Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JOACH1M on April 13, 2012, 11:25:50 AM
-
Parents took me a buddy to the keys this morning...private jet to my suprise. :airplane: I even got to take the controls for a bit! :rock.
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/a0528d3d.jpg)at 40,000ft seen a jet go by.
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/3c7179ec.jpg)
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/a4636695.jpg)
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/d42c4d06.jpg)
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/a453b874.jpg)
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/e02fc285.jpg)
-
You landed 59 minutes ago...didn't take you long to post pictures.
I think the company that owns that aircraft is a NetJets affiliate IIRC. The name looks familiar. I thought they got rid of their BeechJets, though.
-
How tall are you? :)
-
You look so thrilled.
-
Pilot must be a Rook (37,000 ft)
It's always cool to get to the cockpit, congrats!
Did you send a check 6 or a pew pew pew?
-
How tall are you? :)
5'7 friend is 6'3
-
5'7 friend is 6'3
Don't fret it you still got a lot of time to grow into a man.
-
Don't fret it you still got a lot of time to grow into a man.
:) I'm not to worried about my height :lol
-
Hey, at least your friend looked really cool right before he got sucked into the engine.
-
You landed 59 minutes ago...didn't take you long to post pictures.
I think the company that owns that aircraft is a NetJets affiliate IIRC. The name looks familiar. I thought they got rid of their BeechJets, though.
Looks like a Hawker to me, the yoke is a dead giveaway :D
Be-400a Beechjet:
(http://www.jetcorpaustralia.com/SiteMedia/w3svc589/Uploads/Images/beechjet-400A.jpg)
Hawker 800:
(http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/hawker800xp_kp.jpg)
It's been three years since I got out of general aviation, so I'm not sure who the Netjet "Borg" may have acquired recently :lol
-
I was thinking the same thing Phan, been awhile since I worked with them maybe a few styling changes
but here was how they looked with 32Sqn years ago.
(http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x132/xbrit58/hs125.jpg)
-
My bad, Hawker and Beech are the same entity to me. Being a Beech fan, I just use it as a general term.
"NetJet Borg" :lol
edit:
Where are my manners...
Very cool J0, a great experience for you.
-
It is a hawker 800 :).
Parents thought they would spoil me a bit for being a good little lad. :D
-
I flew a Helicopter once, planes are easy mode! :neener:
-
Nice!
So much easier than aces high eh? Just follow the flight director :).
-
I flew a Helicopter once, planes are easy mode! :neener:
We have a helicopter. :neener:Nice!
So much easier than aces high eh? Just follow the flight director :).
lol, yes
-
So was it just like you expected it to be?
-
So was it just like you expected it to be?
I didn't really know to expect. The plane handled ALOT better then I would have thought. I only flown a 172 and that feels really sluggish at the controls compared to this.
-
We have a helicopter. :neener:lol, yes
I don't believe you, prove it.
-
:O
Looks like a blast!
I didn't really know to expect. The plane handled ALOT better then I would have thought. I only flown a 172 and that feels really sluggish at the controls compared to this.
The difference between 100 and 500 knots :D
-
I don't believe you, prove it.
Lol, don't bilieve me I see... I have no reason to lie to strangers, but here I go anyway!
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/e2d18ee8.mp4
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/d0184807.mp4
Here's a pic from the heli at our house.
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/03953739.jpg)
-
Lol, don't bilieve me I see... I have no reason to lie to strangers, but here I go anyway!
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/e2d18ee8.mp4
http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/d0184807.mp4
Here's a pic from the heli at our house.
(http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b461/snax6/03953739.jpg)
Boom! Headshot. That is so cool Joachim, are you going to get your rotary wing license?
-
How does any of that prove you own the helicopter?
Say it is true though, this means that Joachims Parents are richer than tupacs parents, barring any further evidence from tupac.
-
How does any of that prove you own the helicopter?
Say it is true though, this means that Joachims Parents are richer than tupacs parents, barring any further evidence from tupac.
There is no doubt in my mind that Joachims parents are way richer than my parents. My parents are middle class, I'm just really lucky they support my addiction.
-
thats really cool!
-
How does any of that prove you own the helicopter?
Say it is true though, this means that Joachims Parents are richer than tupacs parents, barring any further evidence from tupac.
Sounds like someone is a bit jelly with a side mix of being afraid and resorting to use a shade to call Joachim out.
Pretty lame subject to attempt a troll.
-
Not so sure I would post a picture of the aircraft number of the plane & talk about taking the controls in a public forum.
:airplane:
Edit: I guess it's OK if your licensed?
-
Sounds like someone is a bit jelly with a side mix of being afraid and resorting to use a shade to call Joachim out.
Pretty lame subject to attempt a troll.
The phrase "People too weak to follow their own dreams will always find a way to discourage yours" comes to mind.
I agree, pretty tasteless.
-
I'm kinda jealous of all of you but still happy as hell for both. So many cool stuff :)
-
Boom! Headshot. That is so cool Joachim, are you going to get your rotary wing license?
I have out thought into it, but I want to get my IFR and have my full pilots license first. How does any of that prove you own the helicopter?
Say it is true though, this means that Joachims Parents are richer than tupacs parents, barring any further evidence from tupac.
I don't see why this even has to be brought up.... :rolleyes:Not so sure I would post a picture of the aircraft number of the plane & talk about taking the controls in a public forum.
:airplane:
Edit: I guess it's OK if your licensed?
I have 38 hours in a 172 if that counts for anything.
-
I didn't really know to expect. The plane handled ALOT better then I would have thought. I only flown a 172 and that feels really sluggish at the controls compared to this.
Roger
-
R u related to the Duck Dynasty ppl cuz I'm pretty sure I've seen that helicopter and rich-ppl-hutch?
-
Joc, btw, u ever read the story of Hezekiah in the Bible? Don't expose your wealth. Bad idea. Them Babylonians came and got all that stuff a few years later. Remember that.
In the flavor of Duck Dynasty, I hope I'm making u more nervous than a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Do your parents know u are posting this stuff on the Internet?
-
Joc, btw, u ever read the story of Hezekiah in the Bible? Don't expose your wealth. Bad idea. Them Babylonians came and got all that stuff a few years later. Remember that.
In the flavor of Duck Dynasty, I hope I'm making u more nervous than a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Do your parents know u are posting this stuff on the Internet?
I agree, not a good idea, mainly because the internet is open to the public and people can be stupid.
-
Joc, btw, u ever read the story of Hezekiah in the Bible? Don't expose your wealth. Bad idea. Them Babylonians came and got all that stuff a few years later. Remember that.
In the flavor of Duck Dynasty, I hope I'm making u more nervous than a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Do your parents know u are posting this stuff on the Internet?
Yes they know...in fact they read this forum. :noid
-
Setting aside the fact you're not holding a multiengine rating and you don't have a 61.55 SIC checkout in the airplane which doesn't make you legal to fly the airplane with passengers on board...
Let's assume that's a charter airplane, as it's associated with a management company it probably is though that's not a requirement. It's been through conformity, the pilots are trained to the certificate holders specs, the airplane is maintained to the certificate holders standard and operation is subject to the guidance of their GOM (operations manual) Inside that manual will be a line about how only employees of XYZ corp shall occupy pilot seats and only appropriately rated pilots shall manipulate the controls. Not FAs, Cabin Servers, Passengers, etc.
What you've actually done for this pilot who by all measures was being exceedingly cool toward you post photographic evidence sufficient to grant him a suspension (minimum, revocation would be on the table especially if it's a live 135 charter leg) of his certificate in the eyes of the FAA and termination from his employer.
But hey, you had a cool experience...
-
Making a mountain out of a molehill... The plane is owned by a friend of family and piloted by a friend of family aswell. I maybe had controls for 5 minutes max... No need to freak out over nothing.
-
Making a mountain out of a molehill... The plane is owned by a friend of family and piloted by a friend of family aswell. I maybe had controls for 5 minutes max... No need to freak out over nothing.
Not freaking out. It's not my career on the internet.
