Caravan FO?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
corporate joe
- Rank 8
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:18 am
- Location: the coast
Human beings makes mistakes, and most accidents stem from human factors. Having 2 pilots should in theory add an extra blanket of security.
The 3 most important things to remember when you're old:
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
1) Never pass an opportunity to use a washroom
2) Never waste a hard on
3) Never trust a fart
John Mayer
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Crazymax, I'd sure like to know what you base your statement on? "It's just safer...."
I know you're military. And you guys use a crew of five to dock a Twin Otter on floats, but how do you figure a Caravan with two crew is "safer"? Many FO's through out history have allowed their Captains to kill them. I'd far rather fly (granted, I'm not a 2500 hour wonder) a 'van by myself rather than "babysit".....they can get that elsewhere.
I know you're military. And you guys use a crew of five to dock a Twin Otter on floats, but how do you figure a Caravan with two crew is "safer"? Many FO's through out history have allowed their Captains to kill them. I'd far rather fly (granted, I'm not a 2500 hour wonder) a 'van by myself rather than "babysit".....they can get that elsewhere.
Doc, as some said earlier, people screw up. It's in our nature. Isn't that why 80% of the accidents/indicents are human related??? It will always happen. In the cockpit, it's always nice to have a second pair of eyes and more importantly a second brain to check over your work. During high workload situations, it's really easy to missed something of just do something wrong. Having someone to look over and tell you "Hey, you set the wrong radial on the HSI" has the potential so save yourself from an accident. I really don't see anything wrong with having more people in the cockpit if the company is willing to pay that second person (instead of having this guy on the ramp) Not to mention that it is a great learning experience for the FO (Yes, one of the duties of the Capt is to teach the less experienced FO) Overall, it makes better pilots in the industry IMHO.
Max
Max
-
co-joe
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4709
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
When two pilots work together effectively in the cockpit (or at the bar) their workload is less. That goes for swamping health food into northern communities, paperwork, and the actual stick and rudder aspect of the job.
If I were to fly a van I'd prefer to do it two crew, but then I have 2000 hours in a 2 crew environment. If your time is all single pilot maybe you'd be safer if you stayed alone. To fly 2 crew effectively you need SOP's that are written for 2 pilot ops, and your training should be geared towards 2 pilot ops.
To answer the original question, maybe they just want to legally fly more than 8 hours in a day, so the co-joe is required by law.
If I were to fly a van I'd prefer to do it two crew, but then I have 2000 hours in a 2 crew environment. If your time is all single pilot maybe you'd be safer if you stayed alone. To fly 2 crew effectively you need SOP's that are written for 2 pilot ops, and your training should be geared towards 2 pilot ops.
To answer the original question, maybe they just want to legally fly more than 8 hours in a day, so the co-joe is required by law.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
There is no denying a two crew operation is safer if the crew work together in a structured manner and use proper proceedures.
...We have been using this method ever since I started flying big airplanes over forty years ago.
It never ceases to amaze me that something as basic as proper crew co-operation is looked at as something new..." To fly 2 crew effectively you need SOP's that are written for 2 pilot ops, and your training should be geared towards 2 pilot ops. "
...We have been using this method ever since I started flying big airplanes over forty years ago.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Let's say I bought a Caravan (so I had complete control over my ops).
Something that has NOT been mentioned here so far is a good, functional, full-featured autopilot. Believe it or not, there are some transport category aircraft that have FD but no auto-pilot - they are flown 2 crew all the time, with paying pax in the back. Any idea which I'm talking about?
So I've got a "good" autopilot. Next thing I want is a G530 in the panel. It has a wonderful database and moving map, and I can program it to drive the autopilot.
This means that most of the time, I won't have to hand-fly the Caravan - I can spend my time doing approach briefs, etc.
It's a Caravan, so let's not talk about ice.
Another piece of safety equipment I'd like to have would be Stormscope. Yes, it has errors, but I've flown 400 hours in the summer soup with a Stormscope and while it didn't keep me dry, it kept me out of the really mean stuff. And it's SO cheap, and I can feed it into the 530 display ...
Another piece of safety equipment I'd like to have would be XM satellite NEXRAD weather, fed into the 530 display.
Wx radar would be nice, too.
Frankly, a 200 hour wonder in the right seat that I would spend most of my time instructing would be 'way down on the list of safety options.
I would far rather have another 200 lbs of fuel to help with the alternate.
But that's just me. Some of you guys won't go to the bathroom alone, you like to hold hands, that's ok, whatever gets you through the night.
Something that has NOT been mentioned here so far is a good, functional, full-featured autopilot. Believe it or not, there are some transport category aircraft that have FD but no auto-pilot - they are flown 2 crew all the time, with paying pax in the back. Any idea which I'm talking about?
