Certified to fly more than a plane

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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