Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Other (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/other/)
-   -   Great Lakes' Part 135 plan (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/other/75898-great-lakes-part-135-plan.html)

pete2800 07-11-2013 11:51 AM


Originally Posted by NCR757dxr (Post 1442981)
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.

Everyone in the airline profession benefits from the new rules.

LarryDavid 07-11-2013 11:57 AM


Originally Posted by NCR757dxr (Post 1443112)
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 anyway. 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 :rolleyes:

Everyone who simply looks at the hour aspect as the fix is so narrow-minded in their thinking.

The biggest joke was making current FOs get their ATP rating. First of all the check ride was not even a real check ride, they pretty much spoon fed the FOs at my airline. Boy I sure feel so much safer now that the FOs I have been flying with for years have an ATP rating. It is a miracle we didn't crash before they went through the paperwork and got an ATP.

Cubdriver 07-11-2013 12:03 PM

FAA may not think much of doing an overnight swap of 121 for 135 at GLA, but the truth remains it is a slippery swap aimed at saving GLA money, at the direct expense of airline safety. Safety is both the appearance of safety as well as the spirit and practice of safety. Regional airline safety is a hot button topic since Colgan 3407. GLA apparently wants to do a simple rule swap to circumvent 121 safety rules which were put there for a reason. I doubt they will get much traction with the FAA due to the current political environment and their 135 certificate will be denied. I am really not arguing whether it is a substantial difference in safety, as GLA has always tapped the least experienced pilots and they would simply do the same (if allowed to) under 135 rules. On the personal side, I feel this is a slippery maneuver to circumvent safety in favor of making a buck, and it is also a direct attempt to circumvent the will of the Congress. Again, it is not the safety I am concerned about as much as the attitude and lack of care about appearances GLA shows here.

rickair7777 07-11-2013 12:06 PM


Originally Posted by Dejavu (Post 1442861)
I flew the do228 part 135 we had 19 pax I don't under stand why limit is 9


Back in the day. That changed when almost all scheduled 135 was rolled into 121.

rickair7777 07-11-2013 12:13 PM


Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1443116)
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.

That sounds good on paper, but the real reason for the extra credit is that the big aviation schools lobbied for it.

Military got included because their programs are obviously structured as well, and the aviation schools could not justify excluding them. they would have preferred to exclude military, so as to solidify their monopoly as being the only fast-path to a 121 cockpit.


Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1443116)
I'd rather keep it ALL at 1500TT, but that is just my opinion too.

Me too. I'd keep the mil exemption but that's it.

BenS 07-11-2013 12:14 PM


Originally Posted by 680crewchief (Post 1443118)
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...

This is what I've wondered about the whole thing.. is the FAA really going to enjoy hearing the only reason lakes is getting a 135 is to circumvent new safety rules, and the FAA is just supposed to smile and nod?

But does getting this open the floodgates to pilot applications? I just cannot see people knocking down the door for a 135 operation and a 3 year $17,500 training contract.

rickair7777 07-11-2013 12:18 PM


Originally Posted by Cubdriver (Post 1443209)
FAA may not think much of doing an overnight swap of 121 for 135 at GLA, but the truth remains it is a slippery swap aimed at saving GLA money, at the direct expense of airline safety. Safety is both the appearance of safety as well as the spirit and practice of safety. Regional airline safety is a hot button topic since Colgan 3407. GLA apparently wants to do a simple rule swap to circumvent 121 safety rules which were put there for a reason. I doubt they will get much traction with the FAA due to the current political environment and their 135 certificate will be denied. I am really not arguing whether it is a substantial difference in safety, as GLA has always tapped the least experienced pilots and they would simply do the same (if allowed to) under 135 rules. On the personal side, I feel this is a slippery maneuver to circumvent safety in favor of making a buck, and it is also a direct attempt to circumvent the will of the Congress. Again, it is not the safety I am concerned about as much as the attitude and lack of care about appearances GLA shows here.

If they are allowed to do this it would, to a degree, defeat the spirit of the new rules and circumvent the possible increase in safety.

I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.

M20EPilot 07-11-2013 12:22 PM

If GLA pulls it off.... it is a genius move if you think about it. If not, something has to give.

But WRT circumventing rules, it won't be the first time: GLA already operates part 121 using less-restrictive part-135 rest rules. The Colgan incident was also a catalyst to improve things fatigue-wise, yet GLA already has an 'out'.

I don't think any of this is right, but it is the way it is.

hypoxia 07-11-2013 12:30 PM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 1443219)
If they are allowed to do this it would, to a degree, defeat the spirit of the new rules and circumvent the possible increase in safety.

I hope they don't get away with it, but I suspect they will because the FAA can't discriminate against GLA while allowing all those operators up in Alaska to keep providing their vital services under the same provisions.

Does the Captain need an ATP for 135 scheduled operations? My understanding is a Captain operating under 135 IFR needs 1200 TT? Heck for that matter, GLA can hire Captains or F/O's that are over age 65 for the 135 side! Beats being a greeter!

I can just read the help wanted ads. GLA hiring retired greeters to be an on call First Officer. Who said this was a young man's game? Of course if you keel over before your contract to pay back training costs lapse, we'll go after your estate!

pagey 07-11-2013 01:13 PM


Originally Posted by hypoxia (Post 1443230)
Does the Captain need an ATP for 135 scheduled operations?


Yes....with pax


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:41 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands