Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rotorwashed last won the day on January 17 2012

rotorwashed had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender

rotorwashed's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Actually it would be an extremely high rotor inertia system since its got so much weight at the tips. I wonder how it controls yaw in a hover?
  2. a flying squirrel in his natural habitat
  3. Low Level Hell by Hugh L. Mills is a good one by a loach pilot CW2 by Layne Heath is good too, air cav Maverick by Dennis Marvicsin is excellent, slick pilot turned cobra pilot Other good ones outside of Vietnam are A Mild Form of Insanity: Recollections of a Helicopter Pilot by Mike Tuson The Night Stalkers and In the Company of Heroes both by Michael Durant I would highly recommend if you like military flying stories.
  4. the k-max rotor system is actually much more efficient and stable than the conventional type. the "ailerons" on the blades change the pitch of the blades. they were actually invented by kaman while he still worked at sikorsky. sikorsky was trying to create an aileron system, but it wouldnt work because the ailerons were changing the pitch of the blade instead of pushing them up or down. so kaman realized they could be used to change blade pitch and brought the idea to his superiors. in reply he was told that there was only one inventor at sikorsky helicopters; Igor Sikorsky, and they werent interested in any bogus he came up with. so he started his own company.
  5. it will work if you dont use any spaces I.E. 37n110w instead of 37 n 110 w
  6. if i were you i would just set it on 720p unless you really must have 1080p footage. 720p footage is still good and wont take up nearly as much space on your memory card. Im not sure whether it will help battery life or not. Plus its a real pain having to deal with a 4-8 gig raw video file after filming in 1080
  7. But thats only if the company owns their own helicopters and employs their own pilots right? Say if a company wanted their execs shuttled around, and they contracted someone with a fleet of aircraft and pilots to match. Whoever was awarded the contract would have to have an operators certificate correct?
  8. its not the pilot that needs the operators certificate, its the owner of the aircraft/business a pilot only needs to meet the requirements of part 135 for whatever type operation the business wants to conduct in order to be hired. 135.243( <--- supposed to be a "b" using your example of flying company execs around, assuming that the pilot isnt actually carrying anyone between states to get to these branches, I believe their pilots would only need 500 hours TT; 100 cross country; 25 night. If the pilot didnt hold an instrument rating, then they would not be able to operate VFR-on-top. If the operator was trying to carry these execs across a state line, the pilot would have to have an airline transport license. please correct me if im wrong
  9. Hes not asking about getting paid for flying with a private certificate, hes asking about private vs common carriage. google AC 120-12A, its an advisory circular about the specifics of private vs common carriage. The answer to your question is yes, you do need a 135 certificate to conduct private carriage operations. Look under 119.5(h) a person holding an Operating Certificate authorizing noncommon or private carriage operations shall not conduct any operations in common carriage there are operations that you can conduct without an operators certificate, listed under 119.1(e). A private charter operation is highly unlikely to fall under those requirements 119.1(e)(7) So since we've established that a private carriage charter operation is not exempt under 119.1(e), lets flip forward to 119.25 "Each person who conducts rotorcraft operations for compensation or hire must comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements of Subpart C of this part, and shall conduct its: (a) Commuter operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements. ( On-demand operations in accordance with the applicable requirements of part 135 of this chaper, and shall be issued operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those requirements. So on-demand operations must comly with part 135, unless they are specifically exempt under 119.1 *edit Paco ninja'd me to the AC reference Can anyone tell me why my "b" above keeps turning into a smiley?
  10. Actually I think it's us Americans that don't know the real names for stuff, English has been around in the UK for a lot longer than it has here.
  11. First off, I doubt that the 700 hour requirement is set in stone. Call the school and ask to speak with some instructors, then ask them how they got the job at Front Range. My bet would be that the majority of them had just over 200 hours and were fresh CFII's. Im not sure how a school could manage to only use flight instructors that had 700 hours, because they would all have to come from some other school. Thats just not a very good business practice. Im really not sure why they would say that, as it is kind of off-putting to their operation. Are they saying that the flight instructors that they train aren't good enough to instruct at their school? Whose fault would that be? Why did all those 700 hour instructor leave their original school? What are you going to do when you have to find a job at some other school as a brand new instructor, when that schools own trained instructors are lining up out the door for a job. Who would you hire, the instructor that youve seen grow over the last 2 years, or the one that is a brand new face and didnt get a job at his school? If it is the case, I would go to some other school that is willing to hire their new instructors for your initial training. Obviously those schools are confident enough in their quality of training that they trust their new CFI's. Why put yourself at such a huge disadvantage for a job by training at school A and then trying to get a job at school B when you could just train at school B to begin with? Have you considered any other schools besides Front Range? What is it about them that makes you want to go there?
  12. 1. that really just depends on your financial situation. You could probably pull off an R22, but it is certainly not going to be comfortable for your husband at 6'4" and the maximum seat weight is 240 lbs. On top of that, if you were both planning to fly at the same time, you would be limited to a maximum of about an hour and 40 minutes of flight at best. My recommendation would be an R44 if you can afford it. It would give you a greater power margin to work with so you wouldn't be just squeaking by all the time, and would extend your range. Of course if money is no issue then it opens up alot of options, but i'm guessing it is at least part of the equation here. attached is R44 operating costs estimates. 2. If you choose an R44, pathfinder insurance is available from Robinson at about $10,000 per year. The coverage however is much less then that of other companies which would cost about 20,000 per year. Attached is a good summary of the pathfinder insurance. 3. Sky helicopters in Garland is supposes to be very good. I took a tour of their facility once, but never got to fly with them. It was a great place to learn, as it is a dedicated heliport. http://www.skyhelico...t_Training.html PathRobins.pdf r44_1_eoc.pdf
  • Create New...