Finally !...Eastern/Sunstate order 7x DH8-400
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetA_ok,
Single pilot ops, no matter what their experience level, is much more dangerous than any two pilot operation. I'm NOT saying years of experience EQUALS safe, I'm saying the more experience, the more a pilot recognises when things are not quite right, or getting close to the edges, something he has never seen before. Can a cadet do that for your captain on the next RPT jet flight sitting down the back ? Suggest that is why QF sends their cadets for F/O positions anywhere but their own ops.
Single pilot ops, no matter what their experience level, is much more dangerous than any two pilot operation. I'm NOT saying years of experience EQUALS safe, I'm saying the more experience, the more a pilot recognises when things are not quite right, or getting close to the edges, something he has never seen before. Can a cadet do that for your captain on the next RPT jet flight sitting down the back ? Suggest that is why QF sends their cadets for F/O positions anywhere but their own ops.
G,
I would suggest it has more to do with FAM requirements than anything else.
At that height you have a sterile cockpit, approach should be briefed, and checked in the FMC by the crew conducting the approach. Even tho the S/O is capable of doing that, if its was the F/O's sector, under QF procedures only the capt can brief/fly that approach if it requires low vis procedures.
To me its just getting the crew in "approch config", no last minute changes, and with most things might be a result of an issue of people changing seats and getting distracted when low.
Also below 10k it would be nice to have people concentrating on the job at hand, esp if a TCAS event were to occour. The restriction may have somethnig to do with transits in Class E.
Col. Walter E. Kurtz,
I am sure the CP of any regional airline would like to people like that available, however they are getting harder to get, they also tend to be mid career and are chasing the bucks & jet time.
Whilst experience has always been thought as being positive, sometimes its is also negative, and some believe that since they have experience the world owes them a living, and they know everything about aviation. Some at this stage are harder to teach SOPs etc to.
I am hearing they are having a problem with stability within the workforce, having people with a known tenure will assit in planning. Also using cadets that are not part of the current pilot pool, by using them it will not remove people from the roster to undertake training on the Q400, making staffing of the current roster possible.
tinni,
Are you talking about the Gulf Air A320 accident ? I thought that was a hand flown low level orbit on finals, something that is not smart to do in any aircraft at night regardless of pilot experience.
Its been some time since I read that report, from memory the F/O was too fast for the approach, the capt took over and decided to do an orbit to configure rather than vectors, published hold or the published missed.
b55,
To further expand on my previous, my understanding of the contract between the cadet and QF is that have a nominal 24 month industry placement which can be extended or reduced if both parties agree. If QF were short, and the cadet agreed I am sure that this 24 month period would be reduced.
The cadets meet the command PIC requirments at the end of the cadet program in order to gain an Australian ATPL, they do not need to do any additional "command" time to gain an Australian ATPL, ICUS/Co-Pilot is satisfactory.
I would suggest it has more to do with FAM requirements than anything else.
At that height you have a sterile cockpit, approach should be briefed, and checked in the FMC by the crew conducting the approach. Even tho the S/O is capable of doing that, if its was the F/O's sector, under QF procedures only the capt can brief/fly that approach if it requires low vis procedures.
To me its just getting the crew in "approch config", no last minute changes, and with most things might be a result of an issue of people changing seats and getting distracted when low.
Also below 10k it would be nice to have people concentrating on the job at hand, esp if a TCAS event were to occour. The restriction may have somethnig to do with transits in Class E.
Col. Walter E. Kurtz,
I am sure the CP of any regional airline would like to people like that available, however they are getting harder to get, they also tend to be mid career and are chasing the bucks & jet time.
Whilst experience has always been thought as being positive, sometimes its is also negative, and some believe that since they have experience the world owes them a living, and they know everything about aviation. Some at this stage are harder to teach SOPs etc to.
I am hearing they are having a problem with stability within the workforce, having people with a known tenure will assit in planning. Also using cadets that are not part of the current pilot pool, by using them it will not remove people from the roster to undertake training on the Q400, making staffing of the current roster possible.
tinni,
Are you talking about the Gulf Air A320 accident ? I thought that was a hand flown low level orbit on finals, something that is not smart to do in any aircraft at night regardless of pilot experience.
Its been some time since I read that report, from memory the F/O was too fast for the approach, the capt took over and decided to do an orbit to configure rather than vectors, published hold or the published missed.
b55,
To further expand on my previous, my understanding of the contract between the cadet and QF is that have a nominal 24 month industry placement which can be extended or reduced if both parties agree. If QF were short, and the cadet agreed I am sure that this 24 month period would be reduced.
The cadets meet the command PIC requirments at the end of the cadet program in order to gain an Australian ATPL, they do not need to do any additional "command" time to gain an Australian ATPL, ICUS/Co-Pilot is satisfactory.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Aus
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"entrenched industrial issues", that's a big call to make based on one or two anonymous people's posts. Once again pilots argue with pilots and the IR department rubs their hands together with glee. Gee how original
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH - we have to decide which is the overriding priority: Safety or Operational expediency.
If safety is the priority, you would have to agree that the experienced co-pilot comes out miles ahead - hands down. Their experience should be embraced, and suitably renumerated.
If they don't comply with SOPS, then that should come to light and they should be shown the door.
Jet_A_OK: Your posts on this thread seem to indicate to me that you have an entrenched inferiority complex, however, what you say regarding 20k hr cockpits and accidents does hold true. An accident is awaiting even the most experienced aviator, given the right/wrong set of circumstances. What you fail to address, and what we don't often hear about are the countless numbers of accidents that 20k hr cockpits have AVOIDED.
Aviation safety is about alot of things, including checks and balances. Part of this is to have two pilots who can check and correct the other. This is one ofthe basic premise of MC ops. If one of them is inexperienced, they:
1. May not know or realise that the Captain is in error and needs correction
2. May be too timid to question the Capt. even if he did realise there was an error.
I am sure others can add further examples...
Having as much experience up front is not an 'entrenched industrial issue' but a SAFETY issue. You can't argue against the fact that an experienced pilot is more capable than a fresh low time/cadet pilot.
As for an accident report where ex-cadet type pilots have wrecked a plane, go here for the A320 that was flown into the water during a botched night visual approach. Obviously, this guy did no Single pilot night freight.
http://www.bahrainairport.com/arabic...ivil_gf072.htm
You also mentioned something about inept pilots?? The Crossair Avro RJ accident in Zurich, where a Captain descended below lowest safe during an approach, and the low time co-pilot watched it all happen, is a prime example of when an inept Captain is teamed up with an inexperienced Co-pilot (490hrs TT). So much for checks and balances.
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/u1793_e
As was said before, would you undergo brain surgery with a doctor fresh out of med school??
The only person who would belittle the value and importance of experience is someone without it.
If safety is the priority, you would have to agree that the experienced co-pilot comes out miles ahead - hands down. Their experience should be embraced, and suitably renumerated.
If they don't comply with SOPS, then that should come to light and they should be shown the door.
Jet_A_OK: Your posts on this thread seem to indicate to me that you have an entrenched inferiority complex, however, what you say regarding 20k hr cockpits and accidents does hold true. An accident is awaiting even the most experienced aviator, given the right/wrong set of circumstances. What you fail to address, and what we don't often hear about are the countless numbers of accidents that 20k hr cockpits have AVOIDED.
Aviation safety is about alot of things, including checks and balances. Part of this is to have two pilots who can check and correct the other. This is one ofthe basic premise of MC ops. If one of them is inexperienced, they:
1. May not know or realise that the Captain is in error and needs correction
2. May be too timid to question the Capt. even if he did realise there was an error.
I am sure others can add further examples...
Having as much experience up front is not an 'entrenched industrial issue' but a SAFETY issue. You can't argue against the fact that an experienced pilot is more capable than a fresh low time/cadet pilot.
As for an accident report where ex-cadet type pilots have wrecked a plane, go here for the A320 that was flown into the water during a botched night visual approach. Obviously, this guy did no Single pilot night freight.
http://www.bahrainairport.com/arabic...ivil_gf072.htm
You also mentioned something about inept pilots?? The Crossair Avro RJ accident in Zurich, where a Captain descended below lowest safe during an approach, and the low time co-pilot watched it all happen, is a prime example of when an inept Captain is teamed up with an inexperienced Co-pilot (490hrs TT). So much for checks and balances.
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/u1793_e
As was said before, would you undergo brain surgery with a doctor fresh out of med school??
The only person who would belittle the value and importance of experience is someone without it.
Last edited by Col. Walter E. Kurtz; 18th Jan 2005 at 09:10.
Col. Walter E. Kurtz,
The GF captain was not a cadet pilot...he was employed as a apprentance maintenance engineer (engineer cadet)..he was an AME for about 9 years before being a flight engineer for about 8 years, then becoming a pilot.
From what I hear GF has a few locals like him, dont listen to anyone. He was showing off and paid the price, and took a heap of people with him. I have mates who have worked in GF as F/Os, expats, the local captains dont listen to them either, and they have circa 10,000 hrs, capt 4,000.
I have never seen anything so stupid as this accident, doing an orbit at 500' AGL, 0.9 nm from the runway. I know no one who would entertain such an idea, let alone in a 70t jet, at night, and with a wopping 86 hrs command on it.
This is not a good example, no one I know would do anything so stupid....cadet pilot or not.
The only thing this accident illustrates is the need for strict adherance to SOPs.
I still think we will agree to disagree...cadet pilots will need to be checked to the same standard as any other Qlink F/O, no better no worse...same standard. They will use the same S.O.P's. They have better multi crew training than most G.A. types, as most G.A. type never got any multi-crew training.
So can we get back to the Q400....
The GF captain was not a cadet pilot...he was employed as a apprentance maintenance engineer (engineer cadet)..he was an AME for about 9 years before being a flight engineer for about 8 years, then becoming a pilot.
From what I hear GF has a few locals like him, dont listen to anyone. He was showing off and paid the price, and took a heap of people with him. I have mates who have worked in GF as F/Os, expats, the local captains dont listen to them either, and they have circa 10,000 hrs, capt 4,000.
I have never seen anything so stupid as this accident, doing an orbit at 500' AGL, 0.9 nm from the runway. I know no one who would entertain such an idea, let alone in a 70t jet, at night, and with a wopping 86 hrs command on it.
This is not a good example, no one I know would do anything so stupid....cadet pilot or not.
The only thing this accident illustrates is the need for strict adherance to SOPs.
I still think we will agree to disagree...cadet pilots will need to be checked to the same standard as any other Qlink F/O, no better no worse...same standard. They will use the same S.O.P's. They have better multi crew training than most G.A. types, as most G.A. type never got any multi-crew training.
So can we get back to the Q400....
swh,
the point I was making is that mainline don't think it is safe to have a SO in the seat for take-off or landing in their aircraft, yet apparently it's fine in "just a regional", because they are happy to now use them as a training ground.
Why should the regionals then accept this less safe standard? It has nothing to do with FAM or SOP or any other bullsh!te abbrev. you want to bring out, it is only to do with $.
the point I was making is that mainline don't think it is safe to have a SO in the seat for take-off or landing in their aircraft, yet apparently it's fine in "just a regional", because they are happy to now use them as a training ground.
