Certified to fly more than a plane

[[email protected]]

I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
able to do so.

It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

Ramapriya

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to
> be able to do so.
>
> It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?
>
In the US, one is certified to fly planes of a particular type, for
example, the basic pilot's certificate may be for Single Engine Land
(SEL). Then, with further training, one can get endorsements for
variations of that type, for example tailwheel, high-power, or complex
aircraft. Flying other types of aircraft, for example multi-engine,
turbine or jet are not permitted without specific training and
certification. Is that as it is in India, or would an airline pilot really
not be permitted to fly a simple Cessna?

Neil

[Quilljar]

The UK PPL licences one to fly any single engined aircraft below a certain
weight. However, you need a checkflight with an instructor on a new aircraft
and to have that written into your logbook. I was able to be checked out on
four different types during my training which I found very helpful.
It doesn't help your skills to be stuck with one type in my opinion. Since
then I have been checked in another five or six GA types. It usually means
an hour's flight and a couple of landings with an instructor.
I am 71 years old, and did not start flying until I was 64, so there is
plenty of time for you yet!

--
Cheers Quilly

For four good books to read look at...
http://www.quilljar.btinternet.co.uk/covers.htm
Buy three or four altogether and get economy postage.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> able to do so.

I don't think most of us have the skill to fly more than one airplane at
the same time. Bob Hoover maybe. I know he can pour a glass of water
from a pitcher while simultaneously performing a barrel roll. :-)

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> > than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> > able to do so.
>
> I don't think most of us have the skill to fly more than one airplane at
> the same time. Bob Hoover maybe. I know he can pour a glass of water
> from a pitcher while simultaneously performing a barrel roll. :-)
>
> Matt


Sorry I didn't realize that those words could be interpreted that way
:)

What I meant was that in India if you're certified to fly, say, a 172,
you couldn't fly an A320 at the same time as well. They call it being
"current", if I'm not mistaken.

If you hear an Indian pilot say he's "current" on a 172, he'd have to
give that up to be able to find himself a job on a 777 even if he has
type-rated on the 777. Farcical, isn't it?

Ramapriya

[Bob Moore]

Ramapriya wrote

> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> able to do so.
> It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

Ramapriya...there you go again...confusing these General Aviation pilots
with rules for Airline Pilots. It is true that the FAA discourages an
airline pilot from maintaining dual (or more) qualification, but it is not
against the regulations as it is in some countries. :-)

While a PIC for Air Florida (1970s), I would fly trips in both a B-707 and
a L-188 Electra on the same day. Going from a pure jet to a turbo-prop in
a matter of minutes was a little challenging. :-)

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Neil Gould wrote:
> >
> In the US, one is certified to fly planes of a particular type, for
> example, the basic pilot's certificate may be for Single Engine Land
> (SEL). Then, with further training, one can get endorsements for
> variations of that type, for example tailwheel, high-power, or complex
> aircraft. Flying other types of aircraft, for example multi-engine,
> turbine or jet are not permitted without specific training and
> certification. Is that as it is in India, or would an airline pilot really
> not be permitted to fly a simple Cessna?
>
> Neil


Neil, you can only be 'current' (for the want of a better word) there
on one airplane. I know that for sure, because pilots have been making
noises on that very restrictiveness for as long as I can remember.

Ramapriya

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-04, > wrote:
> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> able to do so.

In any sane place, generally, small planes don't have type ratings. Only
airliners or larger aircraft (over 19500 lbs MTOW if I remember
correctly for the USA).

Most places though have some additional requirements (differences
training requirements) for some kinds of light aircraft, but that's not
a type rating. For example, in the US, you need instruction and a
logbook endorsement to fly a light aircraft with a tailwheel, or one
with an engine of more than 200hp, or one which is deemed 'complex'
(i.e. has flaps AND controllable prop AND retractable landing gear). But
it's not a rating, it's just some mandatory differences training.
Countries in Europe have similar 'differences training' requirements for
light planes.

