"Large" vs. "Heavy" aircraft

CRJwannabe

New Member
\"Large\" vs. \"Heavy\" aircraft

Connecting the dots of the FAR/AIM for those that are interested:

FAR 61.31

Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.

(a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft:
(1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air).
(2) Turbojet-powered airplanes.
(3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures . . .

So, what is a “large aircraft”?

From FAR Part 1 Definitions: Large aircraft means aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight.

If anyone has ever wondered how “heavy” gets attached to a call sign . .

From AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary (http://www.iespana.es/atc-cordoba/Pilot-Controller Glossary.htm):

AIRCRAFT CLASSES- For the purposes of Wake Turbulence Separation Minima, ATC classifies aircraft as Heavy, Large, and Small as follows:
a. “Heavy”- Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 pounds whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight.
b. Large - Aircraft of more than 41,000 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight, up to 255,000 pounds.
c. Small- Aircraft of 41,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight.

So, it seems that ATC and the FARs are in slight disagreement over what can be classified as a “large aircraft”. Next time you hear “heavy” attached to a callsign, you will know that is not a subjective term. There appears to be some method behind the madness. If my interpretation of the above material seems inaccurate, I welcome any corrections/additions that may further clarify the issue.

Thanks
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Large\" vs. \"Heavy\" aircraft

[ QUOTE ]
So, it seems that ATC and the FARs are in slight disagreement over what can be classified as a “large aircraft”.

[/ QUOTE ]The really isn't any disagreement. Just the same word being used in two different contexts and having different meanings.

Remember those private pilot questions involving the differences in the meaning of the word "category" as applied to certification or =airmen= (airplane, rotorcraft, glider, etc) and as applied to =aircraft= (transport, normal, utility, etc)? Same thing here. The word large is being used for two different purposes and so it has two different meanings.

"Large" in the FAR provision is dealing with whether you, as a pilot, are authorized by your certificate to fly it. "Large" in the AIM is a wake turbulence category. Rest assured that when you hear ATC tell you there's a large aircraft flying over you, they're not commenting on the qualifications of the pilot.
 

CF6_rep

New Member
Re: \"Large\" vs. \"Heavy\" aircraft

I always thought "heavy" was added to those aircraft with twin aisles, just as a further way for ATC to clarify who they are talking with.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Re: \"Large\" vs. \"Heavy\" aircraft

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought "heavy" was added to those aircraft with twin aisles, just as a further way for ATC to clarify who they are talking with.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't see a smiley on the post, so

It's added so that ATC knows the wake turbulence separation criteria to apply. (It also lets other aircraft in the area know there's an evil vortex generator among them)
 

Table Two

Well-Known Member
So when I'm asked if I have an ATP type rating in a CRJ-200, it is considered a "Large Aircraft other than Lighter-Than-Air" ???


(OMG NECROPOST!)
 

frankgh

Well-Known Member
I thought the heavy designation was for anything over 300k lb. I was a KC-135A crew chief many years ago and max gross was about 297k. When the CFM 56's were installed, max gross went over 300k. I never heard an A model called "heavy". The first time I heard it was in an R model. I asked the pilot why and that is the story he told me. This was about 30 years ago...

Edit Added:

Look what Google found for me; http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65UBasic.pdf

It's on page PCG A-6
 
Last edited:

Table Two

Well-Known Member
So according to that, a CRJ-200 is a LARGE aircraft.

CL−600, Regional Jet CRJ−200, RJ−200 CRJ2
Number & Type Engines/ Weight Class 2J/L
 

frankgh

Well-Known Member
According to the FAA, Large is 41,000 up to but not including 300.000. The CRJ-200 has a max takeoff gross of 53,000. 53>41, 53<300. Looks large too me:)
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
Before RECAT it used to be real fun trying to remember which Gulfstreams were small and which were large. Now it shows up on your data block =)
 

Stone Cold

Well-Known Member
@Tyler Pinkerton. Here is the answer to your question before about an ATP being required in the US. You were correcting a couple of us in a job posting thread. See the OP for applicable US regs. Cheers!

Ps sorry for contributing to a necropost.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
I know now why some pilots sound confused when I give them a caution wake turbulence behind Gulfstream's or some of the other large corporate aircraft. For reals though, does say a Hawker really need 4 miles at the threshold behind a G4?
 

Tyler Pinkerton

Well-Known Member
@Tyler Pinkerton. Here is the answer to your question before about an ATP being required in the US. You were correcting a couple of us in a job posting thread. See the OP for applicable US regs. Cheers!

Ps sorry for contributing to a necropost.
I was never questioning or correcting for when a type rating was required, that is one of the few regulations that is clearly written, though it would be nice if 61.31 would be updated to include the special type ratings for ex-military aircraft being flown for demonstration just for the sake of people trying to find that info.

