Why is EZY not using 'medium' (WTC) accord. JAR definition?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is EZY not using 'medium' (WTC) accord. JAR definition?
Does anybody know why EZY is requiring 'medium' time according the UK definition of WTC e.g. > 40 tons opposed to the JAR/ICAO definition of 'medium' wake turbulence category?
Some of the >40 ton a/c are older, slower, have to fly lower and are much less well equipped while having much less high tech navigation equip. than some <40 tons (airline ops. aircraft naturally). Compare a B737-200/Bae 146-100 vs. EMB145/175 (edited 30.7.06) as a classic example.
Some of the >40 ton a/c are older, slower, have to fly lower and are much less well equipped while having much less high tech navigation equip. than some <40 tons (airline ops. aircraft naturally). Compare a B737-200/Bae 146-100 vs. EMB145/175 (edited 30.7.06) as a classic example.
Last edited by Aslan; 30th Jul 2006 at 18:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Doug the Head,
My mistake.
It should have read the 'E175' & not the 'E190'. I have edited the orginal text accordingly.
JAR/ICAO define medium (WTC) aircraft as having MTOW >7 tons & <136 tons (metric).
Thanks
My mistake.
It should have read the 'E175' & not the 'E190'. I have edited the orginal text accordingly.
JAR/ICAO define medium (WTC) aircraft as having MTOW >7 tons & <136 tons (metric).
Thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gary Lager,
I've got no gripes about whether or not EZY are in the position to do it or not. That is an employer's prerogative to stipulate minimum conditions that they desire/require.
I'm just curious why and don't want to hassle a busy recruitment office about the matter.
By the way, I don't fly the Embraer. It does though provide probably the newest/best example of new generation aircraft <40 tons (non 'medium' aircraft acc. UK definition).
cheers
I've got no gripes about whether or not EZY are in the position to do it or not. That is an employer's prerogative to stipulate minimum conditions that they desire/require.
I'm just curious why and don't want to hassle a busy recruitment office about the matter.
By the way, I don't fly the Embraer. It does though provide probably the newest/best example of new generation aircraft <40 tons (non 'medium' aircraft acc. UK definition).
cheers
But of course, if you fly a BAe 146, which is over 40 tonnes, it doesn't matter because CTC (who seem to call the shots!) don't regard it as a jet.
I've got 3000 hours 40 Tonne 'jet' in my logbook!
I've got 3000 hours 40 Tonne 'jet' in my logbook!
