BFM this

Info sticky at AFOTS dot com. Many of these links are to other personal pages that include links to gouge. Also: Local flight training outfit run by ret AF fighter pilot now sim instructor here at Columbus. Includes great zip file on the tweet.

drelyn8: we were talking about the t-6, which I'd bet is less than 12.5k, but I'm going to be in the tweet, so I'm not worried about it... To check, call flight safety or sim-com and ask how much they charge for a C-90 type rating. ;) As I mentioned above, when I flew skydivers there was one inspector from the local FSDO in particular who would have ate me alive had I been outside the lines on something like this. §61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements. (a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft: (1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air). (2) TurboJET-powered airplanes. (3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.

Dunno, Only at KRND Yep, happened in one of the last classes here. Assignment read something like: "you've excelled at two of the most advanced cockpits in the AF inventory, now you will move on to one of the most advanced...nevermind" The rest, I dunno

Question: Aside from the fact that this development now opens the door to $#!++Y assignments for FAIPs, has anyone heard of FAIPs actually drawing these undesirable slots? Yes, it kind of sucks that the possibility exists and leaves the light at the other end of a FAIP tunnel at least shrouded. But a lot of the choice assignments are choice because they need the best quality--the top grads, the sharpest people. The best are still going to be those FAIPs, not against their peers when they graduate neccessarily, but measured against the new grads that will go out into the assignment pool at the same time as that FAIP finishing their tour. This is the line of reasoning given to new UPT studs. Is this flawed reasoning and/or smoke/sunshine?

For every UPT grad that was sweating a possible FAIP drop, I've met a Col or Gen prior FAIP who said it was not a big deal career-wise and were glad they did it. I personally wouldn't mind it-- everyone says the tweet is a blast to fly (in a moped kind of way ;) ) and almost as much as I like tearin it up on my own, I kind of liked teaching, but I'm kind of twisted like that...

I'm w/C150J: spent a summer flying skydivers in a King Air and Twin Otter--both PT6 powered like the Tex, not a type rating to my name. And the feds like to visit skydive outfits--got to know several of the local FSDO reps, they would have pointed it out if my "turbojet" interpretation of Pt61 was inaccurate. Like they tried to point out that I needed High Alt for the King Air, which would never pressurize again since we'd taken off the door and drilled holes in it for the hand rails--I had that signoff though.

IFTex, You're a PP-SEL flying the t-6; it's just a SEL airplane that doesn't require a type rating so log away. Since the feds consider any turbojet a typed aircraft, I'm not sure how my t-37 time will go in my logbook until I start solo sorties. :confused:

From a nubee's perspective: I just thought he was in a hurry to get back; IE burner to short final, boards to get configured, etc. Didn't think of it as a method to burn down extra gas...

Eh, I used to make that argument as well. But when you take a close look at the "solely by reference to instruments" clause, the gray line starts to shift a little; I can take a VFR airplane (no gyros) and fly it in 0 vis (horizontal) if I got one eye on the ground (or the sky if "on top") as a reference. May be tough to hold a heading but at least I can keep the butter side up. Take away that last reference and I better have sumthin spining! ME, G, II [ 06 February 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: flyinjunky ]