JustinA
Well-Known Member
I know, but I just don't care. I admit, I have blood lust for pwnting n00bs on the interwebz.
LOLZ. Winner.
I know, but I just don't care. I admit, I have blood lust for pwnting n00bs on the interwebz.
See, that's the thing...depending on the company, 135 anyways, there may not be a guarantee. At my former charter company, we received a base pay and flight pay. Base was, IIRC, $20K/year, and flight pay was something like $20/hour. So, technically I would have had to budget on regional airline first year pay.To those that are concerned about these rules affecting their bottom line: When I first got into this biz (actually BEFORE I got into it), I got some sage advice from a lot of the old timers on here:budget within your guarantee and anything paid over that is bonus. I was able to do that since I started, and I've never really had to stress over the whole "Oh man, if I don't get 90+ hours next month, I can't make rent" deal. If the rules go through, I'm gonna see a zero impact on my finances month to month for that exact reason. If you're basing what you spend every month on what flying you MIGHT get, you're setting yourself up for a fall down the road.
See, that's the thing...depending on the company, 135 anyways, there may not be a guarantee. At my former charter company, we received a base pay and flight pay. Base was, IIRC, $20K/year, and flight pay was something like $20/hour. So, technically I would have had to budget on regional airline first year pay.Now, I have a wife that is my sugar momma and didn't have to worry about living off of base pay at the time.
I do feel for the guys who are totally on daily pay. It sucks, it will suck, and there's nothing that will help it...it will go down if the rules for 135 change. Look at Boris' post to see how a "normal run" can suck.
Legal does not always equal safe.
Oh, I understand that. I personally can't and won't speak on 135 ops since I've never flown under them, though. It's just seems odd that we've got people saying the rules are fine and flights are only unsafe if you make them unsafe. It would seem to me that there would ALWAYS be someone out there pushing the envelope of safety. I know at my airline, if there was a reg to be pushed, we'd get the "It's LEGAL, why can't you fly it?" speech. Oh wait, we do. Legal does not always equal safe.
You're arguing FOR an unsafe system, which is the same as arguing against safety. If 12 hr duty days become the limit for Pt 121, they should become the limit for Pt 135 as well. There should be ONE safety standard as it pertains to air travel, be it scheduled or on-demand, "mission" be damned.I'm not arguing against safety, I'm arguing against duty time requirements taht I don't think match the mission of 135.
If you think current 135 is safe, take a browse through the accident synopsis on the ntsb web site. How many 135 accidents do you count over the last 2 years? What's the body count? I bet it's higher than people think. But hey, it's legal, so it must be safe.
If you think current 135 is safe, take a browse through the accident synopsis on the ntsb web site. How many 135 accidents do you count over the last 2 years? What's the body count? I bet it's higher than people think. But hey, it's legal, so it must be safe.
Compare fatal accidents from the NTSB site:
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxfatal.htm
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxftl35.htm
The NTSB wishes to make clear to all users of the preceding list of accidents that the information it contains cannot, by itself, be used to compare the safety either of operators or of aircraft types. Airlines that have operated the greatest numbers of flights and flight hours could be expected to have suffered the greatest number of fatal-to-passenger accidents (assuming that such accidents are random events, and not the result of some systematic deficiency). Similarly, the most used aircraft types would tend to be involved in such accidents more than lesser used types. The NTSB also cautions the user to bear in mind when attempting to compare today's airline system to prior years that airline activity (and hence exposure to risk) has risen by almost 100% from the first year depicted to the last.
As Disraeli said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics!
I would assume that this will hit 135, as some 121 operators still fly under 135 regs.
Compare fatal accidents from the NTSB site:
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxfatal.htm
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxftl35.htm
Now pull up the passenger miles/hours flown since 1982. Compare 121 to 135. How many deaths per for each?
Per pax mile/hour, the ratio is not even close. dig deeper if you really want to establish a true report.
One level. that is all.
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table8.htm
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table9.htm
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table6.htm
I'll take 0.107 accidents per 100,000 hours any day over 2.4/ 100,000 hours. I'm sorry, if you want to say improving safety doesn't meet the "135 Mission" then you don't need to be flying. If tighter duty regs is really going to hurt your pay that much, then maybe you should take a close look at what you are actually doing.
Now pull up the passenger miles/hours flown since 1982. Compare 121 to 135. How many deaths per for each?
Per pax mile/hour, the ratio is not even close. dig deeper if you really want to establish a true report.
One level. that is all.
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table8.htm
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table9.htm
http://ntsb.gov/aviation/Table6.htm
I'll take 0.107 accidents per 100,000 hours any day over 2.4/ 100,000 hours. I'm sorry, if you want to say improving safety doesn't meet the "135 Mission" then you don't need to be flying. If tighter duty regs is really going to hurt your pay that much, then maybe you should take a close look at what you are actually doing.
One stat I would like to see is a breakout of the 135 data for 1 vs. 2 pilot operations.