Freight Dawg Safety Question

[Minnesota_Flyer]

I've been thinking a lot about where I want to go with my nascent flying career. I've all but decided that freight flying is probably what I'm meant todo. I'm a night-owl anyway, I love flying at night, I'd be good with a somewhat itinerant lifestyle, and I'm not really what you might call a "people person," so I've all but decided not to go the pax route (except maybe corp.). Boxes would just be much more my style. Plus, looking way down the road, the "major" freight companies are where I want to end up anyway.

My issue, and my question, is the safety side of working for the entry-level freight companies. I'm of course aware and comfortable with the fact that night flying necessarily involves added risk over flying during the day. What concerns me is the stuff I hear about freight dawgs flying broken-down equipment through ice and wind shear and level 5 t-storms just to get the boxes through. I can't see myself ever being comfortable with taking that kind of risk to my life for any job.

So, freight dawgs, what is the straight scoop about the safety of freight flying. Do people actually take those kind of risks? Is it expected? Or are these just tall tales told in the dead of night around a campfire in the FBO lobby?

Thanks!
MF

 

[DE727UPS]

I can only speak of my experiences, which have been good along those lines. My entry level 135 freight job was Corporate Air out of Billings, MT. They were flying AC500's that were old, ugly, and only equipped with the basics.

My first solo flight out of IOE, I was supposed to fly from BFF to SNY, and then on to DEN Stapleton. A line of thunderstorms came over the airport at departure time and I called ops and said I wasn't comfortable taking off in that. They said not to worry about it and do the best I can. No pressure.

The next job I had was 121 Convair's. Again, old airplanes, but we worked with a MEL and there was no pressure to go against what the book said if the plane was broke.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
and I'm not really what you might call a "people person,"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've noticed you're sort of a jerk.....

[ QUOTE ]

so I've all but decided not to go the pax route (except maybe corp.).

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, but I'd think you'd need to be more of a "people person" to fly corporate than to fly pax airlines, wouldn't you think? More of a personal customer service job in corporate and all that.



[/ QUOTE ]What concerns me is the stuff I hear about freight dawgs flying broken-down equipment through ice and wind shear and level 5 t-storms just to get the boxes through. I can't see myself ever being comfortable with taking that kind of risk to my life for any job.

Thanks!
MF

[/ QUOTE ]

Your job is to get freight from Pt A to Pt B. You're provided the equipment to do the job with. You're expected to provide the ability, knowlege, personal initiative, and drive. Then you're to combine the two to accomplish the mission. Now, I'd scoff at the "tons of ice" and "level 5 TSTMS" stories, but the gig is that you're supposed to "make it happen" to get stuff where it needs to go safely, that's what you're paid to do.

My first company, we lost a 207 at Ft Huachuca, AZ in 1994, and a 207 in Littlefield, AZ in 1996. One fatal.

My second ompany, we lost 3 Caravans in Colorado, and a Navajo in Flagstaff, AZ, (knew that guy) all 3 fatal. One of the Caravans, I'd just talked to the guy that morning.

The local FEDEX feeder lost a Caravan at Flagstaff. Pilot was killed, knew the guy well. I watched that one happen as he was taking off just before me on a dark night with low WX and lousy viz.

The two sides of the coin are this: It doesn't do the company any good for boxes/freight to be burned up in a plane crash. It doesn't do the company any good for boxes NOT to make it to the customer. So Mr. Freight Dog, take that mission statement, keep it in mind, and make it happen.

It's all a balancing act. I've had times where I did what I could to make it happen, and times where I called kings-x after exhausting all viable options. That's what you're paid to do.

But look at the bright side: If it's your day to go, then it's your day to go, so why worry about risking your life?

 

[Looking4Lower]

[ QUOTE ]
So, freight dawgs, what is the straight scoop about the safety of freight flying. Do people actually take those kind of risks? Is it expected? Or are these just tall tales told in the dead of night around a campfire in the FBO lobby?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like everything, "it depends." Some operations are more safety-oriented than others. Some operations will definitely put pressure on pilots to fly junk airplanes that shouldn't leave the ground, or to make the run somehow.