So I've got a "good" autopilot. Next thing I want is a G530 in the panel. It has a wonderful database and moving map, and I can program it to drive the autopilot.
This means that most of the time, I won't have to hand-fly the Caravan - I can spend my time doing approach briefs, etc.
It's a Caravan, so let's not talk about ice.
Another piece of safety equipment I'd like to have would be Stormscope. Yes, it has errors, but I've flown 400 hours in the summer soup with a Stormscope and while it didn't keep me dry, it kept me out of the really mean stuff. And it's SO cheap, and I can feed it into the 530 display ...
Another piece of safety equipment I'd like to have would be XM satellite NEXRAD weather, fed into the 530 display.
Wx radar would be nice, too.
Frankly, a 200 hour wonder in the right seat that I would spend most of my time instructing would be 'way down on the list of safety options.
I would far rather have another 200 lbs of fuel to help with the alternate.
But that's just me. Some of you guys won't go to the bathroom alone, you like to hold hands, that's ok, whatever gets you through the night.
Doc Wrote;
The assumption that two crew are better than one is a motherhood issue, and is being argued by logic rather than statistics. The underlying assumption however is that both crew members are qualified. And qualified means more than just meeting the TC minimums for a commercial license and appropriate ratings.
And therein lies the crux of the problem.
Our no timers feel that, on the one hand , they have a commericial license and the ratings so they are qualified. And then , in an enormous case of double-think they feel the Captain should be a trainer. Now if the Captain is going to do their job AND train up our new no timer, how exactly is the Captains workload being decreased?
As someone stated, most of these single pilot aircraft can be flown quite safely with one pilot (and a good autopilot). Again, the argument that two is better than one is somewhat superfoulous, particularily if the second person is not really up to speed experience wise.
Now I expect that our twenty-something no timers are going to flame on me and say how can we get experience if you wont hire us because we dont have experience. It is a difficult question, but quite frankly, not an operators particular problem. The experience you get is a result of being hired, not a reason for it.
Lasty, I have a problem with the two crew in a single pilot aircraft because many companies do not have two crew SOPs and that right seat pilot is really just self loading freight with eyes. Unfortunately however the time is logged, and the ego expands with it, and thus we have many many pilots with a whole bag of time and no command experience.
A worst case example of this was a western Canadain operator who was running schedules with PC 12s, and one on them did not even have co-pilot instruments in the thing. And no real SOP's.
Actually, Doc, I think I did mention it before.Something that has NOT been mentioned here so far is a good, functional, full-featured autopilot.
The assumption that two crew are better than one is a motherhood issue, and is being argued by logic rather than statistics. The underlying assumption however is that both crew members are qualified. And qualified means more than just meeting the TC minimums for a commercial license and appropriate ratings.
And therein lies the crux of the problem.
Our no timers feel that, on the one hand , they have a commericial license and the ratings so they are qualified. And then , in an enormous case of double-think they feel the Captain should be a trainer. Now if the Captain is going to do their job AND train up our new no timer, how exactly is the Captains workload being decreased?
As someone stated, most of these single pilot aircraft can be flown quite safely with one pilot (and a good autopilot). Again, the argument that two is better than one is somewhat superfoulous, particularily if the second person is not really up to speed experience wise.
Now I expect that our twenty-something no timers are going to flame on me and say how can we get experience if you wont hire us because we dont have experience. It is a difficult question, but quite frankly, not an operators particular problem. The experience you get is a result of being hired, not a reason for it.
Lasty, I have a problem with the two crew in a single pilot aircraft because many companies do not have two crew SOPs and that right seat pilot is really just self loading freight with eyes. Unfortunately however the time is logged, and the ego expands with it, and thus we have many many pilots with a whole bag of time and no command experience.
A worst case example of this was a western Canadain operator who was running schedules with PC 12s, and one on them did not even have co-pilot instruments in the thing. And no real SOP's.
Limit wrote:
The first bit, they only get to T/O and Land on paved r/wys and graduate from there. There are times when it is actually a detriment to the safety of the flight when you can't rely on them and have to watch what they are doing aswell as take care of your workload,but be vigilent and know their capabilities and you'll be ok.
Also consider that some operators are putting 1000 hr pilots in the left seat so maybe an extra pair of eyes and hands are good to have in those cases.I remember having less than 1000 hrs and being a captain(C-414) for Medevacs,before the rules started to change. At that point I was quite content just have a green F/O with me as I was green myself and could use all the help I could get.
Hey . do you call that a "palm pilot"?
You know we were all there at one point and seems that when a person gets up there in hours its gets to be quickly forgotten.I myself have been guilty of saying "oh great another 250 hr wonder to try and teach", when I'm told they're hiring new F/O's. The truth of the matter is someone taught me right seat in the cheyenne, and anyone whos flown one can attest to the fact they are squirley buggers. If I wanted to be an instructor, i would have gone that route but I didn't.Still the fact remains we have to train the new guys.300hr pilots can do precious little to "reduce" workload - most can't find their arsehole with a flashlight on a good day, much less when something goes wrong.
The first bit, they only get to T/O and Land on paved r/wys and graduate from there. There are times when it is actually a detriment to the safety of the flight when you can't rely on them and have to watch what they are doing aswell as take care of your workload,but be vigilent and know their capabilities and you'll be ok.
Also consider that some operators are putting 1000 hr pilots in the left seat so maybe an extra pair of eyes and hands are good to have in those cases.I remember having less than 1000 hrs and being a captain(C-414) for Medevacs,before the rules started to change. At that point I was quite content just have a green F/O with me as I was green myself and could use all the help I could get.
Hey . do you call that a "palm pilot"?
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
MBAV8tr wrote:
When I came up through the food chain, you either went military, bush, or instructing then bush. Now the bush thing has really shrunk over the years. And the new breed of fight colleges seems more intent on CRM, sim time on turbines etc. , than just teaching the very basics. It is my unqualified opinion that the new CPL's are big on all the touchy feely stuff, can say safe in twelve languages, but really dont know the basics of flying. Tough to build on that.
The other problem, is many many of the new CPLs dont want to move north and they can jump in the right seat of a nice clean turbine for at least $40 a month more than they make on UIC. Then they expect the company to train them, give them experience, and pay them a real wage, so they can move on to their next job. When they find out, as many have, that they are career FO's they get out of flying. And this is quite sad, because I have seen several really good pilots just quit after a few years, as they had no hope of ever moving to the left seat. It is a problem that is going to get worse and worse. Now having said that, there are a few of the charter companies, who have some smaller aircraft and can step their FO's up. It is something I would check out before I took an FO job if I was starting out.
It is going to take a paradigm shift to change the whole industry thinking and get some integrity back in it.
I cant speak for everyone, but I have not forgotten this at all. And I feel for the challange the new pilots face. But that is not justificatiion to put them into a place where they are not qualified, or expect a revenue flight with passangers to also be a training flight.You know we were all there at one point and seems that when a person gets up there in hours its gets to be quickly forgotten
When I came up through the food chain, you either went military, bush, or instructing then bush. Now the bush thing has really shrunk over the years. And the new breed of fight colleges seems more intent on CRM, sim time on turbines etc. , than just teaching the very basics. It is my unqualified opinion that the new CPL's are big on all the touchy feely stuff, can say safe in twelve languages, but really dont know the basics of flying. Tough to build on that.
The other problem, is many many of the new CPLs dont want to move north and they can jump in the right seat of a nice clean turbine for at least $40 a month more than they make on UIC. Then they expect the company to train them, give them experience, and pay them a real wage, so they can move on to their next job. When they find out, as many have, that they are career FO's they get out of flying. And this is quite sad, because I have seen several really good pilots just quit after a few years, as they had no hope of ever moving to the left seat. It is a problem that is going to get worse and worse. Now having said that, there are a few of the charter companies, who have some smaller aircraft and can step their FO's up. It is something I would check out before I took an FO job if I was starting out.
It is going to take a paradigm shift to change the whole industry thinking and get some integrity back in it.
IMHO, every flight is training in a way.trey kule wrote: I cant speak for everyone, but I have not forgotten this at all. And I feel for the challange the new pilots face. But that is not justificatiion to put them into a place where they are not qualified, or expect a revenue flight with passangers to also be a training flight.
Max
Last edited by Crazymax on Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wrote a rude comment about 'Van FOs and promptly lost it (as in 'couldn't post it).
You all know I take a dim view of Van FOs.
If you are right seat in a Van and you have 1000 hours, you have been conned. If you are not checked out and flying it from the left in, oh, 3 months, you have been had. If you are not getting every 2nd leg, you've been had.
Its just a big, fat single. SINGLE.
Take your 1000 hours and do something useful with it.
You all know I take a dim view of Van FOs.
If you are right seat in a Van and you have 1000 hours, you have been conned. If you are not checked out and flying it from the left in, oh, 3 months, you have been had. If you are not getting every 2nd leg, you've been had.
Its just a big, fat single. SINGLE.
Take your 1000 hours and do something useful with it.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
sky's the limit
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 4614
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
- Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???
Exactly.mbav8r wrote:Limit wrote:You know we were all there at one point and seems that when a person gets up there in hours its gets to be quickly forgotten.I myself have been guilty of saying "oh great another 250 hr wonder to try and teach", when I'm told they're hiring new F/O's.300hr pilots can do precious little to "reduce" workload - most can't find their arsehole with a flashlight on a good day, much less when something goes wrong.
By no means was I putting myself above what I wrote. At three hundred hours I was buzzing around WAY too low for my own good taking pictures of farms. Having now "moved up" in hours and experience, I don't see any benefit of 200hr pilots sitting there as Right Seat Meat when they could be learning elsewhere on their own, and in machines that they can screw around in a little bit. But spending your first however many hours in straight and level flight with every second landing (maybe) on a plane you're not trained on, doesn't seem like a good way to build the basic pilot skills - hands and feet, decision making, and customer service.(no that doesn't mean getting the coffee and donuts). I feel the same way about the folks being trained on King Air's, 1900's and the like right out of school. In helicopters it's so obvious that if you start out as an IFR co-joe, you'll probably never get into the "bush" Utility type helicopters because you've never learned the "basics," and that will kill you.
Just my opinion, but not one formed without the benefit of hind site and experience. Truth be told, I just feel bad for those that are doing this thinking they've "made it," because as someone else said, it's usually a career F/O in the making.
STL
Plenty of 1900's driving around without autopilots and two crew..
Oh come on.. a van can't be that hard... lots of them around
We are talking about caravans right?
Oh come on.. a van can't be that hard... lots of them around
We are talking about caravans right?
Last edited by Rowdy on Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ScudRunner
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
-
Orsen Madjeans
- Rank 1
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:41 pm
- Location: In my cups
Vantastic
Hey there's no small jobs, just small pilots... that's why God gave us viagara right??
I was just looking at a Van job too. Thought its a pretty cool airplane since you have to have 5000hours of Beaver time to get a Beaver job. Someday I might get to fly a 206. I was told I couldn't get a 206 job without 250 hr of "206" time. My other 16,000 apparently didn't count.
WTF?
I was just looking at a Van job too. Thought its a pretty cool airplane since you have to have 5000hours of Beaver time to get a Beaver job. Someday I might get to fly a 206. I was told I couldn't get a 206 job without 250 hr of "206" time. My other 16,000 apparently didn't count.
WTF?
"Oh, instructing time? Come back when youhave some operational experience."
2 years later/
"I see you've been out in the real world, eh? So let's take a look at what youve been flying...hmmm, right seat on a van, huh? Well, you dont do much right seat on a Van, come back when you have more real time."
As a 250 guy, this is what im seeing. Ive made my choice in what im doing next, and im on my way, but this is depressing.
2 years later/
"I see you've been out in the real world, eh? So let's take a look at what youve been flying...hmmm, right seat on a van, huh? Well, you dont do much right seat on a Van, come back when you have more real time."
As a 250 guy, this is what im seeing. Ive made my choice in what im doing next, and im on my way, but this is depressing.
Just a couple of thoughts on two person crews. The RJ that departed the wrong runway at LEX? Would either guy make that mistake solo? The crew who flew the RJ at FL410 empty, only to have a double flame out and die. Would either have done that solo? I know the aircraft require two pilots..still, one must wonder? My point being, two crew will not prevent "stupid"!
not 100% of the time...Doc wrote:Just a couple of thoughts on two person crews. The RJ that departed the wrong runway at LEX? Would either guy make that mistake solo? The crew who flew the RJ at FL410 empty, only to have a double flame out and die. Would either have done that solo? I know the aircraft require two pilots..still, one must wonder? My point being, two crew will not prevent "stupid"!
but it still can
If a 200 hour guy gets a shot sittin as F/O on van, then let it be and dont hate. Experienced guys should not be rolling their eyes at "200 hr wonders" as they once were there too. Its not babysitting, its teaching and I have heard and seen many cases where good low time F/O's have had to 'babysit' more experienced guys who become complacent. I believe its a good opportunity for a 200 hour pilot to get exposure on commercial operations. Itd be a good stepping stone for larger, more complex twin engine aircraft.
Now 1000 hr guys sitting F/O in van's is more of a debate...but I wont go there as I'm still 750 hours away from that milestone
It is not instruction though. It's exposure. Get him in the right seat to assist, observe and participate.Hedley wrote:So be honest, and log what is actually going on: dual flight instruction.I believe its a good opportunity for a 200 hour pilot to get exposure on commercial operations
I agree with RC320. It's about exposure, and the chance for them to observe you. Having flown the Van myself as both FO and Capt........I would love to have the "200hr" wonder next to me! You guys are right though......on a good day......single pilot is not an issue.....but on an IFR day,why not have an FO.
Who's flying Vans where the FO does nothing but paperwork?
Who's flying Vans where the FO does nothing but paperwork?
