Certified to fly more than a plane

Peter Duniho wrote
He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you
suggest I interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."?
He clearly is implying that other people who have replied are
claiming that the US rules are similar to those in India, which in
fact no one made any such suggestion.

Mr. Rampriya and I count each other as personal friends. His knowledge
of aviation is limited to the ICAO equivalent of our Part 121 and I
understand that his questions are more related to airliners and airline
operations. We communicate 2-3 times per day and I am constantly reminding
him that he cannot expect to get a Part 121 answer from a bunch of Part
91'ers. He keeps trying though, I think to reduce the answering load on me.

My response to his earlier post was just a gentle jab at a friend in the
words of Ronald Regan..."There you go again".

Ramapriya's limited experience and lack of training in the different Parts
of the regulations under which flights are conducted often results in a
poor choice of words in his questions and lots of answers that are not
applicable.

I fully understood the "one a/c type" that is placed on airline pilots in
other countries and restricted by the airline's OPSPECS here in our own
country, something that you and the other Part 91'ers have no knowledge of
as demonstrated by the many "Oh no! we can fly many types" answers that he
recieved. Not one answer addressed the Part 121 (or equivalent) issues.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

"Peter Duniho" wrote in

He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest
I interpret ......

Perhaps by considering, as Bob as already pointed out, that he and ramapriya
may well be referring to an aspect of aviation you, and others, are not
considering. While 121 does not specifically proscribe multiple concurrent
type operations, most airlines' opspecs do, and as you well know, a
carrier's opspec carries the force of, indeed becomes part of, the FAR for
that carrier.

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

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Mr. Rampriya and I count each other as personal friends.
[...]

My response to his earlier post was just a gentle jab at a friend in the
words of Ronald Regan..."There you go again".

I'm not talking about any part of your comment that might have been directed
at him. I'm talking about the part that was directed at the rest of us,
saying that we "General Aviation pilots" are confused.

[...] Not one answer addressed the Part 121 (or equivalent) issues.

Nothing about the original question suggested that it was limited to
operations governed by Part 121, and in fact subsequent follow-ups by the
original poster made clear it was NOT limited to those operations.

Pete

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)

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?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..
I don't agree, Peter.

No, I guess you wouldn't.

It seems to me that the same degree of misinterpretation and
misunderstanding that you have attributed to Bob's reply has occurred in
your very own reading of Bob's post.

He opened with an insult of the other replies. How else would you suggest I
interpret "It is true that the FAA discourages ... but ..."? He clearly is
implying that other people who have replied are claiming that the US rules
are similar to those in India, which in fact no one made any such
suggestion.

Stop this bickering right now, or I am going to send both of you to your
rooms! You two are worst than my kids, and you're supposedly grown-ups!

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

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

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?