Excellent Series On Cargo Flying

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_1_]]

Most of the stuff I've seen in the papers about flying freight usually misses
the mark by focusing on Fedex or UPS. This series of three articles focuses on
freight dogs. I think the author hit the nail on the head. The only weakness
is that not every freight accident I can think of is necessarily fatal. I can
think of a couple of guys that I know who got hurt very badly in freighters.
One of them has to wear braces on his legs like a kid with polio just to be able
to stand up for very short periods.

Anyway, this guy sure got the maintenance problems and the usual NTSB results
down.

For those of you who don't know, I used to do this kind of flying. Not no more.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/14998705.htm
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15003611.htm
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15010344.htm

"About This Investigation

The nine-month Miami Herald investigation built upon thousands of pages of
documents.

The newspaper spent hundreds of hours examining a database maintained by the
National Transportation Safety Board that includes reports on crashes around the
world dating back decades.

The newspaper filed Freedom of Information Act requests for FAA enforcement and
inspection files; examined NTSB investigative dockets, government reports on
cargo planes, lawsuits, industry memos, safety studies and news reports; and
conducted interviews across the country."




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jim Macklin]

The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot. There
are problems, poor maintenance and bad management lead the
list in my mind. But he focused on how many FAA inspectors
and the way they are assigned. Also, he bemoaned the fact
that a C310 isn't icing approved.
Pilots know how to handle that issue, don't take off, go
somewhere else and land. It is just not possible to have
all cargo flown by two pilot crews in a 737 under part 121,
which is the "answer" that the Miami Herald author seems to
thing is the solution.

The Miami Herald is a rag looking for sensation, not facts.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >
wrote in message
m...
| Most of the stuff I've seen in the papers about flying
freight usually misses
| the mark by focusing on Fedex or UPS. This series of
three articles focuses on
| freight dogs. I think the author hit the nail on the
head. The only weakness
| is that not every freight accident I can think of is
necessarily fatal. I can
| think of a couple of guys that I know who got hurt very
badly in freighters.
| One of them has to wear braces on his legs like a kid with
polio just to be able
| to stand up for very short periods.
|
| Anyway, this guy sure got the maintenance problems and the
usual NTSB results
| down.
|
| For those of you who don't know, I used to do this kind of
flying. Not no more.
|
| http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/14998705.htm
| http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15003611.htm
| http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15010344.htm
|
| "About This Investigation
|
| The nine-month Miami Herald investigation built upon
thousands of pages of
| documents.
|
| The newspaper spent hundreds of hours examining a database
maintained by the
| National Transportation Safety Board that includes reports
on crashes around the
| world dating back decades.
|
| The newspaper filed Freedom of Information Act requests
for FAA enforcement and
| inspection files; examined NTSB investigative dockets,
government reports on
| cargo planes, lawsuits, industry memos, safety studies and
news reports; and
| conducted interviews across the country."
|
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
|
|
|
|
|

[Peter R.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot. There
> are problems, poor maintenance and bad management lead the
> list in my mind.
<snip>

Jim, have you ever flown cargo for a living?

(Note: I certainly have not, but I am wondering if you have a true
insider's perspective.)

--
Peter

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot. There
> are problems, poor maintenance and bad management lead the
> list in my mind. But he focused on how many FAA inspectors
> and the way they are assigned. Also, he bemoaned the fact
> that a C310 isn't icing approved.
> Pilots know how to handle that issue, don't take off, go
> somewhere else and land. It is just not possible to have
> all cargo flown by two pilot crews in a 737 under part 121,
> which is the "answer" that the Miami Herald author seems to
> thing is the solution.
>
> The Miami Herald is a rag looking for sensation, not facts.


I strongly suggest you go back and read it again. He definitely exposed the
flaunting of the required rest rules and poor maintenance. The point of the
limited number of qualified FAA inspectors is that there aren't enough to do the
job. The results are paper inspections.

From your comments, I'd have to guess you've never been a freight dog. I have
and I thought the man hit the nail on the head. Don't fly? Your delay better
be damned short or you're going to be looking for another job. And they are few
and far between. When I was flying cargo, they all seemed to be in East BF,
Iowa. I live on the east coast and want to stay here.

If I lost an engine within 200 miles of my destination, I was expected to fly to
the destination; not somewhere else. The company didn't get paid if it went
somewhere else; at least that's what they told me. While management might state
one policy, the reality was generally quite different. Mission completion was
Job One.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jim Macklin]

yes. I've also flown a lot of single pilot passenger
charter.



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot.
There
| > are problems, poor maintenance and bad management lead
the
| > list in my mind.
| <snip>
|
| Jim, have you ever flown cargo for a living?
|
| (Note: I certainly have not, but I am wondering if you
have a true
| insider's perspective.)
|
| --
| Peter

[Jim Macklin]

As long as pilots will fly junk just to get hours, the
a**holes will run slipshod over the pilots. But there are
good operators and there are professional pilots.

Putting all cargo into a 737 or even a Caravan is just not
possible. I've seen planes being flown on cargo flights
that damage visible from many feet away, such as warped
cowls from the engine fire, no rubber on the deice boots
[just cloth], puddles of oil in the cowl [btw, this was one
airplane at one moment]. It took me over an hour to get the
feds to finish their lunch break and come over and ground
the airplane. It left anyway after the FAA office closed
for the day.

I'm not saying there are no problems with cargo flying, but
the solutions the author of the article talks about are not
possible. First thing. pilots need a backbone.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >
wrote in message
m...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The author of the newspaper hit piece was an idiot.
There
| > are problems, poor maintenance and bad management lead
the
| > list in my mind. But he focused on how many FAA
inspectors
| > and the way they are assigned. Also, he bemoaned the
fact
| > that a C310 isn't icing approved.
| > Pilots know how to handle that issue, don't take off, go
| > somewhere else and land. It is just not possible to
have
| > all cargo flown by two pilot crews in a 737 under part
121,
| > which is the "answer" that the Miami Herald author seems
to
| > thing is the solution.
| >
| > The Miami Herald is a rag looking for sensation, not
facts.
|
|
| I strongly suggest you go back and read it again. He
definitely exposed the
| flaunting of the required rest rules and poor maintenance.
The point of the
| limited number of qualified FAA inspectors is that there
aren't enough to do the
| job. The results are paper inspections.
|
| From your comments, I'd have to guess you've never been a
freight dog. I have
| and I thought the man hit the nail on the head. Don't
fly? Your delay better
| be damned short or you're going to be looking for another
job. And they are few
| and far between. When I was flying cargo, they all seemed
to be in East BF,
| Iowa. I live on the east coast and want to stay here.
|
| If I lost an engine within 200 miles of my destination, I
was expected to fly to
| the destination; not somewhere else. The company didn't
get paid if it went
| somewhere else; at least that's what they told me. While
management might state
| one policy, the reality was generally quite different.
Mission completion was
| Job One.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
|
|
|
|

[ktbr]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I'm not saying there are no problems with cargo flying, but
> the solutions the author of the article talks about are not
> possible. First thing. pilots need a backbone.
>

Yes, and the thing you have to remember is, like all pie in the sky
government regulations/mandates they end up costing the end user
a *lot* at the end of the day.

Airlines have been losing money for years not making Joe Blow
actually pay the price for all of the stuff that goes into
flying a 757 from point A to point B. Same thing for cargo...
if you make freight operators go through the same hoops you:
A) need more GOVERNMENT (i.e. more taxes) to make it happen and:
B) Joe sixpack will be paying a lot more to ship grandmaw's
birthday present.

Americans want an safe, antiseptic, no stress, no risk lifestyle
but hate paying for it (themselves anyway). Maybe that's why
illegal immigration is such a big hit.

[Kingfish]

ktbr wrote:
> Americans want an safe, antiseptic, no stress, no risk lifestyle
> but hate paying for it (themselves anyway). Maybe that's why
> illegal immigration is such a big hit.

Uh oh, I smell thread creep...

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Kingfish" wrote)
>> Americans want an safe, antiseptic, no stress, no risk lifestyle but hate
>> paying for it (themselves anyway). Maybe that's why illegal immigration
>> is such a big hit.

> Uh oh, I smell thread creep...


So... the solution to the illegal immigration problem is to fly the "guest
workers" over the border in "cargo planes" (a.k.a. stolen Cessna 210's)?
Hmm, interesting.

I think the ultimate solution to our nation's immagration woes might be to
fly old 747's to Malaysia and bring back planeload, after planeload, after
planeload, after planeload of "guest workers," who will work for even
[cheaper] wages.

We'll NEVER be able to compete with China's child prison camp labor force,
but it's a start.

I'm seeing openings for many "cargo" pilots ...on the horizon.

How's that for avoiding [smelly] OT thread creep?


Montblack :-)

[John Gaquin]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >

> I think the author hit the nail on the head.

I think they're tap-dancing with their data a bit, to sensationalize, but
are essentially accurate. For example, the main focus of the report is
clearly small-plane freight. But then he quotes these figures:

"In the U.S., air express accounts for more than 70 percent of air cargo
shipments, researchers at UNC Chapel Hill found. Revenue for U.S. air and
express freight was nearly $30 billion in 2004, a record, the Seattle-based
aviation consultant Air Cargo Management Group found."

