meritflyer
Well-Known Member
How does that eliminate a seat on the flight deck?
Planes crash...(Butte, MT PC-12)
- Thread starter Stone Cold
- Start date
How does that eliminate a seat on the flight deck?
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that is all that I have ever seen and until yesterday I thought they all had 6 in the aft and 2 up front. Apparently, they are certified for up to 9 in the back though and it is sold as a commuter/airline style setup. I can guess how the one that crashed was configured.
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
Actually, if that is a passenger sitting up there, you could add another lap child up there too right?
I would assume there is some sort of reg preventing that one though.
Ramsey
Well-Known Member
It doesn't. You can put PAX there.
There's also no "front and back", it's a single cabin airplane with not separation between crew and PAX.
Holocene
Well-Known Member
You've got it right. Under 2, children may be held. From what I've read, only 1 child was under 2, so regardless of the cause of the crash, FARs were broken.
Just pulled this from an AP article....
To have that many supposed "lap children"....doesn't seem safe regardless of the Total weight.
Re: Planes crash...
I guess it's not O.K. to be a low time pilot anymore. Just remember you were a lowtime pilot once too.
Sadly many more are waiting to happen. Just a couple years ago the industry seeded itself with very low experience levels in positions that usually demanded higher levels of experience. Many/most of these low time guys/gals will make it and within a few years they will have filled in their lack of experience with a whole lot of OJT...... If you were one of them, learn all you can. Pick brains. Be a sponge. Stay in the books and be a "Go-To-Guy/Gal" A small percentage, point, zero, zero, something are ticking time bombs waiting to go off. Just a matter of time. When it happens, CNN Headline News......; A picture of Homer as the Captain....; and "Do'h" as the final sound recorded on the CVR before "End of recording"
While you are "sowing your wild oats" do not try this in your CRJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SzI5EJ8C6c&feature=channel_page
The next seeding has begun. It's called MPL. The MPL effect will be significantly worse and is going to create great discomfort for the insurance underwriters. They are going to get fatigued writing large checks with lots of zeros.
Here is where the plot thickens as the perfect storm begins to brew; Just as the "Low time" guys /gals are upgrading they will find themselves paired with a newly minted, bright eyed MPL FO.
Where does it all end? Usually at the graveyard. Looks like the Pilatus just went straight there.
I guess it's not O.K. to be a low time pilot anymore. Just remember you were a lowtime pilot once too.
Re: Planes crash...
It wasn't a slam. Just pointing out the world has drastically changed on how much experience you need before flying a boatload of people...... and that level is going to go down further....... a big advantage for the low time pilot. Once MPL bugs are worked out overseas I expect it to come online very quickly in the US of A. Perhaps right around the time the senior pilots start hitting 65 and the retirements resume.
Two data points:
In 1992 I was hired to fly as a FO part 135 with a TT of 3,400. I was the "low time" guy in the new hire class.
In 1997 I was hired to fly as a FO part 121 with a TT of 5,700. One guy had a few less hours. All the others in the class had more.
I look back at what was going on 2 years ago can't help but wonder how they thought it was ok to put guys in the right seat of a Jet, fly passengers in part 121 service, with less than 500 TT. I do not think that was very cool for the training department, the line Capt, the pilot, his family, the passengers, or the industry.
It wasn't a slam. Just pointing out the world has drastically changed on how much experience you need before flying a boatload of people...... and that level is going to go down further....... a big advantage for the low time pilot. Once MPL bugs are worked out overseas I expect it to come online very quickly in the US of A. Perhaps right around the time the senior pilots start hitting 65 and the retirements resume.
Two data points:
In 1992 I was hired to fly as a FO part 135 with a TT of 3,400. I was the "low time" guy in the new hire class.
In 1997 I was hired to fly as a FO part 121 with a TT of 5,700. One guy had a few less hours. All the others in the class had more.
I look back at what was going on 2 years ago can't help but wonder how they thought it was ok to put guys in the right seat of a Jet, fly passengers in part 121 service, with less than 500 TT. I do not think that was very cool for the training department, the line Capt, the pilot, his family, the passengers, or the industry.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Re: Planes crash...
