FAA proposed rule We're here to help

donttouchanything

New Member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

Good Gawd!

Talk about a “dry” read. The problem is if we all don’t read it and respond, the FAA will drive yet another nail into the coffin of General Aviation.

The FAA will try to ram this one-size fits none fix down the throats of everyone if we don’t vocally and intelligently oppose it. We should consider it our duty to future generations of Aviators to stop this now.

There are so many of us in aviation who dream of nothing more than finding some small way to earn a living doing something we love. This proposed rule change would make it just that much harder to bring those dreams to fruition.

Forget that time building job, sure the FAA will give you the rating, but then they’ll make it impossible for you to use until you’ve invested another $10,000 or $20,000 to meet their ever evolving standards, which by then may mean you need 850 hours to utilize that commercial rating. Ridicules!
 

Acadia

Well-Known Member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

Yup this is a real bummer for new pilots. Sight seeing flights around the national park are a good summer time builder here, but now you will need 500hrs to be PIC of tour aircraft. They also want every occupant of the aircraft to be wearing an approved life preserver for the entire flight. This combined with the proposed detailed water ditching brief should suffice to scare off a few customers!
 

agcatman

New Member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

[ QUOTE ]
Yup this is a real bummer for new pilots. Sight seeing flights around the national park are a good summer time builder here, but now you will need 500hrs to be PIC of tour aircraft. They also want every occupant of the aircraft to be wearing an approved life preserver for the entire flight.

[/ QUOTE ]

What park you writing about? I used to give helicopter rides over Badlands National Park in South Dakota.
[ QUOTE ]
This combined with the proposed detailed water ditching brief should suffice to scare off a few customers!

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, it's hard to scare customers. I used to have a scale that I'd make my crew use when DA got up. Usually the crew could tell by looking but when it got hot I wanted to know for sure.

One time as I was working through a long line of tourists when my loader walked out two big sized guys. I had given them strict weight rules because it was hotter than blue blazes. The loader loaded the men and I motioned for him to come to my door. I asked him if the guy selling tickets was weighing like I said. He assured me that he was so I just thought they were fat but light. I pulled off for an air taxi departure and immediately realized that no, they were just fat.

As soon as I was off the pad RPM started dropping and the ground started coming up. I had to keep it in ground effect and milk the collective and throttle to get to effective tranlational lift. Even then I had to get about 45mph before I could get a good climb established.

I was PISSED.


When I got back and landed I locked everything down and left my loader watching the aircraft idling on the ramp and ran inside to chew the ticket seller's butt for darn near causing me to ball it up (never mind that I was the pilot and shoulda known by looking at the two).

I lit into Gary and he started protesting that he had weighed everybody and there were no descrepancies. Just then the two men walked into the gift shop with their wives. I mentioned to him (out of customer earshot) that those were the two guys I was questioning.

Gary got mad and told me what had happened. There was a big sign at the cash register with the weight limit. These two guys knew they were over so they had decided that just one of the two would buy two tickets with his small wife. So the man and wife would weigh okay, then once outside she just gave the ticket to the other man. We were really busy so it they didn't think it would matter.


I couldn't let them get away with it. So, with a gift shop full of people I went over and confronted these two big guys. I told them what they did was stupid and damn near caused a major accident. Their response?

"It's alright. We didn't crash."

 

SteveC

Really?
Staff member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

Shoulda crashed just to prove 'em wrong!

 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

[ QUOTE ]
"It's alright. We didn't crash."



[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me they didn't have any rugrats running around with them! Oh, my God, they're breeding!
 

ERJ-135

New Member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

I would not blame the proposed new ruling entirely on the FAA. Take a hard look at the insurance companies. The FAA certifies that you are qualified to fly a twin, but the insurance companies say no, no, no, not under our policy. “You need X-total time and X-multi dual time in order for us to insure you”. As far as wearing PFD’s, there again, blame it on the insurance company. Pak’s don’t wear PFD’s in the airlines, why should the Pak’s with the tour company be required to wear PFD’s?
 

mtsu_av8er

Well-Known Member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

[ QUOTE ]
Pak’s don’t wear PFD’s in the airlines, why should the Pak’s with the tour company be required to wear PFD’s?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, it's PAX, my dear fellow....PAX!!!


Just teasing....lol.
 

Kristie

Mama Bear....
Staff member
Re: FAA proposed rule We\'re here to help

*nods head*... passengers=PAX... PAK=backpack....
 
Top