I understand transport category aircraft need to be operated under 121 which if this is the case showed a desperate lack of oversight by the FAA - somebody probably got fired unless the BBJ specifically comes under Pt 91
Transport category aircraft have no requirement to be operated under Part 121 in the US. Part 121 is the regulation governing airline operations. Transport category aircraft may be operated under other regulations, including Part 91 or 125. I even operated them under Part 137...agricultural operations.
A BBJ may have been operated under Part 91, there is nothing which prevents this. However, if it was a commercial operation of the pilot was receiving any form of compensation, he required a commercial pilot certificate. You specifically stated that a private pilot was operating the aircraft...show me where this happened.
Again never said it happens in the USA just saying that IT DID happen in the UK.
Actually, it did not, and your failure to understand this doesn't change that fact.
The CAA grounded a BBJ and two Gulfstreams at Luton on the basis that the Pilots licenses had no mention of the aircraft on them whatsoever, all that could be produced was some logbook evidence that takeoffs and landings had been performed in the aircraft including OEI ops, ground training was not recorded as there was no requirement to.
Domestically in the US, and for a very long time internationally, one not acting as SIC had no requirement to hold a type rating for the aircraft. This does not mean that the person in question was a private pilot with a few hours. I've certainly flown aircraft requiring a type, for which I did not hold a type...because at the time I was acting as SIC. I was fully trained in the aircraft and qualified. Until upgrade time, many employers in the US don't provide a type rating. This is common. I've done a thousand hours in some aircraft that required a type to be PIC, without the type...as it wasn't required.
This has been standard practice among airlines, corporate flight departments, some fractional providers, and many private owners, for many years, to say nothing of government agencies, and others.
The SIC type rating was created as a wave to the international community, to align closer to ICAO commonality. Most in the US consider it a ridiculous requirement, but it's there to placate others in the world who feel like they need it. The only difference between the former requirement to show training in the aircraft and to log the requisite landings, is that now one does the same thing, fills in a Form 8410, and turns it into the FAA to get the actual SIC type imprinted on the pilot certificate. Other than that, no change.
You're talking about a situation in which fully qualified individuals were ramp checked in the UK, and given a hard time over the lack of a type rating on the certificate...when the issuing authority didn't require it. This is not a loophole or a failing of the regulation; it's not necessary. Then again, on the far side of the pond we consider requiring a type rating for airplanes like the King Air to be a load of codswallop, too.
Where do you come up with the idea that the information you've cited alludes in any way, shape, or form to show that the FAA did "
allow engineers with PPL's and hardly any training into the RHS of some very heavy iron (such as G4's and 737's)?" I asked you to show me where this has happened, and you failed to do so. If you intend to make a point, then back it up instead of plucking ideas out of thin air to support yourself. That's not really very much support.
PS It was also reported upon in Flight International got it somewhere under a bed;
That's authoritative.
Despite your ridicule, thus far I've stuck to official documentation and regulations to support a point and carry on a conversation. Thus far you've stuck to conjecture, opinion, misunderstood notices of
proposed rule making, and magazine articles. I can see your point is well founded.
Were these guys "padding out" their logbook guppy?? Shouldn't they have been sat on a ramp at luton with their mickey mouse non-type ratings? The CAA certainly thought so becasue they grounded 3 airplanes that day until they were properly crewed.
Padding their logbook as fully qualified individuals exercising the privileges of their certificates? No. They were not padding anything.
How can you suggest a rating which doesn't exist (a "
non-type rating") is micky-mouse? At least pick on something which does exist, for crying out loud. Have you been drinking?
The CAA did not think so...the CAA elected to press an issue on the grounds of ICAO compliance, not on the grounds of unqualified crew. Again, the SIC type is simply a dog-and-pony act to please the more pretentious of the international community out there. We'd hate to wrinkle that stiff upper lip of yours, wouldn't we?
WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OVER HERE,
Yes, clearly. Given the many responses expressing surprise at what's in your own regulation, reading and understanding them is not one of those different things.
While the JAR-FCL Section 2 reference did provide a single sentence providing guidance for an accepted logbook format, your own regulation, that of the JAR-FCL, and the definitions that multiple posters stated don't exist, clearly state that IFR conditions means conditions less than VFR...and NOT time spent on an IFR flight plan or under an IFR clearance. This has direct relevance to the thread, despite your own misgivings to the contrary. Whereas you appear to have nothing more to contribute on the subject beyond conjecture, I believe your input may henceforth be safely discounted.
The FARs/JARs are NOT watertight trying to prove your point by pretending to be some part time lawyer and reading into the legalese is pointless.
Actually, I didn't. When I first posted, numerous posters hammered me with the law...this is the UK, they said, you don't understand our regulation, our law. Okay...present the regulation. Upon their demands, we examined the regulation to learn that it doesn't really say what they thought it says.
Go figure.
The distinction beween the two is made quite clear by the longstanding policy that you factor it back by 4:1 its been like that for donkeys and you only need it to have a bloody IRI rating issued
Well, there you go. Who needs an authoritative source such as a magazine like Flight International to which to refer, when you can simply hark back to "
long-standing policy,' and that "
it's been like that for donkeys." Very authoritative donkey's, those. Of curiosity, what revision number are the donkeys up to, these days?
As far as that long standing policy, seems that even that program clearly shows that time spent by sole reference to instruments is considered 400% more valuable than time spent operating under a bloody clearance now, doesn't it? Don't let that detail proving my original point deter you in the least.
You should be looking at ICAO references not the FARs/JAR's one of the authorities has an exemption filed somewhere.
I never called on FAA regulation. Others did that. However, multiple posters demanded reference to the JAR-FCL, which we did. ICAO documents are conventions, but do not represent a licensing authority. In the case of the "FAR's," these do represent ICAO compliant documents, and are also federal regulation in their place of origin. The JAR-FCL likewise.
As for your ironclad references, given that you've done no better thus far, just how authoritative are we to take "has an exemption somewhere?" Cite the reference, or don't bring it up. Thus far what you've attempted to bring up has been far off the mark, so this is no surprise...but this has been a serious discussion thus far, and you're not really helping.
Back to the discussion, I'd rather hire a guy thats been operating a tail dragger off grass, within Class A, hand flying whilst talking and operating within one of the busiest bits of airspace on the planet. You may consider this less of a demonstration of ability than flying straight and level on one of the infamous 200nm direct to's you get in the US, if so then thats your opinion you're entitled to your own as is everybody else
In the US, class A is found above 18,000', which is somewhat different than the UK. As a long time ag pilot myself, I have somewhat of a soft spot for conventional gear (that's tailwheel to you) aircraft, and I really have operated in the busiest airspace on the planet...and it's not where you think it is. As for US direct-to legs, 200 nm would be a very short one indeed...but then your country would fit handily inside part of many of our 50 states...so I suppose you take what you can get, don't you? Sort of makes it seem pointless for you to take that tack, after all.
As you've introduced "straight and level," and I didn't bring it up at all, perhaps you'll be kind enough to put words in your own mouth, and not mine.
If you have more to say on the subject, and I'm sure you will, would it be too much to ask if you could at least make some effort to be right? If not that, then at least to introduce something useful, relevant, or even at a minimum, in context? Best of luck with that.