![]() |
| | #1 | ||
| Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Des Moines, Iowa (based in IAH)
Posts: 1,077
|
Does being night current in a light single make you current for flying a light twin at night with passengers or students? Basically, if you are out of night currency and get current again in a Cessna 172, does that make you current to take passengers in a Seminole/Duchess/Baron, etc.? Quote:
Quote:
Mike | ||
| |
| | #2 | |
| Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 47
|
I believe they are actually referring to category, class, and type rating for airmen. It does say "type, if type rating required." Well, the aircraft doesn't need a type rating, the airman does. At least that's the way I interpret it. Quote:
| |
| |
| | #3 | |
| Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA
Posts: 1,744
| Quote:
The reg says the takeoffs and landings only apply to that category and class. The category is the same ("airplane") but the classes are different ("single engine land" vs. "multi engine land"). | |
| |
| | #4 | |
| Old Skool | Quote:
__________________ www.flywhiteair.com http://www.myspace.com/desertdog71 Following message is for SkyCougar. ![]() Took my chances on a big jet plane, Never let them tell you that they're all the same. | |
| |
| | #5 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA
Posts: 1,744
|
Oh....wait...I'm confused. I just re-read what you highlighted. The night landings reg says *aircraft* of the same category and class. And the reg that talks about certification of aircraft says things like "normal" and "airplane" for category and class, respectively. So really, your question is, does the night landing reg relate to the certification of aircraft, or the certification of airmen. Could the night landings be done in a "normal category airplane" and count for all normal category airplanes (single or multi engine)? I don't know. I was always taught that currency was seperate for singles and seperate for twins...but maybe I was taught wrong. I'd never questioned it until now. I'll be interested to hear Midlife's answer. |
| |
| | #6 |
| Old Skool |
That's a really good question. The definitions refer to airman limitations to help you tell the difference. The fact that 61.57 refers to "aircraft of the same..." does not mean that the reg is refering to the aircraft part of the definition. That's why the airman's portion of the definition of class refers to "limitations".
__________________ British Airways flight asks for push back clearance from terminal. Control Tower replies: "And where is the world's most experienced airline going today without filing a flight plan?" |
| |
| | #7 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Winchestertonfieldville
Posts: 6,742
|
Nope. There is a difference between currency between ME and SE airplanes. As already pointed out, category = airplane, class = ME or SE.
__________________ The simplest answer tends to be correct. |
| |
| | #8 | |
| Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA
Posts: 1,744
| Quote:
14 CFR 1.1 says that the word "class" can be "used with respect to the...limitations of airmen." This is a case where the word "class" in 61.57 is referring to a limitation on airmen (who can and can't fly at night), therefore the whole idea of categories and classes in that reg should be viewed with respect to the certification of airmen. | |
| |
| | #9 |
| Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 99
|
You are correct there. Think of it this way, it is the pilot who needs to keep this currency, not the aircraft, so the category and class apply to airmen.
|
| |
| | #10 |
| Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 3,027
| Why? There have been plenty of good explanations here. One applies to how aircraft are certified and maintained. The other refers to how pilots are certified and maintained. Thinking that it says something different than that takes a good amount of over-reading.
|
| |
| | #11 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 916
| Quote:
I for one always thought that they should allow you to fly singles if you were multi current. It always sucked to have to rent a Cherokee to get night current, since I was flying a Seminole all the time. To me, if you can land a light twin, a single should not be too big of a deal.
__________________ My observation is that those with an extreme knowledge deficit have a real hard time believing that anyone else knows something they don't. That's why the knowledge deficit never goes away. - tgrayson | |
| |
| | #12 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 624
| Quote:
OK, not picking on you specifically, ananoman, I don't know your personal proficiency, and you may very well be very proficient in singles, which may be the source of your logic. However, I have encountered enough pilots who have been flying multi's, and especially BIG multi's, who can't even hit the runway. Single-engine P-Factor causes many to almost lose directional control on take off, and they have lost the rudder and elevator control touch that a single requires over a multi. The biggest reason is the power off forced landing. Some of these multi guys haven't had hold of an airpane in gliding form in so long, they are dangerous. These are some of the reasons why you have to have a single-engine add-on if you get your multi first, and it contionous to be the reason why you need to stay current in both categories. Again, not you, but some people really need the currency. | |
| |
| | #13 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 916
|
I don't totally disagree with you, as I would not feel comfortable in a single now, after not flying one for several years. But when I was an instructor, I was often not single engine current. There really was not a lot of difference between the Seminole and the Cadet or Arrow. It kind of sucked to have to rent the plane to do 3 landings. To me there is not much difference between a light twin and a single. Once you move up to bigger aircraft, it starts to matter more. I'm sure I would probably be one of those dummies who flares 10' off the runway if I went to fly a single now though.
__________________ My observation is that those with an extreme knowledge deficit have a real hard time believing that anyone else knows something they don't. That's why the knowledge deficit never goes away. - tgrayson |
| |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |