CCQ @ QLink

[DeafStar]

Mildura boys and girls to operate both Q300 and Q400 types. Set detent power in a Q300 and watch those ITT's peak.

Thoughts?

[Dragun]

My thoughts are that that comment is bulls*t

Mildura doesn't operate under their own special FCOM or approvals. If that were to happen it would be across the entire Qlink Dash operation and IF that happens it won't be for a very very long time.

There were recently a number of Q400 Capt and FO slots advertised for Mildura, that's all.

Keep dreaming!

[DeafStar]

Nope. Its a FACT. Got a mate in QLink that told me. Can anyone else confirm?

[Capt Fathom]

Can anyone else confirm?

Why?

Your mate in Qlink has confirmed it as FACT! :rolleyes:

[tea & bikkies]

Overtemp confirmed.:sad:

[Dragun]

That's funny that it's a FACT that your mate at Qlink has told you. I'm a captain at Qlink and I've heard nothing even close to suggest that will be happening. I guess your friend must be very high up in the ranks of fairyland.

Tea&bikkies - Just because someone overtemps an engine doesn't mean they were flying both the Q300 and Q400. I'm telling you hands down that there is no way and no provision for any pilot at Qlink right now to be able to fly both the Q300 and Q400 on the line.

[Di_Vosh]

I suggest that you sign onto Geneva and read the "Letter to Pilots" and "Q400 Mildura and CCQ informaton"

MQL is going to be the first CCQ base. If CCQ is successful, it will be spread to other bases.

Deafstar had that part of his/her post correct.

DIVOSH!

[Dragun]

Deafstar and Di Vosh

I am wrong, you guys are correct and I apologise!

Just logged in and read the letter and I'm absolutely astounded! Having been on leave since Monday, a lot can obviously change. As I mentioned, there was definitely no provision for it last week!

Whether it actually happens or not throughout the network is another thing. If it does, I guess it's not a bad thing for guys on the sustaining fleet, they'll get a nice little payrise but a lot of work to boot. Will have to see how it pans out, I personally don't want to have to worry about ITT's again if we have to go back to Q300 :ok:

Cheers guys, sorry for getting on my high horse so early. I'm blown away by this!

[Di_Vosh]

Hey, no problem.

My opinion is that it will be "a challenge" (putting it mildly). Personally, I doubt it will roll out to the larger bases, as they have more "depth" within both fleets.

DIVOSH!

[tea & bikkies]

CCQ with the dash 8 presents many problems on many levels, evidently many operators around the world have tried it and subsequently dismissed it based on %#^% ups. The two different types (yes I use that term) are completely different animals. I understand commercial pressures, but from a flight ops point of view....I see trouble, pity the poor Mildura lab rats as mentioned in the "letter to pilots" that endure this proven failure that will possibily result in their personal records tarnished to feed corporate bonuses. Something has to give.

[Spinnerhead]

The stupidity continues.

[rmcdonal]

So we can expect to see a series of over temps on the 300s and over speeds on the 400s then. :ugh::ugh:
Can I go down on record now as saying that this is a very stupid idea. :rolleyes:

[tea & bikkies]

RMC I think so. Time will tell.

[harrowing]

The 300 and 400 are quite different aircraft, despite CASA calling it a common endorsement, and now to the best of my belief regretting that decision. For example, consider Cat B versus Cat C performance, plateau heights, oops I mean acceleration altitudes, of 500 versus 1000 feet, FADEC or otherwise, significantly different handling and landing techniques, and glass versus conventional instruments, to name just a few.
These are just some of the obvious differences. Nearly every pilot who has flown both types would readily attest to this, and could add considerably to the list of good reasons not to fly both types.
The difference between them is considerably more than that between a 737-400 and 800, or so I am led to believe, although apparently, this may be more subjective than qualitative in this case. The award used to state that a pilot would only fly one type of aircraft above 5700 kg, so technically the company would be within the letter of the law.

I believe Q decided to buy the 400 partly on the basis of the cost savings possible with CCQ, and now feel compelled to save face and pursue this avenue in spite of nearly every other airline that has tried or even considered doing it having ceased, or thankfully not even commenced, this dubious and risky practice. The buzz term of world's best practice is often thrown around, so perhaps this is a good time for some consistency with management.
There has already been one incident of overtorqueing a 300 by a newly converted ex-400 F/O.
IMHO the only doubt about the next similar incident to occur is when and not if, and hopefully only minor not major damage or injury will result.
Harrowing literally

PS I wonder why this topic was moved from Airlines and RPT issues to GA?

[novice110]

So now is your chance Q-Link to prove how good you really are..

Just because other airlines have failed, doesn't mean you guys / girls will too. Good luck!

[spirax]

PS I wonder why this topic was moved from Airlines and RPT issues to GA?


Clearly the moderator concerned thought this was a GA topic - or maybe he thought the operator was GA :)

This is one area where the lack of standardisation in the way the moderators handle such matters is sadly obvious.:confused:

[32megapixels]

I think the moderator classifies the operator as GA.

