|
Animal posted:If anyone wants a recommendation for an interview with ExpressJet, let me know. Must meet ATP mins (so gently caress you The Slaughter, go away.) I might take you up on that in a few weeks. I'm sitting slightly above ATP minimums but don't have the written done yet(in the process of studying for it), and I'm waiting to hear back from a couple of other applications I sent in at other companies. The Ferret King posted:I'm usually acting as safety pilot, and something I have been pointing out to him is his tendency to describe our position in relation to instrument approach fixes. I'm like "they don't know where that is, we're 5 miles northwest on a straight in." We had a Cessna pilot gripe at us over it once. Not too bad, but they were very clear that they had no idea what we were talking about and wanted a more proper vfr position report. I try and teach all of my instrument students to make position reports like they were VFR at non-towered fields. Unless everyone on the CTAF has every approach at the airport memorized, "five mile final at (altitude)" provides a lot more useful information than "(fix name) inbound" for everyone not flying that approach. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Apr 3, 2013 |
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
The Slaughter, have you heard anything about CAE leaving Goodyear? My boss was at a meeting about the tower at RYN shutting down, and someone there mentioned that CAE was going to leave GYR due to their operations requiring a towered airport for their base. Aside from maybe going to Gateway, I can't see where else they could possibly relocate in the area, and it seems like a heck of a lot of effort for something that's probably temporary, but it sounds just crazy enough to have an element of truth to it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
fordan posted:And wtf at overhead approaches if you're not actually flying a military aircraft. The only times I've seen civilian aircraft using the overhead break properly (it's supposed to allow high speed aircraft to slow down and get configured for landing without a 10 mile final to slow down), it's been with former military aircraft (a T-38 or Mig-17) that don't slow down terribly well without the G-loading the break provides. Every other time I've seen civilians doing an overhead break, it's been some idiot flying a homebuilt (generally while wearing a flight suit, and the aircraft often has fake military markings) trying to live out their Top Gun fantasies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:So am I filling out a new 85008 and submitting my 'application' to the FAA? They don't have it in their database from last year? Pretty much. I believe the system remembers some of the information that you submitted last time (name address, etc...) but I recall having to fill out most of the information again. Keep in mind that you're dealing with the FAA, which has an institutional distrust of "common sense" or "logic" for pretty much everything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
helno posted:Plenty of people get sick when they first go up. This. I've lost track of the number of students I've had get sick early in their training, and in most cases, they got better as training progressed. In my experience, doing flights early in the day (before it's had a chance to warm up and get bumpy), and having the student fly the airplane as much as possible (while avoiding things like steep turns early on) usually does a lot to help with the motion sickness, as does making sure they're looking outside. In about 4.5 years and 1400 hours of instructing, I've only had one student who never really got over motion sickness, but he was also the only student I've never had who just never figured out how to fly the airplane.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Everyone's path is different. I went to a part 61 flight school and my instructor told me what to study. I downloaded the Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, the Airplane Flying Handbook, the AIM, the FARs, and the Practical Test Standards. My instructor gave me some guidance and I self studied. Took practice written tests online until I passed them consistently. Pretty much this. Those publications will give you pretty much all of the information you'll need to pass the FAA written, as well as a good chunk of the material your instructor will cover during ground lessons. The FAR's can be somewhat incoherent on their own (they're written by herds of lawyers, and are slightly less interesting than a phone book), but your instructor should be able to provide a reference as to which of the FAR's you actually are expected to know for the checkride.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
I have to wonder if Obama isn't going to use this to push the FAA for a user fee scheme. Obama has tried on several occasions to impose a $100 per flight fee for using controlled airspace, only to have it shot down in Congress every time. Depending on where the DOT pulls that $250 million from, I can see Obama making a push for that fee to cover the lost money.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:No I wish, never had any hot students. It was in regards to pass rate on stage checks at a 141 school. I went through the same thing with my last instructing job (I quit instead of being canned though), so I know how that feels. If you aren't totally burned out on instructing, you might want to look into some part 61 schools. The workload can be more inconsistent than under 141, but not having to deal with the BS of pass rates and absurd TCO's is worth it. As for job sites, jetcareers.com is pretty good, and free. They don't have quite as many postings as the paysites, but the quality of stuff tends to be much better than paysites (which have a reputation for recycling postings multiple times), and there tend to be more of the low time/entry level flying jobs posted there as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I think that's by and large a myth. The DEs are obligated to question everything covered on the writens anyway, so generally if you're weak in an area they'll find it anyway. This. The only attention I've seen DE's give written exams was to make sure that the student actually passed it, and that their name on the results sheet is identical to what's on their student certificate and ID. I've had students who got 72% on the written get the exact same oral exam as someone who got a 90, so pretty much everyone except the FAA realizes that the written tests don't have too much bearing on the real world.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Dalrain posted:What's the best solution for cleaning vomit from aircraft? It was bumpy yesterday and there was an incident. I got most of it cleaned up but I need to figure out something for the carpet that won't do bad things to the metal. At home I use Woolite carpet cleaner with oxyclean for that sort of thing, but I'm not sure if the aircraft would like it. Would that do bad things to the metal if it came in contact under the carpet? What do people use? Welcome to the club! I've had pretty good luck with using damp towels (or paper towels) with a basic soap/water mix. Make sure you don't get the carpet too wet, and that should work pretty well, although getting hard to reach areas (like under the seats) is going to suck. After you clean up the mess, go over the area with paper towels or something to get as much moisture as possible out of the carpet. After you get the interior cleaned, leaving the windows open will help to dry out the interior, but may do nothing to get rid of the smell. To help with the smell, I generally use some kind of air freshener (Fabreeze seems to work pretty well), and spray the hell out of the carpet after it's been cleaned.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Forgive me if this has already been discussed or if it's not appropriate for the thread. I read the first post and checked back the last couple of pages. There's also the fact that airplanes are required to withstand an impact with far more energy than a bullet could provide. For FAA certification, large aircraft have to withstand a 4lb bird strike anywhere on the structure at 85% of their maximum airspeed, and be capable of continued flight and a safe landing. A .38 caliber bullet (like the 3d printed gun fires) only puts out about 200ft-lb of force, whereas a 4lb bird impacting at 290kts (which would be relatively slow for most airliners) puts out just over 14,500ft-lb of force. Unless the 3d gun was used to shoot the pilot (it's single shot, so they'd have to find a non-existent airliner with only one pilot), there's about as much chance of that gun taking down a commercial aircraft as the airplane running into a unicorn in flight.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:Nope even worse. Does anyone know what the article was referring to when it said the FO "misprogrammed an important switch"? I was under the impression that the only thing the FO did during the accident sequence that involved a switch was to retract the flaps for undetermined reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:Any leads on pilot jobs in NC or FL? I've seen a few flight instructor jobs pop up in FL over the last few months, but I'm guessing you're looking for something slight better than "flying piston single with foreign student trying to kill me".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Landings are pretty much a case of doing them until something clicks (which happens at a different point for everyone), but I'll throw in some pointers I've picked up. If you're having trouble with the centerline, try breaking it down into what flight control does what. The ailerons control where you are relative to the centerline, whereas the rudder just controls where the nose is pointing. Obviously, you'll have to use both controls together to get the airplane where you want, but I've found that simplifying things in that way can get the light bulb to click for some people. This will also help with your crosswind landings, assuming you're not trying to use the "crab and kick" method. I've found that one of the overlooked methods to getting good landings is to make sure you're flying the pattern the same way every time. I give my students some power settings and key points in the traffic pattern to shoot for (I don't specify altitudes for anything except the crosswind turn and the downwind), which results in them turning final at about the same distance and altitude every time around the pattern. There's also a pretty helpful series of youtube videos put out by the University of North Dakota that explain traffic patterns, landings, and faulty approaches and landings. http://www.youtube.com/user/undaerocast/videos Keep in mind that these are written for their standardization manual (which is somewhat anal-retentive), but the sections on faulty approaches and landings are pretty helpful since the university created those after having students do about $300,000 in damage to brand new 172's on landing within a few weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Animal