Flying Wild Alaska

mikea said:
Really? Ya think they get a few phone calls about landing with pax VFR in 1 mile 700 feet is legal?
Click to expand...

If it was SVFR, wouldn't it be? Unalakleet is Class E to the surface. I believe he switched over to Anchorage center, who presumably would have been the ATC responsible for granting SVFR for PAUN.
 
Alaska legal seems to be different from 49 state legal. Palin's have afloat plane w/ no endorsement.
 
Jim Logajan said:
If it was SVFR, wouldn't it be? Unalakleet is Class E to the surface. I believe he switched over to Anchorage center, who presumably would have been the ATC responsible for granting SVFR for PAUN.
Click to expand...

Nah. Ben just monitored Anchorage ATC to see if there was any IFR traffic inbound.

Jim and Ariel discussed how it's Class E airspace. (Actually Jim acted like it was a trivia question he never has to deal with. :eek: )

BTW, Ben could have been airborne with pax, limited fuel (according to our alway on the case narrator) and no place to land. There's when Jim could be tired of the show making it look like they're cowboys to the FAA.

BTW, they ran a new version of of Ariel's "Don't fly like this at home." "Dont' land on a beach...use a runway." SOOOO STOO PID! Did they really think that is necessary? :mad2:
 
Last edited:
Ddayle said:
why not?:confused: looks to me like he has good motor skills. I hope you are not suggesting that being a skateboarder & doing stunts is somehow wrong. It seems hypocritical to condemn him for excess risk taking, just as much of the public condemns aviation as risky. Dave P.S. I am not a skateboarder.
Click to expand...

I should have used some other way to present the video; I came across it by accident and thought it interesting. For the record I see nothing wrong in his level of risk taking.

My brothers and I skateboarded back in the late 60's using a home made skateboard. We never got that extreme. I know one very active skateboarder who went on to get PhD in physics - I have no idea if he still skateboards, though.
 
Ddayle said:
so the claim is that the plane they own & park at their home is really only flown by her dad?:nonod: Right. :no: Dave
Click to expand...
When it is on floats YES, he does not live on a lake, so they place it on floats for him in the summer.

I believe (not positive) 1 of the Boys have a SES rating

Nice kids.

Your probably wondering how I know this.. G/pa's best friend lives a block away and builds Supercubs and trades antler with him.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
When it is on floats YES, he does not live on a lake, so they place it on floats for him in the summer.

I believe (not positive) 1 of the Boys have a SES rating

Nice kids.

Your probably wondering how I know this.. G/pa's best friend lives a block away and builds Supercubs and trades antler with him.
Click to expand...

According to the FAA Airmen Database, Todd Mitchell Palin of Wasilla, AK
holds

PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA

ratings
 
dsbrantjr said:
According to the FAA Airmen Database, Todd Mitchell Palin of Wasilla, AK
holds

PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA

ratings
Click to expand...

is this a new rating? I remember seeing the database a few yrs ago and there was NO ASES rating at that time. did they go out and get one recently? I didn't see it in the data base during Her "candidacy" Dave
 
Ddayle said:
is this a new rating? I remember seeing the database a few yrs ago and there was NO ASES rating at that time. did they go out and get one recently? I didn't see it in the data base during Her "candidacy" Dave
Click to expand...

:stirpot::stirpot::stirpot:
 
[ BEGIN SKEPTIC MODE ] How 'bout that cake? Note that they didn't bother to lash it down with a single bungee cord, but they took the time to rig up a camera so we could watch it go weightless.

Can you say, "staged for reality TV?" How much you wanna bet that the turbulence had something to do with yanking the yoke?

----

Ya think that the skateboarders visited must might have been sponsored by Creature, whatever that is?

I spotted another product placement that escapes me at the moment.

[ END SKEPTIC MODE ]

I think they need to combine shows with "Little People..." and have one in the cargo bay holding down cakes.
 
Sarah doing the flour bombing from the Super Cub was fun to watch, along with her spin recovery training (from only 2000 feet!)

I wonder why her "bombardier/navigator" had to use hand signal to tell her to steer right? Can't she see the flight path over the target over the nose?
 
mikea said:
Sarah doing the flour bombing from the Super Cub was fun to watch, along with her spin recovery training (from only 2000 feet!)

I wonder why her "bombardier/navigator" had to use hand signal to tell her to steer right? Can't she see the flight path over the target over the nose?
Click to expand...
we tried flour bombing this summer. It has a steeper learning curve than one would imagine. Using a level bombing technique the sight picture tended to put me to far to the left . I understand why the turn right signal is needed. Dave.
 
So, you are saying I am scofflaw scum that I don't care if he is flying a plane without the appropriate ratings? Why don't we all just worry about keeping our own house in order, or is it because you have a problem with his wife's politics?

As far as flour bombing goes, that is a blast. I have only tried it out of a 150 and it is fun.
 
You either obey the law and expect ALL of your elected & appointed government officials, regardless of party, to also obey those same laws, or not.:dunno: Pick a side. Mine is very clear, I expect my government officials to set the example, with their exemplary legal behavior.:confused: lets not go SZ here. I can't wait for spring, we are going flour bombing at Judy's again. I was the bombardier last time, hopefully I either improve or fly the plane instead. Dave
 
mikea said:
That's what happened to about every "Ice Road Truckers" season. They were specifically uninvited back.
Click to expand...

I stopped following it after the first season, but the Tibbitt-Contwoyto Winter Road where the first season was filmed was pretty ticked off at the depiction, as they've got one of the best safety records of ANY road in Canada (including the paved ones). You couldn't go more than three minutes on that show without seeing their animation of a truck falling through the ice and talking about killing the drivers - And that has NEVER happened there. They show the guy who got killed - He was one of the ice-machine drivers who cleared snow off the road before it ever gets used.

