Crew Members Assigned to a Fleet

[PetriSuni]

"Well, here's my two cents' worth: I am probably an exception to the rule in this VA, as I do not fancy flying the 742 anymore because it lacks a realistic 3D cockpit, which the PMDG bird has. So even though I do still own the 742 RFP, I would not like to be assigned to fly it anymore. Rather, I prefer to stick with the PMDG. That is why I am voting no to the type rating system. If the system will be such that we can freely choose which bird to be certified on, then I might reconsider. However, introducing a lot of complex exams and checkrides is not entirely my idea of an enjoyable hobby, so in any case, I'd rather keep things the way they are now. Unfortunately, due to real life commitments, I don't have nearly as much time for flying as I would like to, and thus spending my little flying-time studying for type rating exams instead of flying is not something I'd like to do. No offense meant to anyone, and I do understand the added realism point-of-view in all this. And this is just my opinion thrown into the discussion... Petri"

[Brogs]

Studying ? I gave that up 40 yrs ago ! Mike

[Mike Schmitt]

"I think I will wait and see what actually developes before forming an oppinon. I fly only the RFP version, but with out using the CIVA INS I have. I use FSNav instead becuase it less time consuming. So would that make me uneligible for a type rating since I do not use the INS system? I fly a fantastic aircraft, the 747-200, but in away that is comfortable for me. The CIVA INS just takes way to long to set-up and update in flight. maybe the VIP triple INS is easier I don't know. I was unable to purchase that version. Hopefully I will get that chance here soon, but not hopefull on it. I am looking forward too, from what I think I am reading in between the lines, is something along the line to helps us in flying these whales with more training materials. From systems to flying holds and non percision approaches and like. Maybe even better checlists which include the INS systems. I am just at a point where I think I have a good grasp of the 747-200 and my landing are improving but there things that still baffle me and the manuals just don't answer my questions so I am mlooking forward to this."

[cyoo eddie]

"Mike, the civa ins is not that difficult to learn to set up. When I first started to fly the 742 it was all vors and then gps over the oceans. Then I figured out (read that as read the instructions) how to use it and it really is a cool peice of equipment. there are certain proceedures to follow to get it to align, but once it is done you are good to go. The documentation is very good that comes with it, give it a go."

[Mike Schmitt]

"I can set it up and use the CIVA INS and all, but on a flight say from Miami to Campinas Brazil with close to 40 fixes its quite time consuming. I wish I could have more than nine at a time in the unit. Even doing enough to keep me on the airway is alot of work to keep up with. Thats why I use FSNav."

[esurfman]

"The INS is quite time consuming but remember, that was how they did it before in the 742."

[dave colavecchio]

"All- This is the worst idea of all time for the following reasons. 1 We already require very large investment for some to participate. 2 We only fly one type of aircraft. Therefore- everyones LDS, Dreamfleet, Feelthere, freeware, etc... aren't utilized while flying for Globe. Most people fly for Globe because at XYZ airline you have to have 10000 hours on vatsim to fly a 747- if they have one. Almost everyone flies for another airline because they want to fly other types. 3 The 747-200's are being phased out- sorry RFP guys. 4 More regulation- yea it's realistic- but not fun. 5. We already have 50% of pilots assigned to regions they didn't ask for - now we'll saddle them with an airplane they don't want to fly. Say goodbye to recruiting and retention. Again, having an $80 PMDG 747 and not being able to fly it is not conducive to a long Globe career. 6. We already have a hard time getting people to take the current indoc tests.They take 20 minutes each. 7. Do I really want to spend 5 hours prepping and several hours yacking to someone online for an oral exam? No. What would it prove. I'm 36 with 2 jobs,2 little kids, and a wife. My flight sim time is precious for me to get away from real life for a few hours, usually late at night. I don't need any more stress. 8. Start assigning type ratings and this airline will have 20 hardcore pilots tops. My prediction.... 9. I have no desire to buy FSX at this time. 10. I really have no desire to fly with someone in the same cockpit at the same time. Am I really going to spend 5 hours sitting there in the right seat watching the gear handle? 11. Thanks for reading all of that...."

