beyond 91 and match 121 rules/regs, and maybe even above 121? Because if I had to bet, I’d bet there are. And those are the better shops. And you would not be doing these kinds of ops at those shops, the same way you wouldn’t do it at my airline.
Click to expand...

The 91 shop (Fortune 150) that employs me operates 2 types. One type, our FOM prohibits us from beginning an approach without the weather being reported above the minimums required for the approach that we plan to use. The other type, we can begin the approach regardless of what is reported. That plane has a HUD with EFVS and we are authorized by the FAA for Touchdown Rollout.

We are also trained for circling approaches. No VMC only on our certificate. FOM restricts us to 1500 ft ceilings for circling.
 
dustoff17 said:
I’m reading blah blah blah but I’m hearing tap dancing…….
Click to expand...

Let me help you. FO rated “non fly” messes up at TEB, CA takes over and subsequently crashes the plane. Falcon overruns a runway, come to find out the guy wasn’t even typed in the jet. Circle to land screwup in Truckee. Another in Gillespie. Another crash during approach at Temecula French Valley. Corpie takes off with parking brakes set, crashes on takeoff. Another Corpie at BED does no checklists, gust lock engaged, despite rudder EICAS cautions, takeoffs anyway, fatal loss. Another Corpie receives numerous cautions on the TO roll. Sends it anyway. Massively over controls inflight, killing a passenger. Another Corpie at DAL, receives numerous messages on EICAS before the TO roll, takes off without clearance, hits another plane - another 12” and they would be dead, and after TO has the balls to chew out the tower controller. And that’s not even all of them recently, just what I remember from the top of my head.


121? Southwest passenger sucked out (not pilot fault) and Colgan Air pilot screwup. Cargo, UPS at BHM and Atlas near IAH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top