AWAC Hiring Spring 2010
 

Their site says that they are accepting Pilot resumes in 'anticipation of potential' hiring in early spring 2010.

Hang on.......have the management and the union come to an agreement on the United flying?

Or

Is this 'extra' flying on the US Airways side?

This false, and will end similar to how the TSA recalls ended.

It is going to be extra flying taken from PSA and given to AWAC because they like to start both engines for the 45 min sits.
THE MORE YOU KNOW...........

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT FUEL IS A MINISCULE COST COMPARED TO THAT OF TURBINE JET ENGINE MAINTENANCE!!!

It is understandabl!

How many are still F'd over there at Whisky? Its says 22 on here, but that hasn't changed in a while.

It would be if they were even paying the bill. But it is the same number of cycles if they start one then wait to start the other or if they start them both at the same time.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...enginedata.jpg

Cycles matter MUCH less than temperatures...

I must not be understanding your statment. How does running a turbine engine at idle create less heat than having it off all together?

What exactly does that chart depict?

Don't count on anything happening any time soon; we just offered TOWOP (Time off without pay) for Jan.

boiler where did you get that chart?

I can't speak for current practice, but when I was at AWAC they didn't SE taxi because of the stress SE taxi put on the running engine (large throttle inputs to get moving which results in large temp changes), to include the infamous "coking". What crews did do was shut both engines down whenever there was a long delay, which would require cranking both up, pulling forward 100 feet in line, and shutting them both down.

If the delay wasn't very long or there'd be quite a bit of movement in the line, it was easier to leave them both turning than constantly doing shut down & restart procedures.

That, combined with a large percentage of FLX takeoffs, FLX climbs to 10,000ft, and generally treating the engines as if they're freaking gold have provided the data for the chart above (which is derived from data collected by GE).

I do suspect that if AWAC was on the hook for every drop of fuel burned that they'd investigate SE taxi more...but they're not so they work to control costs they ARE responsible for (maintenance). I also don't doubt for a second beancounters of the same ilk as those who crunched the figures for AWAC know exactly how much fuel an AWAC flight burns on a particular segment vs. PSA and that those increased costs will play a role in any additional flying that MIGHT MAYBE POSSIBLY SOME TIME be given to AWAC.

Another thing AWAC has in its favor that PSA doesn't is the ability to finance new planes if necessary...Airways would likely rather spend their funds on mainline planes that generate more revenue than new planes for PSA/PDT.

But hey, I'm no accountant and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and PSA was always awesome to me when I jumpseated so hopefully there isn't any "hate" on the part of the average PSA/PDT crew toward AWAC pilots who have been forced to eat from the same schize sandwich.

I am not sure about past practice of SE taxi at AWAC. BUT it doesn't take much throttle to move even a weighted down 200 even on one engine. SE taxi combined with only starting the other when your number 4 in line or less puts some stress getting the job done on the FO but not much else. There have only been a few time when I actually shut them both down after leaving the gate.

I bet you this is anticipation for the new regulations that should go in effect about that time. Would love to get on there. Thats my $.02

I've seen reversers cracked on light planes (mx flights etc.) but with a full boat on the 200 try going up a hill on one engine. The guys in ATL know what I'm talking about.

AWAC also teaches limited use on T/R to save the engines.

I came to AWAC from ASA and went through basic indoc with mostly Indy Air folks. There was almost a riot when the instructor told all those old Indy guys that AWAC didn't use T/R on landing most of the time.

Argue all you want about the benefits but AWAC won't budge and has the highest mean time between failure as depicted in the graph.

I've been on leave for about 1.5 years but I think there was also a move to limit brake wear as well since I left.

Yeah there is the brake wear and thrust reverser initiatives. Basically if they have it there way we'll be using nothing but aerodynamic braking landing 26 in PHL with a 9 knot tailwind and 50 people in the back.

When I was at AWAC many people misunderstood the T/R policy. I even had a captain yell at me for using T/Rs while landing on 26 in PHL. I had to pull the manual out to show him what it said. Basically idle reverse was recommended on dry runways greater than 6000' - subject to captains discression. In other words, if the runway was wet, or less than 6000 feet (such as 26 in PHL) full use of reverse thrust was in fact recommended. If you read the policy, it was perfectly reasonable. Too many guys just heard from someone that you were not supposed to use reverse and they'd get all up in arms and bent out of shape.

