User Profile Header
Stan3818
,
WI
Comments
Displaying 1-5 of 12
Pilots’ Rights in the Wake of 9/11
from Stan3818
wrote 35 weeks 4 days ago
The reason Senator Inhofe was pursued by the FAA was not because of an unfortunate misunderstanding. It was because he displayed an appalling lack of sound judgment and reckless flying behavior in landing on a clearly marked, closed runway with vehicles and personnel scattered on it - rather than perform a go-around. He was rude to airport officials and stated, among other things, he was supposed to have "unlimited airspace." To this day, he remains unapologetic about the hazard to himself, his passengers, and the airport workers created by this reckless action. Instead, he chose to "blame the system" to deflect attention from his own poor airmanship.
It truly boggles my mind that prominent aviation organizations and magazines (save for a few lonely exceptions) have chosen to cheer Senator Inhofe and kiss his ring. They explain this away as a circumstance where the ends (The Pilot's Bill of Rights) justify the means. I simply do not agree. If magazines like 'Flying' and our alphabet groups want to have credibility when they speak about GA safety, then they ought to speak the truth about the Senator's selfish and unsafe flying conduct.
Troubled P-51 Mustang Lands Safely After Help From Bob Hoover
from Stan3818
wrote 1 year 11 weeks ago
I like Bob Hoover. He is an aviation legend. But the man has not flown an airplane in quite a while and has been out of the P-51 even longer. There's plenty of other people that operate and maintain those airplanes regularly. Please, don't insult our intelligence by telling us Bob Hoover was the only one to come up with the idea of doing some high-G pull-ups to help extend the landing gear. Even I could have come up with that idea. This story was simply written to stroke some egos and embellish a story that didn't need any embellishment.
Troubled P-51 Mustang Lands Safely After Help From Bob Hoover
from Stan3818
wrote 1 year 11 weeks ago
Oh, I'm so offended. Get a life, people.
‘iPad 3’ Survives Rapid Decompression Tests
from Stan3818
wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago
It is true that this rapid decompression (RD) and EMI (electromagnetic interference) is required only for air carriers. However, the company's contention that this is required for "every example" is incorrect.
FAA guidance states that operators must only present "evidence of decompression testing." It does not state that every one of an operator's iPads must be tested. Many FSDOs are still in the dark on the logistics of approving iPads as electronic flight bags. Global Nav Source's goal is to make a lot of money by selling you a pre-tested device, however, an operator can obtain FAA approval for iPads (as we have) without performing RD and EMI testing on every single one of their iPads.
When Should a Pilot Lawyer Up?
from Stan3818
wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago
I am a FAASTeam Lead Representative. I question why a FAASTeam rep was selected to "speak on behalf of the FSDO" as you describe.
I have had the benefit of being around the FAA long enough to participate in the progression from Accident Prevention Counselor, to Aviation Safety Counselor, to FAASTeam. No matter the title, individuals serving in these positions are only serving as volunteer "safety advocates." They are not, and never have been, official representatives of the FAA.
Therefore, it is appalling that a person serving in this capacity is somehow expected to defend an internal FAA enforcement policy (or he decided to do this on his own.) Answering questions about enforcement should be the exclusive job of the Flight Standards Service, not a volunteer safety rep.
Either the FAA is too lazy or sheepish to send one of its own people to defend its policy, or this FAASTeam rep went way beyond his authority to put himself out as an official representative of the FAA. Regardless, the aviation community was poorly served here.
- 1 of 3
- ››
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
