Type Ratings

[gladius]

Hi i read that if you hold a PPL, you are allowed to fly any multi engine airplane (providing that the aircraft does not exceed a maximum weight of 5700kg) without the need for a type rating.

If this is true, does it mean you can fly a Citation Mustang on a PPL with no type rating?

Providing that you have done all other required ratings?

[500 above]

No, it doesn't.

[Fostex]

Why don't you try it and tell us how you get on?

I find it hard to believe that someone would be able to obtain a PPL and entertain the thought of your initial query.

[BackPacker]

Gladius, you can't even fly a C172 or PA28 on a PPL without the required class rating (SEP). Anything more fancy than that requires an additional class or type rating, and there is exactly zero difference, in this respect, compared to CPL or ATPL.

In fact, even though you can add the Citation Mustang Type Rating to a PPL, you'll probably find that the exams for that type rating are at the ATPL level, or at least the CPL/IR level.

What you are probably confused with is the MEP class rating. This is a class rating that is easily within reach of a PPL, and covers all multi-engined PISTON aircraft up to 5700 kgs. But since the Mustang has turbine engines, it cannot be flown on a MEP class rating.

[Pace]

Backpacker

It used to be the case in Euro Land that you could fly a jet on a PPL with an IR and a full type rating.
I am now told you have to pass either all or part of the ATP ground exams as well?

Basically Euro land does not want private pilots fiddling around in RVSM airspace so they are making it harder and harder to do so expecting that to be the play ground of the commercial pilot :{ I am sure if they could have their way it would be for people carriers only.

Pace

[peterh337]

It used to be the case in Euro Land that you could fly a jet on a PPL with an IR and a full type rating.
I am now told you have to pass either all or part of the ATP ground exams as well?

To fly a turboprop or a jet you need the HPA and passing the 14 JAA ATPL exams is one way to get that.

Another way to get it involves passing the single FAA ATP written exam, which is quite interesting ;)

This issue is being faced by pilots of N-reg PA46s and N-reg TBMs, who, it appears, from 2014, will have to get the HPA to continue flying if their "operator" is EU based. And King Airs, etc. There is some strange stuff going on in that for a PA46 you need an EASA TR whereas for a TBM it is "only" a Class Rating.

The other issue is that few if any TRTOs will let you do a TR unless you have an IR and have passed the ATPL theory.

This stuff is in a state of flux AIUI.

Basically the chickens are coming home to roost on the totally politically motivated EASA FCL "screw N-regs" crap and all the drafting cockups inherent in that, which were sneaked onto the law books by conning key members of the EU Transport Committee by feeding them a pack of lies about a treaty with the FAA being "just around the corner". Nobody ever considered the case where a TR or a CR is not required by the State of Registry, but is required by EASA FCL.

[AdamFrisch]

Any piston twin below 12500lbs does not require a type rating, neither in FAA land or EASA. I can, with my MEL class rating, jump in to any twin on the apron without a lick of instruction and having just read the POH and go fly it. Legally. In the case of FAA, I can even legally go fly any turboprop twin without any instruction as long as it's below 12500, but that's not the case in EASA. Only thing I need a type specific rating for is jets in FAA land.

That's how ferry pilots and freelance instructors work. They don't have type ratings for every single airplane ever made, or else they would be out of a job.

[abgd]

Can anybody think of any SEPs 'different' enough that they should require a type-rating (even if they don't)?

[Pace]

That's how ferry pilots and freelance instructors work. They don't have type ratings for every single airplane ever made, or else they would be out of a job.

I dont know what ferry work you have done but the big problem is insurance requirements.

On the Jet ferries I have carried out they want to know everything about me to act as a Captain! Copies of licences, medicals, Type ratings, recurrents hours on type ,total hours, crossings etc etc etc.

Dont think its a matter of jump in anything and off you go? I think that used to be the case years back but certainly not nowadays,

Pace

[Contacttower]

Can anybody think of any SEPs 'different' enough that they should require a type-rating (even if they don't)?

Extra 400 and Piper Malibu are two SEPs that under EASA at least require type ratings of some sort.

Not sure about others that *should* require a type rating?

[abgd]

Well, it strikes me that there are probably complex glass cockpit light aircraft out there, that may be more complex than older but simpler aircraft for which a type rating is required. I guess that's what I mean when I say 'should'.

[AdamFrisch]

I dont know what ferry work you have done but the big problem is insurance requirements.

On the Jet ferries I have carried out they want to know everything about me to act as a Captain! Copies of licences, medicals, Type ratings, recurrents hours on type ,total hours, crossings etc etc etc.

Dont think its a matter of jump in anything and off you go? I think that used to be the case years back but certainly not nowadays,

You're prob right, Pace. The insurance companies will require a lot of info and experience in type, I'm sure. I have no ferry experience at all, but I do stay in contact with the president of the Twin Commander group, and he ferries piston aircrafts all over the US. He's experienced, so there probably aren't many types he hasn't flown, but it happens. I know when he ferried my 520 that was the first time he'd flown a 520, even though he's flown pretty much every other model of the Commanders. In the US there is no requirement to have insurance, so that's probably how they ferry most of the times. That's how we did it.

[Pilot DAR]

Insurance companies do a better job of "type rating" pilots than the regulator does. I'm not saying insurance companies are great at it, just better. They may take the time to get to know a pilot, and insure that pilot appropriately. I am insured on a fleet policy for a maintenance and modification company, and can jump into and fly any piston single or multi they work on, up to a certain value. I am legally entitled to fly any of them, but obviously training is vital. Most times I can get training, though there are occasions where it is a read the book and do your best situation.

Certified aircraft are required to conform to a number of norms, including ease of flight, and predictable handling characteristics. That said, it is not reasonable to expect that all aircraft are simple enough for a the jump in and go approach, particularly for a low time pilot. I have flown small certified GA types (albeit odd ones) which took every bit of skill I could muster to fly well. Horrible directional control on the runway, and reversing control forces in several configurations can really catch the unwary badly.

Though I do not advocate more type ratings, I very certainly advocate that pilots not jump and go in some types. Vast piloting experience can certainly mitigate this, but some planes have quirks, and training, or at minimum a briefing, is necessary to assure safety.

A 100 hour Cessna 152/172 pilot should not just "jump and go" in a tail dragger, a float plane, a ski plane, a Piper Tomahawk (though I still think they are good planes), or aircraft like a Bellanca Viking, Lance, or Centurion, which are lots of power on a little plane. Floatplane pilots should not jump and go in flying boats, and vice versa. Twins and turbines are beyond the scope of consideration for my generalization here.

Perhaps the 100 hour pilot is quite skilled, and can pick it up quickly, but some training, and a "signoff" by the training pilot is vital. Happily, I would expect that insurance companies would demand it anyway

[uberwang]

Not sure how someone with time in a C172 conventional cockpit would get on in a SR22. I would at least do some touch and goes and get some practical training with the G1000. Great tool but requires time to be comfortable.

[Pace]

Adam

I think we are getting confused here by the word type rating.
Most piston singles can be massed together and I am sure the insurance companies do not require any more than ferry experience.

Complex jet types do require specific type ratings to fly them and on the whole are far higher values so its only natural that the insurance companies will be far more concerned over the pilot that firstly he is legal to do so and secondly that he has the required experience on type and route.

I can remember 20 years ago being thrown a set of keys to a TB20 which I had never flown and taking it to ireland.
I read the manual and speeds and set off into a 500 foot cloudbase enroute to Ireland.
All was fine until in cloud I smelt a strong chemical smell.
It turned out to be a tiny switch at knee level for turning on the fluid to a weeping wing anti ice fitted to the aircraft.
It really threw me for a while till I worked it out.

But on the whole there are not many piston singles even ones I had never set foot into which i would not fly unchecked out!

Pace

[flyinkiwi]

As a low timer if you don't get checked out in an aircraft first (even if you have experience flying on type) then you are asking for trouble. Although the differences are probably on the inside of the cockpit, familiarizing yourself with them before flight might save your life if things go wrong.

[Contacttower]

But on the whole there are not many piston singles even ones I had never set foot into which i would not fly unchecked out!

Sorry Pace are you saying you would fly most piston singles without a checkout or not? Just curious on your view and can't get my head round some of the negatives in that sentence!:O

[Pace]

What are the negatives? :E I have in the past flown a number of NEW types in piston singles without a checkout. Many years past maybe ! in different times but in piston singles simple or complex there are not many that a reasonable pilot could not fly after spending an hour or so with the flight manual.

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Pace is correct, though "reasonable pilot" is subject to different perspectives. For my own experience, I must have been a "reasonable pilot" before I thought I was, because I was sent to ferry this, that and the other type with only about 600 hours total time. Just go and get it, and bring it back. No instruction. You learn to think for yourself that way as a pilot.

But it does require a level of knowledge and skill beyond "basic". I don't think that there is any formal measure. It's just one pilot seeing the skill of the other - it's really the only way. You get checked out, and checked out, until finally the check pilot just does not bother any more. Back in the day of "reporting policies" you could pretty much fly anything that the policy holder pointed you at. It seems less common now.

In the new world of insurance, I know from experience that some insurers have a heck of a time...

"Oh Mr. Pilot DAR, of your 4000 hours in single Cessnas, how many are actually in a 172?"

Pilot DAR's reply: "Does it matter?"

After a bit of convincing, it turns out that I can be insured on my buddy's 172 afterall!

[jjones666]

of course if you want to fly a twin jet engined aircraft you will need an nppl(m) ;)

First Flight of the Sirocket - YouTube