|
Freshwater Louie posted:Agreed. Especially when your autopilot is doing that weird snap roll thing again, and you have to fly through areas of moderate chop, and this will be the third time in a row you will have to MEL the same issue, and the passenger/patient on board is filling the air with the pleasant smell of vomit (which may or may not be related to the moderate chop). Don't forget that all this happens while you're wearing a poopie suit because the patient has TB.
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Get on a live ATC website and listen to a busy ground, tower, and approach freq. Find a callsign and become that guy. First practice at listening for the callsign while you do something like read or play games. Then practice on listening to what your bro daddy says. Then talk over him and say what he will say. Most people that are nervous on radios are because of nerves; it is essentially public speaking. The advice I've always given about radio communications is that it's just like your Current Events class back in 4th grade...use the 5Ws; Who are you, Where are you, What do you want to do, When you want to do it and (if it is nonstandard), Why you want to do it. Also consider adding "How you are going to do it" if you're in an uncontrolled environment or doing something non-standard. On a related note, I did my private license almost exclusively in busy, controlled airspace; I found the first few times flying into uncontrolled airports to be very intimidating.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Sky Regional Q400 just crashed at the Edmonton airport...injuries reported and and the aircraft is substantially damaged. E: Air Canada 8481, Calgary to Grande Prairie; flight diverted to Edmonton. Three passengers transported to hospital with minor injuries. MrChips fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
That seems to be a likely scenario; from what I've been able to piece together, they blew a tire on takeoff and elected to divert to Edmonton. At the time, the crosswinds here in Calgary were very strong - 18 gusting 28 almost straight across the 17/35s, and with 11/29 closed, there was no better runway option either. Additionally, the aircraft was likely to be quite heavy on landing in Edmonton; to my knowledge, they try to tanker as much fuel as possible on their flights up to GP and Fort McMurray, both for cost reasons and to help speed up turnaround. So even with a moderate load factor (haven't heard how many were onboard at this time, but that flight flies more full then empty typically) the aircraft could be quite heavy, which would further complicate things as you mentioned. It is still very early to speculate on the factors involved in this incident and how it all played out, but it does seem to be somewhat straightforward at this time. MrChips fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Freshwater Louie posted:Thanks to tiny frail wires it looks like my Quiet Technologies Halo headset will not last a second Arctic winter. Reading up on ANR headsets it looks like the best bang for your buck is the Lightspeed Zulu.2. Is there anyone who has experience with them in extremely cold weather? With build quality and noise attenuation being my highest priorities is there another headset I should be looking at? The Zulu is a good headset for sure, but I liked my Telex Stratus 50D. Not the most comfortable headset, but it is one of the best performing ANR sets out there plus it's built like a tank. Also if durability is an overriding concern, honestly DC is still a solid choice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:That's where a husky is useful. Spent much of my summer making a fuckload of noise (and not getting anywhere too fast) in a Stearman. Best fun I've ever had in any aircraft ever. Leave the tricycles for the toddlers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Hey guys I've been busy lately I just stopped by to wish you all a Happy New Year and catch u...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:As if that's not enough, my boss just booked me a flight with a client looking for an IFR safety pilot. In his M20R. En route to Canada (Regina I think). Tomorrow. Good stuff. Dress warm because it goes without saying that Regina is colder than an Eskimo's pussy...definitely arctic boots and winter survival kit weather right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Most airliners use a reduced power setting for takeoff most of the time, since it saves a significant amount of wear on the engines, in addition to burning less fuel and being quieter than simply using full power. Like all things, that depends on a lot of factors and indeed the aircraft itself. For a lot of aircraft, yes you will use less fuel on the takeoff roll itself, but if you continue on a derated climb schedule you will burn more fuel by top-of-climb than if you just used a standard climb power setting. That said, the savings in maintenance in this case can more than offset the increase in total fuel burn, because it usually isn't a huge difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