FWIW no time limits nor familial associates are written into the regulations to allow for what's photographed and posted. They're pretty cut and dry and like most of them are written in blood. I deal with the black and white aspect and what very real consequences could await the (unsuspecting?) PIC of this flight should these pictures come to the wrong inspectors desk. A suspension would be having a lucky day in comparison to what alternative consequences have occurred in the past.
Aeroflot 593 comes to mind. The pilots kids killed an airplane load of people. They were having a "lucky day" too.
Disclaimer:
I'm not throwing stones. I'm not saying I have or haven't done anything questionable, have or haven't toed the line or have or haven't stepped over it at some point. Regardless of whether I did or didn't do anything questionable, no photographic evidence of what did or didn't happen would ever exist.
Cameras are very real threats to good old fashioned fun. Use them with caution.
-
I'm not trying to wet blanket your big day. That's cool and I'm sure you won't forget it no matter where you go in life.
I just wanted to point out your actions may have unintended consequences for someone else.
-
Not freaking out. It's not my career on the internet.
FWIW no time limits nor familial associates are written into the regulations to allow for what's photographed and posted. They're pretty cut and dry and like most of them are written in blood. I deal with the black and white aspect and what very real consequences could await the (unsuspecting?) PIC of this flight should these pictures come to the wrong inspectors desk. A suspension would be having a lucky day in comparison to what alternative consequences have occurred in the past.
Aeroflot 593 comes to mind. The pilots kids killed an airplane load of people. They were having a "lucky day" too.
Disclaimer:
I'm not throwing stones. I'm not saying I have or haven't done anything questionable, have or haven't toed the line or have or haven't stepped over it at some point. Regardless of whether I did or didn't do anything questionable, no photographic evidence of what did or didn't happen would ever exist.
Cameras are very real threats to good old fashioned fun. Use them with caution.
If the PIC was a MEI and type rated in said aircraft with enough hours to give instruction. i see no problem in what he did. :aok :salute
-
If the PIC was a MEI and type rated in said aircraft with enough hours to give instruction. i see no problem in what he did. :aok :salute
Regardless of type ratings, being an MEI, etc, the aircraft was carrying passengers. I don't know much about regs when it comes to commercial matters like this, but depending on how the charter company operates, the pilots may be required to hold an ATP license while flying passengers.
My knowledge is limited, and I'm sure Golfer knows all of the details and quirks. With that said, I am happy for J0 that he got to fly right seat for a few minutes, and think the pics are cool. I'd sure like to get my hands on that control yoke :devil
-
I believe with an ATP license, the captain could have allowed J0 (if he was at least private pilot rated) to fly and log time in the Hawker is there were no passengers.
-
Jo said that it was a friends plane flown by a friend. that is just like me taking any of y'all up, and letting you take the controls for a few. Golfer if i am completely wrong here tell me. :salute
-
Jo said that it was a friends plane flown by a friend. that is just like me taking any of y'all up, and letting you take the controls for a few. Golfer if i am completely wrong here tell me. :salute
You're completely wrong. ;)
The Hawker is type certificated for and requires a two pilot crew. That's two pilots appropriately rated in category, class and type. Airplane, Multiengine Land, HS-125 respectively. That the PIC will be type rated is a given and at a minimum the SIC in order to carry passengers must comply with FAR 61.55 which prescribes the minimum legal requirements for that position. I just conducted this training for a fill-in pilot we'll be using (Aces High player, actually) so its somewhat fresh in my mind. These requirements include systems, limitations, normal procedures, emergency procedures, 3 takeoffs and landings as the sole manipulator of the controls and single engine maneuvering.
A type rated pilot need not be a MEI to conduct this training but it must be completed prior to carrying passengers. The prerequisite is a Multiengine and Instrument rating (the instrument rating because you'll usually be flying above 18,000') and typically commercial privileges as the lines of "for hire" get blurred regarding what constitutes compensation. Flight time has been proven to be considered compensation in rulings past so let's add that to the list since Joachim isn't paying the bills himself.
