![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
AmeriFlight Crash | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | December 1st 03 02:13 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |