blues deville Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 CFI but the others were a “no”. https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/articles/news/have-you-considered-these-5-jobs-for-pilots.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 No, No, Was asked upon retirement...said No, No, No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 I think hurricane hunting would be interesting work. To be a committed cargo pilot requires some special talents as well. But I was most surprised that fire bombing wasn't on the list, which may be the most dangerous and challenging of all the alternatives to airline flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southshore Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 Banner towing always looked kinda fun. But, I'd sign up for the hurricane stuff in a heartbeat. I did thunderstorm seeding and research in a previous life and it was a blast. Weather stuff is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 On 12/13/2018 at 5:33 PM, DEFCON said: But I was most surprised that fire bombing wasn't on the list, which may be the most dangerous and challenging of all the alternatives to airline flying. Yeh, Napalm was the best !!! Kinda hard to get employed in that field any more.....water bombing might be fun though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Kip Powick said: Yeh, Napalm was the best !!! Kinda hard to get employed in that field any more.....water bombing might be fun though The correct term is "aerial firefighting". It includes bird-dogging, water bombing and fire retardant delivery. All of them involve taking an aircraft near the fire zone at low altitude in very challenging conditions. It's impressive to observe - and not for the faint of heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 20 hours ago, J.O. said: It's impressive to observe - and not for the faint of heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 That accident and a second involving a Grumman PBY led to the grounding of the US Forest Service fleet in 2002. The subsequent inquiry found that maintenance standards were not adjusted to account for the increased time spent in heavy turbulence while fighting fires vs routine ops for the same aircraft type. It resulted in major changes to how aircraft were contracted for fighting fires. The damage rate factors on converted air tankers is now as high as 7 to 1 unless engineering stress analyses are performed to prove that a lower rate is valid. There have still been accidents, but there hasn't been an airframe failure involving a North American firefighting aircraft since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.