ccarter06

Man! We really hijacked this thread, didn't we? :-D

Are you referring to Pacific Air flight 182 in 1978? That Cessna was in contact with a controller. His last instruction was to "maintain VFR at or below 3500 feet, heading 070." The plane was 90 degrees off course at the time the 727 collided with it. Both aircraft were in contact with controllers. How does that help your arguement that planes shouldn't be flying around not in contact with controllers? I think we all agree we should follow controller instructions (unless there is a major "safet of flight" reason not to). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

In the US, the first planes we fly don't have TCAS. We are taught to see and avoid first. We teach our students to stop staring at the gauges and look outside. Sounds like another deficiency in your training to me. That's the reason we attempt to keep the windshields free of bug-guts too... a small speck of guts looks like a plane, and bothers us for the entire flight. For pilots who are trained to actually look for other aircraft instead of relying on technology (that can fail... you know electrical problems, and all) to do the work for them, see and avoid does tend to work. It's nice to have all that fancy technology, but there is no better piece of safety equipment in a plane than a well trained pilot. I do not remember the words "are we clear of that Cessna yet?" I've never said that, and I don't know where else you think I would've heard that from. I forgot to add... We do have airways out in the middle of no-where down to 3500 feet. Please explain to me what an airliner would be doing traveling along that airway that low? I'm not saying an airliner couldn't do it, but there really aren't too many good reasons to do it. Making that Cessna stay in contact with a controller is an unnecessary burden.

Like I said, we don't have an overly-restricted, overly-burdening system. Pilots must in communication with ATC in certain high volume places. Airways the US are controlled airspace, that does not mean a pilot must be in contact with ATC. And there is no immediate need for a pilot on a victor airway out in the middle of Nebraska at 3500 feet to be talking to a controller. In the United States we expect pilots to look OUTSIDE the cockpit with the plane is in VMC. It's called "See and Avoid." If an airliner is on an airway in the US, it should be made aware of that VFR traffic. The airliner should be in radar contact with the controller the entire time, which means the controller should also see any conflicting traffic for the airliner. Florida is a state that does EXTENSIVE flight training throughout the state. There are planes EVERYWHERE, and the controllers know it. Most of the arrivals and departures are routed to avoid the areas of heaviest training. In the United States it's first come first served. Airliners are not supposed to get preferrence over non-airline traffic, IFR traffic is not supposed to get preferrence over VFR traffic. Everyone has the same right to use the airspace, and controllers have the wonderful job of seperating that traffic based on the many rules and proceedures. If that A330 got too close to another aircraft in a radar enviroment (which Sanford FL is), the controller might have dropped the ball. By the way, you have any videos of this flight that won't cost be $33.95 USD to watch? We operate under whatever rule is more restrictive. Oddly enough - in all but a very few instances - our FAA rules are more restrictive, so we operate under those rules. If I'm in Canada, and a Canadian or ICAO rule is more restrictive, I follow that rule. Your company's operating certificate is not what we're talking about here.

Where a plane is registered indicates the basic airworthiness directives it must meet. Where the plane is currently located in the world dictates what rules it is flying under. ICAO is an international set of rules that allow pilots to operate in many countries without having to alter the company proceedures too much when moving from one country to the next. In order to do that, the company's proceedures have to conform to the relevant ICAO rules. If an N-registered plane is flying in Europe, it is subject to flying under European rules and/or ICAO rules. If a European registered plane is flying in the US, it is subject to flying under US rules and/or ICAO rules. Please cite an example, with reference. Until then, I do not believe you. That is because they were flying under the supervision of the FAA, and the FAA required it. They may have a waiver for that requirement now, but that waiver was signed into effect by the FAA. The only way you would've have to take an FAA exam is if you were applying for a license under FAA rules. You can do whatever flying you want in the US, but the instructors and the school still had to conform to some FAA rules in order to operate a flight school inside the US.

I need to back up and point out a glaring problem I've found in your position, DLH_FRA... You state that the US airspace system is flawed because your pilots get more TCAS RA's here. By that logic the European system is flawed in the eyes of US Airways pilots because they get more traffic management issues there. But you are saying it's the US pilots' fault for not undestanding the European system... by that logic it is your pilots' fault for getting more TCAS RA's because your pilots don't understand the US system. You seem to be heavily biased to your rules and your way of flying. That's fine, but you do need to be aware of it.

I gotta tell you DLH_FRA, flying an airplane is flying an airplane. If someone is finding it too difficult to adapt to flying under a different set of guidelines/proceedures, that person probably has some fundamental flying issues. Whether FAA to ICAO, or vice-versa. Procedures might vary from one region of the world to the next, but none of it should be outside the realm of a capable pilot. I would disagree with the US Airways pilot, for what it's worth. If your company is having more TCAS RA's here than elsewhere, it might point to a fundamental training deficiency in the area of US operations. If you received flight training in the US, you received it under the supervision of the FAA. That training and school had to meet Part 61 or Part 141 basic requirements. You may not have received training based on US required hours, or required areas of instruction, but the school operated (and taught you) under one or both of those sets of rules at least at a core level. The difficulty in explaining this to you is what is making it appear as though you may have misunderstood the US Airways pilot, and that your company's TCAS woes might be related to your company's training. There is a vast world of aviation outside the ab initio program you participated in. I am in NO WAY saying you didn't receive good training for the job you're expected to do, but it is far from likely that you received a thorough education in the many realms of flying (even if only from an academic standpoint). By the way... where an aircraft is registered has nothing to do with the training you received.

Am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that because some airports in the US use right-hand traffic patterns for some runways, it will be difficult for a US pilot to fly elsewhere in the world?

DLH_FRA, scandinavian 13 is correct that if you were flying an actual airplane inside the borders of the United States, and you were not flying under Part 121 or 135, you were flying in the "GA" category under the supervision of the FAA, within the US airspace system. The training system you are describing is ab initio. I have taught those programs to many students for foreign carriers. Any of the training you conducted here was approved by the FAA (again, your plane and it's pilots/occupants were under the supervision of the FAA - it is the only governing body of the US airspace system). In all likelihood, it was done under Part 141 rules. Ab initio programs train very specific material in a very specific way. The information you were given about the US portion of your training was likely VERY tailored because most of the underlying information would've been irrelevant to the goal of training you to fly in Europe. With that being said, it means that your understanding of the US airspace system and it's regulations is also HIGHLY tailored to the training you received. The system works pretty well. We don't put planes together too often, and we have kept that record without enacting user fees, or creating an overly-rigid over-controlled airpace system.

Sounds like you have quite a bit of experience in the US... at major hubs. You may have thousands of hours on IFR flightplans in controlled airspace, but I'm guessing that isn't the case when examining your experience in the US VFR (controlled/uncontrolled airspace) world. At the end of the day, any country can have as many rules and controllers as they like. There are no rails in the sky, so all the formalities are only as good as pilots who operated under them. The US has plenty of safety precautions without overburdening the system or the user. (Remember, we don't have user fees like Europe does either... which is why so many European pilots get their initial training in the US.) In 5 years of flying aircraft with TCAS on board them, I've had 2 TCAS RAs... both in the same week. One in ATL Class B controlled airspace, the other over the Hudson river north of NYC descending into White Plains (KHPN) - again controlled airspace. Light, large, heavy, and super aircraft are all kept seperated reasonably well. As for FAA/ATC action against pilots... any action they take is serious to the pilot. A "light" action is something like having a mark on your certificate for a year. From there it only gets worse... permanent marks (these change insurance rates), temporary and permanent certificate revocation, fines. Generally speaking, there's no "we just want to talk" action.

I was mistaken... it's Eva Air I was thinking of. They do a KATL-PANC cargo route. It varies between 747 and MD-11.

And then there was that awkward day on arrival into KATL when an approach controller said "Funny, your 250 seems a lot faster than everyone else's today." Crazy localized tailwinds!

I'd love to see the SDK for the MD-11. Re-texturing, and eye-caddy is nice, but bring the FS2Crew experience up to the NGX level is at the top of my list. I know the general public probably doesn't see them all that often, but there are ALWAYS 2 or 3 sitting on the ramp in KATL (OAJ, Omni, UPS... I think I've seen some Fedex, and Air Lingus birds as well) which is as many 747's or 777's I see on the ramp at a given time there too. I also fly through Memphis a fair bit, and it seems like someone there has a few of them lying around as well. I love the way the 747 looks, but even after v2 of the 747 I think I'll still favor flying the MD-11. To me, it's more unique than the 747 because the cockpit is not a Boeing cockpit.

My understanding is that this is already taking effect. I believe that there is a July 2013 deadline for all current FO's at US airlines to have an ATP. I know my company and several others are scrambling to come up with a training protocol and get approved by the FAA. My company has already drawn a line in the sand about hiring anyone else that doesn't either have an ATP, or have all the prereq. hours. It is WIDELY speculated that this move on the part of the FAA will greatly hinder recruitment abilities at many airlines. Who knows, maybe we will finally reach that perfect storm for the pilot shortage. I know I could use a raise! :-) As for you getting in to the industry: The aviation schools (UND, Embry-Riddle, FlightSafety) are all VERY busy coming up with ways to conitnue producing pilots. There are stipulations that will allow some schools to confer ATP ratings with less than normal prereq hours, but those programs have yet to be approved. US airlines are also looking at Ab Initio programs (many other airlines use this kind of training). There's always getting your hours through the armed services, too. If I had it to do over again, that's the route I probably would've gone.

Well said!

