Jump to content
Baseops Forums
FUSEPLUG

The new airline thread

Recommended Posts

On 9/19/2019 at 10:31 AM, HossHarris said:

If it doesn’t have an FAA blessing you get nothing for a logbook. It’s effectively a toy 

Checks.  To my knowledge the only military folks that use FAA certified class D sims are your C37, C32, C40 folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one, never gonna be one, but curious question:

Billy Bob is hired by airline X.  Who/how decides what his/her original equipment/domicile will be?

I understand that both equipment/seat/domicile can change, but who/how is the initial one set?

Not asking for a friend, just mildly curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Not one, never gonna be one, but curious question:

Billy Bob is hired by airline X.  Who/how decides what his/her original equipment/domicile will be?

I understand that both equipment/seat/domicile can change, but who/how is the initial one set?

Not asking for a friend, just mildly curious.

Crew Resources decides where pilots are needed based on a myriad of reasons (marketing/fleeting/etc...).  Every so often the airline will have a bid for guys to move aircraft.  Anything that isn't bid by current pilots is left over and then can be offered to new hire classes.  After that, it's probably dolled out to newhire classes based mostly on sim availability.  Within the class, you get to pick based on class seniority which is decided differently at every airline.  At AAL it was based on age.  At DAL it was based on your last four...the higher the number, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FedEx gives some weight to past aircraft experience.  Dunno the details about how that plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, does anyone have any insight on traveling to Russia/China while on airline duty and also holding a U.S. clearance?  Seems we would not be able to travel to those places on our own vacation, so flying there on an assigned trip with the airline would generate the same paperwork/clearance suspicions as a vacation visit, right?  Is there a process, or do guys just refuse to fly there with the airline?  New to international.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, you just let your security peeps know all the countries you fly to and roll with your assigned trips.  Not a big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along those lines, is there some kind of published list of do no go countries for U.S. military? A friend keeps telling me how great Ukraine is and how much they love American's.  Great exchange rate too apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, JS said:

A friend keeps telling me how great Ukraine is and how much they love American's.  Great exchange rate too apparently. 

My Uncle Joe said they're great golfers, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any insights into jumpseating while on Mil leave? I’m at a regional and would like to take advantage of the ability to travel home while I’m TDY for several months. My company’s contract says my family and I can still use passes, but doesn’t address jumpseating. Do I still retain CASS access while on leave?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the company and the length of your mil leave.  Talk to your jump seat committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can travel almost anywhere, for business or pleasure, without any effect on your clearances ..., as long as you let the appropriate clearance folks know in advance. Sometimes WELL in advance. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

You can travel almost anywhere, for business or pleasure, without any effect on your clearances ..., as long as you let the appropriate clearance folks know in advance. Sometimes WELL in advance. 

Honestly, I just go where I want and then list my travels during the reinvestigation process every 5 years. Nobody really seems to care. And I certainly don't give a shit if they threaten to yank my clearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JS said:

Along those lines, is there some kind of published list of do no go countries for U.S. military? A friend keeps telling me how great Ukraine is and how much they love American's.  Great exchange rate too apparently. 

Ask your security manager/GSSO. There are travel lists, but none are applicable to all personnel.  Just depends on what types of clearances you hold. Ukraine is probably good to go for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk to your security folks before you go and check out the Foreign Clearance Guide for the country/countries in question, as you may have to put in an APACS request for taking leave in some of them...

https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil/fcg.cfm

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/27/2019 at 8:13 PM, nunya said:

FedEx gives some weight to past aircraft experience.  Dunno the details about how that plays out.

With the exception of the MD-11, all initial aircraft and domicile assignments for newhires are based on the last 4 of SSN (9999 highest, 0000 lowest).  Newhires put in a dream sheet before day one of indoc, and available assignments are handed out in seniority order.

MD-11 assignments are selected separately, before day one of indoc by the company, and this is where previous experience is involved.  Because of the finicky landing performance of the airplane, and the accident record at FedEx, they are looking for specific experience to send newhires to the airplane.  For some reason they like Navy carrier guys, C-17 guys, and of course KC-10 guys, but that's not all inclusive.

Edited by Hacker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hacker said:

For some reason they like Navy carrier guys, C-17 guys,

They like guys who don’t know how to flare or put the gear down? Bold safety strategy cotton, let’s see if it pays off...

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hacker said:

.  For some reason they like Navy carrier guys

There are several people that can vouch that I like to plant it on the runway like it’s a bo-at. Does that count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, brabus said:

They like guys who don’t know how to flare or put the gear down? Bold safety strategy cotton, let’s see if it pays off...

Ironically, they figured that out the hard way. C-17? Add power to flare. F-18? Hit the 3-wire with AB ready. Neither habit pattern translates well to managing the tight constraints of landing the MD. I've been told that FedEx has since gone away from those two backgrounds for the MD. But yeah, they were recruiting those specifically for a period. The KC-10 bubbas are obviously the best background for it.