KLIT is real, but I've yet to hear confirmation of the rumours about the existence of GSPOT...some say it's a final approach fix, while others claim it's an initial. WHO KNOWS?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I hate the phrase crash landing. I mean, have some faith in me if I lose the engine(s).  A crash landing is what I do on my couch after a night at the bar...not in an airplane after losing power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Minus Pants posted:Is this on the A&P checklist? Well in fairness to the Nepalese, that particular 757 acquired a reputation of being a hangar queen of the very worst kind. I'm sure our friendly neighbourhood bolt-breakers can think of an aircraft in their past that some sort of animal sacrifice to God, Bernoulli and/or Pratt & Whitney might have done some good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
vessbot posted:You only need one nav to fly a DME arc. You keep updating your position (radial) and flying a heading 90 degrees to it. When you get to a stepdown radial, you step down. Is your nav 1 a HSI or a standard VOR head? Here's a garbagey little trick to flying DME arcs; once you establish on the arc, fly to keep the DME's speed readout at zero knots. Perfectly smooth DME arcs every time. I wouldn't do that on a checkride, but there you go.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:Not related to recent events, but I do have a question... A few of us have firsthand experience working up north...I have a bit, but I know a couple regulars here have several years up there (and I think one guy is up there right now). It's a different experience altogether, that's for sure. Before we get started, here's a book you should read: Bush Pilot With a Briefcase...this book is a biography of Grant McConachie, who was one of the most influential figures in Canadian aviation, going on to found what ultimately became CP Air, and his humble beginnings as a bush pilot up north. Anyways, To start with, you need to realise that basically every community north of Yellowknife relies on air transportation as their only link to the south for some or most of the year, and for the growing number of work camps in that part of the world, air travel is the only way in and out period. You see a lot of varied flying; one day, you could be flying a medevac out of BFE Nunavut, while the next day you're flying back with a load of potato chips and diesel fuel barrels. Aircraft up north tend to be more functional than anything; you won't see any fancy wood, chrome and leather interiors in any aircraft up there, that's for sure. Older aircraft are quite common up there; old King Airs, Twin Otters, lots of singles like Cessna 180s and 206s and the like are commonplace. However, this is starting to change, and you're starting to see larger and more modern types like Dash 8s, ATR-42s and Beech 1900s flying up there now. Speaking of airlines, the vast majority of them are either majority or fully owned by the local First Nations bands. Often this means there is considerable variation in terms of how well the companies are run...much more than what I've found down south. Either way, this means there is now quite a bit of money being put into the airlines up north, hence why there is a big push toward newer and larger aircraft. Actually flying up there is an experience, to say the least. The first thing you need to wrap your head around is the size and the isolation. This also has an effect on how you navigate; before the widespread adoption of GPS, the only way to get around was by NDB airway. When you get to the aerodrome, again often the only approaches are non-precision approaches, either NDB or RNAV (which are becoming quite common these days). ILS approaches are virtually non-existant; hell, paved runways are virtually non-existant too. Another thing about that; in Northern Domestic Airspace (which encompasses most of the area I'm talking about), runways are named by their true heading instead of their magnetic heading, as magnetic compasses are not only unreliable, but also can be highly confusing; nothing like flying due north with your compass pointed on S. On the subject of aerodromes, since they're almost all uncontrolled and often unmonitored, you will almost always fly circling approaches, if only to determine the condition of the runway beforehand. It's a rare day that someone is at the aerodrome to provide a condition report ahead of your arrival. When you get there, you'll also find less division of labour; there just aren't enough people in a lot of these places for a pilot to sit on his or her rear end and let someone else load/unload or refuel their aircraft. On the subject of isolation, that's what gets to you up there. You're so far from just about anything that you might as well be on the Moon; in fact in the winter it feels almost as inhospitable as the Moon. The winters of course are very dark, very cold and very windy, which can be very depressing for some people. The summers are very bright, very stark (blue sky above, grey rocks below and that's about it) with very long days...for me, that was the hardest part, was dealing with a lack of darkness. It can really screw up your sleep patterns. Hope this provides some insight for you. 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
So I need this patch like I need my next breath:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Oops! When I worked for a catering company at jfk, someone at a different company hopped out of their van that was still in gear and was headed for an Emirates A380. One of our drivers managed to run after it and stopped it in time. UAE ended up giving him round trip airfare to Dubai as a thank you. A buddy of mine had the exact opposite happen to him; a 737 ran into him while he was in a catering truck. The aircraft was parked + shut down at the gate and the ground crews were allowed up to the aircraft to start their turnaround. A few minutes later, the aircraft started to roll forward on its own because some bright light didn't chock the wheels properly. My buddy was in a catering truck with the box raised to door level when all of a sudden he felt a crash and the truck started to tilt. He managed to jump into the aircraft with seconds to spare before the truck was knocked over.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Wear a hat. Not only does it keep the sun out of your eyes, but when you bump your head, it generally saves you from scrapes and cuts to the scalp. And when you make it to the airlines, make sure you wear the captain's hat on your walk-around. That way you don't get yours wet, dirty, dented, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:What a joke. Christ that is so Kafkaesque it isn't funny. "Josef K?" "Yes?" "I am Agent Franz. I am informing you of the Agency's decision to hold you accountable for violating a TFR." "But Agent Franz, I looked up your current TFRs before my flight, and kept up-to-date with the real-time TFR information in flight, provided by your agency." "K, the information we provide you is not meant to be used for flight planning purposes. Please report to the court on Sunday for your tribunal."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:but LAST PAGE we had pilots with less than 200 hours collectively saying they always check the notams!? What purpose does this comment serve apart from making you look like a complete rear end? Nobody gives a flying gently caress about how many hours you or anyone else has in their logbook. As far as I and many others are concerned, your logbook is a binary thing. You either fall into the "enough" category, or the "not enough" category.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Inhofe made the comment that pilots who fly a lot disregard notams or simply don't look them up. That's pretty stupid. Actually no, that's completely loving retarded. I get that NOTAMs are so lovely to read, but the onus is still on the PIC to be familiar with them, end of story. Having said that, at a large flight operation, where you would be working with a dispatcher, it's the dispatcher's job to make sure the aircrew has the right information in their hands at the right time. Regarding the Allegiant incident, I will fall back on my favourite safety officer line; "If we're going to play the blame game, there's more than enough to go around here." I think what they need to do is have a priority system with the NOTAMs. If, say, an airport is closed, that is important and should go right at the top of the list of the aerodrome file, probably with an urgent tag like how pireps (remember those?) are categorised UA for normal and UUA for urgent. After that things like airspace changes, procedure amendments and whatnot, then below that are all the NOTAMs for all the rest of the silly and possibly inconsequential poo poo like cranes, unlit towers 80 nm from the nearest airport etc. DNova posted:Enough/Not Enough for a particular job or aircraft or situation or what? That's the great(?) thing about the "enough/not enough" metric; it can apply to any of those situations and more.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:That Inhofe said it, or that it's true? Both.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Another issue is that even if an automaker were to decide "Let's make piston airplane engines!", the investment needed to convert a car engine to work reliably in an airplane would probably never pay itself off, even ignoring the cost of FAA certification. *coughcough*Thielert.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:...And we see how well THAT'S gone off, haven't we? Not only that, but the Ghost of Thielert Past continues to haunt Diamond in the form of Austro Engine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Probably a better comparison would be a marine diesel or gasoline outboard motor, which also runs at 100% of rated power all day long. Those are not significantly expensive, they're mostly just tractor engines with a two stage water coolant system and higher quality lubricants and gaskets. We ran my buddy's marine diesel in his sailboat for two days straight coming back from Corpus Christi to Houston last year (try refueling a boat while underway in 6 foot choppy seas using a Jerry can) Marine engines are also unsuitable for aircraft. I can't think of an engine type more unreliable than an outboard motor and while I will concede that their operators beat the living poo poo out of them most of the time, you'll find that your average outboard motor is really only good for a few hundred hours of operation at most before they're completely trashed. As for marine diesels, they tend to have very low power density (power per