Antonov 2 and the FAA?
Thread Starter
Antonov 2 and the FAA?
Question for the Americans here.
I just read a pilots report out of 1993 about the AN2 being basically restricted into total unusefulnes by the FAA, being limited to 300 NM from the home airport plus restricted to land there (at the home airport) only. Guy sais, it's some sort of a conspiracy against them, as they could make Cessna's life difficult in Alaska, if people could use them the regular way. Sure as heck, this bird could be extremely useful in Alaska
Just out of curiosity, is this still the case? Usually the US appears to us EASA damaged folks here like the paradise of unlimited freedom, but this would be rather harsh considering that they allow all sorts of warbirds and other exotic planes to fly. Maybe the CAF should get one and sort this out?
Best regards
AN2
I just read a pilots report out of 1993 about the AN2 being basically restricted into total unusefulnes by the FAA, being limited to 300 NM from the home airport plus restricted to land there (at the home airport) only. Guy sais, it's some sort of a conspiracy against them, as they could make Cessna's life difficult in Alaska, if people could use them the regular way. Sure as heck, this bird could be extremely useful in Alaska
Just out of curiosity, is this still the case? Usually the US appears to us EASA damaged folks here like the paradise of unlimited freedom, but this would be rather harsh considering that they allow all sorts of warbirds and other exotic planes to fly. Maybe the CAF should get one and sort this out?
Best regards
AN2
Thread Starter
It is really weird. This is an aircraft which flies in about the same kind of quantities than the DC3 did. Why uncertified? It has a Russian C of A. It was certified there. Looking at what this plane has accomplished in it's decades of service, there really is no reason whatsoever for this extreme kind of restriction, unless it is for protectionism of the own products. Not even Europe, with it's extremist attitude towards regulation restricts this aircraft to that extent, apart of course that most of the ones operating here will fall under the third party rules proposed by EASA.
The Antonov can not be operated just like a Cessna. That this is said tells me that the authorities either choose not to read the AOM or deliberately have not done that. No student can solo in this thing and no PPL would get it off the ground without type transition training of at least 10-20 hours. Most of the AN2's are multi crew airplanes, requiring a 2-person cockpit crew, most countries I know about them ask a CPL as a minimum qualification. Why not simply ask a type rating on it? Would make sense. It is simply so extremely unlike the US with it's usually positive attitude towards flying unless there are higher interests involved.
It appears I read the same article you did. I just wondered whether some reason has entered the stage by now or if the price of fuel alone was quite enough to discourage further use of the type.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
The Antonov can not be operated just like a Cessna. That this is said tells me that the authorities either choose not to read the AOM or deliberately have not done that. No student can solo in this thing and no PPL would get it off the ground without type transition training of at least 10-20 hours. Most of the AN2's are multi crew airplanes, requiring a 2-person cockpit crew, most countries I know about them ask a CPL as a minimum qualification. Why not simply ask a type rating on it? Would make sense. It is simply so extremely unlike the US with it's usually positive attitude towards flying unless there are higher interests involved.
It appears I read the same article you did. I just wondered whether some reason has entered the stage by now or if the price of fuel alone was quite enough to discourage further use of the type.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
