Retired drivers, look no further...

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Retired drivers, look no further...

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 7:39 am How would you even be building it. Safety pilot implies there is no multi crew SOPs, so it doesn't look like you would be able to log anything.
The babysitter gets listed as PIC. They are then responsible for all the screwups of their "boss" in the left seat.

Kind of like poor Sq. Ldr. Laurie:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/prin ... 92247.html
The Prince of Wales has given up piloting royal flights following his crash in the Hebrides last year in which a Queen's Flight passenger jet was damaged to the tune of pounds 1m.

St James's Palace announced the Prince's decision yesterday as an RAF board of inquiry found that the aircraft's captain had been negligent in allowing him to take the controls.

Prince Charles was not blamed because, despite holding the RAF rank of group captain, he was regarded as a passenger who was invited to fly the aircraft. The inquiry can pass judgment on the crew.

It was not in dispute, however, that the Prince was at the controls of the BAe 146 when it landed awkwardly and too fast in high winds on the Isle of Islay last June, slewed off the Port Ellen runway and came to a halt with its nose buried in mud. Six crew and five passengers were on board but no one was injured.

The RAF report into the accident, released in the House of Commons yesterday, concluded the jet was flying 32 knots (40mph) too fast when it crossed the runway threshold. Only 509m (557yds) of the 1,245m-long (1,362yd) strip remained when all the aircraft's wheels touched down, causing a tyre to burst and another to deflate.

The captain, Squadron Leader Graham Laurie, was negligent "in the final stages of the flight". Although he still flies with No. 2 Royal Squadron, he may no longer act as an instructing or supervising pilot.
Talk about throwing someone under a bus.

If you're experienced enough to keep on top of the airplane owner, you're probably not in need of building hours, and you'll want and deserve a significant salary for putting your experience at his disposal. If you still care a lot about the hours, then you're likely not the right person to supervise someone in their shiny $1m twin.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by photofly on Wed Apr 06, 2022 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Retired drivers, look no further...

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:58 am
digits_ wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 7:39 am How would you even be building it. Safety pilot implies there is no multi crew SOPs, so it doesn't look like you would be able to log anything.
The babysitter gets listed as PIC. They are then responsible for all the screwups of their "boss" in the left seat.

Kind of like poor Sq. Ldr. Laurie:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/prin ... 92247.html
That would be one way. But that way the 'boss' wouldn't gain any experience on paper either, so that wouldn't help his insurance case either...

Definitely something for potential 'candidates' to clarify with their future 'boss'. Ask about salary as well...
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Retired drivers, look no further...

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 9:00 am
That would be one way. But that way the 'boss' wouldn't gain any experience on paper either, so that wouldn't help his insurance case either...
Insurability is usually based on an assessment of time in seat, not PIC time. If an insurer wants you to have 50 hours on a single-pilot type before they will cover you, they will usually approve another pilot to fly dual with you for those 50 hours. I don't believe it really matters who is the PIC during those hours. If I was that other pilot I would likely want to be PIC for some or all of them, for reasons discussed.

Not saying that's the requirement here, but experience on type for insurance purposes isn't necessarily the same as PIC.

In answer to the obvious question, yes, I would log the time in my personal log, for reference, but (unless flown with an instructor who's authorized to provide dual training) not add the time into any totals.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”