Help, CPL single or multi?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: INDIA
Age: 32
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help, CPL single or multi?
Hello everyone, iam closing upon getting my Instrument checkride done and am planning to get CPL once iam done with instrument training but couldn't figure out if i should do it on single or multi engine.
.any suggestions?
.any suggestions?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends..
Hi Ayush, What sort of job will you be looking for when you've finished training? A single-engine CPL/IR will not qualify you for many jobs - except instructing maybe. If you aspire to join the airlines/air-taxi/exec-jets/ cargo etc you're going to need multi CPL and IR. Good luck anyway. bm
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: N22 E114
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either.
There is no such thing as a Single Engine CPL or Multi Engine CPL, Just a Commercial Pilots Licence.
While you will require a Multi Engine Instrument Rating the CPL is the licence allowing you to be employed as a Pilot.
Multi Engine CPL's are generally marketed by organisations that do not have any suitable Single Engine Aircraft.
Do what is best for you, spend more money and gain some Multi Engine hours (Dual) or save the money and do the CPL on a single.
W1
There is no such thing as a Single Engine CPL or Multi Engine CPL, Just a Commercial Pilots Licence.
While you will require a Multi Engine Instrument Rating the CPL is the licence allowing you to be employed as a Pilot.
Multi Engine CPL's are generally marketed by organisations that do not have any suitable Single Engine Aircraft.
Do what is best for you, spend more money and gain some Multi Engine hours (Dual) or save the money and do the CPL on a single.
W1
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Whiskey..that's pretty pedantic!
You are correct of course...except for the fact that most people use the expression "single-engine CPL" to mean a commercial licence endorsed with a single-engine type-rating! Cheers bm
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whiskey 1, Boeing - if you're going to contribue, please get it right - there most certainly *ARE* such things as CPL Single Engine and CPL Multi Engine.
Two completely different animals - and, presumably, outside the range of your experience.
ayush - for what you need, most of your colleagues seem to go for single engine, as it's cheaper.
Two completely different animals - and, presumably, outside the range of your experience.
ayush - for what you need, most of your colleagues seem to go for single engine, as it's cheaper.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ant - you're not far off being as bad as the other two - who mentioned JAA?
By the way, your keyboard seems to have an intermittent problem - the word "YOUR" came out as "UR".
By the way, your keyboard seems to have an intermittent problem - the word "YOUR" came out as "UR".
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of confusion here,
A CPL is a CPL - a flight crew licence. The differences I think you're enquiring about is the ratings that are an addition to the licence.
These can be Single Engine Rating, Multi Engine Rating, Instrument Rating and Type Ratings for example (A320, B747 etc).
Bear in mind an Instrument Ratings are examined seperately for single or multi engine operations. . . .
A CPL is a CPL - a flight crew licence. The differences I think you're enquiring about is the ratings that are an addition to the licence.
These can be Single Engine Rating, Multi Engine Rating, Instrument Rating and Type Ratings for example (A320, B747 etc).
Bear in mind an Instrument Ratings are examined seperately for single or multi engine operations. . . .
Under the FAA system there is is a clear distinction between a single engine certificate, and a multi engine certificate. The two are not interchangeable and nor can you just do an endorsement/type rating/differences training to add the other onto your current licence. The FAA system also differentiates between land & seaplanes for licence category.
This means that in the US & anywhere else that emulates the US licencing system there are 4 distinctive licences at each licence level for fixeds wing aircraft:
Private Pilot Single Engine Land (SEL)
Private Pilot Single Engine Sea (SES)
Private Pilot Multi Engine Land (MEL)
Private Pilot Multi Engine Sea (MES)
Commercial Pilot SEL
" " SES
" " MEL
" " MES
Air Transport Pilot SEL
" " SES
" " MEL
" " MES
At some licence levels there are credits granted for already holding a class of licence w.r.t. what must be tested for adding another class. You still have to do the licence test for that level.
Unlike JAA, Australia and similar jurisdictions in the US you could do a PPL test on MEL, a CPL on a MES and an ATP on a SEL, for example. Flying a MEL class you would be limited to PPL privileges, on a MES you would have CPL privileges and finally ATP privileges limited to SEL aircraft only.
In my case I hold FAA ATPs for SEL, SES & MEL but no FAA PPL or CPLs. None of my US licences allow me to fly MES.
Other jurisdications don't segregrate by category or class. Get some privilege at one eg PPL, then it transfers to any other licence you get subsequently. For example, pass PPL on a SEL, add a floatplane endorsment and then later pass a CPL test on a MEL you would finish with CPL privileges on SEL, SES, MEL & MES. The licence issue test is testing you for your competences to operate within the privileges of that licence level and not specifically for a type of aeroplane. So, in my case, my Oz ATPL has both single engine & multi engine types for land operations even though I never sat some ATPL level test in those. With the addition of my floatplane endorsement I get to fly single & multi engine seaplane under the umbrella of my ATPL.
JAR is more similar to the Oz system than the US. If I were to get a competency check in a single then I'd have that aircraft group added to my (currently multi engine only) UK ATPL.
Hmm....I wonder if the UK CAA would add floaty privileges based on my foreign licences as a paperwork + $ exercise?
This means that in the US & anywhere else that emulates the US licencing system there are 4 distinctive licences at each licence level for fixeds wing aircraft:
Private Pilot Single Engine Land (SEL)
Private Pilot Single Engine Sea (SES)
Private Pilot Multi Engine Land (MEL)
Private Pilot Multi Engine Sea (MES)
Commercial Pilot SEL
" " SES
" " MEL
" " MES
Air Transport Pilot SEL
" " SES
" " MEL
" " MES
At some licence levels there are credits granted for already holding a class of licence w.r.t. what must be tested for adding another class. You still have to do the licence test for that level.
Unlike JAA, Australia and similar jurisdictions in the US you could do a PPL test on MEL, a CPL on a MES and an ATP on a SEL, for example. Flying a MEL class you would be limited to PPL privileges, on a MES you would have CPL privileges and finally ATP privileges limited to SEL aircraft only.
In my case I hold FAA ATPs for SEL, SES & MEL but no FAA PPL or CPLs. None of my US licences allow me to fly MES.
Other jurisdications don't segregrate by category or class. Get some privilege at one eg PPL, then it transfers to any other licence you get subsequently. For example, pass PPL on a SEL, add a floatplane endorsment and then later pass a CPL test on a MEL you would finish with CPL privileges on SEL, SES, MEL & MES. The licence issue test is testing you for your competences to operate within the privileges of that licence level and not specifically for a type of aeroplane. So, in my case, my Oz ATPL has both single engine & multi engine types for land operations even though I never sat some ATPL level test in those. With the addition of my floatplane endorsement I get to fly single & multi engine seaplane under the umbrella of my ATPL.
JAR is more similar to the Oz system than the US. If I were to get a competency check in a single then I'd have that aircraft group added to my (currently multi engine only) UK ATPL.
Hmm....I wonder if the UK CAA would add floaty privileges based on my foreign licences as a paperwork + $ exercise?
Hmm....I wonder if the UK CAA would add floaty privileges based on my foreign licences as a paperwork + $ exercise?
G
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: US
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl, that is not entirely correct.
Under the FAA system you hold a pilot certificate - for example Commercial Pilot. You then have Category (eg Airplane, Rotorcraft) and Class (eg Single Engine Land, Multi Engine Sea) ratings on that certificate.
In your case, you have ONE Airline Transport Pilot certificate with Airplane Single Engine Land, Multi Engine Land, and Single Engine Sea ratings. You could also have a Rotorcraft Helicopter or Lighter Than Air ratings, though it is still just the one certificate.
Under the FAA, there is no such thing as a License.
Under the FAA system you hold a pilot certificate - for example Commercial Pilot. You then have Category (eg Airplane, Rotorcraft) and Class (eg Single Engine Land, Multi Engine Sea) ratings on that certificate.
In your case, you have ONE Airline Transport Pilot certificate with Airplane Single Engine Land, Multi Engine Land, and Single Engine Sea ratings. You could also have a Rotorcraft Helicopter or Lighter Than Air ratings, though it is still just the one certificate.
Under the FAA, there is no such thing as a License.
I'm aware the US refers to its licences as certificates. One could argue the philosophical difference between a 'licence' to do something and a 'certificate' of competency however the difference is meaningless in the context of this thread. No matter under which system one is approved to operate an aircraft, the individual must first accrue a mandatory minimum of training that covers a specified content and then pass specified theory & practical exam(s). Like I said, the difference in language is irrelevent.
As for separate 'licences' - a term I will continue to use because it's quicker to type - that still is the case. Under the US system one must pass a flight test in accordance with the Practical Test Standard by an appropriately authorised examiner for each category and class. That they're combined under a single licence number matters not a jot**.
In Australia, for example, that is not the case. One can add the equivalents to the FAA MEL/SEL/MES/SES (which ever applies) to one's licence by doing what amounts to differences training with an instructor and having it endorsed in your logbook or licence (administration has varied over time w.r.t. place of record but not the effect). No 'licence issue flight test' for it at all. What's more, pass a flight test for a higher level of licence and *all* your privileges are embraced by the higher licence which is most definitely not the case under the FAA.
It's a fundamental shift in philosophy between the licencing systems.
**Interestingly, the FAA instructor rating *is* issued as a separate licence number, unlike Oz, JAR and the like.
As for separate 'licences' - a term I will continue to use because it's quicker to type - that still is the case. Under the US system one must pass a flight test in accordance with the Practical Test Standard by an appropriately authorised examiner for each category and class. That they're combined under a single licence number matters not a jot**.
In Australia, for example, that is not the case. One can add the equivalents to the FAA MEL/SEL/MES/SES (which ever applies) to one's licence by doing what amounts to differences training with an instructor and having it endorsed in your logbook or licence (administration has varied over time w.r.t. place of record but not the effect). No 'licence issue flight test' for it at all. What's more, pass a flight test for a higher level of licence and *all* your privileges are embraced by the higher licence which is most definitely not the case under the FAA.
It's a fundamental shift in philosophy between the licencing systems.
**Interestingly, the FAA instructor rating *is* issued as a separate licence number, unlike Oz, JAR and the like.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 2nd Aug 2009 at 18:20.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: India
Age: 35
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you plan to work for an airline in India - I'd advise you to get the ME rating for the simple reason that Air India/Indian Airlines (and a few more airlines) require it for you to be able to sit for the written exam. Not getting a multi-engine rating would limit your options.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can only speak for what I did myself, when I did my JAA PPL i got a single engine rating, then did my JAA CPL in a twin so when the licence was issued to me I got a muti engine rating on it and my single engine rating carried over from my PPL so I now have both on my CPL.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your planning on doing your IR in a twin I'd do the CPL in a twin. Make life easier for yourself. (But you can still do some of the cpl training in a single...I think its 10 hrs but Im not sure, and do some in the sim)
Also do your CPL and MEP test in the one go, again cheaper!
Also do your CPL and MEP test in the one go, again cheaper!
Originally Posted by Tinstaafl
**Interestingly, the FAA instructor rating *is* issued as a separate licence number, unlike Oz, JAR and the like.
sigh Here we go again. One must undergo a certain course of study and pass specified exams & flight tests to before one may exercise equivalent privileges in the various jurisdictions. Whether it's called a certificate, a rating, an endorsement, a qualification or a bloody mugwump is irrelevant in the context of this thread. The effect is the same, irrespective of the label used. I'm sure as hell not going to write '...rating/certificate/endorsement (whichever is applicable for the respective jurisdiction)...' every time I need to refer to equivalent qualifications when there's a single word with an appropriate level of meaning.
Now if the thread had been about definitions used in the FAA system compared to those used elsewhere...
Now if the thread had been about definitions used in the FAA system compared to those used elsewhere...
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 4th Aug 2009 at 00:42.