Now, I may be wrong, but I think he used some full industry figures there,
not just small cargo numbers.

>
> For those of you who don't know, I used to do this kind of flying. >Not
> no more.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_1_]]

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

[Dan Luke]

"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

[Peter R.]

"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

[Skylune[_1_]]

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

[Skylune[_1_]]

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....

[Jim Macklin]

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.
|

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.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!

[ktbr]

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.

[Skylune[_1_]]

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


In article
utaviation.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.

[Skylune[_1_]]

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.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> 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."



This is an honest-to-God radio conversation I participated in back around 1989:


ATC: Wrapair 701, you have weather at your 12 oclock and 6 miles.

701: Roger.

(I was staring at it. There was a huge bank of clouds stretching from wingtip
to wingtip in front of me. Dark and angry looking. But I'd been in FSS at RDU
just a few minutes before and saw a narrow area along my route of flight that
looked promising. I was low too... only at 4000 feet. I throttled back,
lowered my seat, tightened my belt, turned up the lights, and got a death grip
on the yoke.)

ATC: Wrapair 701, your weather is now at 3 and a half miles and 12 oclock. Are
you sure you wouldn't like to deviate? USAir flight (whatever) deviated 45
miles to the south and Delta fliht (whatever) deviated 35 miles to the north;
state your intentions.

701: It's OK so far. I think I'll be all right.

(Now I'm really getting nervous. Redouble that grip on the yoke. Nervous as a
whore in church. I entered the clouds and went solid. A little light
turbulence and then an insistent updraft. "Oh, hell, here we go", I thought.
There was a little bump and suddenly I'm flying in pretty smooth air, albeit
solid IFR.)

ATC: Wrapair 701, report your conditions.

701: It's pretty smooth where I am now.

ATC: I'm surprised. You know that both USAir and Delta deviated far away from
that weather.

701: Yeah, but those guys are pussies.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Maule Driver]

Great stuff. You said earlier that this kind of flying is in your past.
I'm thinking "a younger person's game for sure" (no offense out there).

But, I'm guessing you wouldn't trade-in those experiences for the same
hours puttering around the piedmont CAVU. Nothing like having a reason
to get there to grow your flying experiences -even if they seem less
than sensible now.

Yes?

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> This is an honest-to-God radio conversation I participated in back around 1989:
>
> ATC: Wrapair 701, you have weather at your 12 oclock and 6 miles.
>
> 701: Roger.
>
> (I was staring at it. There was a huge bank of clouds stretching from wingtip
> to wingtip in front of me. Dark and angry looking. But I'd been in FSS at RDU
> just a few minutes before and saw a narrow area along my route of flight that
> looked promising. I was low too... only at 4000 feet. I throttled back,
> lowered my seat, tightened my belt, turned up the lights, and got a death grip
> on the yoke.)
>
> ATC: Wrapair 701, your weather is now at 3 and a half miles and 12 oclock. Are
> you sure you wouldn't like to deviate? USAir flight (whatever) deviated 45
> miles to the south and Delta fliht (whatever) deviated 35 miles to the north;
> state your intentions.
>
> 701: It's OK so far. I think I'll be all right.
>
> (Now I'm really getting nervous. Redouble that grip on the yoke. Nervous as a
> whore in church. I entered the clouds and went solid. A little light
> turbulence and then an insistent updraft. "Oh, hell, here we go", I thought.
> There was a little bump and suddenly I'm flying in pretty smooth air, albeit
> solid IFR.)
>
> ATC: Wrapair 701, report your conditions.
>
> 701: It's pretty smooth where I am now.
>
> ATC: I'm surprised. You know that both USAir and Delta deviated far away from
> that weather.
>
> 701: Yeah, but those guys are pussies.
>
>
>
>

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> 701: Yeah, but those guys are pussies.

I guess I am in good company, although you might see me petitioning to
change the name of the group.

--
Peter

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Peter R." wrote)
>> 701: Yeah, but those guys are pussies.

> I guess I am in good company, although you might see me petitioning to
> change the name of the group.


RA"P" ?


Montblack

[john smith]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> When I trained briefly at FRG, the CFI
> that I used was a total fool and a cowboy (and a drinker, to boot).

But you flew with him anyway?
From your postings, it sounds as though your decision making and
judgemnent haven't improved any over time.

[John Gaquin]

"ktbr" > wrote in message news:Dittg.5363
>
> Anything short of sitting at home watching TV has its risks.

........and that'll melt your brain.

[John Gaquin]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
>
>
> That ain't freight dog work... that's the big time!

Yeah, OK, if you say so. You're the hero.

[John Gaquin]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
>
> 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.

There is. What's lacking is the willingness to walk away from the job.