A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Angel Flight NE Reqs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 20th 06, 01:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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  
Old January 20th 06, 02:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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  
Old January 20th 06, 06:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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  
Old January 20th 06, 08:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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  
Old January 20th 06, 10:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs


"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  
Old January 21st 06, 05:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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  
Old January 21st 06, 11:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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  
Old January 23rd 06, 12:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Angel Flight NE Reqs

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.