Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Typed?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

viperdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Posts
61
On the SWA application it asks if you are typed in an aircraft. Does this apply to F-16, C-12, B-52 etc.?

Also on other applications it asks for aircraft and if a type rating is required for that aircraft. When is it required? Is it required on an Air Force 737?

Thanks
Viperdriver
 
Viperdriver,

The general rule for type ratings is that jet aircraft and aircraft with gross weights exceeding 12,500 pounds require a type rating. Military aircraft flown by military pilots do not require a type rating even if the aircraft is an off-the-shelf version of a civilian aircraft that does require a type rating. A military pilot does not even need an FAA pilot certificate.

When a military pilot does get an FAA pilot certificate, he/she can go to the local FAA FSDO and get a type rating added to that certificate if the aircraft meets the criteria for the type and a civilian equivalent of the aircraft exists. So, an Air Force T-43 pilot could go to the FSDO, show he has completed 10 hours pilot in command time in the aircraft within the preceding 12 months or has passed a check ride giving him pilot in command privileges in that aircraft within the preceding 12 months and he/she will get the type rating. Since a civilian version of the F-16 does not exist, a type rating is not available even though it is clearly a jet and clearly exceeds 12,500 pounds. Helicopters that are flown by military pilots are eligible for a type rating if a civilian version of that helo exists. The FSDO will have a list of al the different types that apply. The C-12s flown by Navy, Marine, and Army aviators can qualify for a type rating as they have a gross weight over 12,500 pounds. I'm not sure of the Air Force ones. Most civilians do not require a type rating for that aircraft, but the FAA recognizes that there are a few civilian variants of the BE-200 that also exceed 12,500 so they have a type rating for it.

 
Look at your FAA pilot certificate: if you have a type rating specified on it, you can list it. Otherwise, don't. It's cost more than one guy a major airline job. No, the F-16 is not "type-able". Some like the C-130, T-1, (even the T-33) are "type rating" aircraft.
 
Back in the good old days of mega-hiring, listing a type-rating for a fighter was a major gotcha on the Yo-nited application. Buddy of mine was shown the door at his UAL interview for trying to BS about being typed in the F-15. He now happily flies for SWA. Gernally speaking, no such animal as a type rating in a fighter...but some AF heavies do get type ratings depending on where you got your training...example...initial instructors in the T-1A got type ratings casue they were trained by civilian company.
 
Actually all students who graduate from T-1's get their civilian ratings and the Be400 type. The classes usually take the equivalency test some saturday before they graduate and get thier comm multi inst land with the BE400 type on grad date.

To get a type as mil guy you just go to the FSDO. You must have like 10 PIC hours in the airecraft you requesting the type in in the last year. And there must be a civilian equivalent, thus no fighter types.

EDIT: should have read skidrivers post first, I just restated what he said.:cool:
 
Last edited:
viperdriver said:
Also on other applications it asks for aircraft and if a type rating is required for that aircraft. When is it required? Is it required on an Air Force 737?

Thanks
Viperdriver
Not trying to be a D!ck but...........Your profile shows that you have an ATP. That means you are supposed to know what airplanes require a type and what does not.

I know you have probably only flown military, but if you really didn't know, you really need to start boning up on the FAR's before you get an interview or they will roast you.
 
Thanks for the info. Didn't think I needed a Type rating for F-16, I was cloudy on the issue of whether a type rating was required for an Air Force 737. Sounds like people have made similar mistakes in the past.

Viperdriver
 
My T-1A checkout gave me two type ratings: BE-400 and the MU-300 (Diamond 1A- the predecessor to the Beech 400).

I also received one from flying the C-9A (DC-9) and the C-141B (L-300 = was told because NASA operated a C-141 we were granted the type).
 
SkiHerkDrvr said:
.... Since a civilian version of the F-16 does not exist, a type rating is not available even though it is clearly a jet and clearly exceeds 12,500 pounds......
What about N816NA ?

http://www.avitop.com/search/nnumb.asp?nn=816NA

If you can call it a civilian F-16 I don't know, but at least it has an N number. I know Lockheed used to have a couple with N numbers as well.
 
There are Letters of authorization (LOA's) available for the strange and hard to classify aircraft out there. Nearly all of the WWII vintage single seat fighters technically meet the requirements of needing a type rating, as do the Korean era jets.

If you buy an f-86, you must get your LOA training from someone who has the FAA's blessing to do the training. As with most things, the feds can use an LOA in lieu of printed FAR's.

So legally there is no type rating for an F-104 or other military fighters, so the few that are operated civilian, use LOA's, and most are operated in the experimental or restricted catagory and are limited as to where they can go and the kind of ops they can do. It varies greatly depending on the airplane.

Short answer, if it has an FAA type certificate, it also has an avaliable type rating if it qualifies (over 12.500, jet, etc.) If it never had an FAA type certificate, it can be operated under a LOA with restrictions.
 
KeroseneSnorter said:
Not trying to be a D!ck but...........Your profile shows that you have an ATP. That means you are supposed to know what airplanes require a type and what does not.

I know you have probably only flown military, but if you really didn't know, you really need to start boning up on the FAR's before you get an interview or they will roast you.

You might not be trying, but you're certainly succeeding.
 
hawg2hawk said:
You might not be trying, but you're certainly succeeding.


Everybody has to have a talent!!! :D

Mine was a simple observation, It was not intended to be a flame. Used to work for an airline that cycled line pilots through on the hiring board, many of the military guys that got shot down were due to their lack of FAR knowledge. You could tell the ones that boned up on the civilian side and made an effort to know them even though they didn't fly under them. Every now and then you would see the guy that figured that his Single seat time should automatically get him a position. The single seat guys are the ones that have the least skills that directly transfer to airline flying. They are trained for tactical ops, and are excellent at what they do, but from a practical standpoint the tanker pilot has the better experience for the airlines.

I could have worded my response better, but the point is do not let something as simple as FAR knowledge shoot you down in an interview. If you hold the certificate, you are expected to know the regs that govern that certificate. Airlines teach you their ops specs, they do not have time to teach you what your certificates say you already know. In the words of a buddy of mine halfway through an airline ground school "Da#m, I thought the military was a fire hose!"
 
KeroseneSnorter said:
The single seat guys are the ones that have the least skills that directly transfer to airline flying. They are trained for tactical ops, and are excellent at what they do, but from a practical standpoint the tanker pilot has the better experience for the airlines.

Better experience? Better experience for WHAT? Walking to the back to heat up the meals?

Being a tanker pilot in no way gives an advantage so far as knowledge of the FARs, the subject at hand.

Perhaps you should stick to what YOU know. :)

Give the guy a break - - he asked an honest question.
 
TonyC said:
Better experience? Better experience for WHAT? Walking to the back to heat up the meals?

Being a tanker pilot in no way gives an advantage so far as knowledge of the FARs, the subject at hand.

Perhaps you should stick to what YOU know. :)

Give the guy a break - - he asked an honest question.

Your quote takes what I said out of context, Wasn't referring to a tanker guy being better at FAR's.
Spend some time in the training department, you will see what I mean. ;)

The whole point of this mess is to not give the hiring board a gimme, like not knowing your FAR's, to shoot you down with. Sheesh, you would think I called the guy a Cross dressing, Transvestite, midget by the way you are acting.


Not that I have anything against Crossdressing, transvestite, midgets.
 
Last edited:
KeroseneSnorter said:
Your quote takes what I said out of context, Wasn't referring to a tanker guy being better at FAR's.

I don't think I took it out of context at all. Perhaps you don't realize what you said.

You said, "The single seat guys are the ones that have the least skills that directly transfer to airline flying." Further, you said, "...from a practical standpoint the tanker pilot has the better experience for the airlines." This concluded a paragraph that discussed FAR knowledge required to successfully pass your hiring board where many of the "military guys ... got shot down ... due to their lack of FAR knowledge." Now the truth might rightly lie in the next sentence - - "You could tell the ones that boned up on the civilian side and made an effort to know them even though they didn't fly under them" [emp. added] - - but you did not rest your argument at that point. Study made the difference, not the background.



For what it's worth, I was not asked a single question about FAR's during my interview.


The simple answer to viperdriver is this: pull out that certificate you got from the FAA, turn it over. Read the type ratings you have under Item XII. Since you're asking the question, the likely answer is none. If you had one, you'd likely know the answer already.

All the discussion about what kinds of airplanes you could have gotten a type with in the military is interesting, but not useful in answering your question.

As for your last question, "Is it required on an Air Force 737?", the answer is no. You COULD have gotten a type rating on the 737, but one is NOT required to fly any Air Force airplane.


OH, and KeroseneSnorter - - I HAVE spent time in the training department. The single element that contributes most to success is not background, age, or gender - - it's EFFORT!


:)
 
Last edited:
TonyC said:
I don't think I took it out of context at all. Perhaps you don't realize what you said.

You said, "The single seat guys are the ones that have the least skills that directly transfer to airline flying." Further, you said, "...from a practical standpoint the tanker pilot has the better experience for the airlines." This concluded a paragraph that discussed FAR knowledge required to successfully pass your hiring board where many of the "military guys ... got shot down ... due to their lack of FAR knowledge." Now the truth might rightly lie in the next sentence - - "You could tell the ones that boned up on the civilian side and made an effort to know them even though they didn't fly under them" [emp. added] - - but you did not rest your argument at that point. Study made the difference, not the background.



For what it's worth, I was not asked a single question about FAR's during my interview.


The simple answer to viperdriver is this: pull out that certificate you got from the FAA, turn it over. Read the type ratings you have under Item XII. Since you're asking the question, the likely answer is none. If you had one, you'd likely know the answer already.

All the discussion about what kinds of airplanes you could have gotten a type with in the military is interesting, but not useful in answering your question.

As for your last question, "Is it required on an Air Force 737?", the answer is no. You COULD have gotten a type rating on the 737, but one is NOT required to fly any Air Force airplane.


