"121 Cockpit, Schmockpit" Double Standards
08-19-2010, 07:57 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
"121 Cockpit, Schmockpit" Double Standards
I have seen many posts, i.e. "250 hour wonders have no business in a 121 cockpit" et al. Fine, I agree. My point; Why make a distinction between a 135 and 121 cockpit? I know the legislation doesn't mention 135 operations. Nevertheless, the attitude on these boards is that 121 is the be all end all.
Too little too late, but I believe that the legislation should have included any 135 operations in which the PIC is required to have an ATP. After all, there is no difference in real world operations.
These double standards between 135 and 121 makes zero sense. i.e. In 135, one pilot has to wear the O2 above 3-5-0 even with the other pilot in their seat. This came about after the Payne Stewart Lear crash. So the conclusion is that 121 pilots have a higher useful consciousness time?
I guess it is expecting too much to think the government should make sensible decisions.
Rant complete.
Too little too late, but I believe that the legislation should have included any 135 operations in which the PIC is required to have an ATP. After all, there is no difference in real world operations.
These double standards between 135 and 121 makes zero sense. i.e. In 135, one pilot has to wear the O2 above 3-5-0 even with the other pilot in their seat. This came about after the Payne Stewart Lear crash. So the conclusion is that 121 pilots have a higher useful consciousness time?
I guess it is expecting too much to think the government should make sensible decisions.
Rant complete.
08-20-2010, 04:55 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
I am surprised as a pilot you don't understand the reason for that rule and the differences between the aircraft generally used.
The same size hole in a typical 135 aircraft will depressurize the aircraft much faster. Many 135 aircraft to not have the warnings and back up systems for pressurization a 121 aircraft will have. All 121 aircraft have to be certified to descend to 10,000 feet in a minimum amount of time. That is why max cruising altitude is often well below what the aircraft can actually do. 135 aircraft can fly higher.
The same size hole in a typical 135 aircraft will depressurize the aircraft much faster. Many 135 aircraft to not have the warnings and back up systems for pressurization a 121 aircraft will have. All 121 aircraft have to be certified to descend to 10,000 feet in a minimum amount of time. That is why max cruising altitude is often well below what the aircraft can actually do. 135 aircraft can fly higher.
08-20-2010, 04:10 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: In front of my computer
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Zapata
This came about after the Payne Stewart Lear crash. So the conclusion is that 121 pilots have a higher useful consciousness time?
08-20-2010, 04:41 PM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by sailingfun
I am surprised as a pilot you don't understand the reason for that rule and the differences between the aircraft generally used.
The same size hole in a typical 135 aircraft will depressurize the aircraft much faster. Many 135 aircraft to not have the warnings and back up systems for pressurization a 121 aircraft will have. All 121 aircraft have to be certified to descend to 10,000 feet in a minimum amount of time. That is why max cruising altitude is often well below what the aircraft can actually do. 135 aircraft can fly higher.
The same size hole in a typical 135 aircraft will depressurize the aircraft much faster. Many 135 aircraft to not have the warnings and back up systems for pressurization a 121 aircraft will have. All 121 aircraft have to be certified to descend to 10,000 feet in a minimum amount of time. That is why max cruising altitude is often well below what the aircraft can actually do. 135 aircraft can fly higher.
Either leg I can fly up to 45,000 ft. 51,000 ft on the last airplane, same rules.
The holes here seem to be in your argument... and the regs.
08-20-2010, 09:01 PM
#10
Does NOT get weekends off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: ERJ - 145
Posts: 1,631
I think there is a different way to look at it based on your example... as with just about all things aviation (and many things in everyday life too), these rules are written in blood.
2 Inexperienced pilots put a plane down due to improperly handling a stall, 1500 is the new goal.
An explosive decompression occurs at altitude under part 135, those smaller airplanes have more stringent rules regarding oxygen.
It's just a matter of tracing the rule back to the tipping incident. At least that's my take on it. Therefore I wouldn't take it as a slap in the face that 121 is superior in any way to 135 (but they are to 91 it always seems...), it just happens that the catalyzing event was a 121 operation. If anything, one could consider the opposite since no such rules have been made, they may not be needed. Yes a stretch longer than a Limo, but you see my thinking.
But yes, I would agree that you are asking too much for government to make sense.
2 Inexperienced pilots put a plane down due to improperly handling a stall, 1500 is the new goal.
An explosive decompression occurs at altitude under part 135, those smaller airplanes have more stringent rules regarding oxygen.
It's just a matter of tracing the rule back to the tipping incident. At least that's my take on it. Therefore I wouldn't take it as a slap in the face that 121 is superior in any way to 135 (but they are to 91 it always seems...), it just happens that the catalyzing event was a 121 operation. If anything, one could consider the opposite since no such rules have been made, they may not be needed. Yes a stretch longer than a Limo, but you see my thinking.
But yes, I would agree that you are asking too much for government to make sense.
