Takeoff below landing minimums?

[Cal Goat]

I gotta ask, Goat, since you put it this way:

Is there a wage/QOL where you would do that?

All of life is a calculated risk. There is probably a sum of money that would allow me to entertain attempting a 0/0 takeoff in a single engine airplane, but I'd have to evaluate numerous variable before making a final decision.

Meh. You're obviously pretty bitter about your time at AMF, but hiding at the center of the freight bravado there's a little nugget of truth that safely and consistently completing VFR flights in a piston twin without all the resources of a huge dispatch department etc DOES require a level of knowledge, decision making, and for those of us who still believe it's a thing (@ppragman and @Capt. Chaos), actual piloting skill that is pretty far beyond what most folks in 121 flying deal with on a day to day basis. Go ahead, burn me as a heretic for saying it.

I wonder if you've actually flown 121, because I used to believe exactly what you are saying here until I flew 121. I flew regional 121 in turboprops and RJs, and now I'm flying long haul international 121. The skill level required as a complete pilot is higher in 121 and often, the payload is of much higher value. Perhaps my experience is an anomaly, but I can only relate what I have personally lived.

Just because your equipment, pay and QOL suck, does not make you a superior pilot.

Pretty sure you most likely misread my post. What I was comfortable with was NOT because of it being part 91 or 135. It was because of being low time and over confidence and the regs allowed that kind of exploration, if you will. If it was any different, I wouldn't have been doing it.

I don't fly with non-MELable items and I certainly don't fly in weather that I deem unsafe, even if the regs allow it. That comes from experience. 121 puts restrictions in place, so that judgment call shouldn't even need to be made. That is the ONLY difference with 121 and the rest.

If you think there's any difference in the mentality of accomplishing a flight safely, we'll you're an idiot... If you didn't have the stones to say no, we'll that's your fault.

Oh I wasn't implying that you were promoting any kind of cowboy mentality, but I think my general hypothesis rings true. Yes, of course as professional pilots we should maintain one standard of safety and one culture from the minute we get our commercial ticket, but the reality is that our perspectives, standards and personalities evolve with experience.

And you're absolutely right: The times I should have said no and didn't were my fault. But that's not to say that a culture hadn't been established to discourage saying no long before I ever stepped into a Chieftain.

 

[Tommay85]

All of life is a calculated risk. There is probably a sum of money that would allow me to entertain attempting a 0/0 takeoff in a single engine airplane, but I'd have to evaluate numerous variable before making a final decision.



I wonder if you've actually flown 121, because I used to believe exactly what you are saying here until I flew 121. I flew regional 121 in turboprops and RJs, and now I'm flying long haul international 121. The skill level required as a complete pilot is higher in 121 and often, the payload is of much higher value. Perhaps my experience is an anomaly, but I can only relate what I have personally lived.

Just because your equipment, pay and QOL suck, does not make you a superior pilot.



Oh I wasn't implying that you were promoting any kind of cowboy mentality, but I think my general hypothesis rings true. Yes, of course as professional pilots we should maintain one standard of safety and one culture from the minute we get our commercial ticket, but the reality is that our perspectives, standards and personalities evolve with experience.

And you're absolutely right: The times I should have said no and didn't were my fault. But that's not to say that a culture hadn't been established to discourage saying no long before I ever stepped into a Chieftain.

Oh I get it. It used to be very bad here and still is in some regards. What I find troubling is that the ops side was calling you and not the ACP. Also, that the ACP wasn't going to bat for you. Back then, maybe they couldn't. I can definitely say what I want these days...

 

[Inverted]

Oh I get it. It used to be very bad here and still is in some regards. What I find troubling is that the ops side was calling you and not the ACP. Also, that the ACP wasn't going to bat for you. Back then, maybe they couldn't. I can definitely say what I want these days...

It is a different company in that regards.

 

[Tommay85]

I really DGAF, the way things are around here you get the same reaction trying to have a useful discussion and share firsthand knowledge, so it's more fun to troll and watch folks get riled up.

If you feel like having a serious discussion though (I've only had a little rum... ), the issue I have with relaxed regs/GOM/SOPs is that it negates an objective reason for the crew to say "no". Or offer any protections after an incident or accident.

If the company culture is good, then maybe it's not an issue I suppose. I feel like even a legacy would run over people with the bus if they could though.

 

[Tommay85]

It is a different company in that regards.

Oh, they still get annoyed and even pissed sometimes, but what are they gonna do right now?

 

[Inverted]

If you feel like having a serious discussion though (I've only had a little rum... ), the issue I have with relaxed regs/GOM/SOPs is that it negates an objective reason for the crew to say "no". Or offer any protections after an incident or accident.

If the company culture is good, then maybe it's not an issue I suppose.

This is exactly what I was saying. You cannot box pilots in around regulation in GOM/FOM/AOMs to the point that they cannot make decisions for themselves. However if you have an excellent safety culture in place, and a company that will literally fire you if you do the WRONG thing or act in an unsafe way, then it makes doing the right thing a no brainer. This also has to be combined with a very good SOP so both pilots are on he same page, or at least every pilot is on the same page (single pilot) so when he/she/them is/are challenged with a problem that requires a decision by the PIC/crew, that it is done the right way.

We have lots of rules and policies and regulations to guide us, just like any other company, but daily we have to make decisions on the fly that can change the course of the flight.

Having flown for some bottom feeder charter outfits, I can personally attest that bad pilots make bad decisions when fostered by bad leadership, and that is true for any company. And when a good pilot is paired with a bad pilot, sometimes issues arise because there is a difference of opinion. And if there is no SOP, issues can arise because of a lack of standardization.

 

[Inverted]

Oh, they still get annoyed and even pissed sometimes, but what are they gonna do right now?

Just the fact that they get pissed or show any negative emotion in the interest of safety is mind boggling.... But again, it's that culture thing...

 

[Tommay85]

Just the fact that they get pissed or show any negative emotion in the interest of safety is mind boggling.... But again, it's that culture thing...

Oh it's never in regards to saftey, usually. Usually QOL stuff.

 

[ppragman]

If you feel like having a serious discussion though (I've only had a little rum... ), the issue I have with relaxed regs/GOM/SOPs is that it negates an objective reason for the crew to say "no". Or offer any protections after an incident or accident.

If the company culture is good, then maybe it's not an issue I suppose. I feel like even a legacy would run over people with the bus if they could though.

I've typically found it to be the case that the more "standardized" a company says they are, the more they want you to fly when the conditions are poor and the harder it is to say "no" to a flight. It has very little to do with relaxed regs/GOM/SOPs etc in my experience, and more the relationship that managers have with their pilots and whether or not a company actually believes in the "safety culture" stuff they parrot out. Generally speaking, companies that actually care about safety (in my limited experience) tend to say, "OK" when a pilot says, "I don't think I should go fly" and have strong systems in place to hire good pilots they trust to make those kinds of decisions. The really good companies back this up with objective risk assessment criteria and real safety management programs.

 

[Inverted]

I've typically found it to be the case that the more "standardized" a company says they are, the more they want you to fly when the conditions are poor and the harder it is to say "no" to a flight.

Lots of things a play in order to get a flight to complete successfully. I could easily see that happening at a company that is short sided, and only looks at regs to deem the safety of flight. Legal doesn't equal smart or safe, I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Inverted]

Ah you're right, all pilots are interchangeable widgets, the ultimate measurement of flying skill is whether one can fly a V1 cut they know is coming, and judgment is simply measured in how closely you can follow a detailed SOP/GOM.

No No, you're right. The skill of a pilot is how close he an push limits of safety and legality in a Chieftain. You are more skillful and safe than pilots who operate 121. 121 isn't the safest segment of aviation, my bad. It is so satisfying to see somebody who flies for a no name mom and pop school everyone on a forum about how bigger and safer companies operate and train their pilots. Keep going please!

 

[Roger Roger]

No No, you're right. The skill of a pilot is how close he an push limits of safety and legality in a Chieftain. You are more skillful and safe than pilots who operate 121. 121 isn't the safest segment of aviation, my bad. It is so satisfying to see somebody who flies for a no name mom and pop school everyone on a forum about how bigger and safer companies operate and train their pilots. Keep going please!