It's not really the FAA or CAA or whoever in these countries that makes
all the differences training rules though, quite a bit is driven by
insurance. For instance, it's perfectly legal for me to fly a Beech
Baron without any extra instruction. Legally, I can just go out and fly
one having never ever set foot in one even as a passenger - I have a
multi engine rating. But no one would insure me to do so, and to rent one,
the FBO would require a lengthy checkout. The only plane I've ever flown
without a checkout was a single seater (Piper Pawnee, and various single
seat gliders).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[AES]

In article >,
Bob Moore > wrote:

> > It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> > India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

Don't want to start a sociopolitical war here, but if you've ever been a
reader of The Economist, you'll know their strongly held and often
stated view, namely that the *entire* Indian government and social
system has long been throttled in *way* too many bureaucratic rules and
impediments to economic and other activity -- and its population has
long suffered from this.

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

>> In the US, one is certified to fly planes of a particular type, for
>> example, the basic pilot's certificate may be for Single Engine Land
>> (SEL). Then, with further training, one can get endorsements for
>> variations of that type, for example tailwheel, high-power, or complex
>> aircraft. Flying other types of aircraft, for example multi-engine,
>> turbine or jet are not permitted without specific training and
>> certification. Is that as it is in India, or would an airline pilot really
>> not be permitted to fly a simple Cessna?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
>Neil, you can only be 'current' (for the want of a better word) there
>on one airplane. I know that for sure, because pilots have been making
>noises on that very restrictiveness for as long as I can remember.
>
>Ramapriya

There is not a 'currency' for a particular aircraft. As a pilot with
Single Engine Land rating, I can fly a Skyhawk today, and jump in the
Warrior tomorrow.
Mike Flyin' 8

[Jim Macklin]

A typical day for me was often spent in several very
different aircraft. I might test fly a Beech Duke at 6 AM
and then have a student in a Sundowner or Skipper at 8:30.
At noon I might be test hopping a Beech Airliner 1900 or an
old King Air. I often flew as many as a dozen or more
different aircraft models and types in the same week.
I was single pilot IFR current under FAR 135 in all the
Beech Bonanza models and the 55 and 58 Barons including the
58 P and TC Barons and the B60 Duke. I also held a current
single pilot IFR in the C90, E90, F90 and 200 King Air. I
was type rated in the Beech 1900 and 300 and the Beechjet
400, but they were not on our 135 certificate.
On a good week I might fly every one of those airplanes. I
also might have time in a number of different airplanes
belonging to customers. I did checkouts in a Tiger for an
Air Force tanker pilot who rented his airplane to make some
of his payments. I also flew a few experimentals, such as
the Prescott Pusher when Mr. Prescott needed a flight
review.

Taking the 6 month and annual 135 check-rides was not
simple, often I might fly several days with the FAA in order
to cover the required model variations.

The FAA requires a Type Rating for each model turbojet and
any aircraft over 12,500 MTOW.

I never got complacent because I was flying so many
different airplanes and doing so many different things, from
charter and instruction to flight tests for the shop. Lots
of changes happened to my schedule, I might go to the
airport expecting to fly locally with the FAA for a
recurrent check and end up 1,500 miles away and be gone for
three or four days.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
ups.com...
| I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem
to fly more
| than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in
the US to be
| able to do so.
|
| It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in
knowing whether
| India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere
too?
|
| Ramapriya
|

[[email protected]]

AES wrote:
>
> > > It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> > > India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?
>
> Don't want to start a sociopolitical war here, but if you've ever been a reader of
> The Economist, you'll know their strongly held and often stated view, namely that the
> *entire* Indian government and social system has long been throttled in *way* too
> many bureaucratic rules and impediments to economic and other activity -- and its
> population has long suffered from this.


Yes, but nothing new about that truth. One of the most populous, but
one of the most marginalized populaces. A telling pattern among former
Brit colonies ;))

Ramapriya

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
> There is not a 'currency' for a particular aircraft. As a pilot with
> Single Engine Land rating, I can fly a Skyhawk today, and jump in the
> Warrior tomorrow.

It depends on the aircraft. For light airplanes in the single-engine land
category, for example, you are correct. But aircraft that require a type
rating also require specific currency requirements for that aircraft.

It is wrong to make a general statement that "there is not a 'currency' for
a particular aircraft". That statement is true only in specific situations,
even in the US.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Ramapriya...there you go again...confusing these General Aviation pilots
> with rules for Airline Pilots.

Why be so insulting? Most of "these General Aviation pilots" replied with
perfectly valid answers. And YOU are the one who seems to have missed that
the country in which "it's not allowed" is India, not the US. No one here
has suggested that in the US, a pilot cannot be "current" in more than one
aircraft and yet you took great pains to imply that everyone had.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> able to do so.

Yes (ignoring the humorous misinterpretation possible of your question :) ).

> It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

I don't know if they exist elsewhere. But in the US, the only limitation to
how many aircraft in which a pilot can be currently qualified to act as
"pilot in command" is the time required to maintain the currency in each
aircraft. Currency requires a variety of recent experience and training,
depending on the aircraft and pilots have a finite amount of time in which
to accomplish that experience and training, so there is a practical limit,
depending on how much free time the pilot has. But there is no explicit
legal limit in the US.

Pete

[John Gaquin]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
>
> Why be so insulting? Most of "these General Aviation pilots" replied with
> perfectly valid answers. And YOU are the one who seems to have missed
> that the country in which "it's not allowed" is India, not the US. No one
> here has suggested that in the US, a pilot cannot be "current" in more
> than one aircraft and yet you took great pains to imply that everyone had.

I don't agree, Peter. It seems to me that the same degree of
misinterpretation and misunderstanding that you have attributed to Bob's
reply has occurred in your very own reading of Bob's post.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>AES wrote:
>> Don't want to start a sociopolitical war here, but if you've ever been
>a reader of
>> The Economist, you'll know their strongly held and often stated view,
>namely that the
>> *entire* Indian government and social system has long been throttled
>in *way* too
>> many bureaucratic rules and impediments to economic and other activity
>-- and its
>> population has long suffered from this.
>
>
>Yes, but nothing new about that truth. One of the most populous, but
>one of the most marginalized populaces. A telling pattern among former
>Brit colonies ;))

That must be why Canada is doing so poorly. After all, it only leads the
G7 in economic growth, has a balanced budget, low inflation, universal
health care, and is ranked 5th in the world in the UN's Human Development
Index. A telling pattern among former Brit colonies indeed.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
"Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
- Michael Crichton destroys whatever technical credibility he had left.

[Montblack[_1_]]

wrote)
> Yes, but nothing new about that truth. One of the most populous, but one
> of the most marginalized populaces. A telling pattern among former Brit
> colonies ;))


HEY!! :-)

BTW, today, in THIS former British colony, it is Independence Day - also
called The Fourth of July.

1776-2006


Montblack
http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_jeffadams.html
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - 1826

Daniel Webster's speech - Aug 2nd, 1826
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/adams-jefferson.html
"If we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this dispensation of the
Divine Providence."

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> That must be why Canada is doing so poorly. After all, it only leads the
> G7 in economic growth, has a balanced budget, low inflation, universal
> health care, and is ranked 5th in the world in the UN's Human Development
> Index. A telling pattern among former Brit colonies indeed.

RAP certainly isn't a forum for this discussion, so I suggest we leave
it :) But I agree that Can and the US (if you can call it a Brit
colony) are happy exceptions.

Ramapriya

[Peter Duniho]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
> I don't agree, Peter.

No, I guess you wouldn't.

> It seems to me that the same degree of misinterpretation and
> misunderstanding that you have attributed to Bob's reply has occurred in
> your very own reading of Bob's post.

He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest I
interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."? He clearly is
implying that other people who have replied are claiming that the US rules
are similar to those in India, which in fact no one made any such
suggestion.

