![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I emailed Angel Flight Central concerning the Command Pilot designation and
they informed me that they do not use the Command Pilot designation and do not require any orientation. Once you register with Angel Flight Central you are able to fly missions. And that is as it should be. Angel Flight South Central used to be that way. I flew my first mission with no orientation whatsoever. They sent me the handbook, and that was that. Those were the good old days, when we treated pilots like adults. Now we have mandatory orientations. Why? Beats me. It's all in the book. But now we have a whole bureaucracy to support those mandatory orientations. I would rather those people were out flying missions. The important thing to remember is that these things are all political. There is no reason to have any of these minimum requirements, orientations, flight checks, or any of that crap. If it were up to me, any private pilot could sign up and fly a mission - period. We've had such an excellent safety record because everyone understands this is important and uses good judgment. Rules can only hurt that. Michael |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Michael wrote
And that is as it should be Michael, I guess I"m a bit torn. I 100% agree that we should reduce procedures for the purpose of procedures. However, as an former AF checkpilot in west wing we did see some pilots that had trouble with landings and some even required the checkpilot to grab the controls. Perhaps the new minimum hours is good enough to take care of that. The idea is that when a person shows up to receive an AF flight, they have no way to determine the ability of the pilot other than the fact that he's wearing an AF ID card on his shirt. The feeling was that if we were be given that responsibility, we should ensure pilots were ok. The rides were NEVER intended to be an FAA checkride, a BFR, an IPC or any of the horror stories I've heard. It was supposed to be just a quick check around the pattern. I actually don't have a problem with accepting any PPL with miminum hours, my problem was AF asking me, as a CFI, to sign an orientation paper stating that I found the applicant to have good flying judgement based on a reading of his log book. -Robert, CFI |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can you tell me the difference between an AF Command Pilot and a "regular" pilot?
Jim, just like everything else (CAP, FSDO ,etc) EVERYTHING is different in California. In fact, we used to actually require a flight check of pilots. Now it is prohibited to ask a pilot to perform a flight check on an orientation. -Robert, former AF check pilot |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack,
I used to be an Angel Pilot checkpilot instructor back when we actually did a brief flight check. The lawyers finally decided there was too much liability in that and decided to move the liability over to the check pilots by asknig us to sign that the pilot has good judgement based on a reading of his log book. In any case, Angel Flight is a great organization and I continue to donate to them. -Robert, cameron park |
|
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 |
Dumb Reg question | John Gaquin | Piloting | 67 | May 4th 05 04:54 AM |
Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005 | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 37 | February 14th 05 03:21 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |
Angel Flight pilots: Ever have an FBO refuse to wave landing fees? | Peter R. | Piloting | 11 | August 2nd 03 01:20 AM |