CCQ @ QLink
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!
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragun
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!
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!
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
Cheers guys, sorry for getting on my high horse so early. I'm blown away by this!
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
Cheers guys, sorry for getting on my high horse so early. I'm blown away by this!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragun
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oz
Age: 63
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Brisbane
Age: 69
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to have a CCQ or not (cross crewing qualification) or cost cutting questionable?
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?
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?
Last edited by harrowing; 17th Aug 2009 at 07:15. Reason: PS added
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Back in Oz
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.