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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

"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