Pete

[Bob Moore]

Peter Duniho wrote
> He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you
> suggest I interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."?
> He clearly is implying that other people who have replied are
> claiming that the US rules are similar to those in India, which in
> fact no one made any such suggestion.

Mr. Rampriya and I count each other as personal friends. His knowledge
of aviation is limited to the ICAO equivalent of our Part 121 and I
understand that his questions are more related to airliners and airline
operations. We communicate 2-3 times per day and I am constantly reminding
him that he cannot expect to get a Part 121 answer from a bunch of Part
91'ers. He keeps trying though, I think to reduce the answering load on me.

My response to his earlier post was just a gentle jab at a friend in the
words of Ronald Regan..."There you go again".

Ramapriya's limited experience and lack of training in the different Parts
of the regulations under which flights are conducted often results in a
poor choice of words in his questions and lots of answers that are not
applicable.

I fully understood the "one a/c type" that is placed on airline pilots in
other countries and restricted by the airline's OPSPECS here in our own
country, something that you and the other Part 91'ers have no knowledge of
as demonstrated by the many "Oh no! we can fly many types" answers that he
recieved. Not one answer addressed the Part 121 (or equivalent) issues.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

[John Gaquin]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
>
> He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest
> I interpret ......

Perhaps by considering, as Bob as already pointed out, that he and ramapriya
may well be referring to an aspect of aviation you, and others, are not
considering. While 121 does not specifically proscribe multiple concurrent
type operations, most airlines' opspecs do, and as you well know, a
carrier's opspec carries the force of, indeed becomes part of, the FAR for
that carrier.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> able to do so.
>
> It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

I believe the US recently made this easier. You can now count currency
in one type towards currency in another if you are otherwise current.
I'd have to double check the reg since it doesn't apply to us part 91
guys.

-Robert

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Mr. Rampriya and I count each other as personal friends.
> [...]
>
> My response to his earlier post was just a gentle jab at a friend in the
> words of Ronald Regan..."There you go again".

I'm not talking about any part of your comment that might have been directed
at him. I'm talking about the part that was directed at the rest of us,
saying that we "General Aviation pilots" are confused.

> [...] Not one answer addressed the Part 121 (or equivalent) issues.

Nothing about the original question suggested that it was limited to
operations governed by Part 121, and in fact subsequent follow-ups by the
original poster made clear it was NOT limited to those operations.

Pete

[Kingfish]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I believe the US recently made this easier. You can now count currency
> in one type towards currency in another if you are otherwise current.
> I'd have to double check the reg since it doesn't apply to us part 91
> guys.

The one point I haven't seen mentioned here is the issue of insurance.
For example, if I paid for a single-pilot Citation jet type rating I
can legally fly it as PIC, but with only 1900 hours TT the insurance
company wouldn't authorize me to fly solo without a bunch of dual time
with an apropriately rated Citation captain. It's almost as if the
insurance companies have as much say in what you can & can't fly as the
FAA does. (at least for turbine aircraft)

[john smith]

In article <otwqg.60631$ZW3.44059@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> I also flew a few experimentals, such as
> the Prescott Pusher when Mr. Prescott needed a flight
> review.

How much ballast did he remove/add when you got in/out?

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I don't agree, Peter.
>
> No, I guess you wouldn't.
>
> > It seems to me that the same degree of misinterpretation and
> > misunderstanding that you have attributed to Bob's reply has occurred in
> > your very own reading of Bob's post.
>
> He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest I
> interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."? He clearly is
> implying that other people who have replied are claiming that the US rules
> are similar to those in India, which in fact no one made any such
> suggestion.

Stop this bickering right now, or I am going to send both of you to your
rooms! You two are worst than my kids, and you're supposedly grown-ups!

[Sylvain]

Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
> There is not a 'currency' for a particular aircraft. As a pilot with
> Single Engine Land rating, I can fly a Skyhawk today, and jump in the
> Warrior tomorrow.

that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
might very well become a thing of the past, especially for newly minted
pilots who didn't benefit from less restrictive requirements to build up
some time in various type/models... besides, even without these
restrictions clubs and FBOs still require some kind of checkout which
may be more or less demanding depending on the FBO/club (and again the
insurance carrier); our club recently changed carrier, I got lucky,
only two aircraft in the fleet which are now out of reach (even though
I was checked out on one of them), and I got to keep flying our multi
(one less minute on the logbook and I was up for n hours of additional
instruction to keep flying it);

--Sylvain

[Robert M. Gary]

Kingfish wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The one point I haven't seen mentioned here is the issue of insurance.
> For example, if I paid for a single-pilot Citation jet type rating I
> can legally fly it as PIC, but with only 1900 hours TT the insurance
> company wouldn't authorize me to fly solo without a bunch of dual time
> with an apropriately rated Citation captain. It's almost as if the
> insurance companies have as much say in what you can & can't fly as the
> FAA does. (at least for turbine aircraft)

Insurance is what really regulates everything. I could go get my multi
in a Seneca and then go buy a Baron. Its only insurance that forces you
to get type training. However, in the part 121 world the issue is the
investment the company needs to make to keep you current in both.
Training is expensive and training guys who don't fly that type full
time costs more money.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

The plane we flew didn't require ballast changes with the
two of us in the front seat. I thought the plane had a
terrible forward view, the windshield frame was thick and I
had to scrunch in the seat to see under it, otherwise it was
as big as a 2x4 right in front of my eyes.

I didn't like the airplane.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <otwqg.60631$ZW3.44059@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > I also flew a few experimentals, such as
| > the Prescott Pusher when Mr. Prescott needed a flight
| > review.
|
| How much ballast did he remove/add when you got in/out?

[Kingfish]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I could go get my multi in a Seneca and then go buy a Baron. Its only insurance that >> forces you to get type training.

And not always, at that. I know a guy who got his multi in a Seneca
after he bought an old 55 Baron. IIRC he had about 400 hours TT when he
started flying the Baron and never had any type-specific training. As a
result of this (possibly) he grabbed the wrong handle on a go-around
one day and raised the gear instead of flaps & went skidding down the
runway. 6 months and 100k later he was back in the air with two new
engines and props and a reskinned belly. Ouch.

[john smith]

> | > I also flew a few experimentals, such as
> | > the Prescott Pusher when Mr. Prescott needed a flight
> | > review.

> | How much ballast did he remove/add when you got in/out?

> The plane we flew didn't require ballast changes with the
> two of us in the front seat. I thought the plane had a
> terrible forward view, the windshield frame was thick and I
> had to scrunch in the seat to see under it, otherwise it was
> as big as a 2x4 right in front of my eyes.
> I didn't like the airplane.

I was referring to solo flight. The two flying articles I am familiar
with each required 60 pounds of ballast in the nose when flown solo.

[[email protected]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>
> Nothing about the original question suggested that it was limited to
> operations governed by Part 121, and in fact subsequent follow-ups by the
> original poster made clear it was NOT limited to those operations.
>
> Pete


Pete and Bob,

I really am mortified at having been somehow being the cause of all
this.

I can't remember one mail from Bob that doesn't have a smiley, and I
can say the same very thing about Pete's posts too. Despite the
obviously dunce-type questions, and being a guy who has 22000 flying
hours, Bob hasn't once lost either his equanimity or his sense of humor
- and neither have you, Pete!

