C182 Skydive Pilot Camarillo, CA

c172captain

c172captain

Well-Known Member
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Return to Jobs Board[/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]March 5, 2009
SKYDIVE COASTAL CALIFORNIA (Cessna 182 Skydiving Pilot - Camarillo, CA)
address.aspx

Tel: NO CALLS
faxnumber.aspx

Email: [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Click here to Apply [/FONT]
Web Site: http://www.skydivecoastalcalifornia.com
description.aspx
[/FONT]
They want a 6 month commitment and in the body of your email they want total time, time in a 182, and weight.
 
c172captain said:
[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Return to Jobs Board[/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]March 5, 2009
SKYDIVE COASTAL CALIFORNIA (Cessna 182 Skydiving Pilot - Camarillo, CA)
address.aspx

Tel: NO CALLS
faxnumber.aspx

Email: [FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Click here to Apply [/FONT]
Web Site: http://www.skydivecoastalcalifornia.com
description.aspx
[/FONT]
They want a 6 month commitment and in the body of your email they want total time, time in a 182, and weight.
Click to expand...

Did you apply? I have no 182 time but all my training was in 172/172rg, it can't be that much different right?
 
I love the jobs that want to know your weight. I realize it's an issue in a 182 skydiving operation, since a heavy dude driving means one less revenue passenger, but I've also heard it from jet operators who use the logic that a heavier pilot will cost them significantly more in fuel over the course of a year than a lightweight one.
 
DHC6 said:
I have no 182 time but all my training was in 172/172rg, it can't be that much different right?
Click to expand...
If all you've flown is a 172, you probably have no concept of engine management, which becomes a real issue with high performance engines.
 
aloft said:
If all you've flown is a 172, you probably have no concept of engine management, which becomes a real issue with high performance engines.
Click to expand...

In a turbo 182, sure, as it's real easy to melt the turbo, but a normally-aspirated? Eh, not so much. You will be throwing fuel out the window and taking off with less the max power if you're not used to it, though.
 
If you've flown a 172RG, you can fly a normally asp. 182, with no problems. You have to manage 1 more engine monitor, the CHT. All you have to do is make sure you don't overheat on the way up, and don't shock cool on the way dow, i.e. power on descent. Just don't cut the power to idle, with the cowl flaps open and push over for 160kts.

And it's definatly not what I would call, "high perf." Think of it as the fat sister of the 172RG.
 
mshunter said:
If you've flown a 172RG, you can fly a normally asp. 182, with no problems. You have to manage 1 more engine monitor, the CHT. All you have to do is make sure you don't overheat on the way up, and don't shock cool on the way dow, i.e. power on descent. Just don't cut the power to idle, with the cowl flaps open and push over for 160kts.

And it's definatly not what I would call, "high perf." Think of it as the fat sister of the 172RG.
Click to expand...

1" per nautical mile, or about 1" every 30 seconds or so works great.
 
:)

Just wanted to let the group know that I got on as the backup pilot for this establishment. I will be filling in when the full time guy needs a day off. Flew my first load of jumpers on Sunday.

This is the second job that I have landed thanks to this forum. I do appreciate everyone's help!

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top