Era/Ravn/Corvus Safety and the NTSB

Roger Roger said:
On the face of it it looks like they're trying to throw paperwork at the problem. Safety programs and operational control training. I'm sure that'll fix the problem.
Click to expand...
I was curious how they we planning on implementing "operational control" in places where cell phones barely work.

I think all of this was why PenAir got out of their "bush" ops, seemed like they were one bad wreck away from a lawsuit and bankrupcy.
 
alaskadrifter said:
I was curious how they we planning on implementing "operational control" in places where cell phones barely work.

I think all of this was why PenAir got out of their "bush" ops, seemed like they were one bad wreck away from a lawsuit and bankrupcy.
Click to expand...
One easy way to keep operational control is to not have ticket agents doing flight following. You need to keep passengers and the go/no go decision separate. And now out west cell phones work everywhere. There is no reason to be out of contact.
 
I know they work, but not always very well. Lots of dropped calls and unable connects. Better than even a couple years ago though. Didn't now ticket agents did the flight following.
Posted from my free GCI iPhone.
 
Surprisingly my phone works better in the villages than in Bethel! I think they do flight following, I dont know for sure. I thought I heard that somewhere.
 
ASpilot2be said:
One easy way to keep operational control is to not have ticket agents doing flight following. You need to keep passengers and the go/no go decision separate. And now out west cell phones work everywhere. There is no reason to be out of contact.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be problematic. Here it's all between the pilot and dispatch in JNU, with the CP or DO getting involved in special circumstances (really marginal weather, new pilots, etc).
 
Roger Roger said:
That doesn't make sense in an environment with ILSs every 30 miles.
Click to expand...

They were a VFR only carrier, so as long as they could remain clear of clouds below 700 feet they would depart. So they remained "VFR" in class G, and I guess were technically legal, but certainly not in line with the intent of the rule.

I suppose it's not exactly the same, but it's definitely getting "creative." We all know that pilots die in one of two ways, getting creative or getting ambitious.
 
I think you guys are missing Seggy,s point.

AK doesn't need Era. They might be the only game in town right now because they have a cost advantage over everyone else and anyone thinking about competing with them. It is really hard for a company doing it the right way to compete with the company constantly cutting corners and doing it on the cheap. If you remove Era from the equation, some company will step up and fill the void and hopefully do it the right way. That benefits all companies in Alaska. It has nothing to do with spending time in Alaska, it's basic economics. Is that about right @Seggy
 
GypsyPilot said:
Just curious... Is this the same company that was on Discovery several years ago? "Flying Wild Alaska"?
Click to expand...
The Hageland side was featured on Flying Wild Alaska.
Gonzo said:
I think you guys are missing Seggy,s point.

AK doesn't need Era. They might be the only game in town right now because they have a cost advantage over everyone else and anyone thinking about competing with them. It is really hard for a company doing it the right way to compete with the company constantly cutting corners and doing it on the cheap. If you remove Era from the equation, some company will step up and fill the void and hopefully do it the right way. That benefits all companies in Alaska. It has nothing to do with spending time in Alaska, it's basic economics. Is that about right @Seggy
Click to expand...
It is very true that AK doesnt need ERA. There would be some places that wouldnt get any service anymore. But eventually somebody might pick up the slack. We also have to remember that when we talk ERA we are talking about three different companies. It certainly seems like Hageland has been having more issues lately.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
They were a VFR only carrier, so as long as they could remain clear of clouds below 700 feet they would depart. So they remained "VFR" in class G, and I guess were technically legal, but certainly not in line with the intent of the rule.

I suppose it's not exactly the same, but it's definitely getting "creative." We all know that pilots die in one of two ways, getting creative or getting ambitious.
Click to expand...
That's not "too bad to go IFR so go VFR". That's "we can't legally go IFR so go VFR". Big difference. Also I don't really see how that's not in line with the intent of the rule or creative.
 
Roger Roger said:
That's not "too bad to go IFR so go VFR". That's "we can't legally go IFR so go VFR". Big difference. Also I don't really see how that's not in line with the intent of the rule or creative.
Click to expand...

The intent of the rule is that the aircraft are only operated in conditions of (at a minimum) 1000 and 3. Scud running at 500-700 feet with a 1/2 mile visibility until you get out over the water on your way to Nantucket is a much greater risk than intended for a VFR only carrier.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
The intent of the rule is that the aircraft are only operated in conditions of (at a minimum) 1000 and 3. Scud running at 500-700 feet with a 1/2 mile visibility until you get out over the water on your way to Nantucket is a much greater risk than intended for a VFR only carrier.
Click to expand...
500/2 or 1000/1 in Class G for 135. But good try.
 
Roger Roger said:
500/2 or 1000/1 in Class G for 135. But good try.
Click to expand...

Look man. I'm saying I SAW people taking off with a 600 ft ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility believing it was legal because it was "clear of clouds." Even if it was 500/2, my point is that it's not safe. They are bending the intent of the rule.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Look man. I'm saying I SAW people taking off with a 600 ft ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility believing it was legal. Even if it was 500/2, my point is that it's not safe. They are bending the intent of the rule.
Click to expand...
Taking off VFR with 1/2 sm vis is not bending the rule, it's flat out breaking it. And who made you the arbiter of what is and is not the intent of the rule?
 
Roger Roger said:
Taking off VFR with 1/2 sm vis is not bending the rule, it's flat out breaking it. And who made you the arbiter of what is and is not the intent of the rule?
Click to expand...

Ok you're right. If you can scud run to the ocean and not hit a cell phone tower, you're golden. Who cares how risky it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top