That's not a knock on 17/18 dudes either. As an IP in a couple different heavy military aircraft, I'm very familiar with negative transfer myself. I've murdered a lot of penguins trying to break habit patterns and just be normal in a new airplane. Takes me a few reps before I can get it down...I'm no Chuck Yeager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ImNotARobot said:

Ironically, they figured that out the hard way. C-17? Add power to flare. F-18? Hit the 3-wire with AB ready. Neither habit pattern translates well to managing the tight constraints of landing the MD. I've been told that FedEx has since gone away from those two backgrounds for the MD. But yeah, they were recruiting those specifically for a period. The KC-10 bubbas are obviously the best background for it.

That's not a knock on 17/18 dudes either. As an IP in a couple different heavy military aircraft, I'm very familiar with negative transfer myself. I've murdered a lot of penguins trying to break habit patterns and just be normal in a new airplane. Takes me a few reps before I can get it down...I'm no Chuck Yeager.

Honestly curious, what makes the MD-11/KC-10 so finicky to land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly curious, what makes the MD-11/KC-10 so finicky to land?
Found this with Google:

"The major issue with the MD11, difficult pitch control caused by a downsized horizontal stabilizer for fuel saving, was only partly compensated by an electronic longitudinal stabilzation augmentation system (LSAS) during flight , however during the last part of the landing this system was (gradualy) switched off to allow sufficient pitch handling during landing.

Despite many software upgrades (issued by Boeing as the new OEM) of this LSA system the pitch control of the MD11 during landing remains "questionable" , especially in adverse weather conditions.

The MD11 landing issues aggrevated with the introduction and/or conversion of more freighters with increased MLW, further increasing the landing speed and decreasing the pilots reaction time."
----------------------------

Having flown the KC-135 for almost 2 decades now, I can attest to the fact high approach speeds in a large transport aircraft do make landings challenging. The -135 has some pretty high approach speeds also and heavy flight controls (cables/pulleys without hydro assist for ailerons and elevator).
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The -135s PMCs also make the landing phase difficult. Each Power Mngment Control isn't fully active below 70% N1...also known as every approach ever flown. So each of the 4 throttles are commanding some goofy fuel flow/power setting. Tanker dudes get used to this abnormality by (usually) only adjusting two sym throttles at a time, allowing the resulting power change to take effect, and then fixing it again when it's all jacked up. Guys who try to keep the throttles aligned, or worse, keep adjusting all 4 throttles constantly, get unstable on final with PIO due to the the swept wing & underslung engines. The experienced tanker dude known the PMC hate him and hate each other below 70% N1...and waits to see what he gets. The known power setting is a place from which to deviate.

I agree with the above Google find on the MD. The MD-11's inception has some undertones of the 737 Max issues. The DC-10/MD-10 was the original design, so MD stretched the fuselage out 40', and then had to make the rudder smaller due to CG issues with the new longer moment arm. Then MD put more powerful engines on it. So the flying characteristics weren't the same as a -10, but wait, we'll just add some automation/bells/whistles (LSAS, parallelt rudder) to compensate for the pilots. The single MD-11 type rating allows pilots to fly the -11 and both flavors of MD-10 (MD-10-10, and MD-10-30, the -30 is the KC-10). Does this sound somewhat familiar?

MD-11 wing design is also an issue. I haven't flown the T-38, but I understand that short stubby wings like to go fast, don't like to go slow. MD-11 wings are similar in that respect. The Boeing wings are all kinda the same; big, fat cambered bars that can generate lift throughout a wide range of speeds (although this design does limit the top speed of the airplane). The MD's wings are closer in design to a fighter aircraft; thinner, swept back. This provides a higher top end speed, but also squirrelly characteristics down low on final...high deck angle, higher approach speeds than are normal to transport category aircraft. VVI=GS/2, so with approach speeds in the high 170s when heavy, the VVI is 800' down, vice 700' down. A comparatively small performance window.

Throw in some gusty winds, transitioning out of a low ceiling at max gross landing weight, and you get the picture. I'll say this...the MD has definitely earned its horrific accident history. It's not just 3rd world, barely trained pilots who have trouble processing the automation/landing characteristics on the MD either. Google FX80 @ Narita.

I speak only for myself...the MD is the most difficult plane I've learned to fly. It's overengineered, This airplane, as built, would not be certified by today's standards.

So FedEx trying to handpick guys to manage that monster right out of the gate doesn't seem crazy to me. But choosing C-17 background who fly on the backside of the power curve and add power to flare seems backward. And choosing USN 3-wire trap dudes seems equally incorrect. But they don't pay me to make those decisions.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...