unit of mass) - lower than any on-road application and certainly lower than any aircraft engine; a good part of this reason is, apart from the fact that most diesel engines use extremely heavy cast iron engine blocks, the issue of the cooling system. As we all know, weight and drag are absolutely critical in aircraft design, and a totally liquid-cooled engine suffers in both of those areas compared to a straight air-cooled engine. The radiator, hoses, valves, tanks and even the coolant itself adds weight and takes away precious payload, to say nothing of the additional drag needed to fit a properly-sized radiator. For all that piston aircraft engines get poo poo on constantly, their power density is almost unrivaled among reciprocating engines that aren't designed for racing purposes. As for converted automobile engines, the problems run much deeper than just the cooling system. High-load operation puts incredible strain on the entire engine but specifically on valve springs, camshafts, connecting rod bearings, wrist pins, piston skirts and rings. All of these parts would need to be specially made for the conversion engine, as they don't really exist in the automotive world. The issue of cooling comes up again; not for the liquid cooling circuit but for the oil and the parts it is responsible for cooling, such as the entire array of reciprocating and rotating parts in an engine. This means you would need to increase engine oil capacity (heavy and possibly very draggy) add all kinds of specialised and/or heavy duty parts like piston squirters, high-volume oil pumps, probably some sort of scavenge system from the cylinder head(s) and likely a very large oil cooler, as this engine would put enormous thermal stress on the engine oil. Vibration is another serious issue, especially with diesel engines. Almost every automotive engine relies on a flywheel to dampen out the pulsating forces generated by the individual combustion events each rotation as well as keeping the engine turning between these events. While a propeller is an effective solution for the latter, it actually causes more problems than solutions for the former issue; more often than not, the propeller accentuates these vibrations, which is very hard on the engine, the engine mounting structure and the operator alike. But the single largest obstacle for automotive conversions, where just about everybody has gone wrong, is the reduction gearbox. Automobile engines typically produce maximum horsepower at 5500-7000 RPM, which is far too high for any propeller to be driven directly off the crankshaft. Therefore a (heavy, complicated, failure-prone, thermally-sensitive) reduction gearbox is needed to turn the propeller at it's optimum RPM, which for most general aviation aircraft is in the 2500 RPM range. Additionally, certification requirements these days require some sort of disconnect mechanism between the propeller and the gearbox to minimise damage in the event the propeller suddenly decides it's done turning for the day (usually with the help of the ground). All of these issues, combined with the vibration issue I mentioned before, have proven to be nothing short of a daunting challenge for any prospective engine builder. As yet, nobody's really figured out a way to create a gearbox large enough to absorb the 300-350 bhp of the engine, the vibrations associated and have it be just as cheap reliable, cheap and lightweight as a direct-drive engine - this is where both Thielert and Austro have fallen flat on their faces, in fact; their gearboxes and disconnects have very short lives, and in the case of the Thielert engine, necessitated a time before replacement rating (not a time between overhauls) for the entire powerplant unit. Just reiterating what's been said already; in order for them to be successful, aircraft engines need to be designed and built specifically for the purpose...anything else is just too compromised. The problem is that the market for such an engine is so small (maybe only a couple thousand units per year at best) that it's just not worth pursuing. MrChips fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Wasn't the RR300/RR500 supposed to be a replacement for midrange piston engines? I've seen a few centurions and the like with those conversions installed. Sort of; they're both derivatives of the Allison/Rolls 250, with the RR300 being much simpler than either the RR500 or the original 250, while the RR500 is basically just the 250 modernised. Both engines were intended primarily for helicopter use, but there have been a few conversions here and there in fixed-wing aircraft. The problem with turbine engines is that they really don't scale well, both in terms of cost and in efficiency. A small turbine engine will always be far more expensive and far less efficient than a piston engine of comparable power output, and the laws of physics dictate that it will likely never change...Reynolds numbers are a bitch.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:How do you prove someone's not a doctor? A common sense test? No Bonanza owners allowed. And no I would rather gouge my own eyes out with the claw end of a hammer than start an internet community for anything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