The Internet can at once be great - in being able to afford platforms
for almost near-instant mesh of brains/ideas/opinions - and misleading.
Remember that a writer's tone can't always be judged well enough, and
it's best we don't lose sight of that. I'm too well aware of the impact
of a remotely written word, having lost count of the number of times
that remarks made in jest (I'm incurably flippant) on other Groups have
had people flying off the handle and all that sort of thing. I recall
one earlier occasion too, when someone yelled at Bob at being arrogant
and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Not only did I not want to mitigate the load on Bob - like he said,
there are at least a couple of doubts that I keep throwing at him
almost each day :)) I wanted to get a feel of how the rules were in
various countries, suspecting that India was stuck in a time warp of
sorts. Btw, I've no clue what either Part 91 or 121 is ;))

Keep the cheer; if it isn't worth a smile, it isn't worth it at all :))

Ramapriya

[Montblack[_1_]]

wrote)
> ...and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
> time".

Is that a phrase borrowed from literature, or one of yours? I like it.


>Btw, I've no clue what either Part 91 or 121 is ;))

http://www.risingup.com/fars/
FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations

Click links...

<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl>
Find 121, or 61, or 91, here ...same info as in the above link.

The reason people turn around and sell this information is, they've gone to
the trouble of putting it into book form. FAR/AIM 2006 is FREE from the
Government (below link).

http://www.aerotraining.com/html_gif/regs.htm
FAR's, CAR's and JAR's


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

Can't speak to that, he arrived at the airport well before I
got back from a trip, he may have had a passenger or he may
have removed ballast. I just know it flew OK but I didn't
like the cockpit or the visibility from the right seat. It
was a long time ago. He didn't try to check me out in the
airplane and since he was a designer, I didn't try to teach
him systems. We concentrated on FAR 91 and flight
maneuvers.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
|> | > I also flew a few experimentals, such as
| > | > the Prescott Pusher when Mr. Prescott needed a
flight
| > | > review.
|
| > | How much ballast did he remove/add when you got
in/out?
|
| > The plane we flew didn't require ballast changes with
the
| > two of us in the front seat. I thought the plane had a
| > terrible forward view, the windshield frame was thick
and I
| > had to scrunch in the seat to see under it, otherwise it
was
| > as big as a 2x4 right in front of my eyes.
| > I didn't like the airplane.
|
| I was referring to solo flight. The two flying articles I
am familiar
| with each required 60 pounds of ballast in the nose when
flown solo.

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> wrote)
> > ...and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
> > time".
>
> Is that a phrase borrowed from literature, or one of yours? I like it.


No idea. But I can't rule out a subconscious influence of what I read
now and then - Thomas Hardy, Wodehouse or Asterix ;)

Ramapriya

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> It is wrong to make a general statement that "there is not a 'currency' for
> a particular aircraft".

I agree. "Currency" affects more than regulatory rules.

Try renting a 172 or a Cirrus from a renter who doesn't know you, when
all your recent time is in PA-28 and Beech 23 aircraft.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>> In the US, one is certified to fly planes of a particular type, for
>> example, the basic pilot's certificate may be for Single Engine Land
>> (SEL). Then, with further training, one can get endorsements for
>> variations of that type, for example tailwheel, high-power, or
>> complex aircraft. Flying other types of aircraft, for example
>> multi-engine, turbine or jet are not permitted without specific
>> training and certification. Is that as it is in India, or would an
>> airline pilot really not be permitted to fly a simple Cessna?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
> Neil, you can only be 'current' (for the want of a better word) there
> on one airplane. I know that for sure, because pilots have been making
> noises on that very restrictiveness for as long as I can remember.
>
> Ramapriya
>
Hmm. Sounds rather political to me.

On one of my trips to Canada, they wouldn't let me take my professional
cameras off of the plane for fear that I would take jobs away from
Canadian photographers! Perhaps something similar is at play w/r/t pilots
in India; if one person were allowed to be "current" in any number of
aircraft, others may not be able to land a job, which is a problem for a
country with high unemployment or underemployment.

