Jump to content

jjsemperfi

Members
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by jjsemperfi

  1. So here is a follow up. Anyone log PIC and Flight Time as two seperate events? Ex... The flight was .8 hobbs but I hot fueled for 6 mins, and spent 12 mins sitting (blades spinning) at an LZ loading a patient. So could you log 1 hr of PIC? Or is it implied that in order for me to log PIC I have to be acting as PIC during flight.... Which leads me to another question.....what if I accidently tip the disk forward and chop someone's head off? Would I be held accountable as PIC if I wasn't allowed to log PIC on the ground?
  2. For all of you Airbus pilots out there... Do you log Hobbs or VEMD? Or do you just hit your timer before you pull pitch and then afterwards when you're done with the mission. To add to this...does the time you spent picking up a patient (running on the ground at the LZ) or hot fueling count as that total flight time?
  3. Anyone know the daily rate and incentive pay (if any) for Blue Hawaiian? Thanks,
  4. Hey guys, just wanted to ask your opinions on what single thing defines a difference between a Precision and NP Approach. I'm going with.... Precision has a DA / DH and NP has an MDA. Anyone agree with this?
  5. This was in the April update to the ASA FAR...love me the electronic FAR's....
  6. Pick Up, Set Down, Hover Work, Take off, Landing, I am always gaurding the controls. Always have your feet gaurding the pedals as well. Our chief pilot said if he ever sees us hovering with our feet on the floor, we're fired . Doens't mean I am applying pressure (this would degrade the students ability to learn), but I am close enough to help when needed. Some CFI's gaurd heavily, while others are more relaxed.
  7. Not going to respond to this post. I would just like to see the different answers people give. Thanks. When can you legally log night flight?
  8. AvBug.... One last thing... I find it strange that even though I don't know the Regs that I'm not teaching my students, they keep on passing check rides. Weird, oh well, they must be forgetting the bad regs I'm telling them, and learning all the regs that I don't tell them, then passing check rides. I'm sure that's it.
  9. AvBug, let me ask you this... In most POH's, they state a wind that the helicopter has been shown to be adaquetly controlled in from all azimuths. Would I have to know that came from Part 27 in order to safely and legally fly the helicopter? NO!! I am following the RFM's instructions and where that RFM got that information from is extra information that I don't even need to know. But would it be a good idea to find out that extra information? Sure. I'm trying to figure out the Why's behind a lot of this stuff. Just because a Reg says something and I ask a question about it doesn't mean I don't know the Reg. Maybe I'm asking where that Reg came from?
  10. AvBug.... I am learning every day as I hope you still are. I never said I didn't know what Part 43 was, however, I didn't say I know everything in it. I teach my students about airworthiness and Part 43, but that doesn't mean I know as much as an A&P about Part 43. I even asked an A&P about it the other day and he didn't know the exact Reg. I ask my students, if you picked up a brand new helicopter, how would you know it is airworthy. I do take pride in my job, and that is why I am on these forums, to learn from what I beleive, is a vast array of experienced pilots. However, I could care less if you ever respond to any of my posts, as I take more stock in attitude, than I do intelligence. I find it offensive that you think I can't determine if an aircraft is legal to fly or not. What I'm determining on this forum, is where those regs come from. Yes we have tons of Regs in 91 saying blah blah blah. But where did that reg come from? Part 27? Part 43? I am trying to find out more Why's, to better myself and my students.
  11. Ah ha! The 300C W&B is different than the Robby. I see now where the Robby says that the section is updated and inserted at the end of the section (Chapter 6). The 300C isn't like this. The W&B updated by Mechs is a different form than the W&B section in POH. I think that is where my disconnect is coming from. Alright, now that I've pissed you off enough Spike and iChris, I thank you for your help.
  12. So if an examiner asks one of my students why the W&B sheets (updated by Maint, not part of the manufacturers W&B section) have to be in the POH, they can say Part 27 and that will be the end of it?
  13. Sorry guys. Still confused. So you are all saying that the W&B section of a POH that contains all that good (Part 27) required stuff is the same as the W&B sheets that maintenance provides that is ADDED to the POH. It's one in the same. Not two separate entities. Because to me all Part 27 talks about is the POH W&B section. P.S. I need this info for check rides. Our examiners apparently want our students to know how to build and certify an aircraft per part 27 and be an A&P.
  14. 21.5 says that a POH must be made availible to owner at time of deliver, and that it must contain the following info.... Limitation, Placards, Max temp demonstrated for engine cooling.... And 27.1581 says that a POH must be in the aircraft (hence 91.9 b 2), also it states the things that the POH has to show... I'm sorry, but maybe I'm just not reading it right or something, but I do not see anything that says the "maintenance W&B" needs to be in the POH. Just the W&B stuff that is already furnished in the POH by the manufacturer.
  15. Not sure I understand this. Why would the normal category airplane certification requirements carry over to Part 27 normal category rotorcraft certification? I can see this pertaining to the Weight and Balance sections in the aircraft's POH but not the W&B done by maintenance. It mentions, "The weight and center of gravity limits required by 27.25 and 27.27, respectively, must be furnished." To me this means made availible to the buyer, owner / operator, but this doesn't read in the POH as a maintenance weight. Just as a section suplied in the POH, which there is.
  16. Dear Mr AvBuh, Wow, you don't know sarcasm when you see it. Do you honestly think CFI's don't know about Part 43? You're right. It isn't on our Part 141 stage checks that I conduct. In no way am I saying a 1,000 hr pilot is as experienced as a 60,000 working pilot. Hell no. I'm saying you underestimate the 1,000 hr CFI. Knowledge wise, sure you're gonna know more than me. At any point when I ask you a question, do I tell you, "nope you're wrong AvBug!" But do I chew it and shallow it before I take a look at it, no way, that's stupid. Idiot CFI
  17. Actually 80% of our CFI's have over 1K hours
  18. What's the difference between a 250 hr CFI and 2,000 hr CFI? Not all if us are inexperienced. My instructor was at 2K when he taught me.
  19. Point taken, what if I said the vast majority of working helicopter pilots are arrogant?
  20. Hmmm, nuances of what it means to work as a pilot. Please do tell... I love hearing from the old salts.... Cuz I have no "working pilot" experience. Well....aside from Part 91 commercial operations that I have been paid to perform.
  21. Alright peeps, where does it say that the valid Weight and Balance has to be present in the POH? For the 300 for example, the only place we can find is that on the Type Certificate, under the notes section, it says "has to be provided". We cannot find anything (Like 91.9 ((1) for the POH) that specifies that a current weight and balance data sheet has to be in the POH.
  22. Still wondering where it says a Squawk Sheet is a legal Maintenance Record
  23. I like that system. We're having a meeting tomorrow and I think I'll bring something like that up. A sheet that has everything on it, Configurations, Weight and Balance (doors on and off), Squawks. Sounds pretty cool.
×
×
  • Create New...