Being someone who has come off the q400 to the sustaining fleet, being trained by some of the most experienced q400 operators world wide, I would reflect their opinions in thinking that this is not a good idea. I do like to try new things, but this is pushing it I would think. Whilst I would love to get back on the q400 and the payrise...is it worth it??

The short term financial gains will definately be out weight by mistakes...and then of course it is pilot error....not management incompetence. The lack of knowledge of the pen pushes, who still call themselves Capt. this and Capt. that is absolute rubbish. Driving different size desks and keyboards is not so challenging, whilst at the end of the day they can go home to their families.

If something does go wrong, the desk drivers deserve gaol time over this serious breach of proven duty of care, to not only the employees but also the public.

I am not angry or upset about this decision, I just think it may not be a very smart one....and for those flying the line they would understand this!:ugh:

[roger_ramjet]

I have to agree with harrowing, the differences between the 300 and 400 are significant, and the most important ones such as engine operation, recall items and aircraft limitations are the ones you need to know instantly in an emergency. So if you're going to get it wrong, it won't be a 2kt overspeed on descent, it will be something a whole lot worse, probably a lot closer to the ground.
Why not just make Melb/Mildura Q400 only bases?

And how about we put this back in RPT - seriously who thinks Qlink is a GA operation? (no jokes please) Do you have to have a jet to get in the RPT forum?

[Kingswood]

The lack of courage within CASA on this issue is jaw dropping. A mistake was clearly made by CASA with the CCQ in the first place, and it must now be corrected before there is an incident.

It would appear that the Qlink manager of flight ops simply tells CASA how it's going to be; the regulator dutifully wags its tail, lets out a playful bark and trots alongside.

Exactly how far does an operator with a kangaroo on the tail get to push it, before the regulator says "Captain you must listen..."?

With this lack of assertiveness, I wouldn't even hire them as an FO in the airline, let alone bestow them with the grave responsibility of being its safety gatekeeper.

Kingswood.

[Boney]

Why not have this in the RPT section where it belongs so it can seen and discussed?

[Incloud]

i agree,,,,.......... moderator please explain???:confused:

[megle2]

Well at least by being in the GA section QLink will be the stand out No 1 GA operator! Wouldn't it, ah well maybe not.

[SemperFly]

I like how the 'letter' also states that you will be expected to operate both the 300 and the 400, but when you are 'moved' to the 400 the 18 month equipment freeze from the EBA applies.. So you get approved on the 400, are expected to operate the 200, 300 and 400, but can't bid for a slot at another base to operate just the 200/300's because of the EBA clause.

So just to review, the message is 'you HAVE to fly the 300 and 400, but you can't fly the 300 because you are 'frozen' for 18 months. What the?

[Di_Vosh]

Indeed!

That item hasn't gone un-noticed...

DIVOSH!

[Icarus53]

I have so many concerns with this concept - one hardly knows where to begin. Thanks to Semper Fi for for bringing something new to the game. Given that there are a number of pilots who have been significantly disadvantaged by the operation of this clause of the EBA (400 FOs who were not awarded command on 300 despite having substantially more company and type experience), I wonder if there are not serious industrial legal issues that could result from CCQ?

[grumpy greyhound]

Interested
Some in EM who were involved in the intro of the 400 led Qlink management to beleive that as it was considered the same endor then we wouldbe flying both. Remember some there know better than every one on all matters aviation! Any percieved benefits will quickly dissapear after the first incident. My commiserations to the crew being used to play on both. So many questions-what if you have flying a 400 and it then breaks ,the replacement is 300 are you then expected to jump in that? You fail a400 sim does that then stop you flying a 300? etc etc. Wake up EM.

[SIDS N STARS]

I thought you guys were fighting tooth and nail to get one or two B717's etc.. off Cobham to crew in Q'Link colours??

And between the lot of you, you publicly advertise on an anonymous forum, that you cant fly two different series of the same turbo-prop???

[Friction Nut]

I thought you guys were fighting tooth and nail to get one or two B717's etc.. off Cobham to crew in Q'Link colours??

And between the lot of you, you publicly advertise on an anonymous forum, that you cant fly two different series of the same turbo-prop???

Sids and Stars... Where the hell do you get your information from...!!!

[harrowing]

SIDS N STARS,
Perhaps if you added the word completely when describing the different series of the same turboprop, then you might answer you own query. Just as a 717 and a 737 are both off the Boeing production line as twin jets does not mean you should be able to hop from one to the other williy nilly.
If you had read and taken any notice of the significant differences between these variants, you may have also have realized that generally with RPT the idea is to be endorsed and current on one type of aircraft above 5700 kg at a time.
That is the serious reply.
Hopefully, you were just sh#t stirring.

