Falcon 50/900 type ratings

[Capt1124]

Are these two aircraft on the same type rating?

 

[Good Times]

Same type rating but requires a differences course to go from one to another.

 

[Kingairrick]

Wrong. Same type, differences not required. (highly recommended though.)

 

[Otter]

I agree Part 91, 135 I believe you require differences.....

 

[ultrarunner]

As in most things, the underwriters have the most stringent rules, and you're not gonna be able to get a 50 type and jump in a 900 without 900 training. Or the other way also. Simple as that.

As far as the FAA is concerned, you're qualified, but again, that's the least of the rules.

 

[rice]

While attending DA-50 recurrent (1999 or 2000). I met a guy in class who only flew the 900. Back then Simuflite didn't have a dedicated 900 syllabus. Not sure I'd agree that was the best way to train but as I recall he was operating under part 91 and no one seemed to think anything of it.

 

[ultrarunner]

While attending DA-50 recurrent (1999 or 2000). I met a guy in class who only flew the 900. Back then Simuflite didn't have a dedicated 900 syllabus. Not sure I'd agree that was the best way to train..

Esp considering he had other options, and simply chose NOT to attend 900 training.

 

[rice]

Esp considering he had other options, and simply chose NOT to attend 900 training.

Amen!!!!!!
I'm sure he went home and said look boss I saved you this much money!!!!! Like I said, not sure I'd agree it was the best course of action but I also odn't have to fly with/for either of them, thank god.

 

[HawkerF/O]

As in most things, the underwriters have the most stringent rules, and you're not gonna be able to get a 50 type and jump in a 900 without 900 training. Or the other way also. Simple as that.

As far as the FAA is concerned, you're qualified, but again, that's the least of the rules.

Not entirely true. It all depends on your broker. Get a broker that has a terrible relationship with the underwriter, and you're on your way to 900 initial. Get a broker with a good relationship with the underwriter, and it's a differences course. Get a broker with an excellent relationship with the underwriter (and your department is claim free), and it's a 1 hour in-house deal with minimal requirements.

I'd never suggest doing it that way, but it is what it is. Differences with simulator reenforcement is the way to do it right, but there are always those out there that can work the system. regardless, it all comes down to what the underwriter is willing to agree to, and never should you accept anything insurance related as 'set in stone'. Nothing is set in stone when 2 people are involved in the mix. Do your own homework and research, determine what is acceptable to you and your orginazation, then take that to the broker. He works for you, not the other way around. It must be reasonalbe though. Having only flown a 50, and it's been 15 years since you did that, and now you want to fly a 900EX after you get home from 50 recurrent is not reasonalbe. Having only flown a 50, and it's been 15 years since you did that, but you've been flying a 604 since and now you want to fly a 900EX when you get home from 50EX recurrent with a 900EX captain for the 1st 50 hours is a little more likely to work. I wouldn't do it like that, but you get the idea of where I'm going with this.

I know of a CL600 being flown 135 with co-pilots who have no school, just 3 bounces. Blessing of the insurance folks, and no, the Captain is not some Challenger Guru. He thinks he is, but with less than 500/600 hours in a aircraft like that, you're hardly a guru.

As for the FAA, correct. To them, you are good to go, minimally. Twist some metal, and you'll be dancing a jig as they shread your certificate. Twist some metal and hurt someone, then a lawyer will have you and the owner for lunch. You choose to not train as a professional would, so you are negligent and you'll pay. The insurance check (hull, no liability; that's later) will go to the lawyer, not the aircraft owner, guarenteed. Same for the guy that choose to go to a 50 program to save a few bucks. Oh, he saved the boss a few bucks, but let him twist some metal, and the lawyers will tear him apart and the owner for letting it happen. Lots of snakeoil in this business.

 

[Lead Sled]

For what it's worth, I took my type ride in the DA-50 this morning (Passed!). The DA-50 type is good for the entire 50/900 series except for the 900 DX and 900EX (EASy Avionics Suite). This is not a novel concept - for example the Lr-Jet type is good for all 20, 30, and 50 series Learjet. What a Lear 24 has in common with a Lear 55 escapes me. The IA-1125 is good for the Astra, Astra SP, Astra SPX/G-100. Although certainly not the extreme example that the Lear type is, most Astra "Classic"/Astra SP pilots would be extremely uncomfortable in the SPX/G100 without differences training.

'Sled

 

[HMR]

Good job Sled!!!

What's that saying about old dogs and new tricks?