Question for any Harrier types

[mckpave]

Over here in the US, the Harrier falls under "Powered Lift" as far as FAA ratings are concerned. How does that stand with potential civilian employers, in particular airlines, when it comes to meeting requirements?? I'd like to hear both US and UK points of view on this. Is there any credibility lent for the hours spent flying a Harrier? Thanks in advance.

[Flap62]

I could be wrong but I believe most airlines do not count any hours flown on a Harrier. Because it only spends it's time uselessly hoverring about any hours spent in the cockpit have no relevance to normal piloting skills. In this respect I believe most airlines (and perhaps the CAA) classify it as a derigible.

[BEagle]

Harrier 'types'?

'Mates', surely? 'Bona mates', to be precise?

[Flap62]

C'mon BEags, surely it's time for a picture of a VC10 and a Bear. Not seen it for at least a couple of months.

[Double Zero]

Mckpave,

the reason for your lack of ( sensible ) replies is that your post looks very much like that of a mischievous & jealous 'other' pilot...

Flap 62, shouldn't it be dirigible ?

Seems some confusion with the flying bedstead, and that took a hell of a lot of skill & guts; as for Harrier pilots, as they are generally the cream of the crop for those forces using them, (I'm not one ) I'd think airlines etc would be very interested.

I happen to know several ex-Harrier pilots who went on to airlines with success, if possibly a little anticlimax.

Now stand by for the Tornado / Jaguar / Lightning / Bleriot - backlash.

[kluge]

and as for similar googlesearch a pilot called Neil Armstrong.

He did ok.

[FlightTester]

Over here in the US, the Harrier falls under "Powered Lift" as far as FAA ratings are concerned.


V-22 and by default the Bell 609 are also PL category. Got an ex-V-22 mate trying to get his certificte endorsed at the moment.