CPL above 12,500lbs

[aeronautic1]

However

the type ride is the same as an ATP checkride. Why would you want to stay at the CPL level when you can sign off your ATP at the same time. Unless you are low time or just lazy.

 

[igneousy2]

the type ride is the same as an ATP checkride. Why would you want to stay at the CPL level when you can sign off your ATP at the same time. Unless you are low time or just lazy.

Not old enough?
Not experienced enough?
Not enough moral character?

later

 

[Stryker]

The problem you will run into is that no one will insure you with out your ATP, and if they do you will pay through the nose

 

[Lead Sled]

The problem you will run into is that no one will insure you with out your ATP, and if they do you will pay through the nose

Even more than that, you simply need the ATP to be competitive. All else being equal, if you have two otherwise competitive candidates for a given position, who are you going to hire - the one with a CPL or the one with an ATP?

'Sled

 

[Flying Illini]

the type ride is the same as an ATP checkride. Why would you want to stay at the CPL level when you can sign off your ATP at the same time. Unless you are low time or just lazy.

I'm just low time....with a dash of laziness.

 

[turbosheep]

Not old enough?
Not experienced enough?
Not enough moral character?

later

Igneousy2,
Mostly not enough moral character........

But seriously, he is not 23 year-old yet.

I have also read that to operate under FAR91 subpart K, a PIC needs ATP.

Am I right to say that if we were to take the aircraft across the pond to England, he would not be able to fly as PIC?

I vaguely remember that the UKCAA has a PIC requirement of ATP for aircraft above 12,500lbs.

 

[nosehair]

I have also read that to operate under FAR91 subpart K, a PIC needs ATP.

Hmmm....yep, yer right, there it is right there, 91.1053(a)(2)(i).
Subpart K, that's Fractional Owernership - never looked at it before. It's another kind of control of quasi-commercial operations, not regular part 91.

So, if it is a fractional owned airplane over 12,500, yep ya gotta have it, but if it's a regular registered airplane, I think the JAA requirement is for a JAA licensed pilot, but not a U.S.licensed pilot under regular part 61 and 91.

 

[philo beddoe]

To the best of my recollection:



Part 91: Private or Commercial (depending on operation) for anything regardless of size or type of engine. Unless you are talking Subpart K, which I know nothing about.

Part 135 PIC:

ANY Jet pax-carrying operations (under or over 12,500#) requires ATP
Any Prop over 12,500# requires ATP for pax-carrying operations

Jet or prop cargo-only - Commercial

Prop meaning turbine or recip.


Part 121 PIC:

ATP for anything regardless of engine type or size.

 

[mattpilot]

Subpart K is new... no older than 2003. I guess the fractional ownerships got out of hand

 

[FN FAL]

Thank you everyone.

What I meant was, is holding a CPL good enough to operate a multi-engine jet above 12,500lbs as PIC?

If not, does the person need to hold an ATPL?

Else a PPL holder can be PIC on a 747, provided the flight is not flown for compensation or hire and that he/she has a type rating.

Who the hell is Else, your wife or your husband? And if he/she is neither, but both, I'd be suspecting he/she's medical, more than he/she's ability to PPL PIC on a 747.