So I am looking at the min qualifications for the GA8 Airvan. Per 60-1 is says the following. If I am reading this correctly one with less than 300 hours PIC could get qualified to fly the Airvan as long as the mission is not an ARCHER mission. So if it was a standard TMP type mission is this reality or am I seeing what I want to see?? Just curious. I am about 75 hours short, by the time I finish my commercial, and Mission Pilot training should be >300 anyway.
Gippsland GA-8 Initial Qualification – In addition to high performance
requirements:
(a) For sorties on which ARCHER equipment is actually being used: be a
qualified SAR/DR mission pilot with an instrument rating and 300 hours of PIC fixed wing
aircraft time.
(b) Complete the National Aircraft Ops & Stan/Eval online GA8 Airvan
Familiarization Course.
(c) Complete the prescribed flight training and receive a flight evaluation
recommendation from a GA-8 qualified CAP instructor.
You are correct.
At < 300h PIC you can fly the GA-8, except for ARCHER, which right now means you can fly the GA-8 95% of the time.
High performance requires FAA HP endorsement (of course), and 100h TT (not necessarily PIC)
Awesome! Thank you for Confirming!
Quote from: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
You are correct.
At < 300h PIC you can fly the GA-8, except for ARCHER, which right now means you can fly the GA-8 95% of the time.
High performance requires FAA HP endorsement (of course), and 100h TT (not necessarily PIC)
I'm a tad confused. Are you saying you need 100h TT for a high performance endorsement? If you are, could you please cite the reg?
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on June 14, 2016, 01:01:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
You are correct.
At < 300h PIC you can fly the GA-8, except for ARCHER, which right now means you can fly the GA-8 95% of the time.
High performance requires FAA HP endorsement (of course), and 100h TT (not necessarily PIC)
I'm a tad confused. Are you saying you need 100h TT for a high performance endorsement? If you are, could you please cite the reg?
High performance requires FAA HP endorsement (of course), and 100h TT (not necessarily PIC) This is a CAP Requirement. Reference CAPR 60-1 3-6 (a)
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on June 14, 2016, 01:01:08 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
You are correct.
At < 300h PIC you can fly the GA-8, except for ARCHER, which right now means you can fly the GA-8 95% of the time.
High performance requires FAA HP endorsement (of course), and 100h TT (not necessarily PIC)
I'm a tad confused. Are you saying you need 100h TT for a high performance endorsement? If you are, could you please cite the reg?
FAA endorsement, no minimum time.
CAP: CAPR 60-1, 3-6(a)(1) in order to act as PIC of a CAP HP aircraft (exception solo rating)
Why do you want to fly that piece of crap? It's way under powered and the seats can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment.
CA Highway Patrol just bought a bunch of them to replace their C206s....... I was like "uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...guys..."
Quote from: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
At < 300h PIC you can fly the GA-8, except for ARCHER, which right now means you can fly the GA-8 95% of the time.
And that 5% might be generous. >:D
Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on June 15, 2016, 09:12:37 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
At < 300h PIC you can fly the GA-8, except for ARCHER, which right now means you can fly the GA-8 95% of the time.
And that 5% might be generous. >:D
That remaining 5% is when the leftover parts are blocking the hangar door.
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 15, 2016, 08:04:46 PM
CA Highway Patrol just bought a bunch of them to replace their C206s....... I was like "uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...guys..."
Well if they put the engine and prop from the C-206 on it, it might actually be worth flying.
But then there's those seats...
Same engine - 300 hp Lycoming.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: SarDragon on June 16, 2016, 02:36:31 AM
Same engine - 300 hp Lycoming.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
But different prop. 3 blade vs 2 blade. 3 blade will give you more thrust for the same horse power. i.e. faster climb.
Quote from: PHall on June 15, 2016, 01:12:55 AM
Why do you want to fly that piece of crap? It's way under powered and the seats can be considered as cruel and unusual punishment.
I just want to fly anything and everything! Also I like to be able to participate in all missions so being qualified on all aircraft will help that.
I got some time in one last night, beautiful night, very productive flight.
I don't think the seats are that much worse then a 182, however the almost total lack of a floor well, coupled with
the seats being very low, makes for zero leg room for tall people. I wound up sitting in the rear-most center
mounted seat and could stretch out my legs, which also gave me actual space to move my arms (weird).
Since the plan narrows to the rear, that gives the ability to view out either side of the without much more then a head turn.
Head-room wise I had about an inch of clearance to the roof.