OH, and KeroseneSnorter - - I HAVE spent time in the training department. The single element that contributes most to success is not background, age, or gender - - it's EFFORT!


:)

O.K. You have been beating the crap out of me because I suggested that he may need to study up on his FAR's.

So I will ask the $64 question.

Given the stated facts:

1. He does not know if he holds a type rating or not.
2. He has no idea what airplanes require a type rating.

Who issued him his ATP?
Why was he issued an ATP when he clearly does not know even the most basic things like "What am I legal to fly?"
How many other "pesky civilian regs" does he not have a clue about?


He is applying to become a part 121 airline pilot, but he is having trouble even filling out the application due to his lack of civilian aviation knowledge. Am I the only one that thinks maybe this is a problem that should be addressed?



Oh, and you still left out the part about some single engine drivers thinking that they should automatically get the position, when you quoted me. That is where the tanker driver comparison came in. Maybe my train of thought and the words didn't quite match up.

So to end your confusion, My thought was meant to imply that the few single seaters that expect to be hired because they flew fighters, actually have less directly transferrable skills than the tanker guys do who have been flying airline equipment already.

Oh, by the way, since you are in the training department, you can't tell me you haven't had some of the fighter jocks in initial and not wondered if they would ever learn to do a V1 cut and keep the thing upright! If you say no, I know you are lying and never spent a couple of weeks having to de-program a Viper pilot or a Hornet driver!! :D But you are correct about the effort part. :)
 
KeroseneSnorter said:
O.K. You have been beating the crap out of me because I suggested that he may need to study up on his FAR's.

So I will ask the $64 question.

Given the stated facts:

1. He does not know if he holds a type rating or not.
2. He has no idea what airplanes require a type rating.

Who issued him his ATP?
Why was he issued an ATP when he clearly does not know even the most basic things like "What am I legal to fly?"
How many other "pesky civilian regs" does he not have a clue about?


He is applying to become a part 121 airline pilot, but he is having trouble even filling out the application due to his lack of civilian aviation knowledge. Am I the only one that thinks maybe this is a problem that should be addressed?

No, you're just the one that seems to think it has everything to do with him being a fighter pilot, and nothing to do with being a military pilot. There are heavy drivers that leave the service with an ATP and ask (or at least HAVE) the very same questions. I've talked to guys that got their ATPs and were surprised to find they were also awarded a type rating for the 707 and 720. Do you think any of them even know what a 720 IS?

KeroseneSnorter said:
Oh, and you still left out the part about some single engine drivers thinking that they should automatically get the position, when you quoted me. That is where the tanker driver comparison came in. Maybe my train of thought and the words didn't quite match up.

So to end your confusion, My thought was meant to imply that the few single seaters that expect to be hired because they flew fighters, actually have less directly transferrable skills than the tanker guys do who have been flying airline equipment already.

Your train of thought still winds up at the same station - - fighter guys have less directly transferrable skills. That's just not true.


By the way - - this ain't beatin' nothin' outta nobody. This is just conversation. If you think this is rough, try sitting through a fighter pilot debrief. :)
 
TonyC said:
There are heavy drivers that leave the service with an ATP and ask (or at least HAVE) the very same questions. I've talked to guys that got their ATPs and were surprised to find they were also awarded a type rating for the 707 and 720. Do you think any of them even know what a 720 IS?


So we come back to the $64 question. Why are military pilots being issued civilian certificates when it appears that they do not have even the most basic knowledge that the certificate states that they have? Not refering to the 707 or 720 issues that you brought up, that is understandable due to the military difference in designations. I am referring to the original posters questions that he posed.

A civilian ATP applicant anywhere in the country would be issued a pink slip if he could not answer those basic questions on an oral. Why are the military pilots allowed to get by without the knowledge?

As you know, 121 ops are 10% stick and rudder and 90% covering your rear and keeping the flight legal. As a CP or DO of an airline, why should I hire a guy that doesn't have the knowledge required to do 90% of the job? Would the military give me a KC-135 to fly around based on my knowledge of civilian regs? After all, I have a ton of Boeing time, A whole lot more than 70% of their Aircraft Commanders, and I guarantee I could pass the sim check after a few days of system and flight training. I wouldn't know squat about air to air refueling or it's safety procedures, but so what.....I got the 10% stick and rudder part down.

Why is it that every time a civvy questions a military practice that he finds questionable, the military guys assume that he has a thing against military pilots, or thinks he is being a d!ck? The question I posed is completly legitimate. I would expect any ATP in the country to be able to answer those simple questions. Why? Because they hold an ATP and they are supposed to know it, or at the absolute laziest.....know where to find it in the regs!!!! I mean come on.......how in the world is he going to ever decipher part 121 duty day regs. and required rest information if he can't figure out where to look for the type ratings on his certificate? :D
 
KeroseneSnorter said:
......how in the world is he going to everdecipher part 121 duty day regs. and required rest information if hecan't figure out where to look for the type ratings on his certificate?:D

Thousands of others have.

Makes you wonder why the airlines keep just hiring the hell out of these guys, as dumb as they are on the civilian regs.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top