48.4 hours !?

You're confusing rating and FAA requirements with insurance
requirements.

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably
bright
person with the minimum hours can pilot a doggy glider
like
a 2-33 with a passenger on a sled ride. FAA minimums
are just that: minimums. Neither the FAA nor anyone
else I know
believes that having a license and being legal to fly
X or Y or Z makes it safe to fly any aircraft with
any passengers with no further type specific training
whatsoever. Even the greenest
private pilots in airplanes don't jump straight into
a
GeeBee.

At the exaggeration of what you are suggesting is that
all pilots should be required to fly a 2-32 and demonstrate
they can safely fly it in maximally difficult wave,
thermal, ridge, etc.
Oh, and demonstrate spins and recoveries in the 2-32
with 300# in the back. All before getting the FAA

glider rating. Quite a full plate indeed.

This is NOT an FAA requirement. BUT, this can be
an INSURANCE requirement. As it should be, the
insurer for this accident will be much more interested
and responsive to the findings than the FAA. A blanket
FAA regulatory change from this accident seems neither
prudent nor likely.

A 2-32 is a hot enough ship that I am personally aware
of a
several thousand hour commercial pilot destroying one
within the past two years. Pilot and passengers uninjured,

fortunately.

Which is perhaps one of the greatest things one can
say about
these aircraft: they seem to do a pretty good job
protecting the innocent passengers in the back.

They seem to also do a fairly good job protecting the
pilot in the front too, generally. It's a shame that
this
particular pilot didn't make it.

Despite whether the eventual findings cite X or Y or
Z...

...the most surprising part of the 48.4 hours is that
the commercial insurer would accept that. In my experience
commercial insurers are pretty draconian about their
experience requirements, including some pretty
heavy requirements for time in type. To the point
they
don't even quote a rate (even an exorbinant one)
unless one has some pretty extensive experience in
some aircraft types.

I'd be very interested to see not so much how the
FAA reacts, but how the insurers react to this unfortunate
accident.

On a different note, I think this was a young, 20ish
pilot.
How terrible to lose a young soul like this...

At 18:00 21 April 2005, Ttaylor At Cc.Usu.Edu wrote:
The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring
experience
required. I think that all ratings should be required
to demonstrate
real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This
is about the third
accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics
into the
trees.

Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
* Be able to read, speak, write, and understand
English.
* Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for
heavier-than-air
aircraft.)
For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge
test (FAR
61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s)
endorsed in
the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which
type of launch(s)
the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
*
There are two levels of experience required for issuance
of a
commercial certificate;
1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders,
including;
1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in
command; and,
2. 3 hours of flight training or 10
training flights in
gliders; and,
3. 2 hours of solo flight to include
not less than 10
solo flights; and,
4. 3 training flights in preparation
for the flight
test.


Mark J. Boyd

M B wrote:

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan