Angel Flight Command Pilot...and an overall great flying day today

[Jack Allison]

I flew to Petaluma, CA today to complete my Angel Flight mission
orientation. I'm now officially an Angel Flight Command Pilot. It's
really a simple process but, for me, one that has been a goal for a
couple of years now. Now all I need to do is have the stars align and
I'll be able to fly my first mission.

After my orientation, I just had to eat at the "Two Niner Diner". It
was a nice sunny day and felt great to chow down on, of all things, a
hamburger, while watching planes come and go. After lunch, I pointed
the spinner West and was shortly over the Pacific coast at Point Reyes.
A left turn at the lighthouse then down the coast a bit until I'm over
the entrance to the San Francisco bay. Another left turn and I was able
to fly over the Golden Gate bridge for the very first time from the left
seat. San Francisco on my right, Marin County on my left...it was very
cool. I've been over these same landmarks as a kid in the right seat
with my Dad flying left seat. The only thing that would have been
better was to have Dad along in the right seat today. Hmmm, next time
he visits, I just may have to make this same trip.

I continued flying up the San Pablo Bay and past the mothball fleet. A
bit farther and I was over Travis Air Force base (lots of transports on
the ramp...sorry Jay B., not a fighter to be seen). I did manage to see
a KC-135 land though. Not quite the cool-factor as our AZ friend sees
*all the time*...but it was a nice touch. :-)

All was going great until I was at the point where I was about to exit
Travis's airspace. Normally, I'd get handed off to Norcal Approach as
the Sacramento International Charlie airspace isn't too far away. This
time, just as I was about to key the mic and ask, the Travis controller
tells me "squawk 1200, have a nice day, suggest Norcal Approach on
125.25". Hmmm, I'd better turn left in a hurry or I'll bust the Charlie
airspace...so I did, acknowledged Travis approach, then call up Norcal
and get a new squawk code. A good example of how ATC can, in certain
circumstances, set you up for failure and how not having your head stuck
in the sand (or elsewhere) can spot a problem and fix it. Lesson learned.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

Outstanding trip, Jack. Flying the Left Coast is one of my "must do" goals
in life. (I did it on a motorcycle 19 years ago, and it was awesome!)

I, too, have recently been in contact with Angel Flight. I'll bet their
numbers are way up since Katrina...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "JA" == Jack Allison > writes:
JA> This time, just as I was about
JA> to key the mic and ask, the Travis controller tells me "squawk
JA> 1200, have a nice day, suggest Norcal Approach on 125.25".

Travis is notorious for being less than helpful. They don't even call
traffic reliably; one time I had to take evasive action to avoid a
near head-on collision with a Bonanza while on flight-following with
Travis; they never said a word. I'm told this is because of the
student controllers there.

Flying over the Bay and Golden Gate is a real treat and you don't even
have to talk to anybody. Examine the TAC and you'll see you can fly
over a big chunk of the city of San Francisco too. My all-time
favorite trip for guests is to follow I-80 to Berkeley, then over
Angel Island (pointing out Alcatraz Island) and the Golden Gate, turn
left down the coast to Half Moon Bay, land and walk into town for
lunch. Some of the most scenic flying on the planet and a half-dozen
great lunch choices; the $100 hamburger doesn't get much better than
that.

[Jack Allison]

Jim Burns wrote:
> Jack,
> Can you tell me the difference between an AF Command Pilot and a "regular"
> pilot? I just poured over my Angel Flight info and it doesn't mention
> Command Pilot anywhere. And what was the orientation procedure?

As I understand it Jim, a command pilot is one that has gone through the
orientation process and is therefore able to fly AF missions. If you
haven't gone through the orientation, you could go on a mission but only
as an assistant (which is a good way to learn the process).

Maybe the Angel Flight West info. is more complete or maybe mine is more
current as I joined about a month and a half ago. How to become a
command pilot is mentioned on the first page of section 2, mission
orientation information. I'd bet that a few e-mails/phone calls to come
contacts in your region would clarify what you'd need to do. My guess
is that it is no different from what AFW does.

According to the AFW info, the orientation process is to get in touch
with one of the MOPs from the AF website Mission Orientation Pilot
directory. It took me a few e-mails to find someone that could do it
for me though. The process was a piece of cake. You have to fill out a
mock x-c plan, print up real weather and be ready to talk to go/no go
type decisions, do a W&B for the planned trip...all simple stuff really.
The MOP goes over a short presentation that walks you through the
process of setting up a mission, required paperwork, etc. It took about
an hour.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jim Burns]

Jack,
Can you tell me the difference between an AF Command Pilot and a "regular"
pilot? I just poured over my Angel Flight info and it doesn't mention
Command Pilot anywhere. And what was the orientation procedure? I'm in the
AF Central region and the website doesn't mention command pilot other than
on the available missions page which says "the following missions are
available for Command Pilots." Nothing else mentions Command Pilot leaving
me to believe that all AF pilots are eligible for missions in the Central
Region.
Thanks
Jim

[Jim Burns]

I emailed Angel Flight Central concerning the Command Pilot designation and
they informed me that they do not use the Command Pilot designation and do
not require any orientation. Once you register with Angel Flight Central
you are able to fly missions.

Jim

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Burns wrote:
> > Jack,
> > Can you tell me the difference between an AF Command Pilot and a
"regular"
> > pilot? I just poured over my Angel Flight info and it doesn't mention
> > Command Pilot anywhere. And what was the orientation procedure?
>
> As I understand it Jim, a command pilot is one that has gone through the
> orientation process and is therefore able to fly AF missions. If you
> haven't gone through the orientation, you could go on a mission but only
> as an assistant (which is a good way to learn the process).
>
> Maybe the Angel Flight West info. is more complete or maybe mine is more
> current as I joined about a month and a half ago. How to become a
> command pilot is mentioned on the first page of section 2, mission
> orientation information. I'd bet that a few e-mails/phone calls to come
> contacts in your region would clarify what you'd need to do. My guess
> is that it is no different from what AFW does.
>
> According to the AFW info, the orientation process is to get in touch
> with one of the MOPs from the AF website Mission Orientation Pilot
> directory. It took me a few e-mails to find someone that could do it
> for me though. The process was a piece of cake. You have to fill out a
> mock x-c plan, print up real weather and be ready to talk to go/no go
> type decisions, do a W&B for the planned trip...all simple stuff really.
> The MOP goes over a short presentation that walks you through the
> process of setting up a mission, required paperwork, etc. It took about
> an hour.
>
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL-IA Student
> Arrow N2104T
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Blanche]

Jim Burns > wrote:
>I emailed Angel Flight Central concerning the Command Pilot designation and
>they informed me that they do not use the Command Pilot designation and do
>not require any orientation. Once you register with Angel Flight Central
>you are able to fly missions.
>
>Jim
>
>"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
>> Jim Burns wrote:
>> > Jack,
>> > Can you tell me the difference between an AF Command Pilot and a
>"regular"
>> > pilot? I just poured over my Angel Flight info and it doesn't mention
>> > Command Pilot anywhere. And what was the orientation procedure?
>>
>> As I understand it Jim, a command pilot is one that has gone through the
>> orientation process and is therefore able to fly AF missions. If you
>> haven't gone through the orientation, you could go on a mission but only
>> as an assistant (which is a good way to learn the process).

Each of the 7 Angel Flight groups has similar but not exactly the
same requirements. For example, an IFR is required by some of the
groups on the east side of the Mississippi River, but for Angel Flight
West, it's only a "nice to have".

As for flying missions, AFW requires each of us to go thru the
orientation. Perhaps it's just to ensure we understand the paperwork
and procedures and keep the insurance company happy?

As for me, even with an IFR, I still wouldn't fly a mission in
IMC. All to often out here (Colorado), IMC translates to ice,
Tstorms and more ice. Altho today it's merely a light fog that
will dissipate by 10 am (or sooner).

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Outstanding trip, Jack. Flying the Left Coast is one of my "must do" goals
> in life. (I did it on a motorcycle 19 years ago, and it was awesome!)
>
> I, too, have recently been in contact with Angel Flight. I'll bet their
> numbers are way up since Katrina...

that'd be a good reason to finish up that instrument rating. :)

[Hilton]

Jim wrote:
>I emailed Angel Flight Central concerning the Command Pilot designation and
> they informed me that they do not use the Command Pilot designation and do
> not require any orientation. Once you register with Angel Flight Central
> you are able to fly missions.

Yeah, this changed a few years ago - I did the Orientation Flight and quite
frankly it just seemed like a "jump through this hoop". When they did away
with the orientation portion, they also changed various requirements.
Numerous pilots left the organization. I didn't. I don't fly Angel Flights
because of Angel Flight or to support their policies - I fly them because of
the young kids and other folk. Some of the flights with young kids were
quite emotional and even more so now thinking after the birth of my kids.

When the change happened, AFW (not sure about the others) put stricter
'minimums' on hours in make/model, recent hours etc...

Hilton

[Robert M. Gary]

Jack,
I used to be an Angel Pilot checkpilot instructor back when we actually
did a brief flight check. The lawyers finally decided there was too
much liability in that and decided to move the liability over to the
check pilots by asknig us to sign that the pilot has good judgement
based on a reading of his log book. In any case, Angel Flight is a
great organization and I continue to donate to them.

-Robert, cameron park

[Robert M. Gary]

> Can you tell me the difference between an AF Command Pilot and a "regular" pilot?

Jim, just like everything else (CAP, FSDO ,etc) EVERYTHING is different
in California. In fact, we used to actually require a flight check of
pilots. Now it is prohibited to ask a pilot to perform a flight check
on an orientation.

-Robert, former AF check pilot

[Robert M. Gary]

> emailed Angel Flight Central concerning the Command Pilot designation and
> they informed me that they do not use the Command Pilot designation and do
> not require any orientation. Once you register with Angel Flight Central
> you are able to fly missions.


Jim, you need to email AngelFlightWest. It is a slightly different org
out here.

[Michael]

> I emailed Angel Flight Central concerning the Command Pilot designation and
> they informed me that they do not use the Command Pilot designation and do
> not require any orientation. Once you register with Angel Flight Central
> you are able to fly missions.

And that is as it should be.

Angel Flight South Central used to be that way. I flew my first
mission with no orientation whatsoever. They sent me the handbook, and
that was that. Those were the good old days, when we treated pilots
like adults.

Now we have mandatory orientations. Why? Beats me. It's all in the
book. But now we have a whole bureaucracy to support those mandatory
orientations. I would rather those people were out flying missions.

The important thing to remember is that these things are all political.
There is no reason to have any of these minimum requirements,
orientations, flight checks, or any of that crap. If it were up to me,
any private pilot could sign up and fly a mission - period. We've had
such an excellent safety record because everyone understands this is
important and uses good judgment. Rules can only hurt that.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

Michael wrote
> And that is as it should be

Michael,
I guess I"m a bit torn. I 100% agree that we should reduce procedures
for the purpose of procedures. However, as an former AF checkpilot in
west wing we did see some pilots that had trouble with landings and
some even required the checkpilot to grab the controls. Perhaps the new
minimum hours is good enough to take care of that. The idea is that
when a person shows up to receive an AF flight, they have no way to
determine the ability of the pilot other than the fact that he's
wearing an AF ID card on his shirt. The feeling was that if we were be
given that responsibility, we should ensure pilots were ok. The rides
were NEVER intended to be an FAA checkride, a BFR, an IPC or any of the
horror stories I've heard. It was supposed to be just a quick check
around the pattern. I actually don't have a problem with accepting any
PPL with miminum hours, my problem was AF asking me, as a CFI, to sign
an orientation paper stating that I found the applicant to have good
flying judgement based on a reading of his log book.

-Robert, CFI

[Chris Quaintance]

It seems to be a rather odd process at this point. I wouldn't want to
make that call as a CFI.

Personally, I sit in the position of really wanting to fly AngelFlight
missions, but being underqualfied (at least for AF West). I am
currently PP-ASEL-IA, with a partnership in a 182. I have been flying
about three years and have about 275 hours (200+ in the same 182). I
didn't fly all that much my first year, but my currency has been
getting better and better. Getting the IA this year means I flew 60+
hours in the past three months.

But, without 300 hours or a CP certificate, I'm out of luck. And I am
impatient! But, I guess I can wait a couple of more months. I suppose
it will get me off my butt to do the Commercial.

Cheers,
--Chris

[Michael]

> However, as an former AF checkpilot in
> west wing we did see some pilots that had trouble with landings and
> some even required the checkpilot to grab the controls.

I'm always somewhat sceptical when I hear something like that. This
person is flying around NOW without an instructor. How is he not
bending the airplane? What's different about THIS flight that required
intervention? Is it more likely that the instructor simply
over-reacted? Or that by his presence as an instructor he encouraged
the pilot to proceed into a bad situation where the pilot would
otherwise have bailed out sooner?

I've got my own horror stories of flying first missions with AFSC
pilots. There was the one who almost ran out of gas on a night-IFR
flight. There was the one who needed help of a simple ILS. But
somehow, we're not having accidents on Angel Flights - even when there
is no flight check, no requirement for an instrument rating, nothing.
That tells me that something is not right. I don't believe it's
possible for an instructor to sit in the right seat and NOT affect a
low-time pilot's decisionmaking, to make him willing to push further
into a difficult situation than he would normally. That's not a bad
thing when you're doing training - but it's not conducive to this sort
of evaluation.

> The idea is that
> when a person shows up to receive an AF flight, they have no way to
> determine the ability of the pilot other than the fact that he's
> wearing an AF ID card on his shirt. The feeling was that if we were be
> given that responsibility, we should ensure pilots were ok.

And I can see the logic in that - but in that case, nothing short of a
true proficiency check will do.

> The rides
> were NEVER intended to be an FAA checkride, a BFR, an IPC or any of the
> horror stories I've heard. It was supposed to be just a quick check
> around the pattern.

Which, IMO, is the worst possible solution. If you do nothing, you can
at least honestly say that all you know about the pilot is that he
meets legal requirements. If you do a proper proficiency check, then
you can do something to assure a minimum standard over and above the
FAR's. But if you do something less than a proper proficiency check,
what have you learned?

> I actually don't have a problem with accepting any
> PPL with miminum hours, my problem was AF asking me, as a CFI, to sign
> an orientation paper stating that I found the applicant to have good
> flying judgement based on a reading of his log book.

I would have a problem with that too. In fact, I wouldn't do it.

This is really why I think the most sensible thing is not to set any
requirements. There are public benefit flying organizations that
operate that way - get your private and you're in. The proof that this
is sufficient is they've been around a while, and they're not having
any more accidents than the groups that evaluate the pilots or set
minima. I see this as proof positive that what we have are procedures
for the purpose of procedures.

There are many things wrong with the FAA, but at least it does one
thing right - it waits for accidents before making rules. Others would
be well advised to follow a similar philosophy.

Michael

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm always somewhat sceptical when I hear something like that. This
> person is flying around NOW without an instructor. How is he not
> bending the airplane?

Having been in an airplane with pilots like that, I can tell you that your
skepticism is unfounded.

These people are flying around NOW without an instructor because they have
not pushed the situation past the boundary between "no accident" and
"accident". But that doesn't mean that they are a safe pilot. I personally
have mishandled an airplane often enough to understand that there's a LOT of
room for error, if you are normally flying reasonably well. Even if you
really suck as a pilot, there's still a little bit of room for error.

An unqualified pilot can manage to fly for quite some time, continually
mishandling the airplane very badly, and as long as luck and conditions
(weather, traffic, etc) stay on their side, no reportable accident occurs.
But that doesn't mean they are safe, and it doesn't mean you want them
representing your organization. Eventually, the situation will not be
favorable, and their mishandling of the airplane will result in an accident.
The chances of this happening are significantly greater with this kind of
unqualified pilot than they are with a qualified pilot. Orders of magnitude
greater, IMHO.

> What's different about THIS flight that required
> intervention? Is it more likely that the instructor simply
> over-reacted? Or that by his presence as an instructor he encouraged
> the pilot to proceed into a bad situation where the pilot would
> otherwise have bailed out sooner?

All of your hypotheses are valid. But that isn't the same as saying that
they are correct, nor is it the same as saying that a checkride cannot
remove pilots from the operation that one does not want involved. The fact
is that there are pilots out there flying that shouldn't be. An
organization who wants to take steps to avoid having those pilots flying for
*them* has every right to do so, and it is not necessarily true that
attempting to do so is fruitless, or eliminates more good pilots than bad.

> [...]
> There are many things wrong with the FAA, but at least it does one
> thing right - it waits for accidents before making rules. Others would
> be well advised to follow a similar philosophy.

Frankly, in a perfect world I'd agree with you there. But the FAA is quite
different from a civilian organization. In particular, the odds of a
successful lawsuit are significantly higher against the civilian
organization than against the FAA. I don't know that this is the motivation
of the particular policy in question, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
The fear of litigation is the reason for a huge amount of preventative
action, effective or otherwise. Your philosophy only works in a society
where a single lawsuit cannot completely obliterate a corporation,
non-profit, household, etc. We don't live in that kind of society.

Pete