Certified to fly more than a plane

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...jeffadams.html
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - 1826

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

"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

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.

"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

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)

"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.

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!

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

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
|

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?