FBO Provisions System Board Decision
02-24-2015, 04:36 PM
#61
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
^ Hopefully that's all that it is.. just a change of wording.
Then again, will be pretty funny if they start to augment some domestic legs!
We've seen that they have built a few pairings here and there that were over 8hrs with 2 pilots~
Motch
Then again, will be pretty funny if they start to augment some domestic legs!
We've seen that they have built a few pairings here and there that were over 8hrs with 2 pilots~
Motch
02-25-2015, 04:44 PM
#62
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
Last I heard, flight attendants were not qualified as pilots on the 737/777- which is the whole point of this new requirement by the FAA.
Yes. Relief pilot is a better description. IRO traditionally was a pilot that was not qualified to takeoff or land, and only for inflight relief. They also had to be FE qualified because they relieved the FE. These were used on the old 747s and DC-10s. So we called them IRO, but they are really just FOs that are not assigned to sit in the right seat on takeoff or landing, even though they are qualified.
Must have been different at United. At CAL, a DC-10 IRO had to be current in both seats and type rated, landing qualified as a captain. I know, I went through a couple landing currency sims on the 10 as IRO in 1988.
02-25-2015, 04:57 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
And all FOs at United who were on airplanes that could have more than 2 pilots were type rated as Captains, even new hires. I flew the 767 as a FO and had to get a type rating as Captain even though we never did International out of my base.
It wasn't any different I'm sure.
02-26-2015, 05:47 AM
#64
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
You specifically said they were NOT qualified.In any case it was a lousy job, but necessary. In recent years we had a captain on the 767 that would use the IRO as a cruise pilot, with the philosophy that he wanted himself and the landing FO as fresh as possible for the approach. He didn;t care if the IRO was asleep in the jumpseat. He is retireed now, but I have been tempted a few times to adopt his practice on some of the more challenging trips.
Last edited by BMEP100; 02-26-2015 at 06:11 AM.
02-26-2015, 06:01 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Which routes did we use IROs on the DC-10? Were they all in the Pacific? 12 hours in the DC-10 and you're sweating fuel over destination. I did EWR-GRU and we sure could have used an IRO on that (though technically less than 12 hours). Also, the requirement for an IRO to be a captain went away soon after the implementation of Contract 97.
02-26-2015, 06:10 AM
#66
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
Which routes did we use IROs on the DC-10? Were they all in the Pacific? 12 hours in the DC-10 and you're sweating fuel over destination. I did EWR-GRU and we sure could have used an IRO on that (though technically less than 12 hours). Also, the requirement for an IRO to be a captain went away soon after the implementation of Contract 97.
02-26-2015, 08:17 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
No..... you old fart. You specifically said they were NOT qualified.
In any case it was a lousy job, but necessary. In recent years we had a captain on the 767 that would use the IRO as a cruise pilot, with the philosophy that he wanted himself and the landing FO as fresh as possible for the approach. He didn;t care if the IRO was asleep in the jumpseat. He is retireed now, but I have been tempted a few times to adopt his practice on some of the more challenging trips.
You specifically said they were NOT qualified.In any case it was a lousy job, but necessary. In recent years we had a captain on the 767 that would use the IRO as a cruise pilot, with the philosophy that he wanted himself and the landing FO as fresh as possible for the approach. He didn;t care if the IRO was asleep in the jumpseat. He is retireed now, but I have been tempted a few times to adopt his practice on some of the more challenging trips.
02-27-2015, 06:07 AM
#68
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
In the DC-10 it was common practice.
Although I would be tired- sitting up there so long in cruise, the engineer's snoring would help keep me awake.
02-27-2015, 07:42 AM
#69
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 102
I have seen it personally both ways...
I can tell you from experience that having a rested IRO during landing has been more beneficial than having a rested CA/FO pair.
I have caught so many errors as a rested/attentive IRO than I ever caught because I had 30-45 extra mins rest on break as a flying pilot!
I have had more errors slip through the cracks when a IRO blew off monitoring.
We MUST have rested flight crew no doubt. But at the expense of a watchful eye behind us...No WAY!
Here is an idea...let's let the crew decide and not make the FAA dictate who and when you are tired!
I can tell you from experience that having a rested IRO during landing has been more beneficial than having a rested CA/FO pair.
I have caught so many errors as a rested/attentive IRO than I ever caught because I had 30-45 extra mins rest on break as a flying pilot!
I have had more errors slip through the cracks when a IRO blew off monitoring.
We MUST have rested flight crew no doubt. But at the expense of a watchful eye behind us...No WAY!
Here is an idea...let's let the crew decide and not make the FAA dictate who and when you are tired!
02-27-2015, 03:09 PM
#70
Banned
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: Tom’s Whipping boy.
Posts: 1,182
I have seen it personally both ways...
I can tell you from experience that having a rested IRO during landing has been more beneficial than having a rested CA/FO pair.
I have caught so many errors as a rested/attentive IRO than I ever caught because I had 30-45 extra mins rest on break as a flying pilot!
I have had more errors slip through the cracks when a IRO blew off monitoring.
We MUST have rested flight crew no doubt. But at the expense of a watchful eye behind us...No WAY!
Here is an idea...let's let the crew decide and not make the FAA dictate who and when you are tired!
I can tell you from experience that having a rested IRO during landing has been more beneficial than having a rested CA/FO pair.
I have caught so many errors as a rested/attentive IRO than I ever caught because I had 30-45 extra mins rest on break as a flying pilot!
I have had more errors slip through the cracks when a IRO blew off monitoring.
We MUST have rested flight crew no doubt. But at the expense of a watchful eye behind us...No WAY!
Here is an idea...let's let the crew decide and not make the FAA dictate who and when you are tired!
Reminds me of a golf story:
Duffer was bragging to his caddy that normally carried for one of the scratch players in the club. The duffer was in a fairway trap. He banged it out of the trap and 150 yds onto the green with about a 10 foot put.
He said to the caddy he was trying to impress " bet you never saw your guy hit one of the trap like that"!
The caddy replied, " No sir, it's true I never have. In fact I've never seen him in that trap at all"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
