Certified to fly more than a plane

The plane we flew didn't require ballast changes with the
two of us in the front seat. I thought the plane had a
terrible forward view, the windshield frame was thick and I
had to scrunch in the seat to see under it, otherwise it was
as big as a 2x4 right in front of my eyes.

I didn't like the airplane.


"john smith" wrote in message
...
| 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?

| 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?

The plane we flew didn't require ballast changes with the
two of us in the front seat. I thought the plane had a
terrible forward view, the windshield frame was thick and I
had to scrunch in the seat to see under it, otherwise it was
as big as a 2x4 right in front of my eyes.
I didn't like the airplane.

I was referring to solo flight. The two flying articles I am familiar
with each required 60 pounds of ballast in the nose when flown solo.

Can't speak to that, he arrived at the airport well before I
got back from a trip, he may have had a passenger or he may
have removed ballast. I just know it flew OK but I didn't
like the cockpit or the visibility from the right seat. It
was a long time ago. He didn't try to check me out in the
airplane and since he was a designer, I didn't try to teach
him systems. We concentrated on FAR 91 and flight
maneuvers.


"john smith" wrote in message
...
| | 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?
|
| The plane we flew didn't require ballast changes with
the
| two of us in the front seat. I thought the plane had a
| terrible forward view, the windshield frame was thick
and I
| had to scrunch in the seat to see under it, otherwise it
was
| as big as a 2x4 right in front of my eyes.
| I didn't like the airplane.
|
| I was referring to solo flight. The two flying articles I
am familiar
| with each required 60 pounds of ballast in the nose when
flown solo.

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.

Yes (ignoring the humorous misinterpretation possible of your question ).

It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

I don't know if they exist elsewhere. But in the US, the only limitation to
how many aircraft in which a pilot can be currently qualified to act as
"pilot in command" is the time required to maintain the currency in each
aircraft. Currency requires a variety of recent experience and training,
depending on the aircraft and pilots have a finite amount of time in which
to accomplish that experience and training, so there is a practical limit,
depending on how much free time the pilot has. But there is no explicit
legal limit in the US.

Pete

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?

I believe the US recently made this easier. You can now count currency
in one type towards currency in another if you are otherwise current.
I'd have to double check the reg since it doesn't apply to us part 91
guys.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I believe the US recently made this easier. You can now count currency
in one type towards currency in another if you are otherwise current.
I'd have to double check the reg since it doesn't apply to us part 91
guys.

The one point I haven't seen mentioned here is the issue of insurance.
For example, if I paid for a single-pilot Citation jet type rating I
can legally fly it as PIC, but with only 1900 hours TT the insurance
company wouldn't authorize me to fly solo without a bunch of dual time
with an apropriately rated Citation captain. It's almost as if the
insurance companies have as much say in what you can & can't fly as the
FAA does. (at least for turbine aircraft)

Kingfish wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
The one point I haven't seen mentioned here is the issue of insurance.
For example, if I paid for a single-pilot Citation jet type rating I
can legally fly it as PIC, but with only 1900 hours TT the insurance
company wouldn't authorize me to fly solo without a bunch of dual time
with an apropriately rated Citation captain. It's almost as if the
insurance companies have as much say in what you can & can't fly as the
FAA does. (at least for turbine aircraft)

Insurance is what really regulates everything. I could go get my multi
in a Seneca and then go buy a Baron. Its only insurance that forces you
to get type training. However, in the part 121 world the issue is the
investment the company needs to make to keep you current in both.
Training is expensive and training guys who don't fly that type full
time costs more money.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
I could go get my multi in a Seneca and then go buy a Baron. Its only insurance that forces you to get type training.

And not always, at that. I know a guy who got his multi in a Seneca
after he bought an old 55 Baron. IIRC he had about 400 hours TT when he
started flying the Baron and never had any type-specific training. As a
result of this (possibly) he grabbed the wrong handle on a go-around
one day and raised the gear instead of flaps & went skidding down the
runway. 6 months and 100k later he was back in the air with two new
engines and props and a reskinned belly. Ouch.

wrote in message
I'm sure I've come across posts from people here who seem to fly more
than one type of plane at a time,
It's not allowed in my country, and was interested in knowing whether
India alone is archaic or do similar rules exist elsewhere too?

Those rules descended from the United Kingdom. They still have similar
rules. If you are IFRcurrent in a B-737, you still have to take a checkride
to be IFR current in a C-421. Last I heard, the CAA allows only 2
type-ratings at any one time.

D.