Excellent Series On Cargo Flying

John Gaquin wrote:
The only freight dog work I've done was in 727s and 747s. Real industrial
cargo, though, no overnite letters.


That ain't freight dog work... that's the big time! I'm talking about flying
Lances, Apaches, Aztecs and C-402s. Stuff that didn't allow you to climb over
the weather; you flew *in* it all the way. Aircraft that were the state of the
art back before I was born...


Very early in my career, I was offered
a job flying a Navajo (I think- some kind of cabin class twin) for a small
cargo outfit here in MA. With only about 400 hours, I was pumped!! At the
airport, the guy was showing me around, and I noticed there was no pilot
hatch, only the main door. He explained that the plane gets about half
loaded, then the pilot gets in, and the other guys complete the loading.
Even with only 400 hrs, I wasn't that dumb. I told him he was nuckin futz,
and walked away. Next freight I flew was maybe 20 years later in a 727.
Every day I think of all the thrills I've missed :-) :-)


Oh, yeah... I got offered a job flying Aerostars out of Charlotte into Atlanta
every night for a check flying outfit. I knew something was up early during the
interview when I was asked my attitude about the AD concerning the use (or
nonuse) of flaps in the Aerostar. Back then they weren't supposed to be used
for one reason or another .... I don't know what happened with the AD. So, was
I willing to fly hot or was I willing to ignore the AD? Neither option sounded
all that great. Anyway, I wasn't offered the job at first. They called me back
about two weeks later and then offered me the position.

That told me a couple of things: 1) I wasn't their first choice; and 2) their
first choice had already walked off the job. Well, I may be slow but I ain't
*that* slow. I thanked them for their interest but told them I had decided to
pursue other interests. Started nursing school shortly after that.

Still there were things that the experience gave me: solid IFR skills and
excellent airmanship. That's not bragging... it's just what I had to have to
survive. We all had it. I can remember reading the morning paper while enroute
in solid IFR to RDU. No copilot; no autopilot. Just me and smooth air. Never
had the guts to try to read while in turbulence....


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Still there were things that the experience gave me: solid IFR skills and
excellent airmanship. That's not bragging... it's just what I had to have
to survive. We all had it. I can remember reading the morning paper
while enroute in solid IFR to RDU. No copilot; no autopilot. Just me and
smooth air. Never had the guts to try to read while in turbulence....

I've seen freight dogs at BFM land out of or take off into a NEXRAD picture
that looks like a basket of Easter eggs.

Takes a lot bigger cojones than I've got to fly light freight.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

That ain't freight dog work... that's the big time! I'm talking about flying
Lances, Apaches, Aztecs and C-402s. Stuff that didn't allow you to climb over
the weather; you flew *in* it all the way. Aircraft that were the state of the
art back before I was born...

Yep, just the other day I was listening to my local ATC feed as a line of
strong t-storms approached when a local freight company checked on in a
Caravan, flying to the west and directly towards this line.

ATC: "Are you equipped with weather radar today?"

Pilot: "Unfortunately not today. Why?"

ATC: "Strong to severe returns are just west of the airport."

Pilot (in a rather shaky voice): "I would appreciate if you could pick the
best hole and send me through it."



--
Peter

I've read the series, and it conforms to all my criticisms of GA. Rec GA
has even worse safety performance.

by "Jim Macklin" Jul 12, 2006 at
08:09 AM


The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot.....
Pilots know how to handle that issue, don't take off, go
somewhere else and land."



Obviously, all the ones who crashed did not know how to "handle that
issue." Rules and regs need to be substantially tightened.

But, we will wait until one of the many near misses (on homes or a
business or school) results in a large number of casualties. Plenty of
near hits so far this year.... It is only a matter of time. Then the
pols will jump on it, Boyer will produce bumper stickers, and GA will
circle the wagons....

Since the newspaper writer thinks more regulations and
restrictions increase safety and convenience, and you feel
the same, that makes him correct.

The FAA is concerned about sun visors. If you want to avoid
floods, don't live in the river valley or New Orleans. If
you don't like noise, ban all boom-boxes, weed eaters, lawn
mowers, chain saws, motorcycles, cars, teenagers, dogs,
cats, babies. If you want a world with perfect safety, no
noise, no danger, no fat food, no lead paint, no poisons or
poisonous insects/animals, just ban everything.


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| I've read the series, and it conforms to all my criticisms
of GA. Rec GA
| has even worse safety performance.
|

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

I've read the series, and it conforms to all my criticisms of GA. Rec GA
has even worse safety performance.

And non-GA types (especially groundpounders) have an even WORSE record!

Skylune wrote:
I've read the series, and it conforms to all my criticisms of GA. Rec GA
has even worse safety performance.

Well, so what? Its a risky business, in as much as one little screwup
can get you killed. All this "the sky is falling" journalism is an end
in and of itself. There are many activities that people choose to
engage in that are risky for all but the well trained and experienced.

Anything short of sitting at home watching TV has its risks.

by Orval Fairbairn Jul 13, 2006 at 03:02 PM


In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

I've read the series, and it conforms to all my criticisms of GA. Rec
GA
has even worse safety performance.

And non-GA types (especially groundpounders) have an even WORSE record



No "groundpounder" has ever crashed a plane, so I don't know what you are
talking about.

For me: I was in GA long enough to realize that you need constant
training and devotion to be safe. When I sit in the right seat, I've seen
plenty of stupid stuff going on. When I trained briefly at FRG, the CFI
that I used was a total fool and a cowboy (and a drinker, to boot). The
minimum requirements that the FAA has are a joke, and the LSA rules are an
even bigger joke. The FAA's only role should be to promote safety, not to
GROW aviation.

I'll bet some of those cargo flyers wish that there was an FAA rule that
would give them a LEGAL reason not to fly when conditions are marginal,
when they are too tired, etc. That way, all the companies would operate
under the same rules, and the pilots wouldn't be pressured into going into
unsafe conditions for fear of losing their jobs.

I say again; the FAA is a joke, and their missions are hopelessly
conflicted.

by "Jim Macklin" Jul 13, 2006 at
10:00 AM


Since the newspaper writer thinks more regulations and
restrictions increase safety and convenience, and you feel
the same, that makes him correct.



No, it means that we share the same general opinion. They looked at the
data, the regulations, and formed an opinion. I agree with the writer's
assessment.

The rest of your commentary is silly.