First pet rescue flight in my Grumman (video)

I watched your video this morning before leaving for work. It popped up in my Recommended videos, or because I'm a subscriber, not sure which. It looks like you had a very enjoyable flight.
 
Enjoyed your video. I flew my first dog last fall for Pilots and Paws also in my AG5B Tiger. It was a great experience and I learned a few lessons like having some kind of disinfecting wipes and at least one large garbage bag if you are using your own kennel to put the kennel in if you have to so you don’t smell dog poop all the way home.
 
Nicely done sir. I haven't done a PnP trip for quite a while now as I was soured by the lack of support from some of the requesters on the forum. Your video made me want to give it another try.
 
Just be aware. There are people on PnP who use these flights, often the multi-leg ones, to transport animals they are calling rescues, but are really animals they have paid a breeder for and are likely selling them across the country for a profit.

There is apparently a whole little cottage industry now of calling animals rescues which have been bred to resale. The claim is the price is just reimbursement for the costs.

https://animallaw.foxrothschild.com/2014/05/20/the-phenomenon-called-retail-rescue/

Sad but true.
 
Enjoyed your video. I flew my first dog last fall for Pilots and Paws also in my AG5B Tiger. It was a great experience and I learned a few lessons like having some kind of disinfecting wipes and at least one large garbage bag if you are using your own kennel to put the kennel in if you have to so you don’t smell dog poop all the way home.

Yeah I definitely learned a few things. I learned what size crate DOES NOT fit in the Tiger without breaking it down first. I made getting the dog in the back more difficult. That set me back 30 minutes getting that all sorted out. Since I isn’t have my own crate, I used the rescuer’s crate which smelled really bad. I was worried my plane was gonna smell after that flight
 
Just be aware. There are people on PnP who use these flights, often the multi-leg ones, to transport animals they are calling rescues, but are really animals they have paid a breeder for and are likely selling them across the country for a profit.

There is apparently a whole little cottage industry now of calling animals rescues which have been bred to resale. The claim is the price is just reimbursement for the costs.

https://animallaw.foxrothschild.com/2014/05/20/the-phenomenon-called-retail-rescue/

Sad but true.

I totally agree about people abusing the situation. There are some requests to fly dogs less than 100 miles. Seriously? One of the people involved can’t make that drive?
 
I totally agree about people abusing the situation. There are some requests to fly dogs less than 100 miles. Seriously? One of the people involved can’t make that drive?

Yeah, that's another thing that turned me off about it.
 
Just be aware. There are people on PnP who use these flights, often the multi-leg ones, to transport animals they are calling rescues, but are really animals they have paid a breeder for and are likely selling them across the country for a profit.

There is apparently a whole little cottage industry now of calling animals rescues which have been bred to resale. The claim is the price is just reimbursement for the costs.

https://animallaw.foxrothschild.com/2014/05/20/the-phenomenon-called-retail-rescue/

Sad but true.
That’s why I only work with 3 rescues I know well in Colorado
 
I would then guess that the shippers or receivers that are frequent users of P&P who ask for transports of adults and mixed breeds are likely not those breeders and abusers of the system?
 
P-n-P, it's a great cause, when it works.

Mary and I fly for Mid-Atlantic English Springer Spaniel Rescue (MAESSR). They are an excellent group, organized, and fun to work with. We have missed doing flights for them while we were recovering. We are both looking forward to getting back on their flight list.
 
Last edited:
Re your long waits for IFR releases, what we used to at KJYO, which is next door to Dulles Airport is get the clearance from the remote clearance delivery, then request VFR departure with responsibility to maintain your own terrain and traffic separation. Once airborne, VFR and away from Dulles we then "activated" the IFR plan. At that time KJYO was uncontrolled so your towered situation may be different.
 
I have been seeing a number of PnP flight out here in the Northwest that are clearly questionable. Some because of distance - Southern California to Alaska for example and other because of the breeds being transported. I like transporting mutts - feel fairly certain no one is taking advantage of me. Apparently the Kootenai County Animal shelter is a no kill shelter and takes in a lot of dogs annually. Every now and then someone flies a turboprop or a jet in with 30-40 dogs. Keep thinking one day I will see Ted out there with his MU2.
 
Re your long waits for IFR releases, what we used to at KJYO, which is next door to Dulles Airport is get the clearance from the remote clearance delivery, then request VFR departure with responsibility to maintain your own terrain and traffic separation. Once airborne, VFR and away from Dulles we then "activated" the IFR plan. At that time KJYO was uncontrolled so your towered situation may be different.
The MEA around my airport is something like 5,000 ft. That day, I couldn't legally get higher than about 2,500. SoCal won't let me open up in the air that low. As far as I'm aware (any experts out there feel free to correct me) , I felt like my best option was to land and open it up on the ground.
 
The MEA around my airport is something like 5,000 ft. That day, I couldn't legally get higher than about 2,500. SoCal won't let me open up in the air that low. As far as I'm aware (any experts out there feel free to correct me) , I felt like my best option was to land and open it up on the ground.
When you said earlier you couldn't open in the air, I thought you were referring to workload. If that is not the case, the standard ATC phraseology for a VFR aircraft picking up an IFR clearance is to ask whether the pilot can maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance up to the minimum IFR altitude (ATC handbook, FAA Order 7110.65, Paragraph 4-2-8). If the pilot's answer is yes, the controller can issue the clearance.
 
...the standard ATC phraseology for a VFR aircraft picking up an IFR clearance is to ask whether the pilot can maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance up to the minimum IFR altitude (ATC handbook, FAA Order 7110.65, Paragraph 4-2-8).
There has to be a better way. Pilots struggling to stay VFR while ATC teases them with an IFR clearance could take that to mean, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance, VFR, up to MEA?" How about they just issue the stinking clearance?
 
There has to be a better way. Pilots struggling to stay VFR while ATC teases them with an IFR clearance could take that to mean, "Can you maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance, VFR, up to MEA?" How about they just issue the stinking clearance?
I don't have a problem with it. You are right that many pilots think the question means VFR (but not MEA). But many pilots also think a clearance automatically means ATC has your back on terrain and obstruction clearance. Just issuing the stinking clearance is nice recipe for CFIT.

Pilots "struggling" to maintain VFR at low altitude are scud running or making decisions that just don't work. WAG - that is the reason for the current question. Perhaps it can be worded better.
 
But many pilots also think a clearance automatically means ATC has your back on terrain and obstruction clearance. Just issuing the stinking clearance is nice recipe for CFIT.
Nah. If they think that, they aren't qualified IFR pilots. The AIM clearly warns that "radar contact" AND a "vector" are prerequisites for ATC responsibility.

Pilots "struggling" to maintain VFR at low altitude are scud running or making decisions that just don't work.
Not true. There are times when it makes perfect sense to pick up a clearance after takeoff. "Struggling", to you, might mean being on the verge of losing control. To me, it means trying to shake a clearance out of ATC before I have to abandon my IFR obstacle clearance procedure and rely strictly on my eyeballs to find the obstacles.

Perhaps it can be worded better.
Yep, "Cleared as filed." How can even an unqualified IFR pilot complain about that if s/he runs into something?
 
Nah. If they think that, they aren't qualified IFR pilots. The AIM clearly warns that "radar contact" AND a "vector" are prerequisites for ATC responsibility.
Yep, "Cleared as filed." How can even an unqualified IFR pilot complain about that if s/he runs into something?
Interesting. According to you, if they think ATC always provides obstruction and terrain separation, they are not qualified, but if the don't understand what "can you provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance" the are qualified. Add to that, if they run into somehting because of it, who cares?

I think I'll have to disagree.
 
Interesting. According to you, if they think ATC always provides obstruction and terrain separation, they are not qualified, but if the don't understand what "can you provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance" the are qualified. Add to that, if they run into somehting because of it, who cares?

I think I'll have to disagree.
Mark, all instrument pilots are supposed to know terrain/obstruction avoidance is their responsibility. When ATC asks them if they "can" do something they're already doing, it sounds like they're being asked about something else altogether, such as can they keep on avoiding, under VFR, all the way up to MEA. Granted, thanks to forums like this and the reports from unsuspecting pilots who have been victims of this trick question, most everybody now knows about it. That doesn't justify asking it in the first place. Even though they may have put the question in the AIM by now, knowing it ("The Question") doesn't rise to the importance of knowing it's the pilot's responsibility to avoid obstructions — all the way to the landing flare — unless instructed "radar contact, fly heading XXX°". It's a needless bit of legal boilerplate they ought to print in a disclaimer on the instrument rating application if they have to, not by bugging everybody picking up an airborne clearance. Doesn't make any more sense than asking pilots, "Can they provide their own terrain and obstruction clearance?" on an IFR approach. If you're now wondering, "WTF?", you see my point.
 
Being told radar contact and CAF doesn’t necessarily mean ATC is responsible for terrain / obstacle clearance. That’s the whole point in ATC asking that question when below their MEA/MIA. They want to make sure the pilot understands that they can’t give them safety alerts down that low because they have no idea what’s down there. Totally different than an IAP because they’re responsible for issuing safety alerts when exceeding the threshold for MSAW.
 
Being told radar contact and CAF doesn’t necessarily mean ATC is responsible for terrain / obstacle clearance. That’s the whole point in ATC asking that question when below their MEA/MIA. They want to make sure the pilot understands that they can’t give them safety alerts down that low because they have no idea what’s down there. Totally different than an IAP because they’re responsible for issuing safety alerts when exceeding the threshold for MSAW.
Who says "Cleared as filed" means ATC accepts responsibility? You better read again if you're attributing that to me. A pilot already KNOWS s/he is responsible, not ATC. "Cleared as filed" keeps the burden on them. What I said was "Radar contact" plus a vector relieves them of the responsibility. As it should, since pilots must follow ATC's instruction.
 
Who says "Cleared as filed" means ATC accepts responsibility? You better read again if you're attributing that to me. A pilot already KNOWS s/he is responsible, not ATC. "Cleared as filed" keeps the burden on them. What I said was "Radar contact" plus a vector relieves them of the responsibility. As it should, since pilots must follow ATC's instruction.

My comment has nothing to do with your previous comment. Mark said, (which I agree) that many pilots believe that ATC is responsible for terrain / obstruction clearance with CAF.

I’d go even further to say the question itself is misunderstood by many pilots. Heck, just read Stuckmic and you’ll see that there are controllers out there that don’t even understand the question they’re asking. :confused:
 
Last edited:
My comment has nothing to do with your previous comment. Mark said, (which I agree) that many pilots believe that ATC is responsible for terrain / obstruction clearance with CAF.
Ok. Well, if they really think that then they must also think filing a flight plan is plain silly since they believe ATC is responsible. They must think all they should file is the destination airport and then let ATC tell them how to get there. I don't buy it. Too many IFR flying lessons and practice written tests taken to come away with a rating and be that ignorant.

I’d go even further to say the question itself is misunderstood by many pilots. Heck, just read Stuckmic and you’ll see that there are controllers out there that don’t even understand the question they’re asking. :confused:
We agree on that. I've read the controllers' handbook and can understand why they're confused. If they'd just tell 'em it's needless boiler plate they have to parrot in order to keep some lawyers happy, it'd make perfect sense to them. :D
 
Back
Top