Certified to fly more than a plane

A typical day for me was often spent in several very
different aircraft. I might test fly a Beech Duke at 6 AM
and then have a student in a Sundowner or Skipper at 8:30.
At noon I might be test hopping a Beech Airliner 1900 or an
old King Air. I often flew as many as a dozen or more
different aircraft models and types in the same week.
I was single pilot IFR current under FAR 135 in all the
Beech Bonanza models and the 55 and 58 Barons including the
58 P and TC Barons and the B60 Duke. I also held a current
single pilot IFR in the C90, E90, F90 and 200 King Air. I
was type rated in the Beech 1900 and 300 and the Beechjet
400, but they were not on our 135 certificate.
On a good week I might fly every one of those airplanes. I
also might have time in a number of different airplanes
belonging to customers. I did checkouts in a Tiger for an
Air Force tanker pilot who rented his airplane to make some
of his payments. I also flew a few experimentals, such as
the Prescott Pusher when Mr. Prescott needed a flight
review.

Taking the 6 month and annual 135 check-rides was not
simple, often I might fly several days with the FAA in order
to cover the required model variations.

The FAA requires a Type Rating for each model turbojet and
any aircraft over 12,500 MTOW.

I never got complacent because I was flying so many
different airplanes and doing so many different things, from
charter and instruction to flight tests for the shop. Lots
of changes happened to my schedule, I might go to the
airport expecting to fly locally with the FAA for a
recurrent check and end up 1,500 miles away and be gone for
three or four days.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

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.
|
| 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
|

AES wrote:

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

Don't want to start a sociopolitical war here, but if you've ever been a reader of
The Economist, you'll know their strongly held and often stated view, namely that the
*entire* Indian government and social system has long been throttled in *way* too
many bureaucratic rules and impediments to economic and other activity -- and its
population has long suffered from this.


Yes, but nothing new about that truth. One of the most populous, but
one of the most marginalized populaces. A telling pattern among former
Brit colonies )

Ramapriya

"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

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Ramapriya...there you go again...confusing these General Aviation pilots
with rules for Airline Pilots.

Why be so insulting? Most of "these General Aviation pilots" replied with
perfectly valid answers. And YOU are the one who seems to have missed that
the country in which "it's not allowed" is India, not the US. No one here
has suggested that in the US, a pilot cannot be "current" in more than one
aircraft and yet you took great pains to imply that everyone had.

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in

Why be so insulting? Most of "these General Aviation pilots" replied with
perfectly valid answers. And YOU are the one who seems to have missed
that the country in which "it's not allowed" is India, not the US. No one
here has suggested that in the US, a pilot cannot be "current" in more
than one aircraft and yet you took great pains to imply that everyone had.

I don't agree, Peter. 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.

In a previous article, said:
AES wrote:
Don't want to start a sociopolitical war here, but if you've ever been
a reader of
The Economist, you'll know their strongly held and often stated view,
namely that the
*entire* Indian government and social system has long been throttled
in *way* too
many bureaucratic rules and impediments to economic and other activity
-- and its
population has long suffered from this.


Yes, but nothing new about that truth. One of the most populous, but
one of the most marginalized populaces. A telling pattern among former
Brit colonies )

That must be why Canada is doing so poorly. After all, it only leads the
G7 in economic growth, has a balanced budget, low inflation, universal
health care, and is ranked 5th in the world in the UN's Human Development
Index. A telling pattern among former Brit colonies indeed.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
"Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
- Michael Crichton destroys whatever technical credibility he had left.

wrote)
Yes, but nothing new about that truth. One of the most populous, but one
of the most marginalized populaces. A telling pattern among former Brit
colonies )


HEY!! :-)

BTW, today, in THIS former British colony, it is Independence Day - also
called The Fourth of July.

1776-2006


Montblack
http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles...jeffadams.html
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - 1826

Daniel Webster's speech - Aug 2nd, 1826
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/s...jefferson.html
"If we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this dispensation of the
Divine Providence."

Paul Tomblin wrote:

That must be why Canada is doing so poorly. After all, it only leads the
G7 in economic growth, has a balanced budget, low inflation, universal
health care, and is ranked 5th in the world in the UN's Human Development
Index. A telling pattern among former Brit colonies indeed.

RAP certainly isn't a forum for this discussion, so I suggest we leave
it But I agree that Can and the US (if you can call it a Brit
colony) are happy exceptions.

Ramapriya

"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.

Pete