New Angel Flight NE Reqs

[Marco Leon]

Just a heads up to the northeast pilots interested in Angel Flight. Just got
a call informing me that the new requirements as of January 1, 2006 is 250
hours PIC. It's no longer just the 300 hours total time. I'm about 15 hours
short of that so I'll be put in the system pending the hours and orientation
attendance. Apparently it takes a little while to set the orientation up so
I'll hopefully have the PIC hours by the time orientation logistics come
together.

Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency?

Marco Leon



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter R.]

Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:

> Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency?

A lack of new pilots, perhaps?


--
Peter

[Marco Leon]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency?
>
> A lack of new pilots, perhaps?

But pilots usually have more total time than they have PIC time, no? All the
primary and some of the instrument training time now can not be counted.
Their website still states "total" time and not PIC--they should change
that. Peter, what was your experience with the orientation? How often are
they scheduled, how long are they and do they offer both weekdays and
weekends?

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter R.]

Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:

> But pilots usually have more total time than they have PIC time, no?

I don't know, but typically a relaxation of requirements indicates that
supply is down. With the continued increase in aviation costs, I don't
doubt that the number of active mission pilots has decreased this past
year.

> Peter, what was your experience with the orientation? How often are
> they scheduled, how long are they and do they offer both weekdays and
> weekends?

Hmmm... my orientation was back in July of 2003, so some of the details are
cloudy. I think there were perhaps two sessions per month and I had a
choice of a Tuesday PM orientation in Lawrence, MA, or a Saturday AM
orientation in White Plains, NY. Along with three other pilots, I attended
the Tuesday PM.

The orientation was a bit over an hour long. We saw a video, talked about
the required procedures for selecting and flying missions (including the
importance of the liability release form), and talked aviation in general.
It took me longer to fly there one way than the orientation lasted.



--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

When I joined in AF West we had a checkride, instrument check, and all.

-Robert

[Steve Foley]

Maybe they would have more pilots if they replied to inquiries.

I tried contacting them a few times back in 2000. I'm still waiting for a
reply.



"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Just a heads up to the northeast pilots interested in Angel Flight. Just
got
> a call informing me that the new requirements as of January 1, 2006 is 250
> hours PIC. It's no longer just the 300 hours total time. I'm about 15
hours
> short of that so I'll be put in the system pending the hours and
orientation
> attendance. Apparently it takes a little while to set the orientation up
so
> I'll hopefully have the PIC hours by the time orientation logistics come
> together.
>
> Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency?
>
> Marco Leon
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Peter R.]

Steve Foley > wrote:

> I tried contacting them a few times back in 2000. I'm still waiting for a
> reply.

Given the high turn-over at the AFNE office, I would strongly recommend
trying again.

The responsible position who took your message has been filled by probably
eight different people since then.


--
Peter

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:53:14 -0500, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>Marco Leon <mmleonyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But pilots usually have more total time than they have PIC time, no?
>
>I don't know, but typically a relaxation of requirements indicates that
>supply is down. With the continued increase in aviation costs, I don't
>doubt that the number of active mission pilots has decreased this past
>year.

Isn't changing from 250TT to 250 *PIC* a tightening of the
requirement, not relaxation?

[zatatime]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:44:47 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>Maybe they would have more pilots if they replied to inquiries.
>
>I tried contacting them a few times back in 2000. I'm still waiting for a
>reply.


Me too, in 1999. Went to Philly "signed up" and never heard a thing.

Makes me skeptical to try again, although it's a Great excuse to fly.

z

[Peter R.]

Peter Clark > wrote:

> Isn't changing from 250TT to 250 *PIC* a tightening of the
> requirement, not relaxation?

Of course. I read it too fast and thought the two amounts were using the
same units.

--
Peter

[Michelle]

Marco Leon wrote:
> Just a heads up to the northeast pilots interested in Angel Flight. Just got
> a call informing me that the new requirements as of January 1, 2006 is 250
> hours PIC. It's no longer just the 300 hours total time. I'm about 15 hours
> short of that so I'll be put in the system pending the hours and orientation
> attendance. Apparently it takes a little while to set the orientation up so
> I'll hopefully have the PIC hours by the time orientation logistics come
> together.
>
> Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency?
>
> Marco Leon
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
Insurance?
Michelle

[jmk]

That would be my guess. I know that insurance and lawyers have been
the driver at Angel Flight South Central. On lawyers advise it used to
be simply Private Pilot. [Hey, we didn't say they could fly, the FAA
did.] Now we have 200 hours (and I don't recall but I think it's PIC)
because that is what the insurance company requires before they will
write liability insurance for AFSC.

[Marco Leon]

Maybe if they are insured for legal fees from the possibility of being sued
(if there is such a thing). They require that we have our own insurance and
there is no need to list Angel Flight as an additional insured. I would
think that the pilot shoulders tha majority of the risk but there's no law
preventing anyone from filing the suit in the first place thus requiring
defensive legal representation.

Marco

"Michelle" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> Insurance?
> Michelle



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Blanche]

Marco Leon <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Maybe if they are insured for legal fees from the possibility of being sued
>(if there is such a thing). They require that we have our own insurance and
>there is no need to list Angel Flight as an additional insured. I would
>think that the pilot shoulders tha majority of the risk but there's no law
>preventing anyone from filing the suit in the first place thus requiring
>defensive legal representation.

Each passenger signs a release against both AFW and the pilot before they
ever climb into the aircraft. And we're required to mail it (or
ensure it can be transmitted, e.g. fax) before *we* climb into the
aircraft.

"Waiver of Liabiliity"
"By signing this waiver, you are giving up any rights you might
otherwise have to sue the pilot, mission assistant or Angel Flight
West in the event of an accident".

This is in very large type at the top of the 2 page release. The
rest of it was written by the lawyers.

[Morgans]

"Blanche" > wrote

> "Waiver of Liabiliity"
> "By signing this waiver, you are giving up any rights you might
> otherwise have to sue the pilot, mission assistant or Angel Flight
> West in the event of an accident".
>
> This is in very large type at the top of the 2 page release. The
> rest of it was written by the lawyers.

That is nothing but a feel good waiver. There is no way that it would stand
up in court, if suite was filled by one of the flight crew's family member.
You simply can not sign away other peoples rights.

This type of thing is done, primarily so everyone involved "thinks" there is
no way for a law suit to be carried out, so it is less likely that a suite
will be filled.
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

IMHO a TT number doesn't really demonstrate anything anyway. You could be a
Student Pilot with 300 hours TT and never actually be qualified to fly a
plane.

PIC time is a much more relevant number. And my guess is that 250 PIC is
equivalent to somewhere between 300 and 350 TT for the typical pilot. (They
say the average pilot spends 65 hours in primary training.)


"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in
:

> Just a heads up to the northeast pilots interested in Angel Flight.
> Just got a call informing me that the new requirements as of January
> 1, 2006 is 250 hours PIC. It's no longer just the 300 hours total
> time. I'm about 15 hours short of that so I'll be put in the system
> pending the hours and orientation attendance. Apparently it takes a
> little while to set the orientation up so I'll hopefully have the PIC
> hours by the time orientation logistics come together.
>
> Makes me wonder what prompted the change. National consistency?
>
> Marco Leon
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> IMHO a TT number doesn't really demonstrate anything anyway. You could be a
> Student Pilot with 300 hours TT and never actually be qualified to fly a
> plane.
>
> PIC time is a much more relevant number.

You could rack up 100's of hours flying day-vfr over familiar routes in
nice weather and not really gain much experience either.

[Judah]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> IMHO a TT number doesn't really demonstrate anything anyway. You
>> could be a Student Pilot with 300 hours TT and never actually be
>> qualified to fly a plane.
>>
>> PIC time is a much more relevant number.
>
> You could rack up 100's of hours flying day-vfr over familiar routes
> in nice weather and not really gain much experience either.
>

True, but you'd at least be a licensed pilot. And probably you'd be
qualified to maintain control of an airplane, and to take off and land
safely in day-vfr conditions at familiar airports. Even if you skated by on
navigation techniques, PIC hours have meaning.

I remember the instructor who I used for my IFR training having another
student who had racked up an excessive number of hours (150+ IIRC) into his
primary (VFR) training. I don't think he had even solo'd. He and another
instructor used to discuss how to convince the guy to stop wasting his
money - that he would never be qualified to get his ticket. But the guy
still has 150TT... And they both used to be worried that he would knock on
enough doors to eventually get someone to sign him off and end up killing
himself or worse someone else. It's much less likely that someone of this
caliber would have ANY PIC hours...

Fortunately, Angel Flight also requires an instrument rating, so it is
unlikely that this would be the case with an Angel Flight pilot anyway...
:)