I understand the stress that T/R's put on engines but sometimes it's not practical to use just the brakes. High volume airports are not going to like you missing high speeds and using all 10,000' of runway when there are 10 aircraft behind you on final

I was being sarcastic by the way. I still use reverse whenever I feel like I need to, and I've never had a captain say anything to me. As long as they're stowed by 60 knots I don't see a problem with it even on dry runways over 6000'.

Noted, atta boy! There is nothing worse than getting in an a/c after a crew swap and having to wait for the BTMS

I think it is a bit early for them to worry about that. The proposed rule making notice isn't even on the horizon

We are short staffed..as usual. From the looks of it, basically the company realized we are a little bit too short after this past summers flying. The hiring will be in anticipation of increased summer flying, and dependent on how many furloughs come back. Nothing huge, 20-30 pilots. Also to cover some small attrition.

I would wonder how many apps that they have recieved in the last 24 hours. I wouldnt want to have to sort through them all

I know I had three different people call me within the first day they posted it...I bet it's blowing up.

Stowed below 60? How about at idle...is what the book says ;)

As of this morning, 70 per the Manager of Pilot Training.

I spoke to HR on a friend's behalf this morning and apparently no numbers have been finalized, as we still have the guys on furlough to bring back.

Although, the Head of Training seems to think it'll be about 30. In which case the only way you'll get an interview is if you have someone walk in your resume.

30ish new hires seems like a lot just to cover attrition and increased summer flying, especially with people on furlough. Could some of this be in anticipation of MESA liquidating in March, or the new FAA duty regs?

Couldn't it be different for Air Wisconsin?

I know on some aircraft it's 60 knots to prevent ingesting FOD.

CRJ reverse
 

I always thought this was kind of weird regarding CRJ thrust reverse:

While riding as a pax, I'd always notice that reverse would never occur until the aircraft was almost as slow as 80 kts or even slower. It just seemed like a long time between main gear touchdown and hearing the engines going into reverse, at which point we're practically stopped. The reverse would last maybe 3 seconds. It almost seemed a waste, since I could feel the aircraft slowing before reverse was even activated. What gives? Just curious because on most jets I've flown, specifically the 75/76, I get reverse thrust going before the nosewheel even touches down. Greatly reduces stopping distance. Can this be done on the CRJ? Thanks for your replies.

73

I always thought it was weird that you have to arm the reversers on the CRJ's. On the ERJ you have them when you touch down, same on the DC9 although the DC9 is slightly older technology! ;)

Johnso, do you guys over at NWA (oops I mean DL lol) have that limitation where you can't crack the buckets until the nosewheel is down? That was a biggie on the Mad Dog here at AA b/c you could drag the clamshells on the runway if the nose was too high. Same case on the -9?

73

We do not, but a limitation was just recently changed and I think it is to line up with the DAL Mad Dog procedures.

If the runway is NOT contaminated we can deploy them before the nosewheel touches down, but have to wait for the nosewheel to touch in order to spool them.

If the runway IS contaminated we must wait until the nosewheel is down before we can deploy them.

My guess is it has to do with how the clamshells can hinder the aerodynamic effectiveness of the rudder. I don't know if DAL has the same limitation as AA on their Mad Dogs, as they are much longer then even a DC-9-50.

Nope,

We've been about 10-20 CA's short for about 2 years now.

The new FAA duty regs won't come into effect until after the NPRM process and that will be at least 6-12 months from now, according to the 3 Feds I've taken to PIT from DCA this week.

30 isn't really a lot because we've been beating the cr@p out of the RSV's for at least the last 18 months.

I doubt this anything to do with MESA.

I don't have the book in front of me, but from memory I believe it's begin stowing them at the 80 knots call, and have them stowed by 60 for AWAC. If that's not exactly it, it's something similar and I usually stow them by 80 anyway.

Yeah that's a CRJ200 issue. The reversers use bleed air instead of hydraulics so once we pull the levers it takes a few seconds for the air to deploy the reverser. It's a pain and renders them all but useless since like you said they can only be used for a few seconds. Bombardier fixed the 700/900 and made their reversers hydraulic.

air wisconsin policy on the crj200 is no reverser use until the nose wheel is down. something about differential thrust and heading into the grass.

On the crj, we still have them available with weight on wheels at touchdown. They just need to be armed prior in order for them to be activated. In flight, they are disarmed or "off" I guess to avoid an uncommanded deployment. However, they are not armed to auto-deploy like spoilers.

At Mesaba, its pretty much the same thing...idle reverse by 80kts and stowed by 60. I don't think this is a fod issue as it would be pretty difficult to ingest anything on the ground into an engine thats at least 10 feet off the ground.