Was this legal?

There are lots of options... I had to install Real Player last week to listen to an old RAM audio feed. It has the ability to download any Web video.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
This thread has almost 1,400 views. Somebody ripped it from YouTube and the FAA has seen it. The pilot will get a suspension if not revocation. There's my prediction.
 
Captain said:
This thread has almost 1,400 views. Somebody ripped it from YouTube and the FAA has seen it. The pilot will get a suspension if not revocation. There's my prediction.
Click to expand...

Is there any way to follow up on it to see if your prediction is true?
I think he will get a 709 ride and suspension, revocation??? You have to leave room for the possibility that his stupidity was just lack of understanding, no? I didn't see all the video, but read the entire thread. Tough crowd.
 
If I was in charge of these things I suppose I'd give the 709 and a 30 day timeout. The revoking thing is just my guess of what they might do. And I might be misusing the term. What do they call it when they take your ticket and you have to test for them again?
 
thats revocation, you can test again after 1 year. suspension would be 30 days etc..
 
I think when a 709 ride is involved, they give you a deadline to receive remedial training and take the the ride with the FAA. If you choose not to meet the date, then your certificate is revoked.
 
I don't think remedial training is a requirement of a 709. It could be if the FSDO chooses, but not always.
 
Captain said:
I don't think remedial training is a requirement of a 709. It could be if the FSDO chooses, but not always.
Click to expand...

From 8900.1, Vol. 5, Chapter 7, Sect. 1

The airman should then be encouraged to receive dual instruction from a certificated flight instructor (CFI). If the airman finds it necessary to conduct solo practice while the airman certificate is temporarily deposited at the FSDO, the inspector may issue FAA Form 8060-4, Temporary Airman Certificate, valid for 30 days instead of 120 days. That certificate should bear all ratings previously held by the certificate holder; however, ratings for which the airman is to be reexamined must have the limitation “FOR STUDENT PILOT PURPOSES ONLY—PASSENGER CARRYING PROHIBITED.”
 
Well, I could be wrong too..

: )
 
Was the video edited or something? it only goes to 52 minutes.
 
Everskyward said:
I agree that night can be deceiving. I once accepted the visual at night to my home airport from 10-15 miles. Then I flew into a cloud I hadn't seen. It was only for a few seconds and I didn't have a chance to say anything before I was in the clear again. After that I was more careful about accepting the visual, especially at night. Those clouds can be invisible.
Click to expand...

The same thing has happened to me going into my home drone. I flew 1400 nm without encountering a single cloud that day, and the only one I found was at night not 10 nm out from my home airport, which was reporting 10 SM SKC.

Again, I was in and out of it before I knew it after clearing a visual approach, but it's why at night I typically plan on doing an instrument approach of some sort.

The POI for the 135 I fly for was telling us that owner-flown airplanes are viewed as dangers in the sky (at least by that FSDO) because owners tend to try to figure out how to save money rather than focus on safety. Paid pilots, whose wallets aren't as directly impacted, will typically focus on safety more regularly. This is where discipline comes in. Sure, the 310 costs about $5 a minute to fly, but if the $10 I save by skipping an approach really matters to my wallet, then I have no business flying that plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The POI for the 135 I fly for was telling us that owner-flown airplanes are viewed as dangers in the sky (at least by that FSDO) because owners tend to try to figure out how to save money rather than focus on safety. Paid pilots, whose wallets aren't as directly impacted, will typically focus on safety more regularly. This is where discipline comes in. Sure, the 310 costs about $5 a minute to fly, but if the $10 I save by skipping an approach really matters to my wallet, then I have no business flying that plane.
Click to expand...
That may be true. I know that I never think about the cost of operating the airplane when flying it or pretty much any other time. It costs what it costs. Probably the only time I think about the cost is when I decide where to buy fuel. The FBOs are already pre-chosen for us but the pilots are supposed to plan their fuel loads in order to buy it at the cheapest stop if flying multiple legs.
 
Everskyward said:
That may be true. I know that I never think about the cost of operating the airplane when flying it or pretty much any other time. It costs what it costs. Probably the only time I think about the cost is when I decide where to buy fuel. The FBOs are already pre-chosen for us but the pilots are supposed to plan their fuel loads in order to buy it at the cheapest stop if flying multiple legs.
Click to expand...

There is a balance, certainly. Flying a plane that I have financial responsibility over, I do care more about cost, but I tend to factor that more into which airports I land at, operating LOP vs. ROP, etc.

I think where you may see more problems or accidents are things like people attempting to make a visual approach instead of an instrument approach in marginal conditions because the instrument approach would add 5-10 minutes of flight time. I've seen people try to declare visual approaches in situations like the video because they didn't want to take the extra couple minutes for an instrument approach. They're looking at the $10 they might save.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There is a balance, certainly. Flying a plane that I have financial responsibility over, I do care more about cost, but I tend to factor that more into which airports I land at, operating LOP vs. ROP, etc.

I think where you may see more problems or accidents are things like people attempting to make a visual approach instead of an instrument approach in marginal conditions because the instrument approach would add 5-10 minutes of flight time. I've seen people try to declare visual approaches in situations like the video because they didn't want to take the extra couple minutes for an instrument approach. They're looking at the $10 they might save.
Click to expand...
I think that many paid pilots, including me, want to get the flight done as quickly as possible but cost is not one of the overriding reasons. I never hear anyone talk about it.
 
Many paid pilots are paid by block and want to drag the flight out as long as possible. I had a Captain explain it to me this way, "The power levers are the money. You can push them up and give the money to 'them' if you want...but I prefer to keep the money back here with 'us'".

No kidding, thats why they taxi so slow too.
 
Captain said:
Many paid pilots are paid by block and want to drag the flight out as long as possible. I had a Captain explain it to me this way, "The power levers are the money. You can push them up and give the money to 'them' if you want...but I prefer to keep the money back here with 'us'".

No kidding, thats why they taxi so slow too.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons it's bad to tie pilot pay to flight time.
 
I want the flight to be done as quickly as possible, as well. It's just interesting what some people will do to try to save $10, which they value as more important than 10 minutes.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I thought they had a fuel efficiency and timeliness bonus structure?
Click to expand...
Who? I'm aware that many airline pilots are paid by flight time. I just don't think it's a good idea in a general sense. Pilots would be more tempted to make decisions based on their bottom line rather than safety considerations. A prime example of this would be that a pilot might be less likely to make a no-go decision based on the pay they would lose for not taking a flight. You might want to think that pilots can ignore this influence but as Ted said, some people will agonize over $10.
 
Everskyward said:
Who? I'm aware that many airline pilots are paid by flight time. I just don't think it's a good idea in a general sense. Pilots would be more tempted to make decisions based on their bottom line rather than safety considerations. A prime example of this would be that a pilot might be less likely to make a no-go decision based on the pay they would lose for not taking a flight. You might want to think that pilots can ignore this influence but as Ted said, some people will agonize over $10.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the dispatcher made the go/no go for them and they typically get 2 times to disagree before it's a career 'hindering' decision.
 
Jaybird180 said:
My understanding is that the dispatcher made the go/no go for them and they typically get 2 times to disagree before it's a career 'hindering' decision.
Click to expand...
I don't know who makes the decision in the airline world. If it's true then maybe it doesn't matter as much. I was speaking more about jobs where the pilots apparently have more autonomy in their decisions.
 
Everskyward said:
Who? I'm aware that many airline pilots are paid by flight time. I just don't think it's a good idea in a general sense. Pilots would be more tempted to make decisions based on their bottom line rather than safety considerations. A prime example of this would be that a pilot might be less likely to make a no-go decision based on the pay they would lose for not taking a flight. You might want to think that pilots can ignore this influence but as Ted said, some people will agonize over $10.
Click to expand...

I have spoken to several current and retired airline pilots and the general consensus is the clock starts when the cabin door is shut and stops when they get to their destination and the cabin door is opened again. Ie, gate to gate payscale.... Almost all of them say if there is / was an extensive ground delay they have absolutely no incentive to taxi back to the gate, but to just sit on the taxiway and let the clock run... To heck with the comfort of the cattle in the back :mad:... The new law that fines the airlines if an extensive ground delay is encountered is frowned upon by the guys/gals up front as the "low workload /same pay" gravy train has been pulled out from under them..:(
 
On my airliner the ACARS recorded and sent the times automatically.

OOOI times (out, off, on, in) are recorded thusly...off and on by squat switches in the gear. That makes sense. The out is recorded the first time the parking brake is released AND the door is shut. The in time is recorded when the parking brake is set AND the door is opened.

Many pilots release the brake as soon as the door is closed to start the clock while waiting for bags to load or the tug to show up. The airlines support this as it helps with the on time performance for the airline. Yes, you could push off the gate :45 minutes late but that flight is recorded as 'on time' because the door shut and the captain released the brake.

Some captains sit at the gate and hold the toe brakes for a few minutes while they pack their stuff up. I was never a fan of that practice, but it does happen.

Sitting on the ground does happen. Pilots are incentivised to get off the gate and wait out a delay in the penalty box with pay instead of at the gate with no pay. But the government passenger bill of rights thing is 3 hours max on the ground. Nobody goes and sits that long voulentarily. The problem with the rule is when weather hits big airports departure corridors shut down and Congo lines grow and can get very long. I've snaked all the way around O'Hare befor, going up into the Mx hangars only to come back and shut down and start up and shut down again. If the 3 hours hits and I have to go back we lose our place and have to start over. Plus, the guy in front of me and the guy behind is at the same hour mark so I guess we all get to go back...so the guys at the end of the line get to just go right out and take off in front of us now?

The whole thing is weird. I used to poll the pax. Id explain that if we go back we lose our spot and have to start over. Most times people just wanted to stick it out and we waited. Only once do I think I gave up and headed back. The poll was never to go back. Fuel was always the reason to return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top