How to ruin your day
Thread Starter
Raptor----yep, what I meant to type was "you are in FACT correct", tis what happens when I try to answer questions quickly.
fly911
I am well aware of USFS contracting requirements, I am involved in bidding contracts year round, and I fly contracts for the USFS for about 9 months each year. The 300CB is NOT a contracted aircraft.
The only way this could have been a government contract would be if a contract was awarded to say a video company or PR company to produce a video. Then the "company" hired the helicopter independently of the USFS, at which point, it was a commercial flight and the pilot is in violation.
The only other way to justify the third class medical is if the pilot happens to own the video or PR company and the flight was "incidental" to the business of producing the video. Either way, it all sounds suspect to me.
Edited to add:
fly911: Some of the information in the AC you provided is not 100% clear. This AC may be in the process of having to be re-written based upon the Iron 44 crash in which some USFS personnel and contracted personnel died. Some of the findings of the report make for interesting reading, and it is not over yet---there is law suits pending, therefore---watch this space. The term public use has been mis-interpreted for many years, read the regs carefully if you intend to use the "loopholes".
fly911
If this was a USFS contract, there could be a "Public Use Aircraft" loophole, with emphasis on could, as far as requiring a licensed pilot.
AC 00-1.1
AC 00-1.1
The only way this could have been a government contract would be if a contract was awarded to say a video company or PR company to produce a video. Then the "company" hired the helicopter independently of the USFS, at which point, it was a commercial flight and the pilot is in violation.
The only other way to justify the third class medical is if the pilot happens to own the video or PR company and the flight was "incidental" to the business of producing the video. Either way, it all sounds suspect to me.
Edited to add:
fly911: Some of the information in the AC you provided is not 100% clear. This AC may be in the process of having to be re-written based upon the Iron 44 crash in which some USFS personnel and contracted personnel died. Some of the findings of the report make for interesting reading, and it is not over yet---there is law suits pending, therefore---watch this space. The term public use has been mis-interpreted for many years, read the regs carefully if you intend to use the "loopholes".
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordy:
Uh.....At the present time, I don't intend to use the "Loopholes". However lawyers have been known to squeek every loophole out of a regulation that they can find either to deny a claim or to force the payment of a claim. I forgot to post that disclaimer. In fact, I don't know of any instance where someone conducted a flight intending to use a loophole. Usually if in doubt, you would research the applicable FAR and conduct the flight accordingly. "Loophole" by it's very definition implies to me at least, an after-the-fact attempt to absolve oneself of the responsibility for an unintentional violation. I know that you didn't intend your remarks to be accusatory, and I agree that this Advisory Circular may be outdated. I only meant that someone could try to use it as a loophole, even if it is grasping at straws. The End
The term public use has been mis-interpreted for many years, read the regs carefully if you intend to use the "loopholes".
Last edited by fly911; 11th Jul 2010 at 18:25.
Thread Starter
fly911, forgive me, I did not necessarily mean you personally.
The mis-interpretation I was referring to is the definition of "public aircraft" found in FAR 1.1. In order for this flight to have utilised the "public use" clause, he would have to be contracted for "at least 90 consecutive days". There are many people out there who assume that because they get called out on a CWN contract, (call when needed), that they automatically become public use. Not so.
14 CFR FAR Part 1 Sec. 1.1
The mis-interpretation I was referring to is the definition of "public aircraft" found in FAR 1.1. In order for this flight to have utilised the "public use" clause, he would have to be contracted for "at least 90 consecutive days". There are many people out there who assume that because they get called out on a CWN contract, (call when needed), that they automatically become public use. Not so.
14 CFR FAR Part 1 Sec. 1.1
Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber:
(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments.
(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Settling with power
The NTSB full narrative is now available and indicates settling with power was the cause.
ERA10LA323
ERA10LA323
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The report mentions "vortex ring state" in the same sentence as "settling with power".
I know we have had numerous discussions on this forum about whether these two phrases describe the same or different conditions. In this instance from the description of the aircraft sinking very slowly into the trees, this is unlikely to be describing what most of us know and love as VRS. However, it could possibly describe an aircraft which has maxed out on engine power so it is starting to droop Nr and continuing to descend (which I understand can be described as settling with power).
Can the aerodynamic specialists reassure me that I am not way off the mark here?
I know we have had numerous discussions on this forum about whether these two phrases describe the same or different conditions. In this instance from the description of the aircraft sinking very slowly into the trees, this is unlikely to be describing what most of us know and love as VRS. However, it could possibly describe an aircraft which has maxed out on engine power so it is starting to droop Nr and continuing to descend (which I understand can be described as settling with power).
Can the aerodynamic specialists reassure me that I am not way off the mark here?
I'm not an aerodynamics specialist, but I agree anyways...
Whoever wrote that report is probably not familiar with the VRS/SWP thread on pprune
Whoever wrote that report is probably not familiar with the VRS/SWP thread on pprune