So, not only was Ice Road Truckers the show banned from that road by the company that runs it - They now have a new regulation that forbids mounting any video cameras on the trucks on that road, so no other shows will ever be allowed there either.
 
Tom-D said:
Oh ......... wait....... I have a different opinion...


does Bull Scat ring a bell ?

remember these are part 135 aircraft.
Click to expand...

And single pilot, wouldn't surprise me if the 207 is limited to VFR when flown single pilot 135
 
Skylane81E said:
And single pilot, wouldn't surprise me if the 207 is limited to VFR when flown single pilot 135
Click to expand...
Not just the single pilot, there are a fair number of hoops to jump through for single-engine 135 pax IFR.

If I recall correctly it used to not even be an option, but the introduction of single-engine turboprops like the Caravan and PC-12 led to a change in the regs, requiring a lot of attention to the engine. I don't know if anyone's done it with a piston.
 
TMetzinger said:
Not just the single pilot, there are a fair number of hoops to jump through for single-engine 135 pax IFR.

If I recall correctly it used to not even be an option, but the introduction of single-engine turboprops like the Caravan and PC-12 led to a change in the regs, requiring a lot of attention to the engine. I don't know if anyone's done it with a piston.
Click to expand...

The limitation on single engine 135 IFR seems like a shot in the foot. I know the intention of the rule is good, but it seems like it would result in more pilots flying VFR in marginal conditions where they would otherwise be inclined to file IFR.

Seems like a more sensible regulation would be to allow pilots to file and fly IFR single engine but only if the weather at departure and destination is forecast to remain at VFR minimums or better.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Not just the single pilot, there are a fair number of hoops to jump through for single-engine 135 pax IFR.

If I recall correctly it used to not even be an option, but the introduction of single-engine turboprops like the Caravan and PC-12 led to a change in the regs, requiring a lot of attention to the engine. I don't know if anyone's done it with a piston.
Click to expand...

We do, started with a Mooney and a 172(short trips) and now with a pair of Cirrus. You have to have all the redundant systems of the twin as far as your equipment goes, dual vacuum etc...
 
Skylane81E said:
We do, started with a Mooney and a 172(short trips) and now with a pair of Cirrus. You have to have all the redundant systems of the twin as far as your equipment goes, dual vacuum etc...
Click to expand...

Neat. What do you do for your engine monitoring program? And how much weight does the dual alternators/vacuum and such add?
 
We follow the TCM trend monitoring, basically we track every little detail about the engine and have the oil analyzed at each change.

As far as dual systems what we are currently using has no vacuum system and dual batteries and alternators are standard equipment.

On our old mooney it did make the cowl a little busy, and then there was the extra G243 living in the tail....
 
dell30rb said:
The limitation on single engine 135 IFR seems like a shot in the foot. I know the intention of the rule is good, but it seems like it would result in more pilots flying VFR in marginal conditions where they would otherwise be inclined to file IFR.

Seems like a more sensible regulation would be to allow pilots to file and fly IFR single engine but only if the weather at departure and destination is forecast to remain at VFR minimums or better.
Click to expand...

Agree.

<---<^>--->
 
p1l0t said:
Agree.

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...

I don't, it isn't a blanket ban, simply a requirement to have greater redundancy.

Now perhaps a policy of forgiveness for the 135 pilot who departed with the expectation of better weather than he got and was forced to go IFR would be good.
 
Skylane81E said:
I don't, it isn't a blanket ban, simply a requirement to have greater redundancy.

Now perhaps a policy of forgiveness for the 135 pilot who departed with the expectation of better weather than he got and was forced to go IFR would be good.
Click to expand...

Would an ASRS help in this situation?
 
Skylane81E said:
Now perhaps a policy of forgiveness for the 135 pilot who departed with the expectation of better weather than he got and was forced to go IFR would be good.
Click to expand...

Deep down you know that less scrupulous operators will use this as an excuse to push the boundaries and to depart into poorer and poorer weather with VFR equipped aircraft (and 505hr pilots) knowing that they can bank on forgiveness.

There is no formal forecasting for many of the village strips the alaskan operators go into. Giving up the strict VFR requirement for VFR planes and crew would basically do away with the entire concept of IFR certification for 135 operators.
 
dell30rb said:
Would an ASRS help in this situation?
Click to expand...

Nope, it would not be inadvertent. Such a decision would be intentional by the pilot, and as such, would not be eligible for ASRS waiver of sanction.
 
weilke said:
Deep down you know that less scrupulous operators will use this as an excuse to push the boundaries and to depart into poorer and poorer weather with VFR equipped aircraft (and 505hr pilots) knowing that they can bank on forgiveness.

There is no formal forecasting for many of the village strips the alaskan operators go into. Giving up the strict VFR requirement for VFR planes and crew would basically do away with the entire concept of IFR certification for 135 operators.
Click to expand...

See and there in lies the issue, it would have to be an unwritten thing. IE a training culture for the FAA that after the violation they can not violate the pilot who acted in good faith.

Wait, "Captians emergency autority..."
 
Somebody pay that 208 pilot enough to fix his sunglasses!

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • ScreenShot145.jpg
    ScreenShot145.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 180
mikea said:
Nah, nah, nah, those are the special headset-compatible pilot sunglasses ya get at Sporty's.
Click to expand...

... where he paid a 100% premium on the price to get the "specially modified" (er, broken!) sunglasses! :rofl:
 
I sure am glad that I don't fly way up dere in Alaska where those brave, brave pilots have to face LANDING IN A CROSSWIND!

"You need to use the rudder."
"You need to use the aileron."
"You need to use the rudder."
"You need to use the aileron."
"You need to use the rudder."
"You need to use the aileron."
"You need to use the rudder."

Got that, Ariel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top