SIC Privilages Light jet Pvt Ops
SIC Privilages Light jet Pvt Ops
If one buys a light jet from the US. C500, Beechjet class. As part of the purchase you get the PIC qualified as per normal. The candidate for co-pilot in FAA area only needs a PVT certificate with ME Instrument Land, plus the required type training. Which according to 14 CFR 61.55 is simply 3 circuits minim and exposure to a few abnormal situations and the normal ground school.
So how is that SIC converted to CASA Part 61. A multi crew course is a requirement, but I cant work out what else needs to be done. Have read all of Part 61 and it seems that the co-pilot needs to do the full command course. Any referernce i can find relates to the SIC in an airline type operation. I'm asking about a strictly private op.
Have I read it wrong?
Are any multi crew courses overseas acceptable to CASA.
So how is that SIC converted to CASA Part 61. A multi crew course is a requirement, but I cant work out what else needs to be done. Have read all of Part 61 and it seems that the co-pilot needs to do the full command course. Any referernce i can find relates to the SIC in an airline type operation. I'm asking about a strictly private op.
Have I read it wrong?
Are any multi crew courses overseas acceptable to CASA.
The early model Citations and Beechjets required 2 endorsed (minimum a command and a co-pilot) crew unless the PIC was "single pilot approved".
Unless it has changed, in FAAland a pilot could act as SIC on private operations on any aircraft above 12500 lb without a type rating, subject only to the basic familiarisation described in the first post here.
However, I do not see CASA recognising this as a qualification.
You MAY be able to get them to recognise co pilot time logged in an N registered aircraft if you, for example, flew on a ferry flight. Get it in writing.
However, I do not see CASA recognising this as a qualification.
You MAY be able to get them to recognise co pilot time logged in an N registered aircraft if you, for example, flew on a ferry flight. Get it in writing.
You are correct. In nearly all cases no special co pilot endorsement is required
Once again far more unique expensive CASA requirements when no safety reason shown
It's how you send an industry broke!
Once again far more unique expensive CASA requirements when no safety reason shown
It's how you send an industry broke!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with CASA on this one. How can anyone allow a pilot to fly an aircraft who has no idea of what they are doing? Flying 3 circuits doesn't make you competent to fly a complex high performance jet. Its just ridiculous and unsafe. These owners who want to spend millions of dollars on a jet and then not want to pay to have professional and qualified crew need a kick in the backside. How many accidents do we need to have before these private owners and pilots begin to listen?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Having 'TRAINED" so called low hour pilots onto a fast private jet equivalent I can agree a full endorsement is a minimum, and then some line training to achieve a reasonable level of competence.
As the owner you choose what standard you will afford, which impacts on safety, insurance and possibly your life expectancy.
The choice of the trainer could be critical as well.
As the owner you choose what standard you will afford, which impacts on safety, insurance and possibly your life expectancy.
The choice of the trainer could be critical as well.
I'm with CASA on this one. How can anyone allow a pilot to fly an aircraft who has no idea of what they are doing? Flying 3 circuits doesn't make you competent to fly a complex high performance jet. Its just ridiculous and unsafe. These owners who want to spend millions of dollars on a jet and then not want to pay to have professional and qualified crew need a kick in the backside. How many accidents do we need to have before these private owners and pilots begin to listen?
Yair. The Americans are so stupid. They only got to the moon and built the 747. We built the Nomad.
They clearly have no idea about aviation. Incredible fluke that they manufacture most GA and Business aircraft.
Make sure we keep our unique double the cost regulations. Look at Bankstown. It's booming with new Business aviation aircraft.
Dont harmonise with the lower cost FAA regs- they may get Aussie aviation booming again
They clearly have no idea about aviation. Incredible fluke that they manufacture most GA and Business aircraft.
Make sure we keep our unique double the cost regulations. Look at Bankstown. It's booming with new Business aviation aircraft.
Dont harmonise with the lower cost FAA regs- they may get Aussie aviation booming again
After only a 2-3 day course I was allowed to fly Right Hand Seat on the Royal Air Force Bae125. It was really a Pilot Assistant job, and you were monitored, but an exhaustive conversion was not required.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what building rockets and 747s has to do with it, but since you brought it up I'm sure you will find even NASA will want fully trained crew, I somehow don't think 3 touch and go's will suffice...go figure. And if you talk to Boeing I'm certain even they will say it takes at least 2 well trained pilots, and not just someone sitting there as ballast.
Dick, I normally like and agree with everything you say, but this is just plain wrong. Just because the Americans do it, doesn't mean it is safe, and what about the rest of the world? I guess everyone is wrong to think a plane that requires two pilots must have two competent pilots? You will also find it is becoming increasingly difficult in the US to have just a safety pilot because of insurance requirements, even they know it is not safe. These are the guys having to cough up the money because of incompetent pilots and owners diminishing safety. I'm sure it is just a matter of time before the FAA catch up, unfortunately it takes time to change the rules as you well know.
I can see it now, Dick Smith airlines. Safety brief is complete then the captain announces, "Oh, by the way, there is actually only one of us able to fly this plane today". Why not go one step further and just say the first pax to the right hand seat gets their airfare for half price?
These private jets are having guys come out with a CPL, and have no idea of SOPs. Now we are putting them in planes with 3 circuits and having no idea of the aircraft systems and how to do a missed approach or a single engine approach, the list goes on and on. Now what happens if the only competent guy on board becomes incapacitated? The other guy may land the plane but how high are the risks now. People spend $1-70 mil US, surely $25-40k for an additional type rating to have 2 crew and greatly mitigate the risks isn't asking that much?
Sounds like a it's just a case of the owners not wanting to pay and stuff the public safety. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. It's not rocket science
Dick, I normally like and agree with everything you say, but this is just plain wrong. Just because the Americans do it, doesn't mean it is safe, and what about the rest of the world? I guess everyone is wrong to think a plane that requires two pilots must have two competent pilots? You will also find it is becoming increasingly difficult in the US to have just a safety pilot because of insurance requirements, even they know it is not safe. These are the guys having to cough up the money because of incompetent pilots and owners diminishing safety. I'm sure it is just a matter of time before the FAA catch up, unfortunately it takes time to change the rules as you well know.
I can see it now, Dick Smith airlines. Safety brief is complete then the captain announces, "Oh, by the way, there is actually only one of us able to fly this plane today". Why not go one step further and just say the first pax to the right hand seat gets their airfare for half price?
These private jets are having guys come out with a CPL, and have no idea of SOPs. Now we are putting them in planes with 3 circuits and having no idea of the aircraft systems and how to do a missed approach or a single engine approach, the list goes on and on. Now what happens if the only competent guy on board becomes incapacitated? The other guy may land the plane but how high are the risks now. People spend $1-70 mil US, surely $25-40k for an additional type rating to have 2 crew and greatly mitigate the risks isn't asking that much?
Sounds like a it's just a case of the owners not wanting to pay and stuff the public safety. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. It's not rocket science
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runaway gun, at least there was some sort of course involved. All these guys have to do is 3 circuits. There is no assessment of competency, or standards to have to pass. Nothing to say a landing must be made in the touch down zone for example, or any other safety factor considered.
How many accidents do we need to have before these private owners and pilots begin to listen?
Tell us about all those accidents we have had, with private owners and pilots of this class of aircraft??
After all, the US/FAA accident record beats Australia hands down.
Now what happens if the only competent guy on board becomes incapacitated?
Tootle !!
PS: Last time I looks, EASALand, UK style, had provisions for a "pilot's assistant" on light jets, with very minimal requirements, don't quote me, but I think the minimum was a PPL and a radio license.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are going to run out of pages if I listed the accidents. I wasn't disputing if they are private pilots or not. I'm disputing a pilot with no knowledge or training in an aircraft being allowed to fly it and the safety implications it has. It's just a matter of time until more accidents happen as a result, so why let it happen? Why wouldn't you want pilots flying a plane who know what they are doing? It's just luck that there haven't been more accidents. If you were flying a citation over the pacific for example and had a double generator failure, wouldn't you want that guy to be able to help out or just roll the dice and hope you do it all correctly on your own? I've had a catastrophic engine failure and I can tell you right now, it's far safer to have a competent guy next to you and not someone there for a joy ride and a possible liability. It really is a no brainier. It's a costs vs safety case.
Auto Throttle have you ever owned an aircraft let alone a light jet?
Your post sounds like a plea for employment.
As someone who has previously owned a C550 that a was both single pilot and multi crew approved, I can assure you that it is easier to fly than a C441.
My experience of private owners flying these type of aircraft is that they usually go to the likes of Flight Safety.
In fact there was one owner of a C550 who was a private pilot and who flew the aircraft better than some of professional crew we employed.
From my recollection the only light jet to ever fatally crash in Australia was a C500 around the Atherton Tablelands. The pilot was a very experience commercial pilot who "knew it all".
Your post sounds like a plea for employment.
As someone who has previously owned a C550 that a was both single pilot and multi crew approved, I can assure you that it is easier to fly than a C441.
My experience of private owners flying these type of aircraft is that they usually go to the likes of Flight Safety.
In fact there was one owner of a C550 who was a private pilot and who flew the aircraft better than some of professional crew we employed.
From my recollection the only light jet to ever fatally crash in Australia was a C500 around the Atherton Tablelands. The pilot was a very experience commercial pilot who "knew it all".
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't owned one and certainly not looking for a job, no idea how you think raising an idea about safety is looking for a job. I've flown many different types jets. I'm not bagging out private pilots and if it appears that way I apologize, I know many excellent private pilots who fly jets. But having someone for example to fly a complex aircraft like a gulfstream with no experience other then a few circuits I don't agree with. Would it not make sense to at the very least put these guys through a ground school so they can learn the systems on the plane and do some basic training so they can handle the plane in an emergency? Appologies to nomorecatering for getting off topic.
Nunc est bibendum
In fact there was one owner of a C550 who was a private pilot and who flew the aircraft better than some of professional crew we employed.
From my recollection the only light jet to ever fatally crash in Australia was a C500 around the Atherton Tablelands. The pilot was a very experience commercial pilot who "knew it all".
I shall refresh your memory;
C500 Proserpine QLD - two crew.
Also close to home;
C550 Bwagaoia Aerodrome, Misima Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea - two crew.
Initially C500/550 were all two crew aircraft. Cessna, through Flight Safety in Wichita, included training for two pilots in the cost of the aircraft. The co-pilot training was the same as the command training.
