Certified to fly more than a plane

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.

| 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.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Bob Moore" wrote in message

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


Pete and Bob,

I really am mortified at having been somehow being the cause of all
this.

I can't remember one mail from Bob that doesn't have a smiley, and I
can say the same very thing about Pete's posts too. Despite the
obviously dunce-type questions, and being a guy who has 22000 flying
hours, Bob hasn't once lost either his equanimity or his sense of humor
- and neither have you, Pete!

The Internet can at once be great - in being able to afford platforms
for almost near-instant mesh of brains/ideas/opinions - and misleading.
Remember that a writer's tone can't always be judged well enough, and
it's best we don't lose sight of that. I'm too well aware of the impact
of a remotely written word, having lost count of the number of times
that remarks made in jest (I'm incurably flippant) on other Groups have
had people flying off the handle and all that sort of thing. I recall
one earlier occasion too, when someone yelled at Bob at being arrogant
and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Not only did I not want to mitigate the load on Bob - like he said,
there are at least a couple of doubts that I keep throwing at him
almost each day ) I wanted to get a feel of how the rules were in
various countries, suspecting that India was stuck in a time warp of
sorts. Btw, I've no clue what either Part 91 or 121 is )

Keep the cheer; if it isn't worth a smile, it isn't worth it at all )

Ramapriya

wrote)
...and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Is that a phrase borrowed from literature, or one of yours? I like it.


Btw, I've no clue what either Part 91 or 121 is )

http://www.risingup.com/fars/
FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations

Click links...

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
Find 121, or 61, or 91, here ...same info as in the above link.

The reason people turn around and sell this information is, they've gone to
the trouble of putting it into book form. FAR/AIM 2006 is FREE from the
Government (below link).

http://www.aerotraining.com/html_gif/regs.htm
FAR's, CAR's and JAR's


Montblack

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.

Montblack wrote:
wrote)
...and I thought, "Jeez this is so unfair to a cove who's clement all the
time".

Is that a phrase borrowed from literature, or one of yours? I like it.


No idea. But I can't rule out a subconscious influence of what I read
now and then - Thomas Hardy, Wodehouse or Asterix

Ramapriya

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.

Recently, posted:

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

Hmm. Sounds rather political to me.

On one of my trips to Canada, they wouldn't let me take my professional
cameras off of the plane for fear that I would take jobs away from
Canadian photographers! Perhaps something similar is at play w/r/t pilots
in India; if one person were allowed to be "current" in any number of
aircraft, others may not be able to land a job, which is a problem for a
country with high unemployment or underemployment.

Neil

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

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.