|
Originally Posted by Karloffstall
(Post 2379224)
"Don't mind flying the CRJ"....
Lastly, remember, people still step into a 175 and say "ugh its a small plane." |
Originally Posted by Duesenflieger
(Post 2379782)
450knots hit the nail on the head why the ERJ should not be one's first jet. I started out flying 60s turboprops and old corporate jet for 135.... even the CRJ is highly automated to me, it's so automated let alone the 175.
Now, we young folks get to go from a 172 straight to a 175....the 175 is only 3 more than a 172, so its almost the same thing. See? And people thought congress would screw this whole thing up. The rule seems to be working fine to me! |
Originally Posted by WheresHomeAgain
(Post 2379843)
Come on. The 1500 hour rule has made us much safer....in the dark days before the rule lots of pilots went from a 172 to a BE1900 to build experience before going to a jet....a BE 1900 is 1729 more than a 172, so very dangerous.
Now, we young folks get to go from a 172 straight to a 175....the 175 is only 3 more than a 172, so its almost the same thing. See? And people thought congress would screw this whole thing up. The rule seems to be working fine to me! (Filler) |
Originally Posted by WheresHomeAgain
(Post 2379843)
Come on. The 1500 hour rule has made us much safer....in the dark days before the rule lots of pilots went from a 172 to a BE1900 to build experience before going to a jet....a BE 1900 is 1729 more than a 172, so very dangerous.
Now, we young folks get to go from a 172 straight to a 175....the 175 is only 3 more than a 172, so its almost the same thing. See? And people thought congress would screw this whole thing up. The rule seems to be working fine to me! |
So you're saying it's a downgrade to go from a C-150 to a C-130?
|
Originally Posted by WheresHomeAgain
(Post 2379843)
Come on. The 1500 hour rule has made us much safer....in the dark days before the rule lots of pilots went from a 172 to a BE1900 to build experience before going to a jet....a BE 1900 is 1729 more than a 172, so very dangerous.
Now, we young folks get to go from a 172 straight to a 175....the 175 is only 3 more than a 172, so its almost the same thing. See? And people thought congress would screw this whole thing up. The rule seems to be working fine to me! The market, not congress. |
Lol I love that this is what you took exception with about his post.
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2379857)
So you're saying it's a downgrade to go from a C-150 to a C-130?
Point is, seems a little odd to go from a Cessna to an airliner. The system where you work up to it seemed a little more reasonable. Believe me, im not complaining. Works out great for us....lots of huge negatives for others....but great for us... |
Originally Posted by WheresHomeAgain
(Post 2379946)
I once told a guy "Oh, you fly a King Air? Thats a C90....I fly a C152...thats 62 more than yours...."
|
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 2379857)
So you're saying it's a downgrade to go from a C-150 to a C-130?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:21 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands