Passenger Aircrew?

Charles the Equestrian · Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:23 pm

Just browsing the employment ads here and came up with a question.

There is a posting for a PA-31 captain here but the pax requirements is 9? Is that a typo or is there a PA-31 with a 3 across seat mod? Also my other thought is that this organization is offering up a co-pilot seat for fare paying passengers. Doesn't seem like the greatest of ideas either (a shady navajo operator!!! not a chance

).

But some of you guys would know better than I, so please fill me in on your thoughts. At the moment the three across bench seat mod for the navajo makes more sense than sticking pax in the right seat especially for a larger twin-engined aircraft in a challenging IFR environment...but please set me straight.

200hr Wonder · Post by **200hr Wonder** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:32 pm

The Navajo is not a two crew aircraft and can be operated by a single crew provided the it is in the OC and all CARs requirments are met. This is quite common.

Charles the Equestrian · Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:40 pm

I do understand that the Jo is a single crew op, I just question the idea of using the extra seat for pax. I could see a cargo op, and using the extra 200 lbs for freight in the back, but i just thought that extra person in the right seat would be a bit of a pain in the ass and a bit of a safety concern.

tired of the ground · Post by **tired of the ground** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:19 pm

So it's ok for the Cargo Operator to profit from SPIFR but not PAX? Try and put that one past the bean counters.

While your at it why don't you tell all the 185 float guys that they should only put 2 pax in their plane because 3 is unsafe.

BusDriver · Post by **BusDriver** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:23 pm

A HO is NOT a 9pax machine!! It can barely do 8, due to the fact that most passengers are 200lbs+. I have offered the right seat to some select pax, typically only the ones that can comprehend instructions and don't smell like homemade moonshine made from a base of Sunny-D! I always try and include an F/O and I would NEVER bump a pilot to put another chug onboard. Fly within your means, don't overload, and if you have to, find another job before losing your self respect.

prang one · Post by **prang one** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:33 pm

Used to fly a panther Hoe single pilot on charter and always had somebody up front with me even if there was room in the back.

When I meet the S.L.F at the terminal it would go like this with my inside voice and the SAFTEY cx list.

Young and female ... SET
Attractive ... SET
Hard body ... SET
Nice twins and ass... SET
Smiling at me ... SET
Names and ID .... Target Identified

outside voice

Hello who would like to sit up front?
Before anybody could reply. Oh you would "insert girls name" follow me

In good faith though it does help the CofG to have a little weight up front

Funny thing is I still used to do that for 2 crew aircraft as well. Just the first officer already had his victim picked out/upgraded and seated up front in first class

ZBB118.10 · Post by **ZBB118.10** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:42 pm

Worked for a company that would put 8 pax in a Chieftain, ocassionally remove the FO, make it SPIFR and put a pax in the right seat. Most of the guys I flew with who were SPIFR qualified didn't really dig this, and I can't say I blame them. Operating with 8 pax + 2 crew + bags and gas etc, really is pushing a Ho' to its limits. Pack on a bit of ice and you have your work cut out.

shankdown · Post by **shankdown** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:43 pm

I used to fly with 9 in the Chieftan, and I didn't think it was strange. Its a single pilot airplane, our Air Taxi OC was for 9 pax or less, the airplane wasn't overloaded... if its all within the rules, how can a pilot complain? I'd rather have the right seat open to throw my charts on, but hey, I'm getting paid to do a job. Having a passenger there is part of the job! Not a big deal.

Shizzledown

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:53 pm

If an aircraft is not designed to accomodate 9 passengers but is rated for 9 passengers, then the fault lies with Transport Canada, not the operator. The operator will always do everything in their power to maximize profit (this is called business). If your concerns are valid for any aircraft, I would suggest contacting your nearest TC Inspector and provide the test data demonstrating why the aircraft is unsafe under its current certificate. That is how change is made, not by complaining on an internet message board. If any of you are more knowledgeable than the aeronatuical engineer who stamped the design data, then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.

frog · Post by **frog** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:01 pm

It all depends on the lenght of the trip, fuel requirement etc...definetely not 3 hours trip + IFR reserve, but 45 min VFR it works great with 9 pax.

heavymetal · Post by **heavymetal** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:50 pm

tired of the ground wrote:While your at it why don't you tell all the 185 float guys that they should only put 2 pax in their plane because 3 is unsafe.

I haven't been in every float plane in Canada but typically aren't the co-pilot's controls removed or on a quick disconnect? Most Beaver's and Otters I've seen have the old "swinging" control columns and rudder pedals removed.

I don't think I would like having to deal with a hysterical passenger in the right seat as well as manage a single-engine approach in solid IMC. Pilot workload would be bad enough without having to deal with whatever an unstable person might do up front.

Charles the Equestrian · Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:30 pm

Anonymous1 wrote:If an aircraft is not designed to accomodate 9 passengers but is rated for 9 passengers, then the fault lies with Transport Canada, not the operator. The operator will always do everything in their power to maximize profit (this is called business). If your concerns are valid for any aircraft, I would suggest contacting your nearest TC Inspector and provide the test data demonstrating why the aircraft is unsafe under its current certificate. That is how change is made, not by complaining on an internet message board. If any of you are more knowledgeable than the aeronatuical engineer who stamped the design data, then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:45 pm

Anonymous1 wrote: If your concerns are valid for any aircraft, I would suggest contacting your nearest TC Inspector and provide the test data demonstrating why the aircraft is unsafe under its current certificate. That is how change is made, not by complaining on an internet message board. If any of you are more knowledgeable than the aeronatuical engineer who stamped the design data, then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.

Yes, we all know how if the book says something is possible, and Transport says it's safe, and there's lots of paperwork, it must be true and safe. Don't you go using your experience in the real world to factor for the fact those numbers were achieved by a test pilot on a perfect day with a brand-new airplane with brand-new engines. Load her up to the numbers and have at 'er.

Don't you worry anonymous1, every few months someone will manage to demonstrate why an aircraft may not be safe under it's current certificate. They just usually do it by making a smoking hole, not by "providing the test data". It's a crude, some might even say tragic, method, but quite compelling really.

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:15 pm

complexintentions wrote: Yes, we all know how if the book says something is possible, and Transport says it's safe, and there's lots of paperwork, it must be true and safe. Don't you go using your experience in the real world to factor for the fact those numbers were achieved by a test pilot on a perfect day with a brand-new airplane with brand-new engines. Load her up to the numbers and have at 'er.

So, when you get on with Jazz, you will be telling ops that you need to fly with 10 empty seats in the dash because it's not a brand new airplane, and you aren't a test pilot, and it's not perfect weather ?

The difference between a professioanal and a yahoo in this business is pretty simple. A professional can fly an airplane to the numbers. go back and read the original add, they obviously want a professional, somebody that can fly the airplane to the numbers. If you aren't up to it, dont bother applying. There are lots of folks out there quite capable of operating full airplanes, and doing so safely. No point in hiring somebody that doesn't have the self confidence to do the job.

bracebracebrace · Post by **bracebracebrace** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:38 pm

Anonymous1 wrote: The operator will always do everything in their power to maximize profit (this is called business).

I have seen this type of company culture first hand. I've even stood up for it when no one would or no other gullible pilot would know better.

Cutting corners, cutting procedures, cutting wires and maybe even doctoring up log books to reflect minimum tolerances on certain componants were met OR inspection performed when in fact they were not.

All is good until someone dies because the operator will always do everything in their power to maximize profit.

Funny thing is, that extra 30 bucks you're putting in your pocket, may end up costing you tens of thousands of dollars AND perhaps a few lives lost in the process.

But hey, no one thinks it will happen to them. So ignore what I'm saying.

heavymetal · Post by **heavymetal** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:59 pm

every few months someone will manage to demonstrate why an aircraft may not be safe under it's current certificate

http://www.slackdavis.com/news_article. ... gval/index

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:07 pm

Having accidents and cutting corners is a good way to eliminate profits. I said maximize profits which implies avoiding accidents and reducing, maintenance costs by changing out components prior to failure. The single biggest expense of any company is aircraft downtime. This is normally due to insurance settlements taking months to negotiate and unscheduled maintenance.

If an aircraft is not performing according to the book and is unsafe, it is your duty as pilot in command to inform maintenance. If it remains uncorrected, the aircraft must be grounded and if this means calling your regional TC inspector, then so be it. Collect the data to prove the aircraft is not performing according to the charts and find the discrepancy. Age alone should not be an excuse for an aircraft to not perform if the aircraft is being properly maintained.

heavymetal · Post by **heavymetal** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:31 pm

Anonymous1:

I think you have missed the point that Charles was trying to reach. I don't believe the issue is whether or not an aircraft is performing properly, its more a case of whether or not it is still a good idea demanding pilots continually admit random people to the cockpit under single pilot IFR conditions in a complex twin just because an engineer years ago and TC agreed you could physically fit 9 people and one pilot in the aircraft. Change won't ever start at the direct top with one pilot and a TC inspector unless he piles one in. Change has to start at the bottom with the pilots and operators coming together and agreeing what prevents accidents and what causes them.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:45 pm

Heavumetal...I see your point. Could you reference some examples where the passenger's inputs caused a pilot of a complex, multi engine aircraft to have an accident? I have flown for 10 years with passengers in the right seat and I often find them interesting and pleasant to talk with. On the contrary, I have flown with a number of captains and FOs that would have been much better off occupying a seat in the cabin as they were incompetent and a danger in their seat up front.

The only accident I recall was the Air Egypt with the FO screaming Allah Allah as he buried the Boeing into the ocean. You ensure all your crewmembers are mentally stable before you fly with them?

What about flight instructors that take brand new multi IFR students down to ILS minima in actual IFR day after day? They should be the highest risk yet you don't often hear this being a problem. With all the claims in 703 ops, why would the insurance companies not prohibit right seat passengers if they were a perceived risk? Or why not provide a discount to multi crew ops if they are so much safer?

Please outline to me actual examples of accidents caused by a right seat passenger going mental close to the ground and I'll rest my case.

superiorwhore · Post by **superiorwhore** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:46 pm

Theres numbers for taking it up the arese, man I'd love to see this book

i think everyone should just shut up and just get along

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:47 pm

TYPICAL FRICKIN OPERATOR.

Ok Anony, They didn't crash but how about one of my buddies that was flying an islander 9 pax, the guy in the front seat turns around to talk to his buddies when he goes to get back in the seat he sits on the yoke causing them to dive bomb, Luckly my buddy was a big guy able to solve the problem.
With regards to your last dumb ass post as well with new students, well guess what, THERE NOT PASSENGERS, they know what to do in a emergency. But nice try.
As to flying for 10 years with 9 passengers, haha, well no one said that you were smart for it now did they.

Now flying a Navajo 9 pax is a joke as with any other aircraft its size, a passenger has no right in the cockpit what so ever. The shit hits the fan whats this passenger going to do, you don't know let alone the weight limits of aircraft.

Lets take say 4973 for the empty weight of AJW. you got a landing weight of 7000lbs, with a max takeoff weight of 7368.
I am going to use you for anony cause I know your flights, if you are doing a yrl-ypm-yrl flight 9 pax with bags.
18min one way,
empty weight= 4973 lbs
193lbs*9pax= 1737 lbs
survival approx= 60 lbs, if you got it
pilot =150lbs
fuel ypm-yrl =500lbs

total =7420

So just from that, your shortest trip you cannot take off with 9 male passengers due to you are over gross weight. give or take abit if you put females. Note this is without full mains as well.
You cannot add cargo to the flight either due to you are over gross weight.
Now just say you took off anyway, again you are over landing weight as you will burn approx. 210 lbs of fuel meaning you are now about 210 over landing weight on AJW, but hey thats ok we'll just make sure we land really smooth

Oh and I used flight star to get all this so don't try to counter it cause i'll get ya on it.

Now lets get onto the whole numbers thing of brought up fly it as the book says, as someone said if you are on a dash 8, well buddy there is a big difference between a navajo on a 3500' gravel strip and a over powered Dash 8 that will fly on one engine, if you want to fly a navajo at max weight 9 pax cause a piece of paper says you can, go ahead i'll be the guy going to the beech laughin at ya due to the fact that I have been there saw how it preformed and said screw this especially now that I fly a high performance that will fly on one engine. Planes like a navajo a cessna 402 are more skill and experienced based, not booked based

And in ending
9 pax is a f$%kin joke, THESE operators gotta get there heads outta there ass's, especially now and realize that what you got away with than is not what is going on now.

I'll post more tomorrow as I am tired

As I now duck and run for cover, oh anony, I noticed you changed your signature

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:48 am

Okay...I'll ask agin. What specific accidents were due to a passenger sitting in the copilot's seat? I can't think of any but maybe you could tell me about a few recent examples?

What specific experience do you have in regards to a Dash 8? They are overpowered at gross? Are you absolutely certain? Who mentioned flying overweight? You require 500 lbs of fuel or over 2 hours endurance in a Navajo for 36 minutes of flying? Why?

Please try and stay on topic as introducing new topics makes your discussion a little hard to follow. Just give me a few recent examples of passengers making aircraft crash as I simply don't have time to read all the safety reports available. If it is such a risk, there must be at least 2 or 3 accidents a year caused by those dangerous passengers so it should be easy for you to provide the TSB report numbers.

Later....

Charles the Equestrian · Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:07 am

I am curious as to how the TSB could ever chalk up a crash due to passenger interference or distraction in a small plane, anony? You'd never know from the reports, but I am sure the bodies are all the same as dead. But you sound eager to be the first, because now you have left a nice trail of messages on Avcanada

But to all the other responders...
Now this is some educating discussion for an up and comer in aviation like me, I truly appreciate the perspective from the pilots. It gives me a great sense of motivation to know that there are some guys/gals out there with a backbone. The sleazy operators, we know they are there, they always will be our little battle. Faceless dimes a dozen they are, and well they come and go...it sounds like. But if we carry some backbone and a little bit of brains, it sounds like we can win.

And by winning, I'd say that a job posting every couple of months from this one operator says someone is doing something right.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:40 am

Are we having the flying overweight argument, or the pax in the front seat argument???

The weight thing seems pretty clear to me. It's either overweight or it's not. There are a million senarios where 9 pax in a Pa31 is not overweight.
The example someone gave before was 9 men. Not all flights are 9 men.

I can personally remember a flight where I had 9 pax, all their luggage, and full fuel in an Islander, and was 200 lbs underweight. It did help a little that they were all lingerie models, but never the less it is possible.

I'd way rather fly with 9 pax underweight, than 6 pax overweight, but that's just me.

As for the safety in the front seat thing, in a perfect world there would be noone up there, but in a perfect world my weiner would be as think as a can of pepsi. It's not a perfect world.

If you are concerned about that being a safety issue, there are several other safety issues that are just as worthy if not more. Minimum fuel for example. But, if you add up all the minor safety issues, you could probably only fit 5 pax in your Navajo.

In the end, it's all up to you.... noone is making you do it.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:44 am

Charles my boy...my God..there are a lot of sleazy operators out there, aren't there? Faceless dime a dozen? Actually feel free to call me anytime at 888 959-9001. Is that faceless enough for you?. And there are just as many sleazy pilots as operators so what's your point? I think the best way to correct this severe problem is for you to shut your hole and start your own operation. That way you can really win your battles by setting an example of the correct way to do things. Don't worry about those pesky customers either. 9 passenger flights...no problem...just buy a KingAir...oh wait...they're only configured for 8. Maybe a Caravan? Oh wait, your pilot won't want to fly in ice....hmmm...just what should I buy that can carry 9 passengers in ice?

I would think most pilots would be able to issue a mayday as they were fighting with those crazy out of control copilot passengers. I mean, you imply this is pretty dangerous stuff so I would have expected at least 1 mayday call a month from these pilots fighting for their life. Maybe you are on to something though. There are some unexplained crashes out there so maybe the crazy suicide passenger copilot association have a book about how to pull the comm breaker before pushing hard short final. Wait....then the TSB would see the pulled CB. Maybe they're trained to push it in with their last breath so they can remain undetected. But then this doesn't account for all the accidents where the pilot may have lived and expose the copilot passenger. So what you're saying is that every suicide copilot passenger has somehow been able to erase all traces of their missions while ensuring the pilot dies in the crash? What happens if a pilot one day escapes and exposes this crazy suicide group? Would he then be hunted down and shot just steps away from the TSB door? Or is it more likely that you have no clue about what you're talking about?

If an operator has ads for pilots on a regualr basis, is it okay for you if its due to expansion? What is it you really want to say? You sound like you have some issues so just get to the point.