If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Gordon" wrote
I too saw the film and he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. Harry...perhaps you meant pilot-in-command? No such thing as pilot-in-charge in FAA-Land. I have hundreds of hours as pilot-in-command of Boeing-707s occupying the right-hand seat. Bob Moore ATP CFI |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Gordon wrote:
Toks, I'm just a student pilot right now, [...] he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. It As you're a student pilot, I'm sure that you've spent several hours in the left seat of an aircraft without being the pilot-in-command. - awh |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Correct me if I'm wrong but if "you're" flying the left seat of an airplane
with paying passengers in the back seats, you are NOT a student pilot :-). Harry "Drew Hamilton" wrote in message ... Harry Gordon wrote: Toks, I'm just a student pilot right now, [...] he was sitting in the left seat which means he is the pilot-in-charge. It As you're a student pilot, I'm sure that you've spent several hours in the left seat of an aircraft without being the pilot-in-command. - awh |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Gordon" wrote in message ... Correct me if I'm wrong but if "you're" flying the left seat of an airplane with paying passengers in the back seats, you are NOT a student pilot :-). Harry So you assume the PIC can't be in the right seat? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Perkins wrote in message I think the pilot's mistake was not so
much that he was asleep while another had the controls; the safety problem with that is not as critical in a 2-crew airplane at cruise. Walker's flies a few times per week, one hour out and one hour back, always during the day with the crew being home every night. It's not a high demand job. Doing back-to-back red-eyes out to LAX can tax one with fatigue, but not doing a cake job like Walker's. Besides, a professional pilot makes sure he is well rested before taking a flight, or he calls out sick. The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety asset. Rather, it was that he let his passengers get unsettled enough to document it. Never scare the pax, right? They pay the bills for the flight, after all... They weren't unsettled. They were giggling. They don't pay the bills either. The island is huge tax write-off for a big corporation. Those passengers will likely be back. The one on CNN said as much. So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was *very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked? Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"pittss1c" writes:
Am I the only one to say BFD: Of course you are! If a pilot gets caught doing something less than perfect, we're supposed to set the stake and collect some wood for the fire. Simply implying that it might not have been so bad is a punishable offense. That is what the other guy is there for... to fly while the Capitan takes a nap. (one of the MANY odd jobs of the Switch Bitch) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain --kyler |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty
time limitations. Whats scary is riding in the back in a 135 op and looking up to find BOTH of them guys nodding off... its happened more than once. Dave PPSEL Toks Desalu wrote: Guys! You could not believe what I saw on CNN before I left for work. I missed the beginning of the segment, but I understood the whole story. A passenger was fliming during the flight. That film was showing on CNN. The pilot got caught sleeping while flying. The pilot did not wear the headset. I noticed that he was wearing a ear plug. You could see his head tilt backward with his left eye closed. The passenger claimed that he was filming him sleeping for about one hour. At the end of segment, the CNN went to FAA for comments and the FAA claimed that it was against the regulation. FAA claimed that the pilot must be awake and his must be on the control at all the time. There is no way to tell what kind of aircraft but, it was pretty clear that it is under general aviation, a high wing with mulit-engine(propeller) aircraft. Also, because of pilot's uniform, and other passengers, it indicated that it is under part 121 operation. But, I could be wrong. I have no idea where the flight was but the reporter said he/she was reporting from West Palm Beach, Florida. Here my questions: Can you believe this? I studied regulation back in college and don't remember any specific regulation that said the hand must be at control at all time. Anybody can point it out? Why they really want to make us look bad? Feel free to comment on this. Toks PP_ASEL |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What have you been smoking?!?
"Dave S" wrote in message ... Maybe NOW the feds can push through some MEANINGFUL crew rest and duty time limitations. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:54:57 GMT, "Capt. Doug"
wrote: The FO is certainly capable of flying the plane. However, radar services are NOT available for much of their route and there is a lot of traffic crossing that route. An extra set of eyes scanning for traffic is a valuable safety asset. And I, in the light singles I'm allowed to fly? Were I to fly that route under part 91, would I therefore be a detrimental safety liability, if my pax don't scan for traffic? (And yes, I've had conversations with pilots who reported waking up in their light single in an unusual attitude. Not fun, I'm told...) I didn't argue that the man didn't need to be awake. I argue that it was much worse on the company flying that leg to have a pilot get caught doing what pilots do on occasion, and have that hit the news ("OMG! a pilot was asleep! That's worse than Palestinian Suicide Bombers! Run the video again, Bob!") than the actual detriment to safety warranted. IOW, pax overreacted. Media (as usual) overreacted. One thing's for sure, though, IMO. The age-60 rule just got itself another point in the "pro" column, don't you think? So while falling asleep wasn't bad for flight safety so much, it was *very* bad for business. Wasn't he sacked? Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. He resigned. Nixon style, beating them to the pink slip? Or would he have kept his job after making the national news anyway? eh? Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|