Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

1500 hour FO mins

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:23 PM
  #61  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Bottom Line Folks...all the debate here is worthless.

However...right now we have a very rare opportunity. 2000, 2500, or 3000 hours is not an option. But an ATP/1500 hour requirement is actually a possibility, and you can have a say in it.

Congress is considering doing exactly that right now...write your senators and representative, tell them you are an airline pilot, and that it is a safety issue. Enough public feedback can sway their opinion on things like this.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:38 PM
  #62  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
09/11/01 NEW YORK CITY, NY UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 767-200
09/11/01 ARLINGTON, VA AMERICAN AIRLINES BOEING 757-200
09/11/01 SHANKSVILLE, PA UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 757
11/12/01 BELLE HARBOR, NY AMERICAN AIRLINES AIRBUS INDUSTRIE A300-600
01/08/03 CHARLOTTE, NC US AIRWAYS EXPRESS Beech 1900

Took you up on the offer, above is the cut and paste I got from here;

NTSB - Accidents Involving Passenger Fatalities - U.S. Airlines (Part 121)
Scroll up; already answered, and it doesn't change the facts does it?
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:42 PM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
Knowing the difference between you're and your is above the guy.
I read your post, reread my post, and then determined you're correct.
the speed typing occasionaly results in typos. I'll often end up with a "ign" instead of an "ing" ending on words too. Just doing to many other things at the same time I guess. Oh well, carry on.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:42 PM
  #64  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Default

Originally Posted by Mason32
Scroll up; already answered, and it doesn't change the facts does it?
Nope, but you got the edit in your post before the forum software tagged it as such.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:47 PM
  #65  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
Nope, but you got the edit in [b]your[/B} post before the forum software tagged it as such.

Sorry, Wrong again. I did not edit the post, and it still shows the poor cut and paste job I did. I explained how it happened in a subsequent posting; but since you missed it... when I backed up the "37" fatalities I backed up too far and wiped out the "57" in 757 leaving it as 737. In any event, the link for the reference was provided and the typo does NOT change the fact that it supported my statement does it.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:49 PM
  #66  
NightIP's Avatar
Tuk er jerbs!
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
From: B747 Left
Default

Originally Posted by Mason32
Sorry, Wrong again. I did not edit the post, and it still shows the poor cut and paste job I did. I explained how it happened in a subsequent posting; however for your edification: when I backed up the "37" fatalities I backed up too far and wiped out the "57" in 757 leaving it as 737. In any event, the link for the reference was provided and the typo does NOT change the fact that it supported my statement does it.
I find it overly convenient that you've failed to respond to my last post showing differing results (all 121 fatalities vs. simply passenger fatalities). Mine is a much better metric.

Here it is again.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 04:55 PM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Default

Originally Posted by Mason32
Sorry, Wrong again. I did not edit the post, and it still shows the poor cut and paste job I did. I explained how it happened in a subsequent posting; but since you missed it... when I backed up the "37" fatalities I backed up too far and wiped out the "57" in 757 leaving it as 737. In any event, the link for the reference was provided and the typo does NOT change the fact that it supported my statement does it.
Not going to get into a peeing contest with you over it, but here is the original;

Originally Posted by Mason32
I cut and pasted.... the link is right above, be my guest.
Originally Posted by NightIP
I find it overly convenient that you've failed to respond to my last post showing differing results (all 121 fatalities vs. simply passenger fatalities). Mine is a much better metric.

Here it is again.
Didn't address fact that two of those accidents didn't have anything to do with the cockpit crew either.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 05:02 PM
  #68  
NightIP's Avatar
Tuk er jerbs!
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
From: B747 Left
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
Didn't address fact that two of those accidents didn't have anything to do with the cockpit crew either.
Or that CAL miraculously isn't on the list after that crew lost control of the jet on takeoff.

The point is this: Anyone can screw the pooch. It's not just regional guys. To call that fact is plain ignorant. Even more ignorant is the idea that regional pilots are a bunch of 300 hour wonders these days. Even the most junior guys have 3+ years on property at many regionals.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 05:09 PM
  #69  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
Default

Originally Posted by NightIP
I find it overly convenient that you've failed to respond to my last post showing differing results (all 121 fatalities vs. simply passenger fatalities). Mine is a much better metric.

Here it is again.

I did in the other thread. I'm not going to play the cross posting game. Didn't realize I was arguing with the same person. No reason to say the same things to the same person twice...

oh, and if you READ those accidents, and then search it ONLY by fatals and read those accidents, you will see a vastly different picture.
Reply
Old 09-20-2009 | 05:14 PM
  #70  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
Not going to get into a peeing contest with you over it, but here is the original;

I cut and pasted the page I was copying and posting to APC... not my original post. GO back and look at them again. The original typo is still there, you can be as obtuse as you want, the facts are there for ANYBODY to see for themselves.

Oh, and only taking a partial sentence out of context to try and make your point just weakens your arguement to anybody taking the time to read the actual posts.

Originally Posted by dojetdriver
Didn't address fact that two of those accidents didn't have anything to do with the cockpit crew either.
I wasn't talking about all accidents, there are hundreds every year where the crew did nothing wrong... most of the time it's injuries due to severe turbulence... that does not change the fact that the most recent fatal accidents have ALL been regionals. Argue all you want, facts are facts.
I am not talking about ground crews that walked into running jet engines either... so, when you look at the lists, take the time to read the summary.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
buffmike80
Major
57
09-23-2009 07:04 AM
colinflyin
Regional
48
09-12-2009 10:21 AM
n287hg
Regional
69
05-30-2009 01:36 PM
jetguy
Flight Schools and Training
5
08-13-2008 05:38 AM
TheOak
Fractional
7
08-03-2008 12:31 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices