Certified to fly more than a plane

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.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:39:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"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



Ok.. You are correct in the big picture. However, In the example I
used, a PP-SEL going from a C172 to a Warrior the next day, there is
not a currency requirement.

The OP did not specify if the aircraft in question required a type
rating or not. I just ASSUMED that to not be the case. Mistake on my
part.
Mike Flyin' 8

Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
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.

that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
might very well become a thing of the past, especially for newly minted
pilots who didn't benefit from less restrictive requirements to build up
some time in various type/models... besides, even without these
restrictions clubs and FBOs still require some kind of checkout which
may be more or less demanding depending on the FBO/club (and again the
insurance carrier); our club recently changed carrier, I got lucky,
only two aircraft in the fleet which are now out of reach (even though
I was checked out on one of them), and I got to keep flying our multi
(one less minute on the logbook and I was up for n hours of additional
instruction to keep flying it);

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote:
Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
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.

that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
might very well become a thing of the past,

Actually, I have seen nothing change on this. My insurance covers me
equally if I am flying my own plane or any other aircraft that I am
legally permitted to fly.

While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
their own benefit.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
...
Sylvain wrote:
Mike 'Flyin'8' wrote:
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.

that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
might very well become a thing of the past,

Actually, I have seen nothing change on this. My insurance covers me
equally if I am flying my own plane or any other aircraft that I am
legally permitted to fly.

While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
their own benefit.

Just renewed my policy and it went from named pilot to a very liberal open
pilot policy without me asking. Darn liberals are everywhere. :-

Dave Stadt wrote:

that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
might very well become a thing of the past,

While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
their own benefit.

I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, but I cannot see
the benefit for the flight school of arbitrarily restricting the
number of people who can fly their aircraft; an aircraft that stays
on the ground does not do much good to their bottom line unless I am
missing something.

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
Dave Stadt wrote:

that said, with increasingly restrictive insurance requirements, this
might very well become a thing of the past,

While much of the bogus additional currency rules are blamed on
insurance, most of it is stuff that the flight schools make up for
their own benefit.

I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, but I cannot see
the benefit for the flight school of arbitrarily restricting the
number of people who can fly their aircraft; an aircraft that stays
on the ground does not do much good to their bottom line unless I am
missing something.

--Sylvain

For the record I didn't say any of the above. But while I am here.....FBOs
and flight schools make all kinds of rules that make no sense. Most would
not survive in a real business environment. They seem to think rules solve
problems and from what I can tell, most of the time they have no clue and
could care less what the goofey rules might do to their business.