Why should the regionals then accept this less safe standard? It has nothing to do with FAM or SOP or any other bullsh!te abbrev. you want to bring out, it is only to do with $.
ah the old swh brickwall... you're not addressing my (or b55's) question, you're coming back with fairly irrelevant responses.
swh, if they chose to they could easily include EFATO, etc and then the SO could take-off and land. Mainline don't do this, why? Perhaps the company wants the most able, experienced pilots doing the job. Why shouldn't this be the case for the subsidiaries and regionals?
swh, if they chose to they could easily include EFATO, etc and then the SO could take-off and land. Mainline don't do this, why? Perhaps the company wants the most able, experienced pilots doing the job. Why shouldn't this be the case for the subsidiaries and regionals?
G,
If you or B55 wish to have a rant to me over cadets in EAA/Sunnies/QF please feel free to PM me.
The ones I have been with have been more than capable operators, sociable, and very eager to learn. They know SOP tolerances to the letter, call it when required, they did it as part of their initial cadet training, they know no differant. Something which would be useful for anyone in G.A.
The reason they dont do the same cyclics as captains and f/os is to save on training costs. If time, money, and resources were available I am sure in an ideal world everyone would do the same cyclics, and everyone would have command endorsements.
Bear in mind the "most able, experienced pilots doing the job" may infact be the S/O, QF have hired a number of pilots of late with 5000+ hrs jet, some with considerable jet command, more than a lot of f/0's. However the way the system works in QF, it goes by your QF start date, not experience level to gain promotion (with some exceptions, project pilots etc).
From an outsiders point of view, it seems like you guys are trying build an illusion to say a Q400 requires a test pilot to fly it, most probably to argue for a pay rise. I would suggest that there are better ways to argue for a pay rise than bag other pilots.
If you or B55 wish to have a rant to me over cadets in EAA/Sunnies/QF please feel free to PM me.
The ones I have been with have been more than capable operators, sociable, and very eager to learn. They know SOP tolerances to the letter, call it when required, they did it as part of their initial cadet training, they know no differant. Something which would be useful for anyone in G.A.
The reason they dont do the same cyclics as captains and f/os is to save on training costs. If time, money, and resources were available I am sure in an ideal world everyone would do the same cyclics, and everyone would have command endorsements.
Bear in mind the "most able, experienced pilots doing the job" may infact be the S/O, QF have hired a number of pilots of late with 5000+ hrs jet, some with considerable jet command, more than a lot of f/0's. However the way the system works in QF, it goes by your QF start date, not experience level to gain promotion (with some exceptions, project pilots etc).
From an outsiders point of view, it seems like you guys are trying build an illusion to say a Q400 requires a test pilot to fly it, most probably to argue for a pay rise. I would suggest that there are better ways to argue for a pay rise than bag other pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetAOk - I can assure you at this stage in my life, I do not feel in the least threatened by any cadet that can pass the same checks etc as I do! They still haven't passed their command check
This was not meant to be a comparison of who has done the hardest graft or my climb to the job was any harder than yours. Personally, I couldn't care less HOW they got there, but I do care what they DO when they are in the seat next to me. As for 'warm fuzzy feelings', at my age, I can't afford to waste them on cadets!
Granted there are some very capable cadets who know the SOPS and the calls to the 'T'. I can't argue with that.
It's when things happen that AREN'T in the SOPS, that hasn't been seen in the SIM or cyclics, where problems start to surface! There's little else to draw upon for them when they are in this situation. I suppose that's why the Captain is there, but it sure as $hit helps to have all the VARIED experience you can possibly have up front, when you need it most.
This is not intended to persecute cadets - so please don't take my comments personally. It's not meant to denigrate yours or others TALENT. Talent is a springboard, experience has to be built upon that. It's just the reality that cadets often had not had to face the music on their own, in a reasonably varied environment.
QF once upon a time used to seconde their cadets out to work in GA for a few years before bringing them back for line training. This seems like a good way to get these guys out of their insular world, to fly SP IFR which is some of the most demanding flying there is, to develop a better sense of command judgement and to learn when to pick their fights (as long as it is not subsidised wages wrecking things for other GA pilots).
But what would I know - I'm just an old fart - no match for a young hot-shot who has read all about it in books and manuals - but can pass the same checks as me!!
This was not meant to be a comparison of who has done the hardest graft or my climb to the job was any harder than yours. Personally, I couldn't care less HOW they got there, but I do care what they DO when they are in the seat next to me. As for 'warm fuzzy feelings', at my age, I can't afford to waste them on cadets!
Granted there are some very capable cadets who know the SOPS and the calls to the 'T'. I can't argue with that.
It's when things happen that AREN'T in the SOPS, that hasn't been seen in the SIM or cyclics, where problems start to surface! There's little else to draw upon for them when they are in this situation. I suppose that's why the Captain is there, but it sure as $hit helps to have all the VARIED experience you can possibly have up front, when you need it most.
This is not intended to persecute cadets - so please don't take my comments personally. It's not meant to denigrate yours or others TALENT. Talent is a springboard, experience has to be built upon that. It's just the reality that cadets often had not had to face the music on their own, in a reasonably varied environment.
QF once upon a time used to seconde their cadets out to work in GA for a few years before bringing them back for line training. This seems like a good way to get these guys out of their insular world, to fly SP IFR which is some of the most demanding flying there is, to develop a better sense of command judgement and to learn when to pick their fights (as long as it is not subsidised wages wrecking things for other GA pilots).
But what would I know - I'm just an old fart - no match for a young hot-shot who has read all about it in books and manuals - but can pass the same checks as me!!
swh,
You've got me all wrong, I have no problem with cadets. I have a problem with the double standards shown by management. I can't be bothered rewriting my point again.
and the q400 can't be any harder to fly than flying for the big H
You've got me all wrong, I have no problem with cadets. I have a problem with the double standards shown by management. I can't be bothered rewriting my point again.
and the q400 can't be any harder to fly than flying for the big H
G,
No worries...maybe next time im in siddney we can catch up and have a beer or five.
Whilst it maybe your perception that double standards apply, ie QF not taking on cadets straight from the course, what I have tried to say abouve is this...[list=1][*]The cadet training contract requires them to have some industry ecxperience before going to mainline, normally a 24 month period[*]The length of the industry placement maybe extended or reduced by mutual agreement.[*]Cadets are placed in industry by QF where QF can find positions for them[*]I would not be surprised if some were to take an additional year option up in their industry placement as that flying would be the most fun they will ever have in their career.[*]The industry experience may be in any form, from instructing at BAFTA to F/O on a 717, 146, 727, A320[*]All S/O's are restricted in what they can do in QF, cadet or not. The S/O has a defined role, cruise relief. ALL PILOTS JOINING QF MUST START AS A S/O. They are trained and kept current for only that specific role, regardless even if they were say ex AN, had a command on the 767 with AN, and a S/O on a 767 with QF, they would still have those restrictions.[*]A cadet going into the EAA/Sunnies C&T system and would be spat out as an F/O. They would have to pass all the same technical, simulator, and line training as any other F/O, to the same standard.[*]They might increse the amount of line training for cadets meaning the cadets would be on a training wage for longer. May also put a support f/o in the jump seat for the inital sectors.[*]The military have been putting pilots with only a few hundred hours solo on fast jets for ages, a lot of these guys start off at the academy as cadet officers. I dont see many people complaining about a 21 yr old with a couple of hunderd hours flying around in a F111 at 250ft and 600 kts, or sending them off to the gulf in a F/A 18. Guys in the military on fast jets would be lucky to get 2-400 hrs a year, and not unusual to only have a few thousand hours total in their career with the military as a fast jet driver. [/list=1]
No worries...maybe next time im in siddney we can catch up and have a beer or five.
Whilst it maybe your perception that double standards apply, ie QF not taking on cadets straight from the course, what I have tried to say abouve is this...[list=1][*]The cadet training contract requires them to have some industry ecxperience before going to mainline, normally a 24 month period[*]The length of the industry placement maybe extended or reduced by mutual agreement.[*]Cadets are placed in industry by QF where QF can find positions for them[*]I would not be surprised if some were to take an additional year option up in their industry placement as that flying would be the most fun they will ever have in their career.[*]The industry experience may be in any form, from instructing at BAFTA to F/O on a 717, 146, 727, A320[*]All S/O's are restricted in what they can do in QF, cadet or not. The S/O has a defined role, cruise relief. ALL PILOTS JOINING QF MUST START AS A S/O. They are trained and kept current for only that specific role, regardless even if they were say ex AN, had a command on the 767 with AN, and a S/O on a 767 with QF, they would still have those restrictions.[*]A cadet going into the EAA/Sunnies C&T system and would be spat out as an F/O. They would have to pass all the same technical, simulator, and line training as any other F/O, to the same standard.[*]They might increse the amount of line training for cadets meaning the cadets would be on a training wage for longer. May also put a support f/o in the jump seat for the inital sectors.[*]The military have been putting pilots with only a few hundred hours solo on fast jets for ages, a lot of these guys start off at the academy as cadet officers. I dont see many people complaining about a 21 yr old with a couple of hunderd hours flying around in a F111 at 250ft and 600 kts, or sending them off to the gulf in a F/A 18. Guys in the military on fast jets would be lucky to get 2-400 hrs a year, and not unusual to only have a few thousand hours total in their career with the military as a fast jet driver. [/list=1]
one for one
swh,
one cadet into Qantaslink for one Qantaslink pilot into mainline.
If your interested i'll organise 'my people' to have a talk with 'your people'
.
one cadet into Qantaslink for one Qantaslink pilot into mainline.
If your interested i'll organise 'my people' to have a talk with 'your people'
.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
"....rant..."?! get hold of yourself man.
Everything said is quite irrelevant to the fact of the QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions, then they are not good enough to go straight into the regional F/O position. Qantas has a good reason for that policy. That same reason is just as good for the regionals as well.
"....rant..."?! get hold of yourself man.
Everything said is quite irrelevant to the fact of the QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions, then they are not good enough to go straight into the regional F/O position. Qantas has a good reason for that policy. That same reason is just as good for the regionals as well.
Hoss..
No probs...just get a list together of all the Qlink or previous identity ex-employees that are with mainline, should be get 24 names, use that to get 12 cadets a year into the system, then rotate the cadets out and replace them with cadets.
Simple ... thanks
B55...
Geez them dash must really be heavy work, so much harder work than any other job out there. Good enough to have them as F/O's everywhere else around the country even operating the same type of equipment or three times bigger.
That statement is pure fantasy mate...I will happly retract that statement is you could advise me where is says in a QF policy manual that "QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions".
Remember that other Airline that used to be here...they also have cadets go on as F/Os on F50 or jets. Some of them even operated out of SY.
Hang on they were Ansett cadets...not Qantas cadets....its the Qantas Cadets that are "NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions"...yeah right
Then again a F50 out of SY is heaps easier to fly than a Dhc8 and is a bigger aircraft (over 20t)...
Oh well...at the cadets will get to know what it like being an F/O with Qantas...and you know what its like being a F/O in Qantaslink.
No probs...just get a list together of all the Qlink or previous identity ex-employees that are with mainline, should be get 24 names, use that to get 12 cadets a year into the system, then rotate the cadets out and replace them with cadets.
Simple ... thanks
B55...
Geez them dash must really be heavy work, so much harder work than any other job out there. Good enough to have them as F/O's everywhere else around the country even operating the same type of equipment or three times bigger.
QF cadets are NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions, then they are not good enough to go straight into the regional F/O position. Qantas has a good reason for that policy. That same reason is just as good for the regionals as well.
Remember that other Airline that used to be here...they also have cadets go on as F/Os on F50 or jets. Some of them even operated out of SY.
Hang on they were Ansett cadets...not Qantas cadets....its the Qantas Cadets that are "NOT ready for Qantas to go straight into Q/F F/O positions"...yeah right
Then again a F50 out of SY is heaps easier to fly than a Dhc8 and is a bigger aircraft (over 20t)...
Oh well...at the cadets will get to know what it like being an F/O with Qantas...and you know what its like being a F/O in Qantaslink.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions.... answers please anyone!
1. Anyone know how long progression to Captain would take at Eastern nowdays for someone joining the company in the near future?
2. For someone joining the company in the near future, which aircraft would they be put on initially? -300s perhaps, considering the eventual phasing out of the -100s and -200s? ...or is it all a common type rating and everyone flies all types?
3. Would every pilot be trained on the -400 or would that take forever for newly joined pilot?
2. For someone joining the company in the near future, which aircraft would they be put on initially? -300s perhaps, considering the eventual phasing out of the -100s and -200s? ...or is it all a common type rating and everyone flies all types?
3. Would every pilot be trained on the -400 or would that take forever for newly joined pilot?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all, mind if I join in?
Here at flybe in the UK we've had DHC8-200/300/400 in our fleet at the same time, however the 200s have now gone. We have just ordered another 20 400s so will have a total of 41.
Although the 400 needs a differences course, once completed, flying both types is a frequent occurrence, even on the same day!
The 400 is a fantastic machine with amazing performance. We have them in a 78 seat configuration, and even at MTOW (29,000 kgs) it climbs like the proverbial homesick angel. The aircraft has certainly opened a few eyes in the aviation world over here.
GT-R - 360 kts is the quoted TAS figure. IAS (Vmo) limitations are as follows:
0 - 8000' - 245 kts
10000' - 282 kts
18000' - 286 kts
20000' - 275 kts
25000' - 248 kts
The 0 - 8000' limit is an artificial one based on windscreen certification under birdstrike conditions.
A little tip, amongst many, for those guys who eventually get to fly them - park the windscreen wipers in the vertical position, the flightdeck becomes a whole lot quieter! The usual parked position is horizontal, so consequently flightdeck noise from airflow over the arms is high, blip them up to the vertical and all goes quiet. Unlike smaller versions, the 400 has no speed restriction for wiper operation so you can do it anytime.
I could go on forever with little bits of 400 info, but it'd take me all night.
Here at flybe in the UK we've had DHC8-200/300/400 in our fleet at the same time, however the 200s have now gone. We have just ordered another 20 400s so will have a total of 41.
Although the 400 needs a differences course, once completed, flying both types is a frequent occurrence, even on the same day!
The 400 is a fantastic machine with amazing performance. We have them in a 78 seat configuration, and even at MTOW (29,000 kgs) it climbs like the proverbial homesick angel. The aircraft has certainly opened a few eyes in the aviation world over here.
GT-R - 360 kts is the quoted TAS figure. IAS (Vmo) limitations are as follows:
0 - 8000' - 245 kts
10000' - 282 kts
18000' - 286 kts
20000' - 275 kts
25000' - 248 kts
The 0 - 8000' limit is an artificial one based on windscreen certification under birdstrike conditions.
A little tip, amongst many, for those guys who eventually get to fly them - park the windscreen wipers in the vertical position, the flightdeck becomes a whole lot quieter! The usual parked position is horizontal, so consequently flightdeck noise from airflow over the arms is high, blip them up to the vertical and all goes quiet. Unlike smaller versions, the 400 has no speed restriction for wiper operation so you can do it anytime.
I could go on forever with little bits of 400 info, but it'd take me all night.
Last edited by flybe.com; 2nd Feb 2005 at 15:37.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could go on forever with little bits of 400 info, but it'd take me all night
Hopefully some of our guys will be up your way anyway. Apparently some of the engineers will be visiting you guys for some experience, hopefully some of the drivers get there too.