On the other hand, there are some Howlin' Mad Murdoc type pilots out there who don't need to be pressured too hard - they don't mind flying junk, and they take pride in the fact that they somehow made the run despite unsafe circumstances.

 

[bluelake]

This is a really good question.

..and one year ago, when I was a CFI, I used to listen to the freight guys talk about their war stories and I used to tell myself, "I don't think I am up to that".

Now, a winter later, I am INCREDIBLY happy as a freight pilot. As far as the safety of it? My CP and DO have NEVER pushed me due to weather. I HAVE flown.... wait.. scratch that, cant type it out, but lets say it this way.. if I feel an airplane is airworthy enough to fly back to MX base, then I will. If I ever say no, then that's it.

I cant quote the Nall Report or anything similar, but in the year I have been a freight guy (well, 10 months), I feel like my life expectancy is actually higher than when I was a CFI.

As a freight guy, you WILL fly in really horrible weather. But, remember this... you will often fly a familiar route over and over, in a plane you feel comfortable in, day in and day out... this really increases your skills and confidence. I did TWO low-mins-high-winds circle to lands this AM only about 20 minutes between the two (Chico and then Redding, CA), and while I was a busy little boy I felt like I knew what I was doing and almost had a sick enjoyment of it.

PM me if you would like to know anything specific.

 

[bluelake]

MikeD said:

"Now, I'd scoff at the "tons of ice" and "level 5 TSTMS" stories, but the gig is that you're supposed to "make it happen" to get stuff where it needs to go safely, that's what you're paid to do."

I would like to second the essence of this.

 

[CaptChris]

I have a friend who is flying for Airnet... he just got violated in Buffalo for landing 25 lbs over gross which the feds concluded meant that he took off in the ballpark of 275 lbs over gross. Oh well, other than that he loves the company... and the night flying. They asked him to fly a Baron from Allegheny Co., PA to Buffalo with an inop. attitude indicator in VFR conditions.... he said no, so they had it repaired. That's about all I can offer to this post

 

[EatSleepFly]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a friend who is flying for Airnet... he just got violated in Buffalo for landing 25 lbs over gross which the feds concluded meant that he took off in the ballpark of 275 lbs over gross. Oh well, other than that he loves the company...

[/ QUOTE ]

The blame for that falls squarely on him, not AirNet.

Hope he didn't get reamed too badly. That's ROC FSDO jurisdiction, right? I know a couple of really good guys there. Hopefully your buddy learned a lesson without too dire of consequences.

 

[CaptChris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a friend who is flying for Airnet... he just got violated in Buffalo for landing 25 lbs over gross which the feds concluded meant that he took off in the ballpark of 275 lbs over gross. Oh well, other than that he loves the company...

[/ QUOTE ]

The blame for that falls squarely on him, not AirNet.

Hope he didn't get reamed too badly. That's ROC FSDO jurisdiction, right? I know a couple of really good guys there. Hopefully your buddy learned a lesson without too dire of consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

The blame does fall on him. However, I guess there have been numerous violations on Airnet pilots for being over weight... so they didn't get onto him as much as they got onto the company. He caught himself a nice break and learned his lesson. He starts ground school at ASA in a few weeks

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a friend who is flying for Airnet... he just got violated in Buffalo for landing 25 lbs over gross which the feds concluded meant that he took off in the ballpark of 275 lbs over gross. Oh well, other than that he loves the company...

[/ QUOTE ]

The blame for that falls squarely on him, not AirNet.

Hope he didn't get reamed too badly. That's ROC FSDO jurisdiction, right? I know a couple of really good guys there. Hopefully your buddy learned a lesson without too dire of consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

The blame does fall on him. However, I guess there have been numerous violations on Airnet pilots for being over weight... so they didn't get onto him as much as they got onto the company. He caught himself a nice break and learned his lesson. He starts ground school at ASA in a few weeks

[/ QUOTE ]

Curiously, if he was on the back end of his freight run, how did they weigh his plane? Pull the cargo? Maybe he took off with less than full fuel.......what I''m getting at is thatto get busted for 200 pounds, there can be explanation for that......2000 pounds, well then, the Feds might have a case.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Maybe they went back and looked at the fuel entered on the flight plan. Don't know if they'd go through all that trouble or not... probably would though.

