CCQ @ QLink
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equipment Freeze
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Noosa Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
In any case, here I was thinking....
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???
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???
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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???
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???
Last edited by Friction Nut; 27th Aug 2009 at 21:58. Reason: Quote formatting.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Brisbane
Age: 69
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit more clarity.
..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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Aus
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300 and 400 differences
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
roger r. Pretty much spot on with what you have said.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
