Certified to fly more than a plane

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

"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 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.