Great Lakes' Part 135 plan
07-11-2013, 05:55 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Dejavu
I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9
I haven't seen too many -228s around but I knew that they flew them for a short amount of time.
07-11-2013, 06:04 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 278
Another issue is whether or not the passengers have rights to know what kind of air carrier/operation they are flying with before they purchase a ticket. For instance, they purchase a ticket from Denver to Rock Springs thinking it is to be operated under FAR 121 regulations but when they board it is now under 135 regulations (a lesser standard). Granted, passengers probably don't know the difference but it has the potential to open up a can of of legal worms.
07-11-2013, 06:12 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 597
Not that I hold any vested interest in this but I do think this a very cleaver idea. Lets admit it, these new ATP rules are a joke (and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them). So I applaud GLA for actually thinking of ways around these dumb new rules.
I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.
I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.
07-11-2013, 07:11 AM
#24
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: GLG20
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Captain Tony
What's old is new again. GLA operated 135 back in the 90s before the FAA forced them to go 121. Except I don't remember the 1900s limited to 9 people. Regardless, I don't see the FAA approving this scheme any time soon, but I give them points for creativity, lol.
Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.
Maybe they should being the Beech 99s back? I think a few are still sitting around in SPW.
07-11-2013, 09:29 AM
#25
Underpaid...
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: French-Canadian
Posts: 2,101
Originally Posted by NCR757dxr
Not that I hold any vested interest in this but I do think this a very cleaver idea. Lets admit it, these new ATP rules are a joke (and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them). So I applaud GLA for actually thinking of ways around these dumb new rules.
I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.
I would assume the DOT will make GLA differentiate between 121 and 135 legs to the passengers, just like they do for Express carriers now.
07-11-2013, 09:46 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by TBucket
yeah, I see keeping 250 hour wonders out of airliner cockpits as a good thing.
I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore
Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so narrow-minded in their thinking.
07-11-2013, 09:51 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by NCR757dxr
It is b/c they think reaching "some" number is going to make you safer. But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school. They didn't go after the real issue; instead they came up with these arbitrary numbers to make the general public feel better.
I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore
Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so linear in their thinking.
I could go on but I'm just to tired to flight it anymore
Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so linear in their thinking.
If we are going to pick on numbers - then ANY number you come up with would have the same problems.
Any type of experience could be questioned.
Any written test generated invalid.
It is easy to figure out WHY they gave credit for certain schooling.
It is generally thought that a structed training environment is considered.....well....more structured and therefore of higher quality. Is that always the case - no, but I bet it is true in a majority if the bell curve.
I'd rather keep it ALL at 1500TT, but that is just my opinion too.
(and if you don't think so, you either have the blinders on or actually benefit from them).
07-11-2013, 09:54 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Just because the MEL says we can, doesn't mean we should
Posts: 324
FAA: We don't think you're safe unless you have 1500 hours and an ATP.
GLA: OK, we will change 121 to 135
FAA: Great! Carry on...
Public: What do you mean this isn't United or Frontier? I bought a ticket from them, not Great Lakes?!?!
Voss: HAHAHAHA...$$$$$$$$$$$
GLA: OK, we will change 121 to 135
FAA: Great! Carry on...
Public: What do you mean this isn't United or Frontier? I bought a ticket from them, not Great Lakes?!?!
Voss: HAHAHAHA...$$$$$$$$$$$
07-11-2013, 11:24 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by NCR757dxr
But then they reduce the hours by 500 if you go to a joke of a 141 school anyway.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