Then there are insurance considerations. As pilot requirements go we have an open pilot policy in that I can use any pilot I deem appropriate regardless of total flight time provided they have the appropriate training, ratings and either myself of my other full time coworker are the PIC. Our insurance policy would very much not cover us if I didn't meet those very basic (and minimum legal) requirements.
It comes down to it might be cool, memorable and fun but it's the pictures that will bite you in the rear. The last thing I'll ever want to see if I tell someone to "prove it" if accused of something would be a picture of me doing it.
That happened once. And it scared the crap out of me after the fact seeing my wingtip a few inches off the ground. I was an indestructible teenager to whom flying came naturally, I was good at it and had no known feelings of fear due to a gross lack of experience. Remind you of anyone I smack with a rolled up newspaper from time to time?
-
You're completely wrong. ;)
The Hawker is type certificated for and requires a two pilot crew. That's two pilots appropriately rated in category, class and type. Airplane, Multiengine Land, HS-125 respectively. That the PIC will be type rated is a given and at a minimum the SIC in order to carry passengers must comply with FAR 61.55 which prescribes the minimum legal requirements for that position. I just conducted this training for a fill-in pilot we'll be using (Aces High player, actually) so its somewhat fresh in my mind. These requirements include systems, limitations, normal procedures, emergency procedures, 3 takeoffs and landings as the sole manipulator of the controls and single engine maneuvering.
A type rated pilot need not be a MEI to conduct this training but it must be completed prior to carrying passengers. The prerequisite is a Multiengine and Instrument rating (the instrument rating because you'll usually be flying above 18,000') and typically commercial privileges as the lines of "for hire" get blurred regarding what constitutes compensation. Flight time has been proven to be considered compensation in rulings past so let's add that to the list since Joachim isn't paying the bills himself.
Then there are insurance considerations. As pilot requirements go we have an open pilot policy in that I can use any pilot I deem appropriate regardless of total flight time provided they have the appropriate training, ratings and either myself of my other full time coworker are the PIC. Our insurance policy would very much not cover us if I didn't meet those very basic (and minimum legal) requirements.
It comes down to it might be cool, memorable and fun but it's the pictures that will bite you in the rear. The last thing I'll ever want to see if I tell someone to "prove it" if accused of something would be a picture of me doing it.
That happened once. And it scared the crap out of me after the fact seeing my wingtip a few inches off the ground. I was an indestructible teenager to whom flying came naturally, I was good at it and had no known feelings of fear due to a gross lack of experience. Remind you of anyone I smack with a rolled up newspaper from time to time?
:D yes it does :lol and i learned something and stand corrected. :salute time to go dust off the FAR AIM book again! :D
-
It's only a problem if someone here on the forum is a grade A buttmuncher and raised the issue to the appropriate authorities, and surely none of us in our little community would be so pathetic as to do that.
Looks like an awesome experience Jo. Do your parents want to adopt me aged 29? :pray
-
Hahahaha liking the throwing of the whats up bro sign with your hand :banana:
-
It's only a problem if someone here on the forum is a grade A buttmuncher and raised the issue to the appropriate authorities, and surely none of us in our little community would be so pathetic as to do that.
Looks like an awesome experience Jo. Do your parents want to adopt me aged 29? :pray
Yeah, no harm will come of this unless someone made the FAA aware. I don't think anyone on these boards would do that. I think everyone who flies does something from time to time that the FAA would not approve of. Heck, it isn't hard to do. I wonder what they would say about my expired charts... :D
-
It's only a problem if someone here on the forum is a grade A buttmuncher and raised the issue to the appropriate authorities, and surely none of us in our little community would be so pathetic as to do that.
Looks like an awesome experience Jo. Do your parents want to adopt me aged 29? :pray
Have you been feeling lucky lately? :)
-
Let them know if they will adopt me they will gain a great Adopted son, a wonderful daughter in law, and 2 beautiful and wonderful Grandkids!!! oh and 4 really good Dogs!!!!
Looks like a great time, glad you had the experience.
-
First of all, when you guys realize that helicopters do not fly but are indeed so ugly that the earth repels them, you will have learned something.
Second of all, who is to say the pics are legit and not photoshopped for "cool factor" if someone wanted to raise a stink? <wink wink>
Third, looks like you had fun, JO :aok
-
How does any of that prove you own the helicopter?
Say it is true though, this means that Joachims Parents are richer than tupacs parents, barring any further evidence from tupac.
Jealousy, sir - you seethe it, we all have it - welcome to aviation.
Joc, btw, u ever read the story of Hezekiah in the Bible? Don't expose your wealth. Bad idea. Them Babylonians came and got all that stuff a few years later. Remember that.
In the flavor of Duck Dynasty, I hope I'm making u more nervous than a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Do your parents know u are posting this stuff on the Internet?
Whatchya trying to say, huh? :devil
(ot: qfT)
Setting aside the fact you're not holding a multiengine rating and you don't have a 61.55 SIC checkout in the airplane which doesn't make you legal to fly the airplane with passengers on board...
Let's assume that's a charter airplane, as it's associated with a management company it probably is though that's not a requirement. It's been through conformity, the pilots are trained to the certificate holders specs, the airplane is maintained to the certificate holders standard and operation is subject to the guidance of their GOM (operations manual) Inside that manual will be a line about how only employees of XYZ corp shall occupy pilot seats and only appropriately rated pilots shall manipulate the controls. Not FAs, Cabin Servers, Passengers, etc.
What you've actually done for this pilot who by all measures was being exceedingly cool toward you post photographic evidence sufficient to grant him a suspension (minimum, revocation would be on the table especially if it's a live 135 charter leg) of his certificate in the eyes of the FAA and termination from his employer.
But hey, you had a cool experience...
Fancy way of clearly saying he should remove that picture from the interwebs ASAP out of respect to the pilot?...
Out of curiosity (because I'm sincerely sure you're right and not questioning that bit, but you've sparked a lightbulb), but does all of that still apply in a private or chartered AC over international waters/airspace?
Also... not that I'm sure everyday somewhere in the world it happens on a tarmac or in a hangar somewhere with a camera... but I am not 100% convinced there's enough info discernable from that photograph to tell if he's actually flying at 37k or 37"...
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpzeu3VQ001qbixxl.png)
And for Joachim:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/14/article-1257825-08B223C9000005DC-352_306x460.jpg)
And Messy... stop hogging the good meds. :aok
-
Part of my oral exam last week revolved around leaving stewardesses alone. Bab's picture is a good synopsis. lol
Also, a quick FAR question for you pros. I was reading through 61.55 and came across something interesting at the very end, that I don't fully understand. (I'm looking at (j) ).
So for an initial SIC type you do have to do at least 1 landing and take off in the actual aircraft? That's not a requirement for a PIC type right, you can do it entirely in the sim with no actual time in the aircraft? The part I don't understand is the exception for someone with a 91, 121, 135, etc proficiency check. Is that just an exception for those pilots who already have an inital SIC or PIC type in another aircraft and are already 135,121, qualified? Am I wrong in thinking there's no way for a initial SIC type rating applicant to be 121, etc proficient without another type rating of some sort?
-
Re: landings in the airplane.
That depends on the training conducted and the type of simulator used. My first trip to an initial I wasn't old enough to get my ATP and my slime ball company used that as an excuse to only check the SIC box despite doing a full PIC checkride. That's another story for another time. At any rate I conducted my 135.293/.297 checks as well as an initial SIC checkout and was fully legal to go hop in the airplane without any bounces in the real airplane. That's using a Level D sim, approves training curriculum, etc. Using a lower fidelity simulator may require some tasks to be accomplished in the airplane because of the inability of the simulator to adequately duplicate the required tasks. I don't know off hand what those criteria or tasks are.
Re: international operations. That depends but nobody approves non rated pilots flying passengers. Charter or private, if the airplane is N registered (USA Airplane) it requires FAA certifications or validations to operate it. The operating rules for the countries in which you're operating are also applicable which will not necessarily pertain to some aspects of the flight but will for others. It's hard to answer in one paragraph but geographical location of the airplane doesn't change the certification requirements to operate the airplane.
I hope that's close enough. Typing on my phone in the staging lanes at the track. Cutting some okay lights so far tonight :)