Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[DanMa1156]

Mind blown.

As I understand it, the TH-57 operates under this aforementioned domain.

This is also why the whole "Only the CNO/CMC can violate you..." thing is a thing. The FAA knows this, so they actually try and help to protect your civilian ticket by putting some firewalls in place, like the region FAA rep that the Navy has in various fleet concentration areas. Not sure what region the TWs fall into, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same guy in Atlanta that we had that's the shit-screen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is why we also encourage people to put on their FAA flight plans "on file at KN(XX)" where PIC and SIC would go so as to prevent them from going after your FAA ratings?

 

[DanMa1156]

Curious if you think acquisition decision will hinge (see what I did there?) on what the transitory populace of HT IP's would think...If so and full auto's are a the way forward, then indeed Navy could select the Bell product, operate SP IFR under their due regard authority in the NAS, and call it done. And honestly why not - these aircraft will be long term holds and have little need for an Airworthiness Certificate or N Number...

FWIW, the guys giving the input from the training wing are a very select group of guys, most of them having had multiple tours (or reserve equivalent) worth of being an IP. They asked us mere mortals via a survey about what should change in a future syllabi, I assume to grasp better to what the fleet is doing, of which I'm sure fleet Commodores are providing input as well; all of this eventually went into the RFP. Said team is currently working on the new syllabus and the transition syllabus as I understand it. Not a single guy on the team that I know that I could say a bad thing about and I have the utmost respect for their flying skills and as much respect for how tight lipped they have been so as to prevent literally even the idea of impropriety or conflict of interest to prevent a challenge when the contract is issued - even to the point that when major events like NHA or Fleet Fly In happen, they are told "stay away." I think most took (or were voluntold to) leave that week.

 

[Gatordev]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is why we also encourage people to put on their FAA flight plans "on file at KN(XX)" where PIC and SIC would go so as to prevent them from going after your FAA ratings?

Exactly. Those that don't do so at their own peril. The problem is no one explains why (or during my time at the VTs, there wasn't even a formal guidance to do so).

Keep in mind, a lot of Part 91 is in 3710, so it's not like none of it is important. But I've been amazed at even the O-6s don't realize that just because it's a FAR doesn't mean it's gospel. The again, I've run into O-6s who don't even understand why being less than 1,000 feet AGL is completely okay, according to multiple instructions. But that's another story.

 

[DanMa1156]

Exactly. Those that don't do so at their own peril. The problem is no one explains why (or during my time at the VTs, there wasn't even a formal guidance to do so).

Keep in mind, a lot of Part 91 is in 3710, so it's not like none of it is important. But I've been amazed at even the O-6s don't realize that just because it's a FAR doesn't mean it's gospel. The again, I've run into O-6s who don't even understand why being less than 1,000 feet AGL is completely okay, according to multiple instructions. But that's another story.

Ha! Right you are. I've found these discussions particularly helpful as "extra briefing items" to talk about on the 8 hours of XC flying on Fridays/Sundays.

 

[scoolbubba]

Exactly. Those that don't do so at their own peril. The problem is no one explains why (or during my time at the VTs, there wasn't even a formal guidance to do so).

Keep in mind, a lot of Part 91 is in 3710, so it's not like none of it is important. But I've been amazed at even the O-6s don't realize that just because it's a FAR doesn't mean it's gospel. The again, I've run into O-6s who don't even understand why being less than 1,000 feet AGL is completely okay, according to multiple instructions. But that's another story.

The academics guys are passing along in IGS that it is required for you to put your own name on the flight plan.

‘Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. You’re wrong!’

Even filing with ForeFlight, I am onfile@onfile.com. Whoever has that email address has a lot of my flight plans and weather briefs in his inbox.

 

[Gatordev]

Even filing with ForeFlight, I am onfile@onfile.com. Whoever has that email address has a lot of my flight plans and weather briefs in his inbox.

When I've filed with FF at work, there's always one of the other guy's name already listed. I've debated about just leaving it there, but it's not like my company isn't going to come to me if something happened, so I just change it. I do leave the company iPad email in there, because no one ever seems to delete those emails. Ever.

 

[Gatordev]

The academics guys are passing along in IGS that it is required for you to put your own name on the flight plan.

‘Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. You’re wrong!’

One other recommended technique....Train your AFDOs this. I was never convinced that if someone asked for a pilot's name over the phone, they wouldn't just spill their guts because "it was the FAA...it sounded official."

 

[Randy Daytona]

Really? 30GPH?

I get 43 GPH at long range cruise at 4000 LBS - which arguably isn't bad. But no way 30 GPH.

View attachment 21833

I seem to remember 45 - 50 GPH when flying the 407 at max gross and max continuous power. I liked the machine, but always double checked my offshore fuel platforms when flying it...

 

[ChuckMK23]

Airbus has been "papering" offices in Corpus and Pax with this infographic...

 

[Griz882]

Airbus has been "papering" offices in Corpus and Pax with this infographic...View attachment 21935

Fun graphic. Looking at the map my first question would be why isn't the helicopter used for training in the country where Airbus has its HQ...France? I'll pay attention to the ads around the Pentagon metro station to see if it is being pushed there.

 

[Gatordev]

I don't really understand what games Airbus plays with their Max Gross Weights. It seems like they just randomly increase weights when marketing requires it*.

*Yes, I understand this is a newer model, but they do it in the middle of model lines, as well.

 

[HAL Pilot]

So does Boeing. At Hawaiian about 12-13 years ago we increased the max t/o weight of our 717s overnight by paying Boeing for the higher weight performance charts that became available years after we bought them and started flying them.

 

[phrogdriver]

Airbus has been "papering" offices in Corpus and Pax with this infographic...View attachment 21935

http://www.bellflight.com/~/media/b...l 407gxi navy trainer inforgraphic.ashx?la=en

http://www.bellflight.com/commercial/bell-407gxi

 

[Griz882]

So does Boeing. At Hawaiian about 12-13 years ago we increased the max t/o weight of our 717s overnight by paying Boeing for the higher weight performance charts that became available years after we bought them and started flying them.

An old saying from my days as a bag ape with Continental Airlines..."If it fits, it flies!"

 

[Gatordev]

So does Boeing. At Hawaiian about 12-13 years ago we increased the max t/o weight of our 717s overnight by paying Boeing for the higher weight performance charts that became available years after we bought them and started flying them.

From what little I've seen, it appears Airbus doesn't even give you the benefit of upgrading after the fact. They just take the same airframe with the same gear and change the number with no internal change, but leave the older airframe behind with the old weight. Although i wouldn't be surprised if one were willing to pay for the privilege, Airbus would change the sticker on the side of the aircraft, but my company has apparently not chosen to do so.