Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

Hatunen writes:

To be picky, they're actually certificates, not licenses.

Same thing.

I'm not sure what SEL planes an ATR certificate would apply to.

One can have an ATP for all sorts of aircraft, and the ATP need not apply to
all. For example, you can be an ATP for multi-engine land airplanes, but only
a PPL for helicopters or seaplanes.

You mean ATPC, I think.

No, I mean ATP license(/certificate), ATPL.

Fascinating. Cite, please?

Pilot certificates are public records.

Hatunen writes:

That page shows street and city as required entries. I don't know
thm so I went no further.

You can enter just a name.

Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:21:17 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:
I wonder if John Travolta has an ATR...?

He has a 707 and I think at least one other jet. John Travolta is a
private pilot, single and multi-engine land airplane, with an
instrument rating--not an ATP.

Fascinating. Cite, please?

The FAA provides a web page that allows you to search their airmen
registry:

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

Just enter information about yourself, click on submit, then enter as
much information as you know about person you are interested in. There
is only one entry that matches last name Travolta.

That page shows street and city as required entries. I don't know
thm so I went no further.

You don't know your own street and city? ;-)

You put YOUR identifying info in that first page, not that of the airmen
you want to look up. If you don't want to ID yourself to the FAA (I don't
see the big deal) that's your call.

Street and city of the airmen you are interested in is not required when
you get to the query page itself. For example, I searched for last name
"Hatunen" and came across just one entry, with an issue date of
6/26/1968. Yours, perchance?

The FAA has another web page to search for aircraft, but isn't very
useful for finding who owns what, since they are oftened owned
indirectly via holding companies:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/

But thanks for that one. I've been trying to remember that
website is. It's kind of interesting to look up the old aircraft
I flew in. I see Piper J-3 Cub N3609K that I learned to first fly
in here in Tucson in 1966 is now owned by someone in Minnesota. I
was a one-fourth owner. One of my co-owners managed to encounter
an invisible dust devil on the runway on his first solo landing
and the plane was written off by our insurer as totaled. The
plane was sort of flyable, and the insurance company sold it to
someone who got a special ferry permit and it flew out of our
lives.

You're welcome.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:58:56 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

To be picky, they're actually certificates, not licenses.

Same thing.

I'm not sure what SEL planes an ATR certificate would apply to.

One can have an ATP for all sorts of aircraft, and the ATP need not apply to
all. For example, you can be an ATP for multi-engine land airplanes, but only
a PPL for helicopters or seaplanes.

You mean ATPC, I think.

No, I mean ATP license(/certificate), ATPL.

It's not a license.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:35:20 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.

I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I know
more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have flown
only Cessna 172s.

Ohhhh, I see. So you're an expert?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
JohnT writes:

Playing a computer game doesn't make you an expert.

Neither does flying a real-world Cessna 172.

Which, of course, you have never ever done.

--
JohnT

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:35:20 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.

I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I
know
more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have
flown
only Cessna 172s.

Ohhhh, I see. So you're an expert?


He is an expert at playing computer games in his cupboard in Paris.
--
JohnT

On 22/06/10 03:35, Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

That depends on what you're claiming to be an expert at.

I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I'm quite certain that I know
more about flying a 737 or 747 than the vast majority of pilots who have flown
only Cessna 172s.

Have you ever been at the controls of a real aircraft when it has been
in the air?


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

Morgans writes:

As far as that goes, the FAA has no control over the certification or
inspection of military aircraft, in any way. They just have to put up with
the fact that the military does what they want with the aircraft they own.

The FAA allows the military to use the national airspace and waives its
regulations at its discretion ... not the other way around. Control over
aviation in the United States is civilian, not military. Restricted
airspaces, for example, are set aside by the FAA for use by the military; the
military does not give airspace to the FAA, because the military doesn't own
any airspace. Likewise, the FAA has granted a waiver for airspeeds above 250
KIAS under 10,000 feet to the military under certain circumstances, and allows
MARSA under other defined circumstances.

The United States is governed by civilian law, not martial law. The military
cannot simply do whatever it wants.

Hatunen writes:

Ohhhh, I see. So you're an expert?

One scarcely needs to be anything approaching an expert just to know more than
some of the pilots here. I have non-zero knowledge of certain things, which
beats the zero knowledge that I'm up against in many cases.