Low time doesn't always mean retarded.
I taught some brilliant 300 hours CFIs and some complete duds.
Certainly, a person's intellect plays a role in their ability to be a logical, competent pilot.
Low time doesn't always mean retarded.
I taught some brilliant 300 hours CFIs and some complete duds.
Certainly, a person's intellect plays a role in their ability to be a logical, competent pilot.
Re: Planes crash...
Very valid point, and tactfull reply. Respect re-gained. But a major reason why you had so many hours was because the competition was fierce. The military was still turning out a fair share of pilots, even that recent. There were many more high time pilots back then.
Again, valid point. To bad there is no way to gauge the "dudness" of people. I worked with CFI's whom I consider complete duds.
Very valid point, and tactfull reply. Respect re-gained. But a major reason why you had so many hours was because the competition was fierce. The military was still turning out a fair share of pilots, even that recent. There were many more high time pilots back then.
Again, valid point. To bad there is no way to gauge the "dudness" of people. I worked with CFI's whom I consider complete duds.
Agreed. I am not questioning the FAA on this although I don't fully agree. I am questioning the adults that would do that.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Wow...I just found out a couple hours ago that the people in this crash were close family members of my brother's girlfriend. They weren't immediate family, but lots of her cousins/aunts/uncles.
I'm sure I'll hear more in the coming days of what lead up to this and why so many people were onboard.
I'm sure I'll hear more in the coming days of what lead up to this and why so many people were onboard.
From another forum I read. The owner of the plane was driving up to meet them. They were headed to Yellowstone Ski Resort. These are all the souls who were lost. Two of them were his daughters and a bunch of grandchildren.
(Family members said the victims were Erin and Amy Jacobson of St. Helena, Calif., and their children, 4-year-old Taylor; 3-year-old Ava, and 1-year-old Jude; Michael and Vanessa Pullen of Lodi, Calif., and their children, 9-year-old Sydney and 7-year-old Christopher; Brent and Kristen Ching of Durham, Calif., and their children, 5-year-old Heyley and 4-year-old Caleb; and the pilot, Buddy Summerfield.)
(Family members said the victims were Erin and Amy Jacobson of St. Helena, Calif., and their children, 4-year-old Taylor; 3-year-old Ava, and 1-year-old Jude; Michael and Vanessa Pullen of Lodi, Calif., and their children, 9-year-old Sydney and 7-year-old Christopher; Brent and Kristen Ching of Durham, Calif., and their children, 5-year-old Heyley and 4-year-old Caleb; and the pilot, Buddy Summerfield.)
SeanD
Well-Known Member
youngpilot85
New Member
This pic of one of the families really hit me...
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Small-plane-crashes-Mont/ss/events/us/032009montanacrash
As SeanD said, an entire family lost. Just makes you think about your own, or like me, a possible family in the future. Words alone cannot express how sad this is. Don't think anything can.
YP
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Small-plane-crashes-Mont/ss/events/us/032009montanacrash
As SeanD said, an entire family lost. Just makes you think about your own, or like me, a possible family in the future. Words alone cannot express how sad this is. Don't think anything can
.YP
Schinpop
Well-Known Member
Not sure how supplemental O2 works on the PC-12, but you would have to be able to supply O2 to each pax in the event of de-pressurization. I doubt that there are 20 masks.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
Only if they were above FL250.
Clearly FARs were violated with too many people on board. But not necessarily causal.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Exactly. It's not so much that violating FARs is excusable (the rules exist for a reason, thank you Fundamentals of Instructing), but that the attitude of "if you break an FAR your plane immediately explodes" prevents actually exploring the real reason for accidents. No one is suggesting that breaking the rules is right, or smart, or even "necessary at times", but the notion that an accident's cause can be simply attributed to a "non-compliance attitude" based on something most likely totally unrelated to the crash prevents us from intelligently discussing what might have actually gone wrong. I adhere to the strict letter of the law, both because I have a little humility about my knowledge, and because I like continued employment. But I don't imagine that once someone takes off a pound overgross or goes a knot over Vne, their accident report should simply read "Broke teh rulez!"