Reported by CNN this morning!!!!!

"Harry Gordon" wrote
I too saw the film and he was sitting in the left seat
which means he is the pilot-in-charge.

Harry...perhaps you meant pilot-in-command? No such thing
as pilot-in-charge in FAA-Land.
I have hundreds of hours as pilot-in-command of Boeing-707s
occupying the right-hand seat.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

Harry Gordon wrote:
Toks, I'm just a student pilot right now, [...]
he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. It

As you're a student pilot, I'm sure that you've spent several hours in the
left seat of an aircraft without being the pilot-in-command.

- awh

Correct me if I'm wrong but if "you're" flying the left seat of an airplane
with paying passengers in the back seats, you are NOT a student pilot :-).

Harry

"Drew Hamilton" wrote in message
...
Harry Gordon wrote:
Toks, I'm just a student pilot right now, [...]
he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. It

As you're a student pilot, I'm sure that you've spent several hours in the
left seat of an aircraft without being the pilot-in-command.

- awh

On 18 Jul 2003 19:22:06 -0700, (Kevin Darling)
wrote:

I've heard from many airline pilot friends that they have
(unofficially) slept on long trips.

So have I, from a pilot on the ComAir payroll.

I think the pilot's mistake was not so much that he was asleep while
another had the controls; the safety problem with that is not as
critical in a 2-crew airplane at cruise.

Rather, it was that he let his passengers get unsettled enough to
document it. Never scare the pax, right? They pay the bills for the
flight, after all...

So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
*very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?

Rob

"Harry Gordon" wrote in message
...
Correct me if I'm wrong but if "you're" flying the left seat of an
airplane
with paying passengers in the back seats, you are NOT a student pilot :-).

Harry


So you assume the PIC can't be in the right seat?

Robert Perkins wrote in message I think the pilot's mistake was not so
much that he was asleep while another had the controls; the safety problem
with that is not as
critical in a 2-crew airplane at cruise.

Walker's flies a few times per week, one hour out and one hour back, always
during the day with the crew being home every night. It's not a high demand
job. Doing back-to-back red-eyes out to LAX can tax one with fatigue, but
not doing a cake job like Walker's. Besides, a professional pilot makes sure
he is well rested before taking a flight, or he calls out sick.

The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are
NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing
that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety
asset.

Rather, it was that he let his passengers get unsettled enough to
document it. Never scare the pax, right? They pay the bills for the
flight, after all...

They weren't unsettled. They were giggling. They don't pay the bills either.
The island is huge tax write-off for a big corporation. Those passengers
will likely be back. The one on CNN said as much.

So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
*very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned.

"pittss1c" writes:

Am I the only one to say BFD:

Of course you are! If a pilot gets caught doing something less than
perfect, we're supposed to set the stake and collect some wood for the
fire. Simply implying that it might not have been so bad is a punishable
offense.

That is what the other guy is there for... to fly while the Capitan takes a
nap. (one of the MANY odd jobs of the Switch Bitch)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

--kyler

Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
time limitations. Whats scary is riding in the back in a 135 op and
looking up to find BOTH of them guys nodding off... its happened more
than once.

Dave PPSEL

Toks Desalu wrote:

Guys!
You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I missed
the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A passenger
was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got
caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I noticed
that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with
his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him sleeping
for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for comments
and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that the
pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There is
no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is
under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft.
Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that it
is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where the
flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Here my questions:
Can you believe this?
I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific
regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can
point it out?
Why they really want to make us look bad?
Feel free to comment on this.

Toks
PP_ASEL

What have you been smoking?!?

"Dave S" wrote in message
...
Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
time limitations.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:54:57 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote:

The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are
NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing
that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety
asset.

And I, in the light singles I'm allowed to fly? Were I to fly that
route under part 91, would I therefore be a detrimental safety
liability, if my pax don't scan for traffic?

(And yes, I've had conversations with pilots who reported waking up in
their light single in an unusual attitude. Not fun, I'm told...)

I didn't argue that the man didn't need to be awake. I argue that it
was much worse on the company flying that leg to have a pilot get
caught doing what pilots do on occasion, and have that hit the news
("OMG! a pilot was asleep! That's worse than Palestinian Suicide
Bombers! Run the video again, Bob!") than the actual detriment to
safety warranted.

IOW, pax overreacted. Media (as usual) overreacted.

One thing's for sure, though, IMO. The age-60 rule just got itself
another point in the "pro" column, don't you think?

So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was
*very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked?

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned.

Nixon style, beating them to the pink slip? Or would he have kept his
job after making the national news anyway? eh?

Rob