Two crew logging question

Larry in TN said:
I disagree with that statement.

The skills necessary to land in a 10kt crosswind are the same skills used in a 45kt crosswind. The difference is the capabilities of the airplane you're flying and the necessity to deploy those skills correctly with a much smaller margin for error.
Click to expand...

46kt xwind in a non turbine single vs a 10kt xwind in the same SEL is as much the same as hitting a major league fastball is the same as a beer league slow pitch softball.
 
I missed the rule that says instructors should only teach their students in crosswinds of 10 knots or less.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Yet you’re saying that one is vastly inferior to the other, simply based on how you’re allowed to log it.
Click to expand...
I never said 1000 in the pattern was better. someone else put those words in my mouth
 
EdFred said:
I never said 1000 in the pattern was better. someone else put those words in my mouth
Click to expand...
So, again, what point are you trying to make?

And I’ll add to the question this time, too…what point are you trying to make that’s relevant to this discussion?
 
EdFred said:
46kt xwind in a non turbine single vs a 10kt xwind in the same SEL is as much the same as hitting a major league fastball is the same as a beer league slow pitch softball.
Click to expand...

I’ve always thought it had more to do with wing loading and wind exposed surface area compared to what type of power plant and number of engines

Heavy winds would be easier in a loaded lanceair over a light twin otter for example
 
MauleSkinner said:
So, again, what point are you trying to make?

And I’ll add to the question this time, too…what point are you trying to make that’s relevant to this discussion?
Click to expand...

Acting PIC time is not automatically better than sole manipulator time like was claimed on page 1.
 
FrankBravo said:
I’ve always thought it had more to do with wing loading and wind exposed surface area compared to what type of power plant and number of engines

Heavy winds would be easier in a loaded lanceair over a light twin otter for example
Click to expand...

Stall speed would probably be the main driving force just based on the trigonometry of it. I just wanted the baseline set equal, because this group would try and say a 10kt in a 152 as being exactly the same as a 45kt in a 777.
 
EdFred said:
Acting PIC time is not automatically better than sole manipulator time like was claimed on page 1.
Click to expand...
No problem agreeing with that. You can even go broader and say that for all logged time.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I already look in the cockpit Before I get on an airliner to make sure one of a few pilots I know behind whom I’ll never fly are in the cockpit. If I see a couple of kids popping zits against the windshield…:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
We do have a 26 year old captain at delta:eek:
 
That doesn’t say it’s better. It says that’s what most major airlines use as one of the gateways in their hiring process to bring the applicant pool to a manageable level.
Kinda like he period of time when Northwest only hired blue-eyed pilots. Or a 4-year degree.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That doesn’t say it’s better. It says that’s what most major airlines use as one of the gateways in their hiring process.
Kinda like he period of time when Northwest only hired blue-eyed pilots.
Click to expand...

Oh so sorry it wasn't stated "better" verbatim. Forgot I had to be super double extra specific around here.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you’re going to argue about something that doesn’t exist, that would probably be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Which is better for the airlines according to what I quoted? Acting PIC time or flying PIC time?

Exactly. If it's not. Take it up with the person that said it is.
 
EdFred said:
Which is better for the airlines according to what I quoted? Acting PIC time or flying PIC time?

Exactly. If it's not. Take it up with the person that said it is.
Click to expand...
Whichever one results in a more manageable stack of resumes.
 
EdFred said:
Which is better for the airlines according to what I quoted? Acting PIC time or flying PIC time?

Exactly. If it's not. Take it up with the person that said it is.
Click to expand...
Not sure how many times you're going to quote my post, but I am not claiming one thing is better or worse. I am simply providing a data point that makes a difference should an individual choose to apply for certain major airlines who have it on their applications to not count sole manipulator PIC. You are arguing for the sake of arguing for some reason.
 
KaiGywer said:
Not sure how many times you're going to quote my post, but I am not claiming one thing is better or worse. I am simply providing a data point that makes a difference should an individual choose to apply for certain major airlines who have it on their applications to not count sole manipulator PIC. You are arguing for the sake of arguing for some reason.
Click to expand...
Scenario:
Kid gets his CFI/MEI and wants to build time, puts up flyer at airport, will provide "instruction" for free if he can ride along on any flight no matter what plane or where they are going so he can log PIC time for the airlines. So he does, and never actually provides real instruction, never touches the controls just sits in the right seat like a bump on a log racking up "signed for the airplane" PIC. You're telling me this is who the airlines are looking for vs the people that actually did the flight planning, the actual decision making, the actual flying of the plane. If I'm the guy that was left seating it, according to your statement, I'm a worse candidate and the kid that did nothing is the better candidate because his time is "better."

That's what's ridiculous.
 
EdFred said:
Scenario:
Kid gets his CFI/MEI and wants to build time, puts up flyer at airport, will provide "instruction" for free if he can ride along on any flight no matter what plane or where they are going so he can log PIC time for the airlines. So he does, and never actually provides real instruction, never touches the controls just sits in the right seat like a bump on a log racking up "signed for the airplane" PIC. You're telling me this is who the airlines are looking for vs the people that actually did the flight planning, the actual decision making, the actual flying of the plane. If I'm the guy that was left seating it, according to your statement, I'm a worse candidate and the kid that did nothing is the better candidate because his time is "better."

That's what's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what he, or anyone, is telling you. If this kid’s resume made it to the Chief Pilot’s desk, the Chief Pilot would probably see it for what it was and throw it in the circular file. If this kid actually made it to an interview, he’d get downed pretty quickly.

An airline has to have a way to whittle 5000 resumes down to 100 or fewer people to interview, should the need arise. Which version of PIC they log is only one blade in the pocket knife.
 
It is just like the USAF requiring a Fly Class 1 physical to get accepted. Once you get accepted, you only need a Flying Class 2 to keep flying. The big difference? The Class 2 allows glasses. A large percentage of my UPT class ended up with glasses after the Flying Class 2 physical upon arrival.
 
Pinecone said:
It is just like the USAF requiring a Fly Class 1 physical to get accepted. Once you get accepted, you only need a Flying Class 2 to keep flying. The big difference? The Class 2 allows glasses. A large percentage of my UPT class ended up with glasses after the Flying Class 2 physical upon arrival.
Click to expand...
Are those mil-spec physicals, i.e., different from what the FAA requires for class 1 or class 2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top