If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
new_CFI wrote:
"Bob Gardner" wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj- : Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not impossible, just unlikely. Bob Gardner Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up. I believe that only works for balloons which require two crew members. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Greg B wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may factor into this also) So someone will do it if you put the money down? Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft? I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating. I posted a few weeks back about an ATP friend of mine in that situation. He trained in the military, only in twins, and does not have a single engine rating (making him a really bad potential safety pilot!) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dale writes: Perhaps it's because if you screw the pooch on those "few procedures for the failure of an engine" you will be dead. But a lot of procedures can result in death if they are improperly executed. It's not clear to me what the key distinction of multiple engines might be that would justify a separate certificate. That distinction has been written in blood over the decades, as have most of the regulations in aviation... they are the result of bad outcomes. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
They can do the pilot operations and get an endorsement and
solo, just no passengers. 61.31 (3) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received the required endorsements from an instructor who is authorized to provide the required endorsements for solo flight in that aircraft. "Greg B" wrote in message ... | "Mxsmanic" wrote in message | ... | The only thing that would keep you from getting your initial certificate | in a multi would be money. (insurance and the nerve of your CFI may | factor into this also) | | So someone will do it if you put the money down? | | Would learning and getting a license for a multiengine aircraft also | implicitly allow one to fly single-engine aircraft? | | I have heard of a few people that took their training in twins and have | never flown a single. They cannot fly a single without the rating. | | |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Look up Champion Lancer
http://www.bellanca-championclub.com/ scroll down middle of page O-200, fixed gear and props, Vyse is down at 200 fpm "Sylvain" wrote in message t... | Mxsmanic wrote: | Don't you adjust props and deal with landing gear in single-engine | aircraft, too? Or do I need a multiengine certification just to have | retractable gear?? | | depends. Basic trainers (single engine) have fixed landing gear, | fixed pitch props. It makes them cheaper and simpler for initial | training (there is enough already to worry about before adding | extra goodies); to add retractable gear / variable pitch props | you need a 'complex' endorsement; it is not a license or certificate | or rating; it consists in additional training from an instructor (see | 14 CFR 61.31(e) for details) who then endorses the logbook, it's a | one time thing. There are similar endorsements required to fly | 'high performance' aircraft (engine with more than 200hp), | tailwheels aircraft and for some high altitude operations. | | Now a multi- can be complex or not (rare but it exists), | high performance or not (note that it is not the sum of the | power of the engines that count, whether or not it has any | engine with more than 200hp -- i.e., you could have an | aicraft with ten 200hp engines which would still not qualify | as 'high performance' :-) ), tailwheel or not, pressurised | or not, so do single engines. It is orthogonal if you | like. | | --Sylvain |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
61.31 (2) Be receiving training for the purpose of obtaining
an additional pilot certificate and rating that are appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision of an authorized instructor; or "new_CFI" wrote in message news:N61Wg.6139$eZ4.1024@dukeread06... | "Bob Gardner" wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj- | : | | Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license | require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any | insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not | impossible, just unlikely. | | Bob Gardner | | | | Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is | onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think | the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
61.31 (d)(2) Be receiving training for the purpose of
obtaining an additional pilot certificate and rating that are appropriate to that aircraft, and be under the supervision of an authorized instructor; or "Emily" wrote in message news | new_CFI wrote: | "Bob Gardner" wrote in news:Y6-dnRIj- | : | | Another aspect of the question...the requirements for the basic license | require a certain amount of solo flight, and it is hard to imagine any | insurance carrier covering solo flight in a twin by a student pilot. Not | impossible, just unlikely. | | Bob Gardner | | | | Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is | onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think | the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up. | | I believe that only works for balloons which require two crew members. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
Emily wrote:
Even with a multi- rating it is not easy to find a twin that you can rent on your own. Really? I've never had a problem. So far, the one I am renting (a Duchess) also happens to be the aircraft with which I did my rating, which simplifies a lot my complying with the insurance requirements. Actually I did the long cross country (did my initial commercial in a multi-) with a 310 -- but this aircraft -- or anything more ambitious than the Duchess -- is now out of my reach in terms of number of hours required by the insurances. For some reasons insurances seem to keep moving the bar as I am progressing along :-) By renting I mean flying it solo or with passengers; some places are happy to let you fly their multi- but only with one of their instructors (e.g., to complete a rating), a bit like what seems to happen with floatplanes. Where are you flying if I may ask? --Sylvain |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
A light twin on FAR 135 IFR w/o an autopilot
"Sylvain" wrote in message t... | Mxsmanic wrote: | What happens in aircraft that require a crew of two? | | The FAA in its infinite wisdom, has it covered; airplane | that require more than one pilot tend not to be used | as primary trainers though. | | Question: is there any aircraft out there that require | more than one pilot but does not require a type certificate? | | --Sylvain | |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why are multiple engines different?
new_CFI wrote:
Isnt there a supervised solo for situations like this? An instructor is onbord to supervise the solo flight, but it still counts as solo? I think the school I went to did this, ill have to look it up. solo is defined in the regs, and that means noone else on board (the only exceptions I can recall concerns airships); Now, the British on the other hand have some weird logging regulations that include a Pu/s (pilot under supervision) different from instruction; is this what you had in mind? --Sylvain |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Home Built Aircraft - Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki | OtisWinslow | Home Built | 1 | October 12th 05 02:55 PM |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
U.S. Air Force Moves Ahead With Studies On Air-Breathing Engines | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 03:31 AM |