All it would take for them to make their case is to see the bill of lading or something else with the freight weight on it and how much fuel he took off with. They'd have the off and on times available to them, I'm sure.

On the other hand, 200 lbs. isn't much. It would be possible to take off under MGTOW, and land over MGLW, if he was fat on fuel and an already short run took less time than planned (tailwinds, ATC cooperating, or whatever).

I guess the question here is: Is max. gross for takeoff different than max. gross for landing in a Baron?

 

[stuckingfk]

Aren't some places in Alaska allowed to carry well over gross for their specific airplanes? I'm not trying to say what he did was right, because there are much worse things (flying in a thunderstorm) he could have done flying only 200 lbs over gross, which is probably why he still has a job.

 

[wheelsup]

[ QUOTE ]
planned (tailwinds, ATC cooperating, or whatever).

I guess the question here is: Is max. gross for takeoff different than max. gross for landing in a Baron?

[/ QUOTE ]

5500 for takeoff, 5400 for landing - for the '58, which I believe is what Airnet flies.

~wheelsup

 

[adreamer]

speak of airnet. is hard to get into airnet?

adreamer

 

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've noticed you're sort of a jerk.....

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so I've all but decided not to go the pax route (except maybe corp.).

[/ QUOTE ]Funny, but I'd think you'd need to be more of a "people person" to fly corporate than to fly pax airlines, wouldn't you think? More of a personal customer service job in corporate and all that.

[/ QUOTE ]Very true. My theory is that there are lesspax, it's the sort of the same type of people I'm used to dealing with in my current job, and I can more easily deal with someone being over-the-top whiny about the service if they paid several thousand dollars for their ticket as opposed to someone who paid several dollars. But, all things being equal, I think I would prefer the boxes.



Thanks, everyone, for the responses. It's always good to hear what it's really like on the ground . . . err . . .air.

MF

 

[TaterSalad]

[ QUOTE ]
They asked him to fly a Baron from Allegheny Co., PA to Buffalo with an inop. attitude indicator in VFR conditions.... he said no, so they had it repaired.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that's a real good indication of their opinion of maintenance, considering the AI isn't even required for VFR flight. If I had to guess, a lot of places would question why he even complained about it, given the VFR, and tell him to be on his way (which wouldn't be completely unreasonable of them, in my opinion, but good to hear they will fix things like that).

 

[wheelsup]

[ QUOTE ]


I'd say that's a real good indication of their opinion of maintenance, considering the AI isn't even required for VFR flight. If I had to guess, a lot of places would question why he even complained about it, given the VFR, and tell him to be on his way (which wouldn't be completely unreasonable of them, in my opinion, but good to hear they will fix things like that).

[/ QUOTE ]

Our MEL won't even let us fly part 91 VFR with an inop attitude indicator in a baron. Also, a lot more goes into inop equipment. Remember, its got to be deactivated and labeled inoperative. To deactivate an AI you've gotta pull the thing out and cap the pressure pump tubes. As a pilot, I'm not gonna even think about attempting that...

I'm not sure if Airnet uses an MEL, or if they do, if they require the AI to be operative, however. Just stating my situation.

~wheelsup

 

[cimepilot]

I find that story about the Airnet pilot very hard to believe. I have worked for Airnet for a year now and have never heard of any of our pilots being violated for flying overweight. In fact, the FSDO inspectors I have been ramp checked by have told how impressed they are with Airnet's 135 freight opeartion.

If the guy started overweight, it is his fault. Airnet will never pressure a pilot to fly overweight. I have bumped cargo off the plane on several occasions due to weight issues and it has been a non-event with Dispatch and the flight department. I'm sorry, but I have to call bullsh$% in the above story.

 

[av8rmsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't some places in Alaska allowed to carry well over gross for their specific airplanes? I'm not trying to say what he did was right, because there are much worse things (flying in a thunderstorm) he could have done flying only 200 lbs over gross, which is probably why he still has a job.

[/ QUOTE ]



91.207

115% over MGTOW