Payne Stewart's Lear also had pilots not type rated or minimal hours iirc.

quote:

Originally posted by sunburn:
Payne Stewart's Lear also had pilots not type rated or minimal hours iirc.

From the wiki article,

quote:

The 42-year-old captain, Michael Kling, held an airline transport pilot certificate and type ratings for the Boeing 707, Boeing 737, and Learjet 35. He also had Air Force experience flying the KC-135 and Boeing E-3 Sentry. Kling was also an instructor pilot on the KC-135E in the Maine Air National Guard. According to Sunjet Aviation records, the captain had accumulated a total of 4,280 hours of flight time (military and commercial) and had flown a total of 60 hours with Sunjet, 38 as a Learjet pilot-in-command and 22 as a Learjet second-in-command.[1]

The first officer, 27-year-old Stephanie Bellegarrigue, held a commercial pilot certificate and type ratings for Learjet and Cessna Citation 500. She was also a certified flight instructor. She had accumulated a total of 1,751 hours of flight time, of which 251 hours were with Sunjet Aviation as a second-in-command and 99 as a Learjet second-in-command.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...#Passengers_and_crew

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Also, I have to question your assertion that the Falcon "is operated under IFR." That is probably true almost all of the time. However, I am pretty sure that there is no requirement that any aircraft be operated under IFR for every flight. What would preclude a Falcon, or for that matter a 747, from being operated under VFR for a flight that stays at or below 17,500'? Maybe a very short leg on a severe clear day. Maybe repositioning, as in MCO to SFB. Not a likely scenario, but not one that would require an IFR operation.

I've spent a lot of time operating turbine aircraft under VFR. Including the 747.

This flight wasn't a short flight, and Turbojet aircraft like the Falcon 50 do not operate well, or efficiently at low altitudes. To operate a turbojet aircraft on almost any length route, normally one will climb to optimum, even if it means one starts back down right after arriving at cruise altitude; a short leg may go all the way into the mid-30's, and is still more efficient than a low flight. Additionally, one of the primary reasons for traveling at this level of luxury and expense is speed, which doesn't happen at low altitudes, as well as the ability to get above weather for a better ride.

This was not a local flight; it was a 135 charter of 500 miles length.

There are few conceivable situations in which this aircraft would have been operated under VFR.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

'Nother question. You assert that "a private pilot cannot operate as SIC under Part 135." I have no argument with that statement, but I do question its relevance to the accident being discussed. I did not see anything that stated that the right-seat pilot held a private certificate. There might be an implication, in that he was not instrument rated and an instrument rating is a prerequisite for a commercial certificate (with some exceptions) under current regulations, but that was not always true. Back in the Dark Ages, 1965, when I got my commercial certificate, the instrument rating was not a prerequisite for commercial. In fact, because of scheduling availability, I got the commercial first, and then a week or two later, I took the instrument checkride. If I had never added the instrument rating, my commercial certificate would be "grandfathered" and would still be valid (for VFR only operations, of course).

You seem to be taking all this personally.

I flew the first my first five years as a commercial pilot, without an instrument rating, though that's not really relevant, either. In this case, the copilot wasn't qualified for the flight. The pilot held a US certificate, apparently based on a Canadian certificate. Regardless of what he held, he was in no way legal for the flight, and unqualified.

The instrument rating isn't a prerequisite for the commercial today, either. No grandfathering required. You don't need an instrument rating to hold a commercial pilot certificate, but you are unable to exercise instrument privileges, which restricts you from a lot of commercial operations.

The holder of a commercial pilot certificate without an instrument rating will have a limitation placed on his or her certificate which reads "The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited."

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

For turbine powered aircraft, you need to have a specific license for that particular aircraft

I'll be a little nit-picky here. You're talking about Big Stuff, but not all turbine powered airplanes require a type rating.

...

Quite right. When I got to thinking about it, I believe it is all turboJET aircraft and t-props above 12,500 lbs. Been a few years since it mattered to me.

Other than that, I have one word to share with you, but not about you.

Pedant.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

I believe it is all turboJET aircraft and t-props above 12,500 lbs. Been a few years since it mattered to me.

Yup, you are correct, with the expansion that it is any (every) airplane above 12,500, whether turbine or piston powered. For example, the type rating that I really covet, and would get "just because," if I had money to burn, would be DC-3. Beautiful classic like me, and like me, born in 1937 (year depending on whether you count prototype flight or airline service).

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

I have one word to share with you.

Pedant.

I appreciate everyone taking time to answer my question. I always learn something when I visit SF.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

Quite right. When I got to thinking about it, I believe it is all turboJET aircraft and t-props above 12,500 lbs. Been a few years since it mattered to me.

Not so. One of the airplanes that I fly is a turboprop heavier than 12,500 lbs; no type rating.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Yup, you are correct, with the expansion that it is any (every) airplane above 12,500, whether turbine or piston powered.

Not every airplane above 12,500 lbs.

‘Roger ball Prowler, 25 knots slightly axial, decks up, don’t chase it’.

Just a little sump’in from the CVW-1 days, and nights.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
‘Roger ball Prowler, 25 knots slightly axial, decks up, don’t chase it’.

Just a little sump’in from the CVW-1 days, and nights.

And I bet you hooked the 3 wire!

Sorry guys, just a little reminiscing as the wife and I went through 26 years today, not without a rough patch or two. Just a few IPA’s and some fruity drink.

I think I caught every wire at one time or another, missed them all(bolter) too.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

Quite right. When I got to thinking about it, I believe it is all turboJET aircraft and t-props above 12,500 lbs. Been a few years since it mattered to me.

Not so. One of the airplanes that I fly is a turboprop heavier than 12,500 lbs; no type rating.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Yup, you are correct, with the expansion that it is any (every) airplane above 12,500, whether turbine or piston powered.

Not every airplane above 12,500 lbs.

What type? Because as I understand the regs V-Trail is absolutely correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Sock Eating Golden:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

Quite right. When I got to thinking about it, I believe it is all turboJET aircraft and t-props above 12,500 lbs. Been a few years since it mattered to me.

Not so. One of the airplanes that I fly is a turboprop heavier than 12,500 lbs; no type rating.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Yup, you are correct, with the expansion that it is any (every) airplane above 12,500, whether turbine or piston powered.

Not every airplane above 12,500 lbs.

What type? Because as I understand the regs V-Trail is absolutely correct.

Now that I think about it, I believe that there are exceptions to the type rating requirement for aircraft that have special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category. These would not be what we think of as "normal use" aircraft. Don't pin me down for a definition of "normal use," I just sort of coined that term, but the aircraft operated with special airworthiness certificates / experimental, are not the type that we would use for business or personal travel, for example. Maybe something like fire fighting, or agricultural applications. I can see the possibility of these types being operated in excess of 12,500 lbs, and not requiring a type certificate. Not the sort of thing that you or I would likely encounter in our aviation activites.

I also found AC 21-4B, which covers Special Flight Permits For Operation Of Overweight Aircraft. I guess an airplane could cross the 12,500 lb. line without the requirement for the pilot to hold a type certificate.

That's seems true. Limited Googling shows that the Air Tractor 802 does not require a type rating to act as PIC.

As a pedant myself I'd say the best way to define the requirement as,

"Required for all turbo jet and turbo fan aircraft, aircraft certified for more than 12500lbs max takeoff weight, and others as specified by the FAA. Though there are specific exempted aircraft."

One of my customers self pilots his own jet. Currently an Embraer 300. But everytime he trades to a different type he has to fly somewhere and take around 3-4 weeks of class with a simulator and IDK what else to get his type rating. He had a beechjet Premier before and a TBM 850 prior to that.

quote:

Originally posted by Sock Eating Golden:
That's seems true. Limited Googling shows that the Air Tractor 802 does not require a type rating to act as PIC.

The 802 is limited at 12,500 lbs; under certain operations it's flown at 16,000 lbs.

Aircraft requiring a letter of authorization aren't issued type ratings.

The Falcon 50, subject of the thread, that crashed at Greenville, was flown by the part owner of the FBO; he had a long history of operating aircraft under illegal charters that he wasn't qualified to do, and had operated a King Air 200 doing charter for a number of years. He held a private pilot certificate based on his canadian certification, and wasn't legal to fly as a SIC on the Falcon, or as PIC on his charter flights as he lacked the qualification and certification.

The Falcon 50 in question had been grounded by the pilot that the charter operation normally used. He'd been asked to take the charter that crashed, and refused, as the brakes were worn out. The owner, flying as copilot, found someone who wasn't qualified, but was willing to make the flight, who would act as captain, and they made an illegal charter (under IFR). Not surprisingly, the aircraft was unable to stop; unqualified crew, bad brakes.

After impact, the copilot was trapped against the thrust levers and the engines continued operating for some time until a forced entry could be made to the cockpit to shut them down.

I believe most of that has not been publicized yet.

I love these threads. They always end up with the pilots arguing about irrelevant minutia.

quote:

Originally posted by Sock Eating Golden:
That's seems true. Limited Googling shows that the Air Tractor 802 does not require a type rating to act as PIC.

As a pedant myself I'd say the best way to define the requirement as,

"Required for all turbo jet and turbo fan aircraft, aircraft certified for more than 12500lbs max takeoff weight, and others as specified by the FAA. Though there are specific exempted aircraft."

True, as far as your statement goes, but you specified turbine powered. The type rating is also generally required for piston powered airplanes certified for more than 12,500 lbs. DC-3 for example, is piston powered, max weight is somewhere around 25,000 lbs.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I love these threads. They always end up with the pilots arguing about irrelevant minutia.

Hah! You might think they're irrelevant, I might agree with you about some of it, but try telling that to the FAA when they want to pull your pilot certificate for infraction of irrelevant minutia.

A lot of this detailed regulation stuff is encountered on the FAA exams that must be passed in order to obtain a pilot certificate or rating.

It drove me nuts, studying, but my "swan song" -- the last FAA exam that I took, was the last one that I ever expect to take in my life, as I am approaching the end. I wanted this one to be a perfect score, and because I messed up with the mouse on a computer exam (in the Good Old Days we used to fill in the little circles with a # 2 pencil), I missed a question that I knew, solid, and I wrote a 98 instead of the coveted 100 on the ATP exam. Passing grade is 70, but I wanted to make a perfect score on my last text.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
One of my customers self pilots his own jet. Currently an Embraer 300. But everytime he trades to a different type he has to fly somewhere and take around 3-4 weeks of class with a simulator and IDK what else to get his type rating. He had a beechjet Premier before and a TBM 850 prior to that.

Everything that you mentioned does require a type rating, except for the TBM, which has a max weight somewhere around 7,400 lbs, so type rating is not required for this airplane. The training that should be done is fairly intensive, but believe it or not, a freshly minted private pilot is legal to fly this airplane as pilot in command, as long as s/he has logbook endorsements by an instructor for both high performance and complex airplanes. Per the regs, there is no specific training required for an airplane like this. Of course, common sense, safety, and insurance requirements would dictate thorough training, but if the airplane is operated strictly for personal use there is absolutely no regulatory requirement for training of any kind, nor even insurance.