Dumb Reg question

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
RST Engineering wrote:

They CANNOT BOTH LOG PIC time at the same time.

under which regs? if you mean good ol' FAA, then
you are wrong;


I don't think so, but entertain me.


Jim






ps actually, I once was in a flight where three of
us did log PIC time *at the same time* and perfectly
legally: exercice to the readers: describe the situation :-)

Wrong, they can both log PIC. The safety pilot can log PIC if he also
serves as PIC because the FAA says safey piloting is an operation which
requires multiple crew members read 61.51(e). The flying pilot logs PIC
because he is on the controls. Please understand that LOGGING PIC is
***DIFFERENT** than SERVING as PIC.
You need to read some of the FAA pubs, including the Lych FAQ.

-Robert, CFI

"Slick" wrote in message ...

I've only ever flown Cessna products and I've come across an area I'm not
sure about. I have my private and I have flow 150/2 and 172's since I
starting my training. Now I might partner up with a guy in a Tomahawk next
weekend for a tour across the state. I don't have any formal training in
any
Piper products, will I be allowed to log any stick time?

1. There is no definition of "stick time". I'm presuming you mean "can I
log any Pilot In Command Time".

2. Your private rating is undoubtably "airplane single engine land (ASEL)",
which means that you can fly ANY airplane (not glider or helicopter or...)
with a single engine (no twins or Ford trimotors) that was intended to fly
from a solid earth surface (no seaplanes) with no further instruction or
formal endorsement necessary...with a few exceptions:

a. Aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or over at maximum gross
certificated takeoff weight or aircraft powered by a turbojet engine require
a type rating in addition to the ASEL certificate.

b. Aircraft classified as "complex" (retractable gear, flaps, and
variable pitch prop) need an additional endorsement.

c. Aircraft classified as "high performance" (engines greater than 200
horsepower) need an ....

d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above
25,000' MSL) need an .....

e. Aircraft with a "type certificate required" on the manufacturer's
type certificate (extremely rare) need an ....

f. Aircraft with tailwheel style landing gear need an ....

(Look in your book of regulations, read section 61.31 carefully and you
will find all these requirements and the exact legalese of what they say.)


Examining the Traumahawk, you will find that sections a through f of this
reply do not apply, so no further legal requirements are required for you to
hop into the airplane and blast off into the wild blue.

HAVING SAID THIS, you will note that I said "legal" requirements. Hopping
into a totally unfamiliar aircraft with no introductory training is (a) not
clever and (b) will void most insurance policies. Whoever owns the aircraft
(either your friend or the FBO that is renting the aircraft) will have
something to say about who flies it and how much training is required.

Jim











I don't recall
exactly how the regs layout type certification. Do I have to be signed off
and have logged instruction to be PIC in the Tomahawk? Also if I only had
time in a 150, would I have to have instruction in a 152 before I could
log
PIC?

One last question, If I fly simulated instrument with a safety pilot, does
the safety pilot have to sign my logbook? Thanks to everyone for your help
and response.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above
25,000' MSL) need an .....

New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above 25,000' MSL) need an .....


New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Never mind, I found it. "pressurized".

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:28:16 GMT, Jose
wrote:

d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above 25,000' MSL) need an .....


New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Never mind, I found it. "pressurized".

Hmm... Missed that too, but are there many (any?) non-pressurized
airframes that have service ceilings above FL250?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:34:17 GMT, Jose
wrote:

d. Aircraft classified as "high altitude" (service ceiling above
25,000' MSL) need an .....

New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

Perhaps 61.31(g)?

"(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft
capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in
command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service
ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above
25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground
training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in
the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor
who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground
training."

A strict reading of "operating pressurized aircraft capable" would not
be limiting to in-flight operation of said aircraft.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:34:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Got a reg # I could look up?


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...0.1.3.10.4.7.2
§ 91.1083 Crewmember emergency training

What the hell is wrong with the reg that I referenced in my original post?

Jim
\


New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?

except for the fact that you referenced it wrong..

61.31(g) Additional training required for operating PRESSURIZED AIRCRAFT
capable of operating at high altitudes..

It is not a "high altitude" endorsement.. it is a Pressurized Aircraft
endorsement

BT

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
What the hell is wrong with the reg that I referenced in my original post?

Jim
\


New one on me. If the airplane is capable of high altitude, you need an
endorsement even if you only ground-hop it? Got a reg # I could look up?