I was correcting the fact that you had said an ATP was required to 1) receive a type rating and 2) was required for international ops. The ATP is only required if the regulations under which the aircraft is being operated requires it, such as PIC pt135 for turbojet or commuter operations with any multi engine aircraft or PIC on turbojet pt91K operations. However as I said in my last post on that thread, the OP never stated how the plane was going to be operated, pt91 vs 91K vs pt135.

My request in asking for you to cite a regulation, as I did in that thread, would be to prove the following scenario could not be done.

Joe Schmo or company X goes out and buys a Gulfstream-whatever for their own use, non-pt135/91K. Ignoring insurance requirements, as a commercially rated pilot I legally would be able to go get a PIC type rating and fly as PIC as an employee of said aircraft operator, domestically and abroad.

I vaguely remember some regulation that was about operations abroad but I can not remember any specifics to try and look it up. Part 91 subpart G which is operations outside of the US does not address airmen certification requirements when it comes to operating abroad, nor did I feel as I read it that it was the reg I was searching for from the past.

So in my search, I still have not found anything that would suggest a simple pt91 job would require an ATP certificate.
 

frankgh

Well-Known Member
I was never questioning or correcting for when a type rating was required, that is one of the few regulations that is clearly written, though it would be nice if 61.31 would be updated to include the special type ratings for ex-military aircraft being flown for demonstration just for the sake of people trying to find that info.

I was correcting the fact that you had said an ATP was required to 1) receive a type rating and 2) was required for international ops. The ATP is only required if the regulations under which the aircraft is being operated requires it, such as PIC pt135 for turbojet or commuter operations with any multi engine aircraft or PIC on turbojet pt91K operations. However as I said in my last post on that thread, the OP never stated how the plane was going to be operated, pt91 vs 91K vs pt135.

My request in asking for you to cite a regulation, as I did in that thread, would be to prove the following scenario could not be done.

Joe Schmo or company X goes out and buys a Gulfstream-whatever for their own use, non-pt135/91K. Ignoring insurance requirements, as a commercially rated pilot I legally would be able to go get a PIC type rating and fly as PIC as an employee of said aircraft operator, domestically and abroad.

I vaguely remember some regulation that was about operations abroad but I can not remember any specifics to try and look it up. Part 91 subpart G which is operations outside of the US does not address airmen certification requirements when it comes to operating abroad, nor did I feel as I read it that it was the reg I was searching for from the past.

So in my search, I still have not found anything that would suggest a simple pt91 job would require an ATP certificate.
Why is this in this thread??? :p
 

Stone Cold

Well-Known Member
Why is this in this thread??? :p
It's what you call reading bias on my part. I read more into it than what was there. Mea Culpa.:confused:
I was never questioning or correcting for when a type rating was required, that is one of the few regulations that is clearly written, though it would be nice if 61.31 would be updated to include the special type ratings for ex-military aircraft being flown for demonstration just for the sake of people trying to find that info.

I was correcting the fact that you had said an ATP was required to 1) receive a type rating and 2) was required for international ops. The ATP is only required if the regulations under which the aircraft is being operated requires it, such as PIC pt135 for turbojet or commuter operations with any multi engine aircraft or PIC on turbojet pt91K operations. However as I said in my last post on that thread, the OP never stated how the plane was going to be operated, pt91 vs 91K vs pt135.

My request in asking for you to cite a regulation, as I did in that thread, would be to prove the following scenario could not be done.

Joe Schmo or company X goes out and buys a Gulfstream-whatever for their own use, non-pt135/91K. Ignoring insurance requirements, as a commercially rated pilot I legally would be able to go get a PIC type rating and fly as PIC as an employee of said aircraft operator, domestically and abroad.

I vaguely remember some regulation that was about operations abroad but I can not remember any specifics to try and look it up. Part 91 subpart G which is operations outside of the US does not address airmen certification requirements when it comes to operating abroad, nor did I feel as I read it that it was the reg I was searching for from the past.

So in my search, I still have not found anything that would suggest a simple pt91 job would require an ATP certificate.
It's been a long time since I've dug into the regs, so I have no clue where this would apply. I don't even fly under FAA regs, nor have I in years. See above post as to why I called you here. I read more into it than what was there. My mind read ATP. I have no clue why.

Best of luck in your search on what reg requires it, but I will tell you I have never seen nor heard of a Commercial rated pilot flying turbojets for hire as PIC, either in the US or abroad. Maybe it's an insurance thing, or maybe it's a reg, I honestly have no clue but do not choose to waste my time to find out. There are other things to worry about vs. this issue. :cool:

My point with you was a job posting was the wrong place to have a debate on what is required. Who cares...nobody (disclaimer: that I know of) hires with less than an ATP. Don't clog up a job posting being stubborn on something that in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant.
 
Top