[boardpig]

..could someone please explain to those not quite at the Dash 8 level, what the main hitters are in terms of difference on type. Yes I understand glass vs steam gauge but surley that alone is not the real issue? It sounds here like there are other MAJOR differences that obviously need to be highlighted.
As someone who flies both singles/twins, glass and steam, I wouldn't get very far if I had to stick to one type.
I understand complexity, size, plays a role here so I'm not stirring the nest, I'm genuinely interested.

BP.

[wayne_king]

Well at least with the forward thinking management and blame free culture that Qlink Syd management foster, any of those that do screw up can rest assured that they won't be hung out to dry....:eek::=:E

[roger_ramjet]

Differences off the top of my head:

Engines - probably the biggest difference since the 400 has full FADEC engines and the 200/300 doesn't. The 400 power levers have detent positions so things like take-off and go-arounds are no-brainers for engine control and power setting. The 200/300 conversely has no protection system at all, power is set simply by referring to torque vs temperature cards stuck to the controls! Torque can easily be set over 100%, and numbers of up 160% can be achieved if you're busy with something else at the time. The detent position on the 400 actually corresponds to around 130% Tq in the 200/300, which is enough to keep a couple of engineers busy for a day or so on landing.
The condition levers (prop pitch control) are almost redundant in the 400 since the computer will control prop rpm as required, so landings can be done at a reduced Np with an automatic increase for go-around power. 200/300 condition levers are cables going all the way out to the engines so you have to manually set prop rpm and even get it in sync yourself.

Speeds and limits - different flap, gear Vmo speeds etc.

200/300 are operated as Cat B, 400 as Cat C.

Different recalls - mostly due to different engine controls

Drills and Checklists are pretty close and would be simple to fix.

Flight instruments - 200/300 has EHSI and EADI but otherwise is a classic six pack gauge layout. 400 has a MFD setup with speed and altitude tapes with trend arrows either side of the AI much like a 737NG etc. Where to look for information in a hurry will therefore change between the different aircraft.

Landing technique - land with power on in the 400 whereas 200/300 you trickle it back to flight idle 1-2secs before touchdown.

Brakes - 400 has carbon brakes which need to get hot before they work, 200/300 are opposite.

So like I said in a previous post - the important differences unfortunately are the ones you need to know almost unconsciously. Anyone else on the 400 jump in here if I'm incorrect or have left things out...
So can it work - probably I reckon, but there's a lot more to it than face value suggests.

[nitpicker330]

Sound nearly as bad as the F27 to F50..............looks similar outside but totally different inside.

Ansett never had CCQ for those 2 types although they were both F27's
( the F 50 was a F27-50 )

Only when the F50 was temporarily grounded in 1988 did some guys get refreshed back to the F27 for 2 months, they never flew both at once!!

[wotthe]

400 landing technique, power 'on', don't think so!

[Deano777]

er yes, that's how we do it here, especially flap 15, the amount of trickle off would be negligible with a bit more trickle off for flap 35, but most certainly not idle power before touchdown. That's tail strike territory at flap 15.

roger r. Pretty much spot on with what you have said.

[rmcdonal]

Power on landing in a 400 is only one of about 8 ways of getting it on without a tail strike. :ok:

[roger_ramjet]

Agree - landing technique will be one of the harder non-technical differences the CCQ crews will face.

[wotthe]

Landing technique for the 400 is the same as the 300.

Don't ever recall landing with power on except flapless in the Sim, that's how we teach it!

[How's it Hanging]

Technique might be same, but feel is completely different as Q400's elevator is hydraulic and classics are not.

To go with this Q400 has no manual elevator trim wheel and only electric trim and classic has only manual elevator trim wheel and no electric trim.

[KRUSTY 34]

I dunno' man.

Sounds like an A Grade F@#k-up just waiting to happen! :sad::sad:

[bodex666]

Having flown all the dashes I'd hate to having to fly the 300 and 400, you could do it but i think the big picture here is if the crews can "safely" opperate the 2 types in accordance with Qlinks lovely FCOM and FAM procedures which seem to be ever changing. Flying the 100/200/300 I remember always having to think twice before selecting certain things and I did have a book with all the differences in it for that very reason. Hopefully the boys and girls at mildura will complete this safely and we may be all proven wrong, but Im still unsure if Id like to fly the 300 and 400 at the same time and do 300 and 400 sims every 3 months.


wotthe Landing technique for the 400 is the same as the 300.

Don't ever recall landing with power on except flapless in the Sim, that's how we teach it!


mmm dont think so. Try a power off flap 15 @ 27tn and explain to the flighties why theyre an inch shorter, the only way that you can do a power off is if your vref + 15 or so, FOQA bait! . 5-10% during touchdown with flap 15, at flap 35 at light weight maybee power off if you start floating.

enough whining from me

[dizzylizzy]

lets not forget those awful Q400 landings in HID. :bored:

[Uptotabs]

The ceiling panels only came out once.....or maybe twice at HID!!

[Deano777]

Glad you guys have the same issues with landing the thing as we do, and I thought it was just me :E

[koapyou]

That's another fine mess some of the oxygen thieves in the Ivory Castle have created!

Somethings never change! :D