My guess is it's the same reason why that happens in literally every other aircraft ever; a bad or out of range microswitch.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Our favourite youtuber has struck again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoZE0nE60sk The guard police clip 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:I can't figure him out. Does some politician (looking at Schumer given their work together) have their arm up his rear end using him as a puppet because "They'll never listen to me, they hate politicians. But they'll listen to him!" in terms of trying to keep this going? Does he have his own political end game he's trying to push through (I once saw on another forum the suggestion he's trying to kill scope)? Pay/lifestyle/benefits definitely need to go up (if that's it), but it hasn't seemed to have worked if that's what he's swinging for (see the $50 Amazon Gift Card for an interview). I don't think he really cares about safety in as much as it goes beyond the typical senior captain "gently caress you, got mine" attitude. As far as I can tell, that's basically the only thing that motivates him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:Looks like the current plan is to have EIGHT north/south runways and FOUR east/west runways. The next runway scheduled to be built is another east/west runway Good lord, and at that point they expect to be handling 150 million passengers a year too, I imagine...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:That office view has to be very validating at times! It is in a way, but that validation doesn't put food on the table or get me home in my bed every night.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
While I admit that I've never read Pro Pilot World, I can say without any doubt that this thread has the best posting by professional pilots compared to, well, everywhere else. And as bad as APC is, it's nothing compared to PPRuNe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Just about every country in the world with a MU-2 fleet has adopted the type rating/SFAR guidelines.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:Don't worry, I'm sure the man you paid $200 to stick his fingers in your butt was a real doctor. Probably. Well it's kind of hard to say...I mean the doctor put one hand on each shoulder, then jammed his big, fat thumb into wait a second
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Since Emirates is the only airline buying A380's, I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus offered them a substantial discount on their 2013 and 2016 orders to keep the production line open, and I can't imagine that the government owners of Emirates didn't put some kind of clause in those contracts that lets them bail out of the orders if they need to. Emirates is also leaning very hard on Airbus to take the engines from the upcoming A330neo and hang them on the A380, making, you guessed it, the A380neo. Airbus is stuck in a pretty hard spot in this regard; Emirates is by far their biggest customer for the A380, and they are dangling the prospect of ordering a full fleet replacement (and then some) in front of Airbus, so the pressure is on to meet their best customer's demands. At the same time the A380 has been nothing short of a financial disaster for Airbus, who would rather continue trucking along as-is without having to drop another few billion euros on a project that very nearly brought the organisation to its knees a few years back. As for the 747, I don't know how long Boeing is going to keep the project alive...it wouldn't surprise me if they shut the order book by the end of this year. The freight market has been moribund for years now, and on top of that there is a very large pool of 747-400s being retired (or soon to be retired) from passenger service, which means there is a big pool of likely freighter conversions just waiting for a customer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:After speaking with both the instructor I went up with last Monday and my wife just speaking with her boss a few minutes ago, who retired as an Air Canada captain 2 months ago, I'm most likely going to go commercial. Joven you're being sold a load of goods, I'm sorry. Flight schools have always sold their commercial programs the same way; "hey bro the pilot shortage is coming you should get in on this RIGHT NOW". The reality is that they are trying to generate business by playing on your hopes and desires. As for the hourly requirements, well, SCOTLAND nailed it earlier; you're not getting into the Westjet/Air Canada pipeline unless you've got 1500, no ifs, ands or buts. This is of course after you spend a year or two on the ground scrabbling away in a non-flying job earning barely more than minimum wage, and a couple of years or more building the time you need to get to that 1500. You can bypass some of this by instructing, but be warned that some companies look at you like a leper if you've ever instructed. All I'm trying to say is, buyer beware. The conditions here in Canada have not changed as much as one would like to hope they have over the last decade or so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Actually this isn't a load of bull being fed to me by my flight school, it's stuff I'm hearing from people that have nothing to gain financially by me getting my CPL. People like that instructor I flew with out in Saskatoon because I had an afternoon with nothing to do. She said her boyfriend is already been in the right seat for one of the operators out there (Not WJE or Jazz I think one step lower) for a while and he got in at something like 350 hours. Also my wife's boss (Retired AC) and a few other people I've spoken with. I stand by everything I have said in my previous post. No offense Joven but right now you are at that point in your flying development where you are very high in confidence and low in judgement - I mean, you have soloed literally two weeks ago. This not only can affect your decision-making process in the airplane, but also literally everything you do surrounding aviation as well. You have said already that you have a successful career - how much money and for how long are you willing to work for substantially less than you are right now? I'm going to lay it out for you in no uncertain terms:  For the first four to five years of your flying career in Canada, you need to be prepared to work more than full-time hours for no more than $30,000 per year.More importantly, if you're married, how much of that is your wife willing to forego? Is she willing to put off moving into a nicer house, or having a family? Because if the answer is anything less than ten years (which is about how long it takes to start making a decent living in this business), going into commercial aviation will likely to be the worst decision you will ever make. How much do you value your relationships with your friends and family? Because if you go into commercial aviation, I guarantee you that a good number of those relationships will end, and the fun thing is there's no telling which ones will survive and which ones won't. Don't listen too hard to the old-timers like your wife's boss - their career paths were dramatically different to the one you will likely face, and yours will almost certainly be infinitely harder than theirs. Back in the 70s when a lot of these soon-to-be retirees started out, it was entirely possible to go straight from the flight school and straight into a Boeing 737 at one of the little provincial airlines that used to exist. That is little more than a pipe dream today.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is Calgary's airport really expensive to land at or something? None of the new ultra-low-cost carriers want to serve it, it would seem. Yes. Calgary has some of the highest landing fees of any airport in Canada and by extension the world. Also, I am seriously laughing at probably half of Jetlines' proposed destinations. I give them about a 5% chance of surviving their first five years; same with Newleaf really.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Hmm, I wonder why? Simple supply and demand, or something else? I'm at the very least surprised no one's trying Red Deer to try and pick up some ultra-low-cost folks from Calgary -- it's roughly the same distance as Frankfurt/Hahn is from Frankfurt itself, and that doesn't seem to be hurting Ryanair. That'll happen at about a quarter to never. I mean let's put it this way; Edmontonians are willing to drive 300 kilometres to catch flights in Calgary, bypassing their own airport along the way. Why would they stop in Red Deer? Connectivity is everything in this business. PT6A posted:Haha, Mount Royal always used to use beautiful Cut Bank, MT as the cross-border destination. Or Great Falls. Not like that was much of an improvement... Arcland posted:EvilJoven has been one of the more passionate pilots I have seen (read) in a while. For someone like him it might be worth making the sacrifice for the initial terrible life of being a professional pilot. Considering he is in his mid-thirties (I assume) and would be leaving what I am assuming is a good career, it would be the stupidest thing he or anyone in his position could ever do. I don't think you grasp just how bad an idea it truly is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Desi posted:So I'm throwing around the idea of staying a Flight Instructor a bit longer than I have to and getting the Pilot Examiner (or DPE as you yanks call 'em) certification before making a break for the airlines. Basically, the school I work for cranks out a serious percentage of the Multi and IFR ratings issued in Canada every year and our staff examiner is looking to retire, and its looking like he will be replaced by a handful of on-call examiners - I could likely get the company to sponsor me and fulfill the 'need' requirement. I already meet (or almost meet) most of the other requirements pertaining to my training record and such except for the hours (2000TT/1500PIC/500MPIC), I was hoping to make a run at the airlines before Winter but if I want to give this a go I'd need to stick around and up my PIC/MPIC through to the Spring as it'd be years before I start logging MPIC at the airlines. I'd likely seek authority for Multi and IFR rides, and if I could pick up the PPL/CPL authority with it that would just be gravy. Getting your DFTE is a highly political process. Better get sucking up to your local Transport Canada office in a hurry.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 01:44
|
|