Let's take a step back to my original post. I didn't say that 121 pilots were worthless or even that they were worse than 135 guys. What I did say is that at the heart of the bullcrap 135 chest thumping (and you might be surprised to hear that I agree that that's what it is, bullcrap) is a nugget of truth, and that nugget is that that kind of operation teaches you things, especially about the actual act of flying an airplane, that the CFI->121 regional route just doesn't. And furthermore, when we have this prevailing attitude ( not necessarily from you, but oozing out of other members on here) that actual skill in the act of flying an airplane is either not a thing or is irrelevant, perhaps we ought not to completely throw out some of those lessons learned hand flying a piston twin in bad weather. Everything past that first post was rustling of jimmies, and judging by the responses jimmies were successfully rustled.

PS we may be a no name, but at least our no name is the one painted on the side of our planes.

PPS Amflight must inflict serious PTSD judging by the assumptions it induces in its refugees about any and all other 135 operators.

 

[ppragman]

Lots of things a play in order to get a flight to complete successfully. I could easily see that happening at a company that is short sided, and only looks at regs to deem the safety of flight. Legal doesn't equal smart or safe, I think we can all agree on that.

Exactly this. There are also times when the "safest" course of action is likely illegal. This is one of the problems with the way the regulations are built. They apply "black and white" solutions to problems that aren't really black and white, and then you get problems in the "grey" areas, but you don't really learn about that, and everything seems black and white from the cockpit of a high-performance jet with good anti-ice capability and 70 people in the back.

That isn't directed at you by the way @Inverted - but a lot of folks tend to think that there is a "one size fits all" answer to risk management and safety. For those out there that would argue, I'd ask, "how do you get to an airport without weather reporting under 135?"

 

[Tommay85]

Let's take a step back to my original post. I didn't say that 121 pilots were worthless or even that they were worse than 135 guys. What I did say is that at the heart of the bullcrap 135 chest thumping (and you might be surprised to hear that I agree that that's what it is, bullcrap) is a nugget of truth, and that nugget is that that kind of operation teaches you things, especially about the actual act of flying an airplane, that the CFI->121 regional route just doesn't. And furthermore, when we have this prevailing attitude ( not necessarily from you, but oozing out of other members on here) that actual skill in the act of flying an airplane is either not a thing or is irrelevant, perhaps we ought not to completely throw out some of those lessons learned hand flying a piston twin in bad weather. Everything past that first post was rustling of jimmies, and judging by the responses jimmies were successfully rustled.

PS we may be a no name, but at least our no name is the one painted on the side of our planes.

PPS Amflight must inflict serious PTSD judging by the assumptions it induces in its refugees about any and all other 135 operators.

 

[z987k]

Exactly this. There are also times when the "safest" course of action is likely illegal. This is one of the problems with the way the regulations are built. They apply "black and white" solutions to problems that aren't really black and white, and then you get problems in the "grey" areas, but you don't really learn about that, and everything seems black and white from the cockpit of a high-performance jet with good anti-ice capability and 70 people in the back.

That isn't directed at you by the way @Inverted - but a lot of folks tend to think that there is a "one size fits all" answer to risk management and safety. For those out there that would argue, I'd ask, "how do you get to an airport without weather reporting under 135?"

VFR.

 

[Inverted]

Let's take a step back to my original post. I didn't say that 121 pilots were worthless or even that they were worse than 135 guys. What I did say is that at the heart of the bullcrap 135 chest thumping (and you might be surprised to hear that I agree that that's what it is, bullcrap) is a nugget of truth, and that nugget is that that kind of operation teaches you things, especially about the actual act of flying an airplane, that the CFI->121 regional route just doesn't. And furthermore, when we have this prevailing attitude ( not necessarily from you, but oozing out of other members on here) that actual skill in the act of flying an airplane is either not a thing or is irrelevant, perhaps we ought not to completely throw out some of those lessons learned hand flying a piston twin in bad weather. Everything past that first post was rustling of jimmies, and judging by the responses jimmies were successfully rustled.

PS we may be a no name, but at least our no name is the one painted on the side of our planes.

PPS Amflight must inflict serious PTSD judging by the assumptions it induces in its refugees about any and all other 135 operators.

No rustled jimmies whatever the F that means lol.

This doesn't have as much to do with AMF as it does the general outlook that typical 135 pilots have towards the industry and your posts echo that general outlook.

Does flying in bad weather give you experience flying in bad weather? Yes

Does flying in bad weather make you more skillful? No not really. Single pilot IFR is a skill that takes time to master but don't have to push the odds in order to do it.

For some reason with 135 and freight especially, there is a mantra that the higher the risk, the better the pilot you are if you don't crash and die. I have a hard time understanding the logic there.

There is no nugget of truth to chest bumping in 135, that's exactly how it is and it is comical. You have been conditioned to think that flying single pilot IFR is a better skill than going from CFI to 121. This is is also comical...

The CFI that leaves his or her job for the first professional job is at a crossroads, they either go 135 or 121. The person that goes 135 to fly single pilot IFR will gain lots of experience flying in bad weather, flying single pilot IFR and become great at decision making on their own which is a great skillset in that niche. Guess where most of those skills would be absolutely terrible, in a 121 environment... There is a much hire propensity to learn bad habits flying 135 as well. Rule bending, skud running, illegal activity, flying with broken parts, pushed to do things that are extremely dangerous etc etc. Not all 135 operators are like that, but no domestic 121 carriers are like that. I didn't make up the reputation of 135 versus 121, this is widely known. If 135 pilots were so awesome, skilled and safe, then part 135 would have the reputation that 121 does, but it's not, and it doesn't.

The CFI that goes 121 will be shaped and molded with a different set of skills. So can the RJ FO fly in to a dirt strip in Alaska? I dunno maybe not, but can the 135 freight dawg shoot an RNP approach to mins? Know how to program an FMS? Sure piloting wise there is much more "pilot •" happening at a 135 freight operator, but if somebody tried to hand fly an RJ for an entire trip they would look like an idiot. Different set of skills... Both sets of skills are appropriate for their type of flying, but if you take a 135 freight dawg and just stick them in the flight deck of an airliner, they will be laughed right out of the cockpit, and vise versa.

Another ironic thing is that we fly in the same weather, at least we takeoff and land in the same weather. I don't get the chest thumping over freight pilots being so bad ass about pushing risk. If you want high risk and high fives go BASE jumping, fly acro or something like that. Saying that 121 pilots aren't skillful is just plain stupid. It's a different set of skills. Sure are there bad airline pilots who lack skills? Absolutely! But there are also several airline pilots who are national and world champion aerobatic pilots, former shuttle commanders, former Air Force One commanders, fighter pilots, Reno Air Race pilots and more that will absolutely laugh you out of the room when you try to convince them that you have more skills than they do.

 

[Tommay85]

No rustled jimmies whatever the F that means lol.

This doesn't have as much to do with AMF as it does the general outlook that typical 135 pilots have towards the industry and your posts echo that general outlook.

Does flying in bad weather give you experience flying in bad weather? Yes

Does flying in bad weather make you more skillful? No not really. Single pilot IFR is a skill that takes time to master but don't have to push the odds in order to do it.

For some reason with 135 and freight especially, there is a mantra that the higher the risk, the better the pilot you are if you don't crash and die. I have a hard time understanding the logic there.

There is no nugget of truth to chest bumping in 135, that's exactly how it is and it is comical. You have been conditioned to think that flying single pilot IFR is a better skill than going from CFI to 121. This is is also comical...

The CFI that leaves his or her job for the first professional job is at a crossroads, they either go 135 or 121. The person that goes 135 to fly single pilot IFR will gain lots of experience flying in bad weather, flying single pilot IFR and become great at decision making on their own which is a great skillset in that niche. Guess where most of those skills would be absolutely terrible, in a 121 environment... There is a much hire propensity to learn bad habits flying 135 as well. Rule bending, skud running, illegal activity, flying with broken parts, pushed to do things that are extremely dangerous etc etc. Not all 135 operators are like that, but no domestic 121 carriers are like that. I didn't make up the reputation of 135 versus 121, this is widely known. If 135 pilots were so awesome, skilled and safe, then part 135 would have the reputation that 121 does, but it's not, and it doesn't.