posted:By the time they are adults instruction is not just teaching something new, its basically a reprogramming, I could see through their eyes that their brain was going "DOES NOT COMPUTE" whenever I would tell them to throw The Book out the window in certain situations. I spent two years teaching Chinese students, and ran into the exact same thing. In the later stages of training, I'll typically ask my students to perform a task on a flight that clearly isn't a good idea, in order to make sure they'll question someone in a position of authority. As an example, I'd ask them to perform a steep turn from slow flight, which is a textbook situation for a stall/spin to develop. Generally, most of my western students would realize that I'd asked something that was unsafe and refuse to do it, but a disturbingly high percentage of my Chinese students would try to perform the maneuver simply because I was an authority figure who had asked them to do something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
There's also a new ATP written going into effect as well. Apparently the FAA figured out that most people just rote-memorize the current ATP written questions to pass the test, so they're creating a new written exam that will require specific training to take effective August 1. If you complete the ATP written before that date, it'll be grandfathered in under the new regs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:I'm screwed 4 years from now lolz I don't think they're amending the XC requirements for the normal (1500 hr) ATP. My understanding is that the reduced 200 XC requirement only applies to people using the Riddle exception, and everyone else gets the normal 500XC requirement The current ATP written is kind of a joke. The performance chart problems are pretty simple, but the cross country problems are so obtuse (the three answers are only a few minutes apart) that there's almost no point in actually working them compared to just memorizing the answers. Plus, there are quite a few questions that make zero sense. As an example, I just got this question on a practice test. "You land long on an 8,500ft runway, and discover that the braking doesn't work, so you decide to take off and climb out. The engines take 5 seconds to spool up, and the aircraft requires an additional 10 seconds to lift off. The 4,000ft markers passed two seconds ago. Assuming an average groundspeed of 143 kts, do you have enough runway to lift off?" The correct answer is "No, the runway is 99ft too short, and the decision was made 0.4 seconds too late" What the heck does that have to do with anything in the real world? I'm pretty sure that in the event of a brake failure, most pilots aren't going to whip out a calculator and stopwatch (assuming they know their average groundspeed during this process) to try and figure that out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Wait, 21? They lowered the age to get the ATP, yet jacked up the flight time? How does a 21 year old even build 1,500 hours? They didn't lower the age for the full ATP. If you get the ATP at age 21, it's a restricted ATP (limited to SIC only, and likely only good within the US) until you hit 23. My understanding of the 1000hr exception is that you must have a BS in aviation and have completed at least the instrument and commercial certificates under part 141.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Thanks. Glancing through it myself, it seems as though you not only have to do the degree with the school, but also the flight training, which screams "Provision in the law installed to shut the schools which hate this law up". That's exactly what the provision is for. When the bill was originally proposed, Embry Riddle threw a fit, since people were going to come out of there with massive debt (about $200,000 for a BS in aviation), and they'd be about 1,200 hours short of being eligible for a job at a regional. I know other colleges were involved in the lobbying as well, but since Riddle has the most to lose from a dropoff in flight students (almost no one will pay $150k for a non-flying degree from them), they were pretty much the poster boys for that exception being put into the bill. Since this bill will seriously hurt some of the large non-university flight schools out there, I wouldn't be too surprised if it gets modified or interpreted to allow the flight training and classroom stuff to be done by separate schools. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Animal posted:The Asiana pilot is now claiming that a bright flash of light blinded him and thats why he crashed. Right. Yes, but was he cut loose like a deuce, another runner in the night? Sounds like it's mostly a case of the US media looking for a story, since the NTSB clarified the statement to say that the pilot stated the light didn't affect his ability to fly the airplane or his vision. CNN has also helpfully added that a cell phone or iPad didn't cause the crash, after they informed people that the airplane caught fire because something was burning.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Just to clarify my understanding of the ATP rulings, if I go take the written exam before August 1, I just have to worry about hitting 1500 TT and the rest of the hourly requirements before 5 years is up, correct? Otherwise I'm in a world of hurt if I take after August 1, having to deal with certain "training" and other BS... I think the new ATP written doesn't kick in until August of 2014, so as long as you get the written done before then, you get the same 24 months that apply to any other written. Looking through the text of the final rule http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-aj67.pdf , the chart on page 9 mentions the requirement for completing a CTP before doing the written, and references a footnote saying "This requirement takes effect after July 31, 2014". I also looked at the text for the proposed rule (which dates to February 2012) which states "applicants who have not successfully completed the knowledge test prior to August 1, 2013, would be required to complete the training course before applying for the knowledge test", so I think quite a few people (myself included) missed the fact that the FAA changed their minds about the written when issuing the final rule. The current ATP written is pretty badly outdated (several of the instrument charts predate DEN opening in 1994), and contains numerous questions that are either outdated (LORAN approaches, flight engineer requirements), irrelevant (requirements for aircraft dispatcher currency), or stupidly specific (you're asked to calculate flight time, and for a 2+ hour flight, the answers are two minutes apart), so the FAA really does need to make the exam relevant to the current types of aircraft most ATP's will fly. The AC for the Certification Training Program was only issued in early July, and seems to indicate that the FAA is trying to overhaul the ATP to be more relevant, since the topics covered are all things real world pilots are likely to use. Entertainingly, Colgan is the only airline specifically mentioned in the AC, since the accident report for 3407 is listed as recommended reading for "how not to fly an airplane". azflyboy fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
I'm also in the "mixed feelings" group. On the plus side, the upcoming changes to the ATP written are sorely needed, since the current exam is a joke and doesn't impart anything useful aside from what approach charts looked like in the early 90's and what performance charts looked like in the early 70's. The new training requirements for the ATP written also seem like a good idea, since they're focused on far more real-world material than current ATP prep courses will impart. On the negative side, I think the requirement that you can essentially buy your way to lower ATP minimums is stupid. Having gone through one of the programs that'll allow the 1000hr minimums myself, there's certainly some useful training in there, but nothing that couldn't be done with a couple of weeks of training on CRM, high altitude aerodynamics, human factors, and turbine aircraft systems instead of the 4 year, $200k+ pricetag ERAU is selling people now. Embry Riddle is already spinning the exemption as "the FAA’s recognition of the excellent pilot education programs and high quality standards that universities like Embry-Riddle have demonstrated", when it's nothing more than Embry Riddle, Purdue, and UND using their lobbying efforts to get Congress to do them a favor. Short term, this will probably lead to some better pay for some 121 jobs (especially the really low end jobs like Great Lakes and Silver), but I'm sure that given a few years, airline management and Wall St. will find some way to get wages back to the poverty line.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Got to teach in a 182 with a STOL kit fitted today (drooped wingtips and giant vortex generators), which was a lot of fun. It's a 1960 model, so nothing in the cockpit is quite where'd you expect, but it has giant toggle switches for everything electrical (so much more satisfying to flip than the plastic switches on later models), along with a very manly Johnson bar for the flaps. On takeoff, the weight of the engine and forward CG means that the STOL kit doesn't have too much of an effect, but in the air, it makes the airplane pretty much un-stallable. At one point, we had the airspeed indicator reading somewhere less than 40 MPH, and the airplane was in an easily controlled descent and refused to actually break into a stall. Coming in to land, the STOL kit and 40 degree flap settings allow some absurdly steep descents, but the added lift from the kit means that the airplane really doesn't want to settle on the landing roll and gets squirrely with a crosswind unless you dump the flaps after touchdown.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:Oh god, don't get me started on military pilots. Most of them are OK but about 10% of them are egotistical assholes who make your life a living hell every time you fly with them. Can we add "people who think they're military pilots" to the list of assholes too? They're pretty easy to spot, since they tend to fly homebuilts adorned with WW2 era markings (while wearing flight suits), they insist on flying everywhere in formation, and they have to enter every traffic pattern in an overhead break, regardless of how busy the airport might be with people flying normal patterns.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Can we update the OP? Oh dear lord... Seriously though, congratulations!