Roger! My point was I am guessing the Powered Lift folks who are seeking a AMEL ATP will have to do a Vmc demo, and won’t have the ability to waiver it!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The SHOW: Airlines still a "good gig"??
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
Roger! My point was I am guessing the Powered Lift folks who are seeking a AMEL ATP will have to do a Vmc demo, and won’t have the ability to waiver it!
Good for the Super Hornet drivers. There was an F-18E/F (can't remember which) single engine mishap about two~ish years ago and the writeup for it had some aero discussion about exceeding an AoA for controllability with one engine. (Ask your ASO, it shouldn't be too hard to narrow it down on WESS based on that info.) So the information was definitely out there, it just took a few people from the community to put in the legwork and convince the FAA.
I'm gonna take an educated guess and figure you guys had a NATOPS manual change for this too. Didn't the G NATOPS already have it or am I thinking of something else?
Anyway, score a win for the E/F bubbas.
I'm gonna take an educated guess and figure you guys had a NATOPS manual change for this too. Didn't the G NATOPS already have it or am I thinking of something else?
Anyway, score a win for the E/F bubbas.
SevenHelmet,
Can you provide a source document or memo that shows this? FAA 8900.1 has not been updated.
I'm not trying to bust your balls. I simply have helped a lot of current/former military guys get their ratings and would like to have the latest info. Oftentimes, I need to actually SHOW the FSDO the latest info, since it is common that they will not have gotten the memo.
It's also good info to put on our warbird website.
Actually probably not. Since powered lift is fucking worthless, they would need actual multi engine time to get an ATP. In the case of osprey guys, they already have some C-12 time. Harrier and F-35 guys would need to go get it on their own.
I agree with you about the osprey, but harrier guys are lumped into that bullshit category even though they takeoff and land like a normal jet 90% of the time. I think it’s amazing that super hornet dudes can convince the FAA a superhornet isn’t centerline thrust, but harrier guys can’t convince them the harrier isn’t an osprey.
I get it now... from Delta:
Minimum of 1,000 hours of fixed wing turboprop or turbofan time.
- 90% of the flight time logged in powered lift category aircraft (e.g. AV-8B, F-35B, and V-22) will be credited to the Delta Air Lines 1,000 hour fixed wing turboprop/turbofan requirement
Minimum of 250 hours PIC in an aircraft categorized as an airplane.
- The flight time logged in a powered lift category aircraft cannot be credited towards PIC aircraft time in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 61.159.
That just happens to be what Delta decided. They could count it all or only count the night time from aircraft with even BuNo’s if they felt like it. Before that, they were like every other major airline and counted harrier time as single engine land. The only real legal barrier facing powered lift people is getting an ATP. Actual multi engine land is required for that.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to have powered lift as a category in the first place, and especially ridiculous to lump the AV-8B and F-35B into it. Oh, they are capable of taking off and landing differently than most other fixed wing? I guess a piper cub is powered lift on a windy day. I guess seaplanes shouldn’t count as FW. Taildraggers too.
I get that something needs to be done to categorize an osprey because it’s basically a helicopter that can cruise like a turboprop. However lumping jets and tilt rotors into a bastardized category with zero civilian applications is idiotic. AV-8B and F35B should be classified the same way seaplanes and taildraggers still count as fixed wing.
Good question. It was something Gordo mentioned in passing when we were cleaning up IACRA after my checkride. Sort of a "tell your friends" thing. I can ask about a source document.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
Yeah I agree that the Harrier should count.
It amuses me that Osprey guys try to compare them selves to the Harrier like that.
Sorry Osprey guys, you’re not a Harrier, and no, your aircraft does not land and takeoff like a Harrier.
I didn’t say anything about helos. Is there anything you specifically disagree with?
Kinda seems like you’re wang measuring whose time is more valuable. If someone has their ATP and gold wings, who gives a shit?
That’s not what I was saying but it doesn’t really matter what I think, does it? It matters what the airlines think, and it’s pretty obvious what kind of time they prefer.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
Nope, just stating that Ospreys trying to be in the same category as a Harrier doesn’t hold water.
And it’s not like some giant mystery that helo guys need to figure out a way to get fixed wing time to be competitive....be it going to the VTs or getting on with a regional.
No wang measuring here-don’t need to.....the airlines have already done that for us.
The paperwork is in the works. It just got approved a couple of months ago. For right now, guys are working it through their local FSDO and have an FAA contact to bring pressure on the FSDOs
Back when I was the Super Hornet Model Manager, I worked with the FAA to see about getting the centerline thrust restriction changed. The ball was already rolling by the time I got to it, but the FAA memo removing the F/A-18E/F was sitting on some big wig’s desk waiting to be approved, or so I was told by Oklahoma City. At the time the FAA was way more concerned with UAS, and they were still overworked and undermanned, so it wasn’t a high priority. Here we are a few years later and it’s barely hitting the streets.
As for why the Super Hornet was on FAA 8900.1, and the Grower is not - both flight manuals are virtually identical and have the exact same language in them. The biggest difference is some minor formatting items and the actual differences between aircraft, which are few. The Super was seen by the FAA as a new variant of the legacy Hornet, which was already on the list (just a continuation of the F/A-18 series). When the Growler came out, it was a labeled as a different model (think T/M/S, F/A-18 vs EA-18), and it had its own flight manual with the proper language already in it, so the community was able to successfully lobby the FAA to either keep the jet off the list, or to have it removed very quickly.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....
As for why the Super Hornet was on FAA 8900.1, and the Grower is not - both flight manuals are virtually identical and have the exact same language in them. The biggest difference is some minor formatting items and the actual differences between aircraft, which are few. The Super was seen by the FAA as a new variant of the legacy Hornet, which was already on the list (just a continuation of the F/A-18 series). When the Growler came out, it was a labeled as a different model (think T/M/S, F/A-18 vs EA-18), and it had its own flight manual with the proper language already in it, so the community was able to successfully lobby the FAA to either keep the jet off the list, or to have it removed very quickly.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....