The CFI that goes 121 will be shaped and molded with a different set of skills. So can the RJ FO fly in to a dirt strip in Alaska? I dunno maybe not, but can the 135 freight dawg shoot an RNP approach to mins? Know how to program an FMS? Sure piloting wise there is much more "pilot " happening at a 135 freight operator, but if somebody tried to hand fly an RJ for an entire trip they would look like an idiot. Different set of skills... Both sets of skills are appropriate for their type of flying, but if you take a 135 freight dawg and just stick them in the flight deck of an airliner, they will be laughed right out of the cockpit, and vise versa.

Another ironic thing is that we fly in the same weather, at least we takeoff and land in the same weather. I don't get the chest thumping over freight pilots being so bad ass about pushing risk. If you want high risk and high fives go BASE jumping, fly acro or something like that. Saying that 121 pilots aren't skillful is just plain stupid. It's a different set of skills. Sure are there bad airline pilots who lack skills? Absolutely! But there are also several airline pilots who are national and world champion aerobatic pilots, former shuttle commanders, former Air Force One commanders, fighter pilots, Reno Air Race pilots and more that will absolutely laugh you out of the room when you try to convince them that you have more skills than they do.

I don't know of a single person I've worked with that left AMF that thought this was hard, trasition to, or had any issues what-so-ever transitioning to 121... "Easier" and "it's the same" is consistently said.

I've not seen the things you are talking about here, but your experience was obviously different.

 

[Inverted]

I don't know of a single person I've worked with that left AMF that thought this was hard, trasition to, or had any issues what-so-ever transitioning to 121... "Easier" and "it's the same" is consistently said.

I've not seen the things you are talking about here, but your experience was obviously different.

I'm not saying harder, hard, hard to transition to or anything like that. I'm saying it's different.

I worked at AMF and now I fly pax for a pretty high level company standards wise and I did just fine, and I have transitioned fine. But I have the luxury of viewing this from a standpoint of having done single pilot IFR, and now operating within a 121 style environment so I feel like I can compare and contrast the skill sets of each. There is a lot more to being a professional pilot than yanking and banking, a light twin in crappy weather. But also, it's how lots of pilots who are now successful airline pilots or private jet pilots have cut their teeth, so obviously there is something to it.

 

[Cal Goat]

... especially about the actual act of flying an airplane, that the CFI->121 regional route just doesn't. And furthermore, when we have this prevailing attitude ( not necessarily from you, but oozing out of other members on here) that actual skill in the act of flying an airplane is either not a thing or is irrelevant, perhaps we ought not to completely throw out some of those lessons learned hand flying a piston twin in bad weather.

That's a pretty arrogant post from someone who it sounds like (?) hasn't flown 121. I flew the Chieftain and the Brasilia.

Guess which airplane requires more muscle to fly on a single engine.

Guess which airplane has a more complex prop governor system.

Guess which airplane has a more complex instrument system.

I flew the Brasilia on 8 leg days, from airports like SFO, SLC, DEN and LAX into podunk uncontrolled airports. WAAAAAAY more operational variety than the 135 flying I did. Just because the airplane had an autopilot and was pressurized and climate controlled (with varying degrees of effectiveness) doesn't mean it required any less pure piloting skill than the old Chieftain. And this is a very consistent misconception that people who haven't flown 121 love to condescend with.

PS we may be a no name, but at least our no name is the one painted on the side of our planes.

Ha! Is that supposed to be a knock against regionals?

You talk about AMF inflicting PTSD. Conversely, one could assume that 135 pilots are suffering from some massive inferiority complex the way they're constantly shouting about how 121 pilots aren't as skilled as they are.

 

[killbilly]

All of life is a calculated risk. There is probably a sum of money that would allow me to entertain attempting a 0/0 takeoff in a single engine airplane, but I'd have to evaluate numerous variable before making a final decision.

Thanks. I appreciate your candor - my post could have come off as adversarial (one interpretation, anyway) and it certainly wasn't meant that way, so I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I was trying to rectify the safety-vs-incentive idea.