FAA First officer do not require TR ???

[iaf_22]

Hi to all,
please correct me:

I was told that in USA, only captain needs a full Type rating. (theoretical + simulator), and that first officer doesn't really need a TR to fly the aircraft (that sounds weird..) or, at least, not a TR as extensive as the commander one....:bored:

Since it's a mouth to mouth sentence i heard... it might have been modified, but i'm curious to what exactly did it originally refer to ??
Is it true or was it true or do you have any idea to what was meant originally ??

Thank you

[candler]

First Officers recieve an sic type rating.at my Airline they basically go trough the same training as a captain.We are paired up as a crew and go through the TR course together.Captain gets a TR F.O gets a sic TR

[BelArgUSA]

Bonjour iaf -
xxx
You heard correctly - in USA, the FAA did not require a type rating (to be written) on a pilot certificate. As a matter of fact, in FAA pilot jargon, a type rating means a "captain rating". That does not mean that F/Os are not qualified. A F/O with a US airline receives a training that is probably same, or comparable to any other airline in the world.
xxx
Recently, ICAO questioned the FAA about that practice, so, the FAA now issues "SIC Type Ratings" indicated on pilot certificates, for pilots who require it for international operations.
xxx
With the FAA, a F/O training and qualification has little differences with captain's training. In the 747, a F/O does not have to demonstrate a "2 engines" approach, or an emergency descent as PF. On a check ride, he is required to maintain altitudes by + or - 100 feet. while captains standards are + or - 50 feet. On ILS instrument checks, captains are required to fly ILS approaches to 100 feet DA, while 200 feet is required for F/Os. Other than that, the ground training, aircraft systems and performance is same as any captain training curriculum.
xxx
When I give a check in simulator or airplane, shall I say that I am a little more lenient with F/O's standards than I am with captains. The training standards are so similar, that with my airline here in Argentina, which uses FAA standards, we initially qualify F/Os with a SIC/P2 rating, but on their next proficiency check, with their improved proficiency, they are trained and receive a PIC/P1 ratings.
xxx
I started my airline career as a flight engineer. My FAA F/E certificate just states "Turbojet" as rating, yet I was qualified on 707 and 727... so I have no type rating as flight engineer...
xxx
J'espère que cela répond à tes questions -
:)
Happy contrails

[xtwapilot]

I really don't know what your talking about. In the US, the F/O goes through the exact same training as a Captain and is held to the exact same ATP standards, i.e. +/- 100 on alt, +/- 10 kts on speed, and +/- 10 degrees on heading. The ILS is flown to regular 200 DA and 100 about TDZE. etc etc. On the 747 it is true that the F/O is not required to be graded on a 2 eng approach, however, on all Prof Checks(PC), the FE must see a 2 eng approach, hence, the F/O must demonstrate a 2 eng approach, though it's not graded for him.
It is true that in the US, the practice has been that F/O don't receive a TR on their license, however, with ICAO pushing the issue, the FAA now requires a SIC TR for F/O operating internationally to meet the ICAO requirement. All pax airlines were already typing F/O for day one on international ops, however, many 2nd and 3rd tier freight companies were not, and their reasoning has always been that if they type the F/O he/she will leave after getting the type for a better job.

Xtwapilot

[galaxy flyer]

The issue outside of FAR 121 is business aircraft which do require a TR. The SIC training standards in FAR 61.55 are really quite "flexible" for being issued a SIC TR. The instructor, note instructor, no TRE, attests to training the applicant in aircraft systems, normal and emergency procedures, etc. The applicant for the SIC TR takes the application to the FSDO who issues the new license. Yes, many operators have both PICs and SICs complete the entire course and sim sessions together, it is NOT required for an SIC TR.

Check out FAR 61.55

[MarkerInbound]

US Air Carrier training is about the same for PICs and F/Os. The F/Os don't have to do 0 flap landings and and the 50% engine out approach if they have more than 2 engines.

[Superbad]

Under Part 91 co-pilot does not need a type rating or SIC rating.

[galaxy flyer]

He does indeed outside of the US. That is why the SIC rating was established!!!

[Wyle E Coyote]

When I was over there doing some training a few years ago, I was surprised to meet some pilots doing 727 training for a freight company, their training consisted of the ground course (essentially the CBT), followed by sitting in the sim for half an hour or so and learning where everything is and runing a few checklists. They never even flew the thing.

That was my intro to the FAA system.

[ironbutt57]

well cyote...you must have missed something.....

[thepotato232]

Well, you caught us Coyote. FOs in the U.S. are never taught how to fly. The big shiny things up front are far too intimidating. I soil myself every time I so much as see an airplane. We sit in the right seat primarily for balance purposes.

Seriously though, if US carriers typed all of their FOs, said FOs would leave for greener pastures immediately. If you guys think the Yanks are taking too many jobs now, just imagine what would happen if every angry regional pilot in the states was eligible to apply to the same jobs as you. If my E170 type didn't say 'SIC' next to it, I'd only be one sham marriage away from a cushy European street captain job. The SIC type is just one more wall that's keeping the current mess in the US airlines from crossing borders.

[SNS3Guppy]

When I was over there doing some training a few years ago, I was surprised to meet some pilots doing 727 training for a freight company, their training consisted of the ground course (essentially the CBT), followed by sitting in the sim for half an hour or so and learning where everything is and runing a few checklists. They never even flew the thing.

That was my intro to the FAA system.


We had six weeks of ground, nearly four weeks in the sim, then two months or more of initial operating experience line training in the airplane. Perhaps you misunderstood your "intro to the FAA system."

Every single flight, and each aspect of each flight, required documentation, signed off by the check airman or training captain, and separate line checks were required for various aspects ranging from the INS and individual nav systems or radios, to north atlantic checks, etc...to say nothing of checks into individual airports and on certain routes. Numerous checkrides, oral exams, written tests, etc, took place throughout training. During ground school written tests were taken and graded on each topic and phase, as well as end writtens, and exit orals when passing from one area to another...don't pass that exam, don't get to move on.

Now it's certainly true that one can achieve a type rating in a simulator and be legally qualified on the airplane without ever setting foot in the airplane. It's also true, however, that one can achieve far more advanced and realistic training in the sim than in the actual airplane, because there are a lot of things you can do in the sim that you simply cannot do in the airplane.

I've been to simuflite or FSI and come away with a type rating after several weeks of study and plenty of hours in the sim, as well as passing oral, written, and practical tests. My type for my present job was issued based on a sim check...not wasn't given out with abandon, and was earned. Moreover, on arrival on the line, nothing was assumed, and I was held to the same checkride standards every step of the way.

Yes, a SIC needs a type rating for international flight. Some operators try to get away with the bare minimum, but most hold a SIC candidate to the same practical test standards as a PIC candidate. Some operators only issue the SIC until the individual upgrades, which means that they're not providing full type ratings so the individual can then take the training and run to another operator. Once the individual upgrades, the full type rating is issued, and hopefully both the individual and the operator mutually benifit.

I suggest that if you truly feel that the training and oversight you receive under FAA certification is so poor, you seek training elsewhere in the future. Your training dollars, euros, riyals, shekels, or whatever else you use to pay, are certainly welcome, but definitely not needed.

[Wyle E Coyote]

well, that raised a few hackles huh? sorry boys, not intended as a dig, just an observation.

The training I received in the US was excellent, I never suggested otherwise. I did a command rating and thoroughly enjoyed my time there.

The two gentlemen I met at my hotel were training at the same place, and that's the training they got - straight from the horses mouth. I don't know what the legal FAA minimums are for FO training, but the operation they had just been hired by was a new startup, and it sounded a little dodgy - whether it ever eventuated I don't know. I would suspect cost saving was an important factor in the amount of training they received.

This of course raises the question, If the FO doesn't get typed, is there a minimum standard they must meet or demonstrate? I'm talking legally here, not opertator SOPs.

I'm sure they would have received more line training etc as matter of course, and I'm sure this in mandated by the FAA, however I was surpried they didn't get to fly the sim, as that's the whole point of the sim centre really. They also seemed rather surprised and disappointed that they didn't get to fly it.

Some operators try to get away with the bare minimum, but most hold a SIC candidate to the same practical test standards as a PIC candidate. Some operators only issue the SIC until the individual upgrades, which means that they're not providing full type ratings so the individual can then take the training and run to another operator

and

if US carriers typed all of their FOs, said FOs would leave for greener pastures immediately

Do you really thaink that the TR (or lack of) is the only thing keeping FOs in their current job? If this is the case, why not pay for a command check with an outside training organisation and get your type signed off? just a thought.

I would be interested if anyone has info in the bare FAA mandated minumums to sit in the right seat though. (if, for example, I got my hands on an old 727 and decided to start a freight business with it as cheaply as possible;))

[galaxy flyer]

Read FAR 61.55 Ground School and three take-offs and landing, one of which is with OEi will do it. There is no FAA practical test, only an instructor's sign-off for the TR (SIC)

GF

Yes, it can be VERY basic.

[thepotato232]

Heh, point taken. In answer to your question, there are other factors in why people don't just take the TR and leave: Training bonds, the need to build competitive flight time, the lack of immediate prospects, comfort level in a current job, etc. Privately funded TR courses are bloody expensive, and your average 1st year regional FO simply doesn't have that kind of cash laying around. Plus, there are the usual right-to-work issues that I alluded to when looking for a job outside your home country. My long-term plans all take me outside of the US, and I'd be willing to pay for a PIC type if that was the only way to get on with another carrier. Or I could just wait around for my upgrade and change jobs at my leisure. I was being a bit facetious, but the purpose of the SIC type in America actually is to make the recipient of the TR less marketable for competitive job offers. Most major airlines will PIC type both pilots, but very few regionals do. It's enough to make one quite bitter...

To answer your question about the hypothetical 727s: Legally speaking, to fly right seat in such an operation domestically in the US the FAA only requires a Commercial/Multi Engine certificate. Only when you go international do you require a SIC type. As galaxy flyer mentioned, the actual legal requirements for this type are very basic. That said, most operations will not simply award one based only on the applicant's ability to fog a pane of glass. The one at my company is not exactly a picnic - we are expected to perform to PIC standards, and the checkride is a jeopardy situation.

[MarkerInbound]

In the US you can't operate a 727 under part 91 of the rules, it would have to be under part 125 or 121. Both parts require an FAA approved set of manuals which would include a training manual. While you can create a reduced initial program for current and qualified new hires, I find it really hard to believe you could get a Fed to sign off on using a previous employer's checkride. And if the training was at a contract training center, they would have a part 142 certificate which would be in jeopardy. No matter what the horses said, I think we're missing something.

Galaxy Flyer, 61.55 also says you have to bring your training records to the FSDO. If you took your AA 737 training to the DFW FSDO (they probably actually have a designee in house do it) it wouldn't be much of an issue but I'll bet if I signed you off for a CE-500 rating Mr. Fed Friendly would spend a minute or two looking through the training package.

[Wyle E Coyote]

That would raise another question, if the FO never receives a type rating, at what stage is his type conversion considered complete, and his line training started?

Could these guys have gone on to start line training on revenue freight runs with an approved training captain?

[MarkerInbound]

A "normal" airline training program has a programed number of hours of ground school, broken down into so many hours of aircraft systems, so many hours CRM, so many HazMat, etc. That's going to be the same PIC, F/O or F/E. Then there will be a flight training syllabus, say 5 sims and checkride. There are a couple extra things on the PIC checkride but pretty much the same. Then the training program may have a LOFT segment. At this point the crewmember would receive the rating on their certificate. Then in the 121 world there is a matrix of required hours of operating experience depending on whether the crewmember is PIC, F/O or F/E and whether it is initial, transition or upgrade training. The OE is under the supervision of a Line Check Airman. At the end of the OE, the PIC receives a Line Check, which is different from the PC check in the sim. Then and only then is the crewmember "turned loose."

I have no idea what "type conversion" converts into in the US system but when the F/O's ground school is complete, when their flight training has been completed and they've passed their checkride, then they go fly line flights with a Check Airman.

[WorldDC10]

That would raise another question, if the FO never receives a type rating, at what stage is his type conversion considered complete, and his line training started?

Could these guys have gone on to start line training on revenue freight runs with an approved training captain?



Every job I have had in the USA from Pt135 Learjet SIC, Pt121 CL65 SIC and PIC and DC10 SIC completed all training in the SIM. My first flight in a DC10 had over 200 pax - I hadn't even seen the aircraft before climbing the steps and turning left!

I haven't personally come across any airline in the USA that still does circuits in the aircraft before line training - not to say it doesn't happen.

[MarkerInbound]

You have to do the bounces if the sim for the checkride was level A or B.

[galaxy flyer]

Marker Inbound:

Yes, I agree on the training record, but around FAR 91 ops, it is a little looser than you would guess. If you are a 91 bizjet operator with a decent rep, it is very easy to show up at the FSDO and get the SIC ticket with minimal records. But, it is a rare 91 operator that cuts it that close, they do exist though.

GF

[SNS3Guppy]

Insurance companies do more to uphold the higher standard than the FAA, especially with strictly 135 operations.

Insurance in most cases today requires recognized sim based training to a given standard.

[thepotato232]

That would defeat the purpose of the SIC type - namely, to keep your butt in the right seat for as long as possible.

[kwachon]

If you believe this you are sadly mistaken,

If you are a 91 bizjet operator with a decent rep, it is very easy to show up at the FSDO and get the SIC ticket with minimal records.

This may have been the case before 9/11 but I can assure you it is not now. Part of the SIC type rating reasoning was for security, it allows the feds to vet and see who is flying any aircraft (N-reg) that requires a type rating as well as increase crew safety following the Payne Stewart accident.

[SNS3Guppy]

Is it possible instead of 'just' doing the SIC type, say in a RJ, but request the full TR.........but still be employed as a SIC. ( So that on any deadhead 91 flights you could log PIC ). Just a thought................


If you're talking about doing this with an airline, no. The airline chooses what rating you get, not you. Further, the PIC is assigned the PIC and remains the PIC. It's generally frowned upon in a professional environment to log PIC when you're not the PIC...sole manipulator not withstanding. If you didn't sign for the airplane, you don't log it as PIC. The regulation allows you to do so if rated in the airplane and sole manipulator, but that's not something that's done at an airline, or recognized by most professional departments.

Part of the SIC type rating reasoning was for security, it allows the feds to vet and see who is flying any aircraft (N-reg) that requires a type rating as well as increase crew safety following the Payne Stewart accident.


I'm not certain that you have any clue what you're talking about. The SIC type has NOTHING to do with security, and everything to do with ICAO compliance. In fact, the SIC type rating isn't required in the US domestically; only when traveling outside the country.

The Payne Stewart mishap had nothing to do with security, nor did it have anything to do with type ratings, nor would a full or SIC type have had any bearing on crew safety, nor would the SIC type have made anyone aware of who was flying the airplane before or after the payne stewart mishap. Further, the SIC isn't listed on the flight plan, and doesn't enable the "feds" or anyone else to see who is flying the airplane other than the PIC listed in the flight plan. The payne stewart mishap involved a learjet with depleted oxygen and a manually closed oxygen shutoff valve (as best anyone can tell), and an unconscious crew and passenger. How exactly would a SIC rating have made any difference at all??

That would defeat the purpose of the SIC type - namely, to keep your butt in the right seat for as long as possible.


Perhaps said in gest, but the SIC type has nothing to do with holding anybody back. Airlines don't hire SIC's. They hire captains who start out as SIC's. The SIC type is strictly designed to meet international requirements when crews leave the domestic US. One assigned as a SIC doesn't need the full type rating for compliance. Operators who provide training fully understand that granting a type rating is enhancing the marketability and value of their employees pilot certificates, and pilots have a long and well established history of taking the money (and training) and running. Pilots engage in this disonest practice all too often, and employers who grant SIC only privileges do have the ability to curb this somewhat by not issuing the full type.

This doesn't mean anybody is being held back, in any way, shape, or form. An employee upgrades when the employee is ready to upgrade, type notwithstanding, and at that time, receives the full type.

If you believe this you are sadly mistaken,


Actually, Galaxy Flyer isn't sadly mistaken. For a Part 91 operator, obtaining a SIC type for an employee is very simple, and it's a paperwork issue that doesn't involve security or complication. Bring in a completed 8710 and a log endorsement to the local FSDO, walk away with a fresh temporary certificate and the SIC type. Even today...post 09/11.

[kwachon]

You make some valid points, however as I understand it, the individual concerned is in the UK with an FAA CPL and looking for work in that part of the world due to having no right to work in the US, therefore 61.55 requires a SIC type rating to operate outside of the USA.

Regarding security, I suggest reading the TSA paper regarding flight training of foreign nationals in the US and type rating applications.

I will not go into the Payne Stewart accident for personal reasons.

[Wyle E Coyote]

Is it possible instead of 'just' doing the SIC type, say in a RJ, but request the full TR.........but still be employed as a SIC. ( So that on any deadhead 91 flights you could log PIC ). Just a thought................


There's more to being PIC than just logging it. You log PIC the day you sign the aircraft out, not before.

[SNS3Guppy]

Under the regulation in the United States, there's a legal difference between logging PIC, and acting as PIC. Two entirely different subjects which should not be confused.

[galaxy flyer]

SNS3Guppy

That has been my exact point and from personal experience it is solely about ICAO compliance. The FSDOs are not spending a lot of time reviewing training records, questioning applicants from recognized 91 operators. Applicant, signed 8710, new tikkie, period. Yes, that will change with new headlines, perhaps. Or if an operation has had difficulties with the FAA, or for 121 and 135 operations where the oversight is stricter.

GF

Yes, in the FAA world logging and acting are two different things. It is silly but "sole manipulator" and Captain are distinct.

[Wyle E Coyote]

but if you're 'acting' as PIC you not putting it in the PIC column are you?

[galaxy flyer]

Me? No, I'm rated and a captain, but FAR 61.51 (e) does allow someone who is not the Captain (designated PiC) to log PiC time when "acting" as the PiC. For example a type-rated pilot may not be the PiC, but can act as the PiC, sign the flight plan, and log the time. Cannot do that with a SiC type, though. Essentially, you are operating with 2 PiCs and they swap legs, for example. Yes, I don't agree with it, but it is the FAA counsel's opinion.

Yes, there is confusion between FAR Part 1 definition of PiC and FAR 61.51 with regards to logging time. Being the FAR Pt 1 PiC does not preclude a pilot, who is not the PiC from logging PiC time for purposes of meeting flight time requirements under FAR 61.

GF

[Raas767]

All pilots operating B747-400, B777, B767, B757, A330 receive full type ratings in aircraft as they have to operate in the left hand seat when the captain is on break on long flights. They monkeyed around with a "cruise only" rating a few years ago but that has since been shelved. To my knowledge no U.S. carrier provides a full type for narrow body first officers as they are not required.

[galaxy flyer]

Not so fast, to log PiC time, you must be rated to fly the class, category and TYPE! Read FAR 61.51 in its entirety. And just a SiC rating won't do it, either. Comm MEII just gets you SiC qual'd in US airspace assuming you have been trained IAW FAR 61.55 and, if you have, why not get the SiC rating? Just a form, signed training record of any kind and a visit to the local FSDO.

GF

[varigflier]

In the US, how do you log sim time when you are doing training in an airline? Is it just sim time or dual received also?

[SNS3Guppy]

The record is in the company training records. I keep a record in my log, but as my logs don't usually go to recurrent training with me, the log gets filled out at home. To be an official log entry of simulator time, the entry must have an instructor's endorsement with it. As mine don't, and I don't believe in logging sim time for any purpose other than record keeping, each sim session gets a line entry in the logbook, but is never reflected in any total.

Simulator time isn't flight time, and shouldn't show up in your logbook as anything but simulator time. It doesn't show up as total time, multi engine time, or anything else, and in my logs, doesn't show up in any total.

The FAA recognizes it separately. In cases where sim time can be used toward the experience requirements of a certificate or rating, the sim time is counted separately. When filling out the FAA Form 8710, for example (application for a certificate or rating), one puts down the actual flight time. If Fifteen hundred hours of flight time is required toward the ATP certificate, for example, and one has used 50 hours of time time credited toward this requirement, one shows only 1,450 hours of flight time on the application...and 50 hours of sim. The FAA will do the math, but sim time isn't flight time and shouldn't be reflected as anything but sim.

So far as showing it as dual, you can (because by it's very nature, in order to be logged it must be dual), but I don't put any totals pertaining to the sim time at the bottom of the page. Further, in my logs, PIC time plus Dual plus SIC equals total time.

[Mike Alpha]

Leaving aside the PIC time logging issues, and getting back to Type Ratings, a few questions in order to clarify things a bit, please correct me if I’m wrong, and forgive my ignorance.


Apparently in the U.S. most of the Type Ratings are actually carried out by the airlines/operators, or on behalf of them by independent training organizations.


This means that to a large extent, what is actually entered in the licence of the individual pilot is a function of what the airline/operator wants to include (PIC/SIC rating, or none at all if no international flying is involved) as they paid for that training, and they don’t want to give away anything more than what it is strictly necessary.


Apparently the FAA doesn’t have much to say in this process either, FAA just enters in the licence what it is requested to by the operator, not the pilot, as long as it complies with FARs, of course.


The questions are:


Can a pilot do a Type Rating on his own, without an airline/operator?


If he can, how would that be entered in his licence?, would he apply himself to the FAA, or would it be the training provider who would?


What would actually be entered in his licence, a PIC or SIC rating?


Is an FAA SIC Type Rating on a FAA CPL accepted to work as an FO outside the U.S. for a non U.S. airline/operator, namely in Asia, Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.?

[MarkerInbound]

MikeAlpha,

There are a few training centers in the US that will train "off the street" pilots for type ratings. One just south of DFW airport has been the first stop for pilots hoping to get on with Southwest as they used to require a 737 type before you could interview. (Now they will hire you on the condition you get the type before their training starts.) I've seen prices around $7000 for the 737 types. They do some other rating too, 727, DC-9, 757-767. And there is is a company in Miami that does lots of training.

It will look the same on the certificate no matter how you got it - B-737. If you go for the PIC program it will just say B-737. If you go for the SIC program it will have "B-737 SIC privilges only" in the limitations section.

Apply? Most training centers have FAA Designees on staff so you could end up doing the oral or the checkride in front of a Desiginee, in front of a Fed or in front of a Fed watching a Designee. The paperwork all goes to Oklahoma City.

I've been doing a bit of systems instruction for the above company and they have had some students recently getting the PIC rating because their CAA/DGCA/FAA wouild not validate an FAA SIC type to the local certificate.

[SNS3Guppy]

Apparently in the U.S. most of the Type Ratings are actually carried out by the airlines/operators, or on behalf of them by independent training organizations.


No, but why would you go spend six or seven thousand dollars here and there to get a type rating, without a job? Let the employer hire you and pay for the rating; if the employer wants you then the employer should be willing to invest the time, money, and effort to train you in their equipment.

Corporate and charter operators typically require a six month to one year commitment in exchange for a type rating. It's equitable.

This means that to a large extent, what is actually entered in the licence of the individual pilot is a function of what the airline/operator wants to include (PIC/SIC rating, or none at all if no international flying is involved) as they paid for that training, and they don’t want to give away anything more than what it is strictly necessary.


What's on the pilot certificate is a function of the training the applicant has accomplished and the practical test he or she has taken. If only a SIC practical test is given (not much, if any difference typically between a PIC or SIC checkride so far as maneuvers), then a SIC type is awarded.

Apparently the FAA doesn’t have much to say in this process either, FAA just enters in the licence what it is requested to by the operator, not the pilot, as long as it complies with FARs, of course.


Why would the FAA care? The FAA processes what paperwork is given them. So long as an applicant has met the requirements, then the FAA process the form 8710 for whatever privileges are requested. The Federal Aviation Administration isn't about to confront an employer and tell the employer they're making a mistake, give this guy a break, he really ought to have the full type. It doesn't work that way.

Can a pilot do a Type Rating on his own, without an airline/operator?


Sure. For anywhere from five to forty five thousand dollars a pop, you can go get type ratings all day long in anything from a B744 to a DC-3. It's your money. Of course, you come out of the type with a fresh temporary certificate, no experience in type, and no job...so you've just tossed away your money. But if it's worth it to you to dump your life savings for an endorsement to legally fly one specific make and model, then have a ball. In the US, buying a type rating is generally considered somewhat of a disgrace, with some exceptions. Let the employer pay for the type rating. The applicant comes to the table as a fully certificated professional pilot with years, often decades of experience and sacrifice. If the employer wants a quality applicant, let him invest the training cost to train that applicant in his specific equipment.

If he can, how would that be entered in his licence?, would he apply himself to the FAA, or would it be the training provider who would?


Such training is nearly always done through a designated examiner, rather than the FAA. The examiner signs off the certificate and issues the temporary, and the applicant never sees nor talks to the FAA during the entire process. Training facilities such as Simuflite, Flight Safety International, Pan Am, and others, provide training in the classroom and simulator and issue the type rating upon successful completion of a practical test at the end of the training...typically three to six weeks.

So far as what's entered on the pilot certificate...if you trained for a type rating, then the type rating is on your certificate. The particulars depend on what you desired when you started your training.

What would actually be entered in his licence, a PIC or SIC rating?


As nobody in their right mind would pay out of their own pocket for a SIC type rating, then the applicant is going to put in the effort, time, and expense to finish the training with a full type rating.

Is an FAA SIC Type Rating on a FAA CPL accepted to work as an FO outside the U.S. for a non U.S. airline/operator, namely in Asia, Middle East, Africa, South America, etc.?


It should go without saying, but save for some utility jobs, most operators are going to want to see the ATP...not just the commercial certificate.

With respect to who will hire you...that's entirely dependent upon your qualifications. That said, if you obtain a type rating in a B744 in the hopes of getting hired into a B744...the operator is going to expect you to be able to show some proficiency and understanding with the B744. Lacking that, you've merely added a few words to your certificate, with no experience to back it up. In some cases, the rating is enough, but most operators out there are going to want to see at least five hundred hours in type, along with the type rating.

The few places that accept just the type do so because they're too cheap to invest the money, or have such an inadequate training program themselves, that they can only take on board type rated applicants. In those cases, you're usually better off giving the place a miss.

[varigflier]

Thanks for the explanation about logging sim time SNS3Guppy. I understand it now.

[TangoUniform]

Since we are talking type ratings here. Anyone have an idea on how to go about getting a foreign endorsement, such as a JAA type rating (or other, like a GCAA) put on one's FAA license? With time on aircraft, PIC time, check ride paperwork-everything, can one get the endorsement?

[Wyle E Coyote]

I would have thought that'd go with out saying. Time on type usually makes things very easy, it's usually just bare ZFT ratings that can be difficult. Talk to the FSDO peeps

[Mike Alpha]

Markerinbound and SNS3Guppy, thanks for your replies to my previous post, and for taking the time to answer my doubts.


I’ve been browsing through the FARs and Higher Power Aviation’s web page (I guess that’s the training center that Markerinbound mentioned, thank you), and I got to FARs 61.55 (Second-in-command qualifications) and 61.63 (Additional aircraft ratings) which appear to be the ones dealing with the Type Rating/SIC issues.
Reading through them I’ve made some sense out of these regulations, but I still have a couple of doubts, and I would appreciate if some knowledgeable soul could shed some light regarding the following issues:

FAR 61.63 deals with “Additional aircraft ratings (other than on an airline transport pilot certificate)”, that’s the title, yet FAR 61.63 (d) (4) reads:
[a person who applies for an additional aircraft type rating to be added on a pilot certificate]
“Must pass the required practical test appropriate to the airline transport pilot certificate for the aircraft category, class, and type rating sought;”

Does it mean that in order to apply for an additional aircraft type rating to be added on a pilot certificate, it is necessary to be eligible for an ATP licence (1500 hours, etc.)?, or it means that the standards for the additional aircraft type rating practical test have to be the ATP ones?



FAR 61.55 deals with “Second-in-command qualifications”, and paragraph (j) states:
“When an applicant for an initial second-in-command qualification for a particular type of aircraft receives all the training in a flight simulator, that applicant must satisfactorily complete one takeoff and one landing in an aircraft of the same type for which the qualification is sought. This requirement does not apply to an applicant who completes a proficiency check under part 121 or competency check under subpart K, part 91, part 125, or part 135 for the particular type of aircraft.”

Does it mean that in order to obtain a SIC type rating, it is necessary to fly the aircraft, and make at least one actual takeoff and one landing?



Apart from the above issues, any advice or experience on validating a FAA CPL (not ATP) with a type rating, in Asia, Middle East, Africa or South America (or working in any of these regions with this kind of licence), would be greatly appreciated.

[galaxy flyer]

I believe the answer to question is that the ATP standards apply, even if you are applying for the rating on a CPL

Question 2: You would need to do an actual landing in the plane, if all training is accomplished in the sim. But some training centers/sims have exceptions and you would need to look at them individually. It would be hard, nowadays, to put a TR on a CPL-everything is done to ATP standards and licensing. Just a practical matter CPLs flying type-rated planes is rather rare and limited to Part 91 private operators and, even there, the ATP is effective standard for the last 20 years. It is legally possible, just not done much.

[Mike Alpha]

Thank you Galaxy Flyer for answering these quite tricky issues.