Neil

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:39:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Mike 'Flyin'8'" > wrote in message
...
>> There is not a 'currency' for a particular aircraft. As a pilot with
>> Single Engine Land rating, I can fly a Skyhawk today, and jump in the
>> Warrior tomorrow.
>
>It depends on the aircraft. For light airplanes in the single-engine land
>category, for example, you are correct. But aircraft that require a type
>rating also require specific currency requirements for that aircraft.
>
>It is wrong to make a general statement that "there is not a 'currency' for
>a particular aircraft". That statement is true only in specific situations,
>even in the US.
>
>Pete
>


Ok.. You are correct in the big picture. However, In the example I
used, a PP-SEL going from a C172 to a Warrior the next day, there is
not a currency requirement.

The OP did not specify if the aircraft in question required a type
rating or not. I just ASSUMED that to not be the case. Mistake on my
part.
Mike Flyin' 8

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> wrote:
> > I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> > than one type of plane at a time, so I guess it's legal in the US to be
> > able to do so.
>
> I don't think most of us have the skill to fly more than one airplane at
> the same time. Bob Hoover maybe. I know he can pour a glass of water
> from a pitcher while simultaneously performing a barrel roll. :-)
>
> Matt

It is really difficult to fly more than one airplane at a time --
getting out of one cockpit, climbing out on the wing, down the wing of
the next plane and climbing into THAT plane's cockpit takes a lot of
skill and energy -- especially in turbulence!

Landing more than one at a time is really a bitch, too!

As for being current in several types concurrently -- I have done that,
as have many of my friends -- you just have to learn how to
compartmentalize.

[Ron Natalie]

Neil Gould wrote:

>>
> In the US, one is certified to fly planes of a particular type, for
> example,

Actually, certificates are for category and class (Airplane Single
Engine Land for example). There are also type ratings but they
only apply to large/jets.

[Ron Natalie]

Sylvain wrote:
> Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
>> There is not a 'currency' for a particular aircraft. As a pilot with
>> Single Engine Land rating, I can fly a Skyhawk today, and jump in the
>> Warrior tomorrow.
>
> that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
> might very well become a thing of the past,

Actually, I have seen nothing change on this. My insurance covers me
equally if I am flying my own plane or any other aircraft that I am
legally permitted to fly.

While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
their own benefit.

[Dave Stadt]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain wrote:
>> Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
>>> There is not a 'currency' for a particular aircraft. As a pilot with
>>> Single Engine Land rating, I can fly a Skyhawk today, and jump in the
>>> Warrior tomorrow.
>>
>> that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
>> might very well become a thing of the past,
>
> Actually, I have seen nothing change on this. My insurance covers me
> equally if I am flying my own plane or any other aircraft that I am
> legally permitted to fly.
>
> While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
> insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
> their own benefit.

Just renewed my policy and it went from named pilot to a very liberal open
pilot policy without me asking. Darn liberals are everywhere. :->

[Sylvain]

Dave Stadt wrote:

>>> that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
>>> might very well become a thing of the past,
>>
>> While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
>> insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
>> their own benefit.

I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, but I cannot see
the benefit for the flight school of arbitrarily restricting the
number of people who can fly their aircraft; an aircraft that stays
on the ground does not do much good to their bottom line unless I am
missing something.

--Sylvain

[Dave Stadt]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>>> that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
>>>> might very well become a thing of the past,
>>>
>>> While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
>>> insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
>>> their own benefit.
>
> I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, but I cannot see
> the benefit for the flight school of arbitrarily restricting the
> number of people who can fly their aircraft; an aircraft that stays
> on the ground does not do much good to their bottom line unless I am
> missing something.
>
> --Sylvain

For the record I didn't say any of the above. But while I am here.....FBOs
and flight schools make all kinds of rules that make no sense. Most would
not survive in a real business environment. They seem to think rules solve
problems and from what I can tell, most of the time they have no clue and
could care less what the goofey rules might do to their business.

[Capt.Doug]

> wrote in message
> I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
> than one type of plane at a time,
> It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
> India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

Those rules descended from the United Kingdom. They still have similar
rules. If you are IFRcurrent in a B-737, you still have to take a checkride
to be IFR current in a C-421. Last I heard, the CAA allows only 2
type-ratings at any one time.

D.