[yoni63]

"I do have to admit, Dave has some good points there. I know realism would definitely be a plus, maybe we could implement it as an elective for those that would like to add realism to their own experience? Just a thought. I had thought of a couple of those issues that Dave has pointed out, but he has realistically pointed out a few more and it is definitely something we have to consider. As a pilot myself I know it would add realism, but many of our guys aren't real pilots and may not share in the appreciation of the realism? Again, thinking outloud for just more brainstorming. very respectfully submitted."

[nwadc10]

"

All- This is the worst idea of all time for the following reasons. 1 We already require very large investment for some to participate. 2 We only fly one type of aircraft. Therefore- everyones LDS, Dreamfleet, Feelthere, freeware, etc... aren't utilized while flying for Globe. Most people fly for Globe because at XYZ airline you have to have 10000 hours on vatsim to fly a 747- if they have one. Almost everyone flies for another airline because they want to fly other types. 3 The 747-200's are being phased out- sorry RFP guys. 4 More regulation- yea it's realistic- but not fun. 5. We already have 50% of pilots assigned to regions they didn't ask for - now we'll saddle them with an airplane they don't want to fly. Say goodbye to recruiting and retention. Again, having an $80 PMDG 747 and not being able to fly it is not conducive to a long Globe career. 6. We already have a hard time getting people to take the current indoc tests.They take 20 minutes each. 7. Do I really want to spend 5 hours prepping and several hours yacking to someone online for an oral exam? No. What would it prove. I'm 36 with 2 jobs,2 little kids, and a wife. My flight sim time is precious for me to get away from real life for a few hours, usually late at night. I don't need any more stress. 8. Start assigning type ratings and this airline will have 20 hardcore pilots tops. My prediction.... 9. I have no desire to buy FSX at this time. 10. I really have no desire to fly with someone in the same cockpit at the same time. Am I really going to spend 5 hours sitting there in the right seat watching the gear handle? 11. Thanks for reading all of that....

1. No we don't, 1 bid and 1 flight per month is nothing. Anything less and you wouldn't be doing anything. Indoc tests are there so that everyone knows how the airline works rather than having a lot of clueless people who double the work of **volunteer** administrators. 2. We don't restrict anyone from flying for any other airline for that reason. Most of our membership joined after the initial startup of the airline and may not know that one of the core values of GC is realism and emulating Atlas/Polar which unfortunately for those who purchased LDS and other PMDG products Atlas nor Polar operates. I am one who would love to fly my LDS around but all of my flying is 747 exclusively because I don't fly for any other VAs. 3. That will make the decision easy then. However, phasing out aircraft types is a several year process. 4. Seeing this as a regulation is the wrong way to take it. The intent is to learn. We try to keep the "regulations" to a minimum. Some do think its fun. I went through the NWA DC-10 ground school, 2 weeks long and I loved it. At any rate, the program would be setup to do at your own pace using a series of modules. 5. We are done with regions. 6. The reason we need it and will terminate pilots not in compliance is stated in answer #1. 7. Only you can answer that, shouldn't have been posted here. But I get your point, however uninformed as that's not even something considered yet. 8. Another GC core value, quality in pilots over quantity. We want those who stick around and participate. That's why we are serious about terminating people who don't fly. At the same time we aren't going to do something that will drive everyone away hence the point of this entire thread. 9. & 10. FSX? That has nothing to do with this topic. Shared cockpit would be fun but would only work on a voluntary basis. The 744 and 742 need to be programmed to comply with the shared cockpit concept from my understanding. That's the developers decision, we get what they give us. I certainly would participate in that program. 11. It would be very easy to make this "just another VA". That's not something I'm interested in and a lot of pilots join GC for the same reason. That's why I keep thinking of ideas, a lot of which aren't implemented. To say this is the "worst idea of all time" is in my opinion way off base, not appropriate considering the *intent* of this thread, and more like a post you would find on Airliners.net, not the Globe Cargo forum."

[dave colavecchio]

"Last night I was asked on IM if I wanted to quit Globe. Quite the contrary, I want to save it from what I feel is a terrible mistake. If I sound arrogant in the process, so be it. I mean no disrespect to anyone personally. I can tell you that management always has the best intentions in mind. There are some statistics that I see as the HR director and former DO that I find to be somewhat disturbing. I don't think we are doing a good job in recruiting and retaining the best flightsim pilots. In point #1 I didn't mean time commitment monthly, I meant financially. With PMDG or RFP required and FSFK possibly mandatory in the future, we are priced above the minimum. I have also participated in airline ground schools. They are a blast when it's part of your life. Justin and I are both aviation professionals and therefore junkies who love everything about airplanes. There are vast majority out there who wil look at FS ground schools as a big pain and won't complete them. Out of the last 110 pilots hired, fewer than 20 have completed both indoc tests and they are quick and easy. I agree with Justin that it makes for better pilots. I also agree 100% that pilots shouldn't be promoted until they complete them. But participation clearly just isn't there. If you are going to make people get type rated mandatory, then people just won't bother. VA pilots want to fly. Like me, many have various time constraints. Like me, most, but not all, people want to join a va where they don't feel they have to do 3 or 4 hours of ground school to begin. The stats here prove it. We now show pilot #1533 as our most junior pilot. When I was hired in late may as #1421 there were 105 pilots. We now have 89 with 3 pilots about to be terminated. We have hired 112 pilots and have 16 fewer. Bottom line. Our retention rate stinks. Not all of those guys who left were bad pilots. For some reason, we didn't meet a need of theirs. I can't see how aircraft bidding is going to change that. We must do new things that get people involved and them want to participate. Quality over quantity is good. But we can't rely only on a few core members or this va won't be around in 2 years. It must grow both in both quality and quantity. It's hard to play devil's advocate. Thanks to all who have sent me private messages of encouragement."

[Mike Schmitt]

"

The INS is quite time consuming but remember, that was how they did it before in the 742.

My dad was a navigator in the USAF onboard C-141 out of Vietnam and is amazed how well the gauge is replicated. It is a very time consuming guage and if I had 80 + dollars, and a new computer (mine a 1.5 ghz P4) I would buy the 747-400F, in a heart beat, to get the FMC and whole lot more. Not saying that plane is less time consuming because I have the 737-6 and 700 but the navigational part of it is easier to program. I don't want to cast stones at things not in place yet. I am 41 years of age with still a fading dream of one day flying the real 747's. I left the aviation back in 1985 with only a PPL to show for the 250 hours of flying in about 3 years I gained. I have stayed close to aviation in some ways working in the USAF as as an Airport Rescue Firefighter / Security officer and since basically 9-11 (I started work here about 15 days prior to that dreadful day) at a smaller commercial aiport here in St. Louis with one airline and alot of hopes that Cargo birds will land here next year. I have 48 hours off for everyday I work so I have alot of time on my hands when my kids are at school and fly the heck out of the virtual skies for four VA's including one I am started and still run. But I do not have allot of money. I would love to try this idea and see where it leads. Truth be told, I sure could use all the help I can get trying to fly just the 747-200. I would like to see a type rating course similar to that of the PMDG one for the RFP bird. I know every question I have is answered somewhere in the manuals, but the truth is no they are not. The checklists are ok in getting the aircraft started and taxiing and shutdown but thats where they kind of stop. The INS is covered only in start-up beyond that it goes away and nothing is in them about the post flight test need to be accomplished. Also, some tips on balancing fuel in flight would be helpful just to mention a few items. I am one who is looking forward to this opportunity to kind of live my dream out here working with Globe. I mane an some small ways the airline is set-up that way. That is why I joined, realism. I probably can no longer attain my dream of flying these planes wbeing inside 20 years to the magical cut-offof 60 years of age. But I can live it out to some extent here. My big fear is the day I have to invest in a new computer plus 80 bucks to be able to stay apart of this great VA. The day when Atlas gets rid of the few -200's it still has since Polar already has."

[Brogs]

"

The INS is quite time consuming but remember, that was how they did it before in the 742.

