![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marco Leon wrote:
Just a heads up to the northeast pilots interested in Angel Flight. Just got a call informing me that the new requirements as of January 1, 2006 is 250 hours PIC. It's no longer just the 300 hours total time. I'm about 15 hours short of that so I'll be put in the system pending the hours and orientation attendance. Apparently it takes a little while to set the orientation up so I'll hopefully have the PIC hours by the time orientation logistics come together. Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency? Marco Leon Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com Insurance? Michelle |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That would be my guess. I know that insurance and lawyers have been
the driver at Angel Flight South Central. On lawyers advise it used to be simply Private Pilot. [Hey, we didn't say they could fly, the FAA did.] Now we have 200 hours (and I don't recall but I think it's PIC) because that is what the insurance company requires before they will write liability insurance for AFSC. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Maybe if they are insured for legal fees from the possibility of being sued
(if there is such a thing). They require that we have our own insurance and there is no need to list Angel Flight as an additional insured. I would think that the pilot shoulders tha majority of the risk but there's no law preventing anyone from filing the suit in the first place thus requiring defensive legal representation. Marco "Michelle" wrote in message nk.net... Insurance? Michelle Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marco Leon mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:
Maybe if they are insured for legal fees from the possibility of being sued (if there is such a thing). They require that we have our own insurance and there is no need to list Angel Flight as an additional insured. I would think that the pilot shoulders tha majority of the risk but there's no law preventing anyone from filing the suit in the first place thus requiring defensive legal representation. Each passenger signs a release against both AFW and the pilot before they ever climb into the aircraft. And we're required to mail it (or ensure it can be transmitted, e.g. fax) before *we* climb into the aircraft. "Waiver of Liabiliity" "By signing this waiver, you are giving up any rights you might otherwise have to sue the pilot, mission assistant or Angel Flight West in the event of an accident". This is in very large type at the top of the 2 page release. The rest of it was written by the lawyers. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Blanche" wrote "Waiver of Liabiliity" "By signing this waiver, you are giving up any rights you might otherwise have to sue the pilot, mission assistant or Angel Flight West in the event of an accident". This is in very large type at the top of the 2 page release. The rest of it was written by the lawyers. That is nothing but a feel good waiver. There is no way that it would stand up in court, if suite was filled by one of the flight crew's family member. You simply can not sign away other peoples rights. This type of thing is done, primarily so everyone involved "thinks" there is no way for a law suit to be carried out, so it is less likely that a suite will be filled. -- Jim in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
IMHO a TT number doesn't really demonstrate anything anyway. You could be a
Student Pilot with 300 hours TT and never actually be qualified to fly a plane. PIC time is a much more relevant number. And my guess is that 250 PIC is equivalent to somewhere between 300 and 350 TT for the typical pilot. (They say the average pilot spends 65 hours in primary training.) "Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in : Just a heads up to the northeast pilots interested in Angel Flight. Just got a call informing me that the new requirements as of January 1, 2006 is 250 hours PIC. It's no longer just the 300 hours total time. I'm about 15 hours short of that so I'll be put in the system pending the hours and orientation attendance. Apparently it takes a little while to set the orientation up so I'll hopefully have the PIC hours by the time orientation logistics come together. Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency? Marco Leon Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Judah wrote: IMHO a TT number doesn't really demonstrate anything anyway. You could be a Student Pilot with 300 hours TT and never actually be qualified to fly a plane. PIC time is a much more relevant number. You could rack up 100's of hours flying day-vfr over familiar routes in nice weather and not really gain much experience either. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Smith wrote in
: In article , Judah wrote: IMHO a TT number doesn't really demonstrate anything anyway. You could be a Student Pilot with 300 hours TT and never actually be qualified to fly a plane. PIC time is a much more relevant number. You could rack up 100's of hours flying day-vfr over familiar routes in nice weather and not really gain much experience either. True, but you'd at least be a licensed pilot. And probably you'd be qualified to maintain control of an airplane, and to take off and land safely in day-vfr conditions at familiar airports. Even if you skated by on navigation techniques, PIC hours have meaning. I remember the instructor who I used for my IFR training having another student who had racked up an excessive number of hours (150+ IIRC) into his primary (VFR) training. I don't think he had even solo'd. He and another instructor used to discuss how to convince the guy to stop wasting his money - that he would never be qualified to get his ticket. But the guy still has 150TT... And they both used to be worried that he would knock on enough doors to eventually get someone to sign him off and end up killing himself or worse someone else. It's much less likely that someone of this caliber would have ANY PIC hours... Fortunately, Angel Flight also requires an instrument rating, so it is unlikely that this would be the case with an Angel Flight pilot anyway... ![]() |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Angel Flight call signs | Doug Carter | Piloting | 14 | February 1st 05 03:43 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |