sonicblue website

Viking · Post by **Viking** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:11 pm

Anybody read the http://www.sonicblueair.com website recently? Looks like they want to stay in business to ".....preserve the livelihoods of its nearly 60 employees." Smells like some more BS.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:07 pm

Errrrrrr........

“
So far the investigation has discovered that a part of the turbine wheel in the engine showed signs of fatigue failure. This part was deep in the engine and would not have been part of Sonicblue's maintenance responsibilities.
“

Ok so I have to admit im still living in the land of crankshafts and lifters; BUT didn’t regency have an AMO? Now Im not a PRM or nothing, but It seems to me that if our shop missed a cracked rod they would still be responsible...
Clarification anyone?

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:11 pm

Overhaul would have been done by standard aero. Sonicboom would not have been that deep inside the engine. There is no maintenance that they would have been allowed to do on the CT (compressor turbine) discs.

That's not to say that there aren't some other maintenance issues that they should go down for.

Go Guns · Post by **Go Guns** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:16 pm

preserve the livelihoods of its nearly 60 employees

The one paystub that a Sonic driver shared with me would hardly provide any sort of livelyhood. In fact, now that they have time to work more hours at their part - time jobs, their "livelyhood" is probably better off.

That being said, it wasn't so long ago I had my wings clipped by a layoff notice, and I hope those guys and gals and up in the air again (with another company) soon.

Cheers

737 Mech · Post by **737 Mech** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:42 pm

marktheone wrote:Overhaul would have been done by standard aero. Sonicboom would not have been that deep inside the engine. There is no maintenance that they would have been allowed to do on the CT (compressor turbine) discs.

That's not to say that there aren't some other maintenance issues that they should go down for.

Actually there is a requirement to Boroscope that area at time interval...1500 I think, as well as the turbine nozzle

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:05 pm

And, actually they would have been allowed to remove and reinstall this disc, if it was the CT or the PT as a line replaceable item..

scabber · Post by **scabber** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:02 am

They would have had to boroscope or replace the engine if it was overtemped and or over torqued due to icing over the mountains....huuuummmmmm

Would Regency like to replace a well baked 200 hour old PT6? haha not likely!

Not saying it was baked, but, standard aero will have video tapes of the boroscopes and xrays of the parts of all engines it sends out.

Its not like Standard Aero is a Regency. Nice try.

Why doesnt every turboprop operator in canada have standard aero PT6 engines blowing up all over the place?

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:31 am

Good Points Scabber, One Question how long back would that Engine monitoring thing they pulled off the engine record back to? I wouldnt put much trust behind any paper work coming out of the sonics Maintenance department.

If someone did over temp that engine, I highly doubt they would report it to there boss. Could you imagin you just traded your car in for a PPC and overtemp the engine. Hell they put Ed on the Weekend schedual for trying to bring up safety issue's, if you over temp the new engine youd be out the door.

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:18 am

No matter what, its still premature to comment on the cause and who was at fault. And that goes for SonicBlue. They really shouldn't be posting stuff that points the finger at ANYBODY at this early point in the investigation.

748 ho · Post by **748 ho** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:50 am

MEN!!!!!!!!!! HOW can you be an employee when you work for free and pay for your ppc???????????

Come work for me give me 5k and you can clean come clean my pad for as long as you like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bunch of pusseys waahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

classiv · Post by **classiv** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:57 am

748,

Why are you so upset about Regency?

Their 5 Grand PPC program is nothing compared to what else is out there.

I just read some stuff on PPRUNE about what the Europeans are doing to get jobs.

They are spending way over $100,000 to buy build up time on jets, buy type ratings on 737s and A320s, you name it, just to get a job. The kicker is a lot of them do this and they still can't get jobs.

Imagine you've just sunk in excess of $150,000 buying your 500 hours on a 737s, buying the type rating, getting your frozen ATPL, and no job! Sh*t!!!

The US, though not as bad, has a similar program like Eaglejet where you can spend all sorts of money paying to be a FO on anything from a Navajo to a 767.

Seriously, in terms of the larger picture, Regecy's 5 Grand "you pay you fly" program isn't that bad compared to what's going on in Europe and elsewhere.

Ralliart · Post by **Ralliart** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:27 pm

ClassIV,

There should no excuse, and no justification for those who pay for work, and work for free. Period.

My 2 Jiao (about 0.03 cents)

classiv · Post by **classiv** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:22 pm

Ralliart,

The topic has been done to death, and I generally agree with what you're saying.

My point was that compared to what else is going on out there, Regency/Sonic is still pretty tame.

I showed my wife the EagleJet website and explained how pilots pay big money to work for free.

She said pilots are "insane"... couldn't agree more.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:50 pm

I hate to bring this up again but what is the big deal about buying a PPC? I've not done it and didn't have to but I did pay for my CPL and MEIFR. I would be unemployable without those 2 licenses just as I am unemployable without a PPC on an emplyers airplane. I don't think companies should make money selling PPC's but they have to break even on it. I'm sure this will bring fire and brimstone to this thread. Have at 'er.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:05 pm

If someone wanted to give me 5k for a ppc I'd take it.

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:03 pm

But would you hire them just because they spent the $$, and even more importantly, would you spend a couple years sitting beside them?

The way I see it, the problem with the practice is that it's a slippery slope. The practice results in allowing those with cash to get jobs, and those without to get lost. You will lose a lot of . Yeagers because they didn't have thick enough wallets, and a lot of folks who really have no business in the front of an airliner sitting there simply because they had dosh. Believe me, I know life isn't fair, and I understand the economics and pressure associated with the practice, but something about it just reeks.

classiv · Post by **classiv** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:45 pm

What about the guy whose Dad or family relative gets him in the door?

I've seen it a lot... It makes a world of difference if your Dad is a somebody in aviation.

Is Nepotism fair? Is it fair that some guys just happen to be born to the right people?

The idea that people are bad pilots because they paid for their own training is absurd, pure and simple.

Suppose . Yeager went out and bought a PPC for whatever reason, would that make him a bad pilot on the spot?

Life isn't fair. Aviation certainly isn't fair. Accept it.

If you have any edge, whether it be financial or whatever, you'd better exploit it or be left behind.

I hate it too, but that's the way it is.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:00 pm

The transferable PPC is another poorly thought out requirement foisted on aviation by idiots in TC with no idea of the subject they are supposed to be overseeing.

Can you imagine these idiots running their own business.

Cat

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:29 am

Nope, nepotism isn't fair either. It's a reality, but we don't have to like it, and we REALLY don't have to like it when the 748HOs of the world go around throwing it in the face of every honest, hard working schmuck out there who wasn't fortunate enough to be born into the right family, but has the motivation and commitment to get there anyways, or at least try.

Nowhere did I say that buying your training makes you a lousy pilot. What I did say was that lousy pilots with money will get farther than a lousy pilot without money, and possibly at the expense of a great pilot who doesn't have scads of cash to buy their way through. You're right, not fair but once again the reality.

I know of at least one kid whose father was Ops Man for a major corporate/medevac operation on the coast. Rather than take the opportunity that was available to him, this kid took it upon himself to create his own path, worked through at least two bottom-feeder operations (dad scared $hitless for the boy, and begging him to come over to a nice, safe job), before finally getting to where we all hope to be some day. This screams ethics and morals to me louder than anything else, and I have the utmost respect for this kid because he took the reality and said 'screw it', this is not right. Stephen, wherever you are today

Cat may be onto something with this idea of the non-transferrable PPC. It would do more to help out at the bottom of this industry than anything else I've seen posted. Hell, get rid of the PPC completely.

classiv · Post by **classiv** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:32 am

Rather than take the opportunity that was available to him, this kid took it upon himself to create his own path, worked through at least two bottom-feeder operations (dad scared $hitless for the boy, and begging him to come over to a nice, safe job), before finally getting to where we all hope to be some day. This screams ethics and morals to me louder than anything else, and I have the utmost respect for this kid because he took the reality and said 'screw it', this is not right.

How is what the kid did ethical or moral? Based on what your saying the kid sounds masochistic and silly by needlessly putting his life at risk when he could have gone to work for a good company. That's bizarre decision making if ever there was one.

It's been said a thousand times before, if you want to stop the insanity, restrict the supply of commercial pilots entering the industry. But since that's never going to happen, doing away with the PPC system would be the next best thing.

Also, do away with the Candian license outright and go the JAR or FAA route.

It's absurd that we should have to pay some TC inspector a huge chunk of change to renew our IFR for a few hours work. In this US you don't need to do this.

All that is is a make work project for TC inspectors.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:21 pm

Why is restricting the number of CPLs never going to happen? Many other professions (engineers, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, etc.) have self-regulating professional associatioins that one must be a member of in order to legally practice said profession. I can only speak for the engineers because that's what I know, but their professional association demands (among other things) that members "uphold the principles of appropriate and adequate compensation". Note that it is NOT a union, and overall it mostly serves regulate its own members in order to protect the public, but they also recognize that protecting their own members to some degree is neccesary to serve that end.

Why couldn't flying have a professional association? I.e. a self-regulating body in which membership is required to commercially fly. I don't mean this in a way that adds more red tape to pilot's lives (we all know there's already enough) but in a way where some of TC's current responsibilities would be shifted to a separate professional association run by pilots. The basic elements are already there (independant certification required before one can practice, a profession that requires a high degree of public trust, etc...). So why don't pilots have a professional association? I don't know. I partly suspect that its due to a lot of people who talk the talk but aren't prepared to walk the walk and actually work to better the industry. I hope someday that changes.

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:20 pm

Also, do away with the Candian license outright and go the JAR or FAA route.

Your Joking right! Ill take the Canadian Licence over JAR or FAA one anyday.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:41 pm

. wrote: Your Joking right! Ill take the Canadian Licence over JAR or FAA one anyday.

Yeah, cause a JAR sets you back an extra 30k.

Farking ICAO, that's all.. Screw JAR FAA TC and what have you.. Just a bloody Universal License good for everywhere and everything, but yeah, bureaucrats would get their panties into a knot over that....

classiv · Post by **classiv** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:17 pm

So why don't pilots have a professional association? I don't know. I partly suspect that its due to a lot of people who talk the talk but aren't prepared to walk the walk and actually work to better the industry. I hope someday that changes.

1. Piloting isn't a profession in the technical sense. It's considered to be a skilled trade.

2. You'd be upsetting too many applecarts if you tried to bring the supply of pilots down to more reasonable levels. Not only would you have to have a lot of expertise in this area to pull it off, which most pilots don't have, you'd also have to be willing to sacrifice your career as lobby groups like ATAC that represents owners and management go into something akin to 'union busting' mode.

Besides, if you try to control the supply of pilots, that means you're going to have to tell a lot of people that they can't pursue their CPL.

How do you decide who is in and who is out?