Q400 & Dash 8 classic mixed fleet

[The Hammer]

Are there any operators that mix their flight crews regularly between the Dash 8 classic and Q400? I know almost everyone takes advantage of the common type rating for training but it seems to be very common to crew the aircraft separately for a number of reasons (tail strike)

There are a few operators that have only 1-3 of one variant making it a tougher to justify keeping them the pilots separated for scheduling. I know there's an operator in YYC with just 1-400 and possibly 1 in Quebec.

[Bavros]

PAL Maybe?

[AV80R]

Voyageur too.

[Canoehead]

Are there any operators that mix their flight crews regularly between the Dash 8 classic and Q400? I know almost everyone takes advantage of the common type rating for training but it seems to be very common to crew the aircraft separately for a number of reasons (tail strike)

Easier to do in smaller rosters/fleets. Jazz investigated it in the past, but there were logistical issues with currency and training that became cost prohibitive. Of note, the tail strike issue is the same between the -300 and -400 (approx 7 degrees).

I wonder if Wideroe does it?

[goingnowherefast]

The planes are just dissimilar enough that I wish they weren't common type. They're the same, except when they aren't. There is tons of subtle, but important differences in every system.

I feel sorry for anyone stuck hopping back and forth between classics and the Q400. That's gotta be a f---ing nightmare

[‘Bob’]

I hope you’re asking this question for reasons of avoidance. Rule #1: Never make yourself too useful to a company. I’ve purposefully avoided being dual-typed/trained my entire career.

If the company in Calgary is the one I think it is, they do swap between aircraft. What’s interesting is that they only have training that goes (or went) from Classic, then Q400 differences. So a guy I knew who was trying to go there with a Q400 rating couldn’t without signing a bond and starting from scratch on the Classic.

[cdnavater]

The planes are just dissimilar enough that I wish they weren't common type. They're the same, except when they aren't. There is tons of subtle, but important differences in every system.

I feel sorry for anyone stuck hopping back and forth between classics and the Q400. That's gotta be a f---ing nightmare

I remember Horizon operating Q and classics way back as common type.
Then they toasted a few engines when a crew would operate 4 legs on a Q and then take the last flight somewhere in a classic, the throttles would go to a non existent detent position and cook those engines. They stopped the common type not long after that!

[flieslikeachicken]

The "common type" between the Q and the classic dash only show how stupidly low our standards for "common types" are.

Let's take a look at the 737 for example. The systems are different, the engines are different, the wings are different...

[NovaBoy]

PAL has the classic and Q crews split. Only ones checked on both are in the training department.

[dc-9-31]

Central Mountain Air

[JBI]

The "common type" between the Q and the classic dash only show how stupidly low our standards for "common types" are.

Let's take a look at the 737 for example. The systems are different, the engines are different, the wings are different...

I agreed with you and completely thought a separate type rating was needed ... and then I flew both the NG and Max. The differences training in the Sim was very helpful and arguably should have been part of the training footprint prior to the MCAS fiasco, but the two aircraft are very similar and going back and forth is not a big deal at all. The Beech 1900C and 1900D felt more different.

[Canoehead]

The -400 was designed as a different type by the engineers. It was the accounting department who had a different idea. So the airplane had to be worked back to a point where the regulators would agree that is was a common type.

Very unfortunate.