Turboprop Airplanes Under 12,500 Gross

[Polar742]

oooooo.....I got high-speeded by Ian.

You should fly glass, I guess you're qualified as fast as you can type.

[Polar742]

Twice in a row. Man, 6 mos without the box, and I'm typing like 6 words a minute.

Sheessh. Thank god that ain't a gearhorn, or I'd be wicked broke at the bah.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by Polar742

oooooo.....I got high-speeded by Ian.

You should fly glass, I guess you're qualified as fast as you can type.

Ha!

I do fly glass...

wait for it...

...it covers my steam gauges!

(I'll be here all night, folks!)

[Polar742]

Originally Posted by Ian J

Ha!

I do fly glass...

wait for it...

...it covers my steam gauges!

(I'll be here all night, folks!)

Nicely done sir, nicely done.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by gomntwins

...MU-2 (less than 12.5k but still requires a type), ...

Is this new? Last I knew it required type specific training if you didn't already have time, but no type.

-mini

[WacoFan]

Why does Travolta only have an SIC type on the Boeing? Why would someone pay that much to refubish the plane and not get a full type?
Is this some kind of weird scientology thing?

[WacoFan]

Originally Posted by t-cart

Or you could really think outside the box and fly a turbine ag plane. Pretty good pay, off all winter, sleep in your bed every night. Kinda hard to break into, but once you get established with a good record, It's a great way to make a great living. Single turbine though.

Line me up with that all day T-cart. An AT-802 is a MANS airplane!

[Polar742]

Originally Posted by WacoFan

Why does Travolta only have an SIC type on the Boeing? Why would someone pay that much to refubish the plane and not get a full type?
Is this some kind of weird scientology thing?

Who knows? He's an accomplished pilot whoe's survived documented emergencies. However, SIC requires a V1 cut with a 3 engine approach and landing. PIC is a V1 cut with a 2 engine approach and landing.

He could have had a hard time learning all the systems.

Or, he could have thought he wasn't ready for command on it when he took training.

[gomntwins]

Originally Posted by minitour

Is this new? Last I knew it required type specific training if you didn't already have time, but no type.

-mini

Yeah... you're right, I'm wrong. They do require type-specific training. I know that Mitsubishi has been asking the FAA to impose a type rating requirement for the MU-2... I did some reading today and that hasn't happened yet.

[pilatus028]

Originally Posted by Wolfy

It seems I might have gotten something wrong. I thought someone needs to have an ATP to get a type rating, and be 23 to get an ATP. Is it possible to fly a jet as a captain part 91 or 135 without an ATP? My goal is to stay in corporate, but I have thought about going over to freight.

And by Beech Airliner I meant BE99 .

My friend flew the L35a, has the type PIC but no ATP (he's 22). He had the money to pay for the type and work for a company here in Miami. He basically did his schedule how he wanted it. Since he paid for his own training he would pick flights that were worth his time and just said no to others. He could only log PIC on the empty legs though since it was a 135 operation.

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by pilatus028

My friend flew the L35a, has the type PIC but no ATP (he's 22). He had the money to pay for the type and work for a company here in Miami. He basically did his schedule how he wanted it. Since he paid for his own training he would pick flights that were worth his time and just said no to others. He could only log PIC on the empty legs though since it was a 135 operation.

That has nothing to do with him being an ATP or not.

[Wolfy]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

This comes up ever 5 1/2 weeks but yes we had a lear skipper that was 22.
Have a friend at Ameriflight that flys a 1900, she's 21.

I tried doing a search but "23" is under 3 characters and can't be searched for so I couldn't find the info.

I'm glad I learned about this now, I don't know where I got the impression about the ATP/type rating deal.

[Boris Badenov]

Yeah... you're right, I'm wrong. They do require type-specific training. I know that Mitsubishi has been asking the FAA to impose a type rating requirement for the MU-2... I did some reading today and that hasn't happened yet.

Not going to happen, either. Mitsubishi is staring down the liability barrel and doesn't see the profit in support, so they're all too happy to require a type (and price the aircraft right out of the running.) Luckily the FAA isn't caving to the "Oh, the humanity!" politicians and hand-wringing widows. Type specific training is as far as it will go, presuming there isn't a spate of balled-up moos.

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by Boris Badenov

Not going to happen, either. Mitsubishi is staring down the liability barrel and doesn't see the profit in support, so they're all too happy to require a type (and price the aircraft right out of the running.) Luckily the FAA isn't caving to the "Oh, the humanity!" politicians and hand-wringing widows. Type specific training is as far as it will go, presuming there isn't a spate of balled-up moos.

Actually, this month's edition of Flying has indicated exactly that. The FAA is requiring some type-specific training on the MU-2 now. I'm not at home at the moment but I'll check it in a couple hours and post the relevant excerpt.

[Boris Badenov]

As I understand it's "type-specific training", which is a pretty amorphous distinction. At my company, we go to simcom for a "recurrent" class every year. Couple of days in a "flight training device" learning that if the engine AND the NTS system fail on takeoff, you're probably going to die (no kidding?). The guy who does the class is highly experienced and has interesting advice about the airplane, but the "sim" is next to worthless, imho, and there are plenty of high time pilots at the company who have forgotten more about the mu-2 than I'll ever know. Politically motivated tempest in a teapot. To my knowledge, the type rating idea is dead.

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by Boris Badenov

As I understand it's "type-specific training", which is a pretty amorphous distinction. At my company, we go to simcom for a "recurrent" class every year. Couple of days in a "flight training device" learning that if the engine AND the NTS system fail on takeoff, you're probably going to die (no kidding?). The guy who does the class is highly experienced and has interesting advice about the airplane, but the "sim" is next to worthless, imho, and there are plenty of high time pilots at the company who have forgotten more about the mu-2 than I'll ever know. Politically motivated tempest in a teapot. To my knowledge, the type rating idea is dead.

Yeah - that rings a bell. Turns out it was the May issue, which I can't find.

Why is the FAA resistant to a type-rating? You'd think that by requiring it (and the advanced training that goes with it) the insurance companies would look more favorably on it. But I don't know how that works.

[Boris Badenov]

Well, I'm sure there are a number of reasons. Two that I would speculate on are:

1) It's ridiculous. The aircraft passed all the certification requirements the first time around. Then during TWO special certification reviews. The systems aren't that complex, the engines are on tons of other aircraft. It's highly wing loaded and it uses spoilers. This should not require a type rating.

2) It messes up the conventions. If they start blurring the lines of the rules, all the sudden everybody and his brother is going to start knocking down the FSDO door asking for a type rating for their out of production economic boat anchor to make it more attractive to buy new or at least supported aircraft. FSDO guys are not famous for actively seeking more work.