Many US airlines pay by the hour, but it's credit hour not block hour. On top of this, there is a guaranteed minimum number of hours that will be paid. Block hours - amount of time the airplane is away from the gate. The clock starts at brake release with the door closed, and ends with brake set and door open. Credit hours - block hours and various 'credits' based on the length of the duty, minimum daily pay, etc. At my airline, we get a minimum pay of 75 hours a month. No one makes less than that unless the voluntarily drop an assignment. We also get paid no less than 3.9 hours each day that we work. So if I only block 2 hours for the day, I still get credited (paid) 3.9 hours for the day. This forces the company to use the pilots. I don't put my uniform on for less than 3.9 hours of pay, and the company doesn't want to pay me if I'm not flying, so I rarely fly less than 3.9 hours each day that I work. We also have duty day credits. We get paid 1 minute for each 2 minutes we work, up to 12 hours. After that it's 1 minute of pay for each 1 minute we work. If this credit is higher than the number of hours worked, we get this credit pay for the day instead (it's not on top of the block hours/min day). This credit keep the company from having us do 1 quick leg in the morning, sit all day, and then do 1 quick leg at the end of the day. The number of hours paid is multiplied by the employee's hourly rate, and that's what he gets paid for the month. This is a regional airline. I'm a First Officer on 5th year pay, which is $42.88/hour. So at a minimum, I make 75 hours times $42.88 per hour, which equals $3216 per month ($38,592 per year)before taxes and benefits, and that doesn't include per diem pay. I can make a considerable amount more than that depending on schedule, though. Reserve pilots basically only make mimimum guarantee, while pilots with lines (set schedule for the month) can make up to about 40% more. This is just at one airline, and is one example of contract pay. Every airline is different, but the majority of US airlines have similar pay structures. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to wallow in depression for a little while now that I've spent time looking at what I make again.

Read carefully... I wasn't talking about credit hours verses block hours, or pay protection, or guarantee. I simply stated that our per diem is paid once a month as part of the paycheck, whereas he stated that they are getting paid each night at the overnight. We are talking about being paid at different times, not pay protections. As for pay protections, and guarantee... I wouldn't consider Ryanair's contract to be standard. It certainly isn't how any airline is paying in the US. Ryanair has about 1300 pilots (according to a March 2010 estimate - it's all I have to go on at the moment), ALPA represents more 57,000 pilots in the US. We have pay protections, and guaranteed minimum pay. We don't work for nothing, and we aren't letting management effect our ability to pay bills to the extreme that Ryanair pilots allow. In the US being a full time employee comes with the expectation of making a full time wage.

I don't know what they are putting in the kool-aid over at SkyWest, but on the EV side that 1000hr/year is a hard number. There's no "typically" about it. Also... our per diem is a reimbursement given on our mid-month paycheck for the previous month. I can't see them trying to handle giving everyone whatever their specific amount should be for the day each night at the hotel, what about crewmembers who do daylines? When do they get paid per diem at Skywest? As for a typical day... that varies GREATLY from one pilot to another at a given airline, and from one airline to another. It's all dependant on the contract the pilots have with management. I just got done with a 2-day trip. I flew 3 legs each day, and had a 9 hr 17 minute overnight. Sometimes we have long overnights, sometimes we have VERY short overnights (8 hours minimum until January 2013).

Andalusi,I really like your list of commands and the first page of your checklist!I can't wait to see the rest of it!

I thought this was a feature. RW FOs sometimes have trouble figuring out what in the world the CA just asked for too. :-)

I have the Logitech MX Anywhere mouse (wireless) that I use with my laptop on the road (no for simming), and the Logitech G500 Gaming mouse (wired) for my simming rig. Both have some great features.

It's been annoying at times for me as well. My mouse has a "hyper scroll" wheel, which means I can make it spin freely (no stopping at notches). By setting it like that (a button on the mouse toggles it on and off), I can spin that wheel and the baro changes fairly rapidly. It's a work around that might work for you for now.

I'm on FSX, and the MD-11 is by far my favorite addon! I own the NGX(6/7/8/9). The NGX is very nice, and I fly it a lot too, but the MD-11 is my favorite. I would be right there to buy the voice control FS2Crew if it were integrated with an SDK. Even on my currently tight budget, there's room for that upgrade.

If everything is working correctly moving the landing gear lever to the up position will not retract the gear. RW, that's just not a bet any pilot is willing to make. That would be a career-ender.When I first started flying retractable gear aircraft, my instructor gave me one piece of advice: "You can mess up any manuever in the book. You'll know it, I'll know, and we'll work on it. You forget to put the gear down before landing and by lunch everyone in the world will know it, and you'll never get rid of your new nickname: sparky."

Could be a small field attached to an aircraft bone-yard, or some other random "non-routine" mission. Besides this is FS... there's still always "just for the fun of it." :-)Every year there's a 747 parked in Lexington Kentucky for the Kentucky Derby. The Saudis use it to bring their horses over. That runway's a little longer, but not long enough for them to get back out with enough fuel to go home. They have to stop and get more fuel somewhere with a nice long runway before leaving the US. There's always some random mission.