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Stupid Post Maker posted:Next week I begin my first job getting paid to fly. Any tips for first time flight instructors? I'm taking a class along with it which should help smooth it out a little bit. Try and relax, and let the students do as much of the flying as they're safely capable of. I've seen several new instructors who basically don't let the student fly at all below about 1000' AGL on the first few lessons, which does them a huge disservice for learning takeoffs and landings. Especially with PPL students, airsick bags are a very good thing to carry. I keep two in a pocket in my kneeboard at all times, and it's saved me having to clean out an airplane on a few occasions. In the real world, pretty much no one actually does the rectangular course on checkrides. I've been instructing for about 1300hrs now, and have yet to see a PPL applicant asked to do that maneuver. Before you start really going into takeoffs and landings with a student, I'd recommend you have them watch the UND Aerocast videos ( http://www.youtube.com/user/undaerocast/videos ), on normal landings and faulty approaches. Some of the specifics are tailored to their rather OCD approach to training, but since the "faulty approach" videos were created as a direct result of their students doing about $500,000 in damage to airplanes with botched landings, the overall material is very good, and far easier to understand for most people than just reading through the Airplane Flying Handbook. Rolo posted:I know some examiners will try to confuse and distract you, but this was over the top and now I have a bust, ugh. Don't worry about having the bust on your record. A lot of employers basically ignore a failed CFI ride (I don't know if this goes for the CFII as well), since the pass rate on those is completely dependent on the FSDO, and has been rumored to be as low as 20% for some locations. What employers are looking for with failed checkrides is if there's a pattern of failures, and to see whether you learned anything from failed checkrides (you'll want something more nuanced than "the examiner was being a dick" as an answer to that one). I'd wager that a large number (if not an outright majority) of professional pilots have a failed checkride somewhere in their past, so as long as you're not making a habit of it and the failures aren't under 121 or 135, most employers probably won't do anything more than ask for an explanation and leave it at that. From your description, the DPE's conduct was completely unacceptable, so I'd seriously consider complaining to FSDO and/or Oklahoma City about him. Several FSDO's have been looking for excuses to purge DPE's (mostly Vegas and Scottsdale), so that may give them an excuse to revoke his examining status. Also, make sure you let the school where you did the training know what happened, since most schools have an unoffical "black list" of examiners they won't use, and I know of one DPE who did that kind of thing often enough that no one but the Chinese "pilot mills" will give them business any more. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
To add to what Ferret King said, the IFR enroute charts for most (if not all) of the US can be viewed on airnav.com for free.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm a big fan of skyvector.com myself. You can view charts individually or stitched together, plot a nav course, and view individual airport data and weather. It also shows TFRs, sigmets/airmets, and weather radar. Derp. I meant to say skyvector. Airnav has approach plates, but no enroute stuff that I'm aware of.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:This is actually the local pilot owned pilot maker and 'trainer.' I've got 30 hours in it myself! Guy buys it, gets license in it, sells it to next guy. Depending on how much time is left on the engine and whether there are any really expensive AD's looming, that's a good price.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
aunt jemima posted:While that article is part of the PFC/Redbird holy war that's been equally dirty on both sides, I can definitely confirm that (at least older) Redbirds are running straight up MSFS, not ESP. I think the newer ones are running Prepar3d (LockMart bought the license to FSX/ESP and made a few changes), but given how horribly outdated most of the code in FSX and ESP is (it was originally written for WinXP), I don't get why they didn't just go to X-Plane, which is already pretty well established for FTD's and AATD's.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:New school I'm going to finish up my IR with has both six pack and G1000 172S's. I'll finish up the IR in the six packs since that's what I've been flying with, but eventually I'd like to start flying with glass. Is that something worth logging? Like using one of the extra columns in my logbook as a glass cockpit column? Nope. If you go on to fly professionally, you can put something to the effect of "experience with glass cockpits" on the resume, but I've never seen an employer who cares how much glass cockpit time someone has.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:
For IFR stuff, I'd say a well designed glass system generally makes life much easier than a six pack. As an example, the G1000 shows a ground track line on the HSI, which makes correcting for winds during holds and approaches pretty much a non-event, and having things like airspeed and altitude trend indicators, automatic NAVAID identification and a good moving map really helps reduce pilot workload and increase situational awareness. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of using glass cockpits in primary training for PPL students. When I instructed in glass aircraft, I was spending a lot of time trying to get students to stop looking at the screens and start looking outside the airplane, and I think it's slightly more difficult to detect changes in altitude or airspeed on a glass cockpit while flying VFR because of how the information is displayed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Got to see my first runway incursion yesterday. I was on about a one mile final with a student, when we noticed a turbine Twin Commander wandering across the threshold of our assigned runway towards a taxiway on the other side. Since there were three local frequencies in use at the time (two for tower, one for ground), I assumed that the Commander had been cleared across the runway on another frequency, until the tower controller told us to go around and started trying to get the attention of the Commander pilot. After three or four calls, the tower controller managed to get in contact with the Commander pilot (who had no idea he'd crossed a runway), and managed to get the pilot back to the runway and off the ground. Right before the Commander got handed off to departure, he got the "Commander XXX, possible pilot deviation, advise you contact the tower at..." speech from the tower controller. I've seen a few pilots almost have runway incursions because of poorly marked or confusing intersections, but this guy somehow managed to miss the freshly repainted (and really obvious) hold short line and signs at an intersection where the only possible routes are to cross (or hold short of) the runway to the taxiway on the other side or make a left 90 degree turn onto the runway for departure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
e.pie posted:
Ice on runways can be fun too. I landed at an airport where the entire runway was covered in black ice, despite the airport reporting the runway had been cleared of snow/ice. After touchdown, directional control was pretty much normal until any brakes were applied, at which point it became clear that braking action was virtually nil, so I just went around and made a mental note to only fly into that airport after another pilot had played guinea pig after a snowfall.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
e.pie posted:Because basically is a soft field landing. At least assuming there's a couple of inches of snow on the runway that the plane will sink in to. The soft field technique also gives you a better chance to figure out what the runway conditions are like than a normal touchdown, and puts you in a position to go around that much faster if you decide you don't like the runway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Update: Requiring revised/updated training for stalls, upsets, and crosswinds makes a lot of sense (and doesn't involve grandstanding and Congressional hearings), which is exactly why it's the last thing Congress and/or the FAA would think to do. Given how Colgan has reacted to the crash (they basically denied any responsibility for what happened, and have refused to release an internal safety audit done right after the crash to the NTSB), I don't blame the victims families for pushing for the FAA to make changes, since I very much doubt the FAA would have taken meaningful steps to prevent another accident without that external pressure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:PSA American publicly stated they plan to kill off Eagle a while ago, so I'd guess they're not long for this world. Since PSA's pilots agreed to a B-scale and substantial increase in healthcare costs not too long ago, I'm sure AAG will try to wring those same concessions out of the surviving regionals, or they'll just pull the same stunt Pinnacle did and file a sham bankruptcy to get even more concessions. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Poor choice of words on my part, I should have said that American wanted to sell off Eagle instead of "kill" it .
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I'm taking my CFII ride on the 25th. I'd love some 'gotcha' questions or normal questions that invariably come up with students. Here's a few questions I've been asked over the years... Why is the turning error on the compass about 30 degrees? (It's approximately the latitude the aircraft is at) Can you descend below the VDP if the runway is in sight prior to that point? Why or why not? What does the circle around certain GPS waypoints (on an IAP chart) mean? If an ODP is published and ATC gives you an instruction contrary to it, do you still have to follow the ODP? What is the information required in a position report? What are the takeoff minimums under part 91? How do you know what areas are "mountainous" per the FAA? If you divert to an alternate and one of the approaches at the airport is listed as "N/A" on the plate, can you still fly it? For the flight, one thing that drives me nuts with instrument students I inherit from other instructors is that quite a few of them really don't want to go below the DA on an ILS, so they'll generally end up going full scale above the glideslope by the time they hit that altitude. The entire point of a DA is that you're supposed make the decision to land or go missed at that point, so if the aircraft descends slightly below that altitude while in the process of starting the climb to go missed (assuming the decision was made while on the glideslope), it shouldn't pose a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Heh, haven't checked in an awhile and the ATC chatter made me giggle a little bit about my current situation. I always feel bad for the ATC folks that get to deal with lots of foreign students. One of the airfields near me has a contract tower that gets to combine considerable numbers of foreign students with lots of old people that have no business flying, so I have no idea how the controllers out there aren't all raging alcoholics by this point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 08:57
|
|