Co-pilot type ratings.

[G100driver]

It seems that air carrier operations are treated differently from Pt. 91 operations, thus the potential type-rating problem for Pt. 91.

Federalie (sp) with a bug in his a$$ and you can get fined or violated. The violation will count against you FAA licence.

 

[slickmagneto]

Looks like a way for the training companies to beef up their profits. The co-pilots have gotten the same training as the captain, only difference was no oral or checkride. The cost was the same.

 

[sydeseet]

Picture a new-hire Lear FO going for his 135 check for the first time. A type sounds like a good idea but what if he only has 1200TT and no jet experience? It's not that he couldn't pass a 135.293 with some training but asking him to perform a captains checkride with so little experience is a bit much in my opinion. The proposal of a SIC Type may be a "Type Rating Light" to make type specific SIC training a little more official. We all know of 91 operators who send a guy out for 3 bounces and then call him a co-pilot. Yes, this new theory has it's faults but so does the current practice. In fact, find me an entire chapter in the FAR/AIM that doesn't make you go "hmmmmm......"

 

[flyer172r]

It seems to me that this "SIC type" is basically a dressed up version of the already required SIC endorsement. I went through Beechjet 400A SIC training a few months ago and they said we saw everything that was on the type rating ride. Am I way off base thinking that this is just a re-naming of something that already exists?

 

[Flying Illini]

Picture a new-hire Lear FO going for his 135 check for the first time. A type sounds like a good idea but what if he only has 1200TT and no jet experience? It's not that he couldn't pass a 135.293 with some training but asking him to perform a captains checkride with so little experience is a bit much in my opinion.

Did my type with 900TT in the DA10...to 135.293 standards. If you're in the plane, you'd better be able to do it. Not trying to be a hard-a$$ but why would you put someone in the aircraft as a crew member if they aren't able to function as a "complete" crewmember. It's a safety thing in my mind.
That said (here's where I sound like a hippocrite)the company I work for is one that will send a guy out with some groundschool under his belt for an hour fam flight and 3 T and G's and call him a pt. 91 FO. Do I agree with it? No, I don't think it's safe. What will it look like in an NTSB report? "
Capt. went through recurrent at FS 3 months ago. FO has 200hrs in type and went through in house pt. 91 training 1.5 yrs ago which included just over an hour of flight training." It don't sound good!

All I'm saying is that if they are going to be in the front seat, train them appropriately. If the pay and bennies are in line with the industry, you usually don't have to worry about people leaving.

 

[SabreFlyR]

If you read the NPRM, the training for the new sic type rating is nothing more than what is required for a copilot checkout now. The difference is, that the type rated pilot or type rated cfi who gives the sic their training signs their log book as having been trained per the far. Then the sic goes to the FSDO and fills out an application, shows them the endorsment in their logbook and then is issued a sic type rating.

If I remember right a sic trained under part 135 or 121 will also be issued a sic type rating.

It clearly states that domestic operations are not affected by the proposed rule. This is only to satisfy the ICAO requirement for international operations.

That said, I agree, if you can afford to own it then you can afford to type the pilots.

 

[flyer172r]

Then the sic goes to the FSDO and fills out an application, shows them the endorsment in their logbook and then is issued a sic type rating.

Sounds like another example of the FAA doing nothing to enhance safety, but doing all it can to make life a hassle for pilots.

 

[Rick1128]

types

Consdiering that ICAO is HQ'd in Montrel, it is a good guess that they are an ICAO country. Their regulations are similar to ours in that rhey do not require a F/O type. Most European Countries, S. Africa, Australia, etc have separate types for PIC and SIC. With different standards. And the rating systems in these countries is totally out of control. Separate ratings not only for jets and TPs but SE a/c. Because you are checked out in a CE152, doesn't mean you can go out and fly a CE150. Lets hope that the FAA doesn't figure that one out.

 

[Headwind]

The way I understand it: The SIC Type will not be required in the USA, but will be available for people who travel internationally. It will be a way ( an inexpensive way) to meet some countries requirements that both pilots be Typed. If you read about it there is no practical test.

HEADWIND

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I was reading about it on an Internet publication, I believe AOPA.

Cliff
YIP

 

[aeronautic1]

G200 Sic

I am a G200 SIC and last week flew an MMU - CYQZ - EIDW - return and was not asked about having, or not having a type rating. However, I understand that France has grounded US aircraft for single type equiped crew.

But, basically, when the new rule comes into play (and it will), I just have to take my sim training records from Flight Safety to FSDO and they add an SIC Type Rating to my records. No big deal. I don't know what all the squaking is about.

 

[G100driver]

I am a G200 SIC and last week flew an MMU - CYQZ - EIDW - return and was not asked about having, or not having a type rating. However, I understand that France has grounded US aircraft for single type equiped crew.

But, basically, when the new rule comes into play (and it will), I just have to take my sim training records from Flight Safety to FSDO and they add an SIC Type Rating to my records. No big deal. I don't know what all the squaking is about.

I think that the squawking comes from 3rd rate operators that do believe in training their SIC's. I have worked for operators that feel that an in-house ground school and 3 bounces and you set is an OK program. Yea right ...

PS did you go non-stop from MMU to EIDW?

 

[aeronautic1]

Non-Stop

Not this trip, we had 10 in the back so fueled at Gander. But, we have gone Teterboro to London non-stop with threei n the back.

 

[Flying Illini]

The co-pilots have gotten the same training as the captain, only difference was no oral or checkride. The cost was the same.

I don't believe that is true. One of our FO's that did his SIC training in the DA-20 at FSI also did the oral. Had to pass the oral as well as the SIC checkride to successfully complete training...Just no type.

 

[aeronautic1]

Actually

at Flight Safety G200 in October, the diff was that the SIC did not do a weight and balance, no circle to land, non-procession or single engine to landing. Oral is the same.