My dad was a navigator in the USAF onboard C-141 out of Vietnam and is amazed how well the gauge is replicated. It is a very time consuming guage and if I had 80 + dollars, and a new computer (mine a 1.5 ghz P4) I would buy the 747-400F, in a heart beat, to get the FMC and whole lot more. Not saying that plane is less time consuming because I have the 737-6 and 700 but the navigational part of it is easier to program. I don't want to cast stones at things not in place yet. I am 41 years of age with still a fading dream of one day flying the real 747's. I left the aviation back in 1985 with only a PPL to show for the 250 hours of flying in about 3 years I gained. I have stayed close to aviation in some ways working in the USAF as as an Airport Rescue Firefighter / Security officer and since basically 9-11 (I started work here about 15 days prior to that dreadful day) at a smaller commercial aiport here in St. Louis with one airline and alot of hopes that Cargo birds will land here next year. I have 48 hours off for everyday I work so I have alot of time on my hands when my kids are at school and fly the heck out of the virtual skies for four VA's including one I am started and still run. But I do not have allot of money. I would love to try this idea and see where it leads. Truth be told, I sure could use all the help I can get trying to fly just the 747-200. I would like to see a type rating course similar to that of the PMDG one for the RFP bird. I know every question I have is answered somewhere in the manuals, but the truth is no they are not. The checklists are ok in getting the aircraft started and taxiing and shutdown but thats where they kind of stop. The INS is covered only in start-up beyond that it goes away and nothing is in them about the post flight test need to be accomplished. Also, some tips on balancing fuel in flight would be helpful just to mention a few items. I am one who is looking forward to this opportunity to kind of live my dream out here working with Globe. I mane an some small ways the airline is set-up that way. That is why I joined, realism. I probably can no longer attain my dream of flying these planes wbeing inside 20 years to the magical cut-offof 60 years of age. But I can live it out to some extent here. My big fear is the day I have to invest in a new computer plus 80 bucks to be able to stay apart of this great VA. The day when Atlas gets rid of the few -200's it still has since Polar already has.

Hey Mike This dvd will explain the Fuel planning on the Classic Mike http://www.itvv.com/virb747200.asp"

[PetriSuni]

"Hi everyone! I do have to side with many of Dave's points, although I have to admit the tone in his posting could have been slightly more polite/constructive. Especially Justin's comment "Seeing this as a regulation is the wrong way to take it" is quite weird in my opinion, too. How are mandatory exams not regulations?? I, too have a family and a time-consuming job which makes for precious little flying time, which I would prefer to spend flight planning (realistically) and flying (realistically), not studying for type rating exams. So I think that it would be best to introduce this type-rating system as a voluntary addition for those of us, who'd enjoy it and not as a mandatory procedure for everyone. I think doing that still would NOT make Globe "just another VA", but this is only my opinion. Petri"

[nwadc10]

"

Hi everyone! I do have to side with many of Dave's points, although I have to admit the tone in his posting could have been slightly more polite/constructive. Especially Justin's comment "Seeing this as a regulation is the wrong way to take it" is quite weird in my opinion, too. How are mandatory exams not regulations?? I, too have a family and a time-consuming job which makes for precious little flying time, which I would prefer to spend flight planning (realistically) and flying (realistically), not studying for type rating exams. So I think that it would be best to introduce this type-rating system as a voluntary addition for those of us, who'd enjoy it and not as a mandatory procedure for everyone. I think doing that still would NOT make Globe "just another VA", but this is only my opinion. Petri

No decision had been made to make it mandatory or not. Some have *assumed* it would be mandatory. Most things here are voluntary with only a couple exceptions. I should note that our goal is to acheive "reasonable realism." That means we need a minimum standard while anything above that management will work on and provide for those who want it. That minimum standard is the fact that RFP or PMDG 744F is required because of their realism in aircraft systems. Some other things are more subtle like not loading your flight on the runway and firewalling the engines, etc. These type ratings won't be as horrible as most of you think. And again, thinking of it as a regulation is incorrect. Inaccuracies from another post may lead you to believe it's mandatory. At anyrate, despite the majority in favor of the idea (as a reminder, is to assign pilots to a type, not necessarily the type rating) it won't be moving forward for 1 simple reason. Future of the 742/RFP is in question and currently unavailable for purchase which means that a large majority of new pilots have only the 744F. Work on the type rating may commence but hasn't been thoroughly discussed. Justin"

[James1979]

I'll do whatever.