AVSIG: New Angel Flight NE Rule wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> Training & Proficiency

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Dave Siciliano (ADS)
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 8469
Loc: ADS (Dallas, TX)
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #251285 - 06/15/09 04:58 PM

Interesting.

So, as a relatively new pilot out of military flight school, with about 50 hours familiarization in RVN, I could fly anyone, anywhere in a combat zone. But not at Angel Flight in the NE. As a matter of fact, I never had 1,000 PIC when I left RVN and was air mission commander the last three months in the Cav.

In fairness, it took about 90 days to become PIC in the HUEY or cobra and there was a two man crew. But once PIC in a LOH, no problmeo with single pilot.

I love boiler plate criteria <g>

Best,

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Dave Siciliano (ADS)]
      #251286 - 06/15/09 05:06 PM

Dave - Well, the mil training is probably just a bit more standardized and
controlled than civ training. Besides, I don't think we want the hull
losses that came "standard" in the combat zone. <G>

Unlike some AF organizations, we're not in the checkride business, so what
are you left with? Hours and currency, probably. I'd rather that
personally, not sure how I'd feel if I were running the organization.

But, I think the mil v. Angel Flight comparison is apples and oranges. You
could say the same thing about United, American, Delta, etc., that their
hiring standards far exceed what the military would approve for combat
theater ops. That's not wrong, just a different standard.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ray Tackett
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 8892
Loc: Philadelphia, USA
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #251287 - 06/15/09 05:24 PM

Indeed. The only engine I ever had flat, dead quit on me was at five hours.
I've had some roughness and partial power losses with higher-time engines,
but never a complete stoppage.

--------------------
Ray,

Owner, Lake Wood Be Gone

Turning quality lumber into sawdust and noise since 2013.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ray Tackett
Top Gun


Reged: 04/30/04
Posts: 8892
Loc: Philadelphia, USA
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Sean Franklin]
      #251288 - 06/15/09 05:24 PM

When I first began flying for AFPA, all passenger ops were to be conducted
IFR and with an appropriately rated copilot.

--------------------
Ray,

Owner, Lake Wood Be Gone

Turning quality lumber into sawdust and noise since 2013.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Andy Alson (HPN/NY)
THE TOP GUN!


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 1862
New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #251289 - 06/15/09 05:29 PM

Interesting. Any idea whether this was a result of the few accidents they
had over the past couple of years?

You're right about the engine hours being questionable but I can see some
logic behind it. But then.... why don't they have maximum hours on the
vacuum pump and things like that which would probably be of more concern.

I'd be curious to see how much this reduces the number of available AF pilots
who are doing flights.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dave Siciliano (ADS)
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 8469
Loc: ADS (Dallas, TX)
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #251290 - 06/15/09 05:33 PM

Oh, I don't know that I could do any better if making those decisions Scott. As you said, you're not in the checkride bus. and there are liability concerns.

It's just always interesting to see these generalized criteria that have nothing to do with flying safely, staying ahead of the aircraft and having a good decision making process.

Still, as you say, it's a reasonable manner in which to approach things. Hopefully, most bad seeds will have been weeded out by the time they meet that criteria. The current flight time seemed a bit low for IFR in the NE opns to me; no autopilot required for single pilot, IFR or night ops that I saw.

Best,

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Andy Alson (HPN/NY)]
      #251292 - 06/15/09 05:41 PM

Andy -- I think the impetus was certainly the crash on approach into BOS and
the one or two others that happened around the same time elsewhere in the US.

Some reduction in the number of pilots is probably ok, as those who don't fly
much anyway probably fly few AF missions. While it'd be great to have them
aboard, there comes a point where at least some base level of enroute
experience and currency matters.

But, some of those reductions will likely be from pilots who want to run
another couple of hundred hours beyond TBO, and they may be some of the more
active people. I know I'll be running beyond TBO if the engine cooperates,
and I'll just have to stand down from my 12-20 AFs each year that I do for a
while in that case.

Frankly, I was expecting to see a minimum requirement of an annual IPC, and
not so much on equipment (like the TBO restriction). Hence my question
initially whether there were some accidents with GA recently where the NTSB
or others were critical of Part 91 operating beyond TBO.

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
Top Gun


Reged: 01/11/03
Posts: 20065
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Dave Siciliano (ADS)]
      #251293 - 06/15/09 05:41 PM

Dave -- Good point about the AP. A real help when single pilot IFR in busy
environments (like BOS/PHL where we operate frequently).

--------------------
www.scottdyercfi.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dave Siciliano (ADS)
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 8469
Loc: ADS (Dallas, TX)
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #251295 - 06/15/09 06:16 PM

I'M with you on the IPC adn TBO criteria. I'm 200 hours over TBO on my P-Baron and it's running great. It was topped before we got it with reconditioned Millenniums at just under 800 hours; so, the cylinders only have about 1,000 hours on them.

Sure seems to help when one runs it correctly!

Best,

Dave

Edited by Dave Siciliano (ADS) (06/15/09 06:19 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Bridges - 9S1
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 6008
Loc: 9S1
Re: New Angel Flight NE Rule [Re: Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]]
      #251305 - 06/15/09 08:10 PM

Scott,

Quote:

Well, the mil training is probably just a bit more standardized and
controlled than civ training. Besides, I don't think we want the hull
losses that came "standard" in the combat zone. <G>





I do not know if standardized is the word to describe military training, but 90 percent of the training is geared toward bad weather, night and emergencies. The day a military pilot graduates, that pilot is expected to be able to fly in bad weather at night with emergencies, single pilot (no autopilot) or they do not graduate.

You mean the civilian world couldn't handle the loss of 26 aircraft in 6 weeks with only 30 to start? :).

Bill


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 8128

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum