 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / December 2004JAA/CAA crew licence privileges/restrictions
Hi All, For the last good few hours I've been searching for the web (including the JAA and CAA sites) for the list of privileges of a PPL-A licence - so far no joy. In particular, I wanted to find out the limitats of aeroplanes (weight, number of passengers, etc) that can be flown by a JAA PPL holder, without any ratings. Can someone enlighten me (or send some links to where these definitions are given)? Many thanks, Akos >For the last good few hours I've been searching for the web (including the >JAA and CAA sites) for the list of privileges of a PPL-A licence - so far >no joy. In particular, I wanted to find out the limitats of aeroplanes >(weight, number of passengers, etc) that can be flown by a JAA PPL holder, >without any ratings. Can someone enlighten me (or send some links to where >these definitions are given)? I *think* the limit is 5700kg and doubtless somebody will come in with a reference. You mention no ratings, which rules out twins, jets, pressurised turboprops. This in practice limits you to 6-seater piston singles, although there are some odd types which are bigger and which can still be flown on a PPL. Also few if any 6-seaters can take 6 average size passengers plus full fuel... Peter. -- Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail. E-mail replies to peter1234@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y. Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary. > In particular, I wanted to find out the limitats of aeroplanes > (weight, number of passengers, etc) that can be flown by a JAA PPL holder, > without any ratings. None at all. All aircraft require "ratings" to fly them. Ratings are either class ratings for smaller aircraft, or type ratings for larger or more complex aircraft. The Single Engine Piston (Land) class rating covers all single-piston-engined landplanes except the Piper Malibu, which requires a type rating. Most PPLs get this rating at the same time as their PPL. The details you want are in Subpart F of JAR-FCL1, available from http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jarsec1.html Julian Scarfe > The Single Engine Piston (Land) class rating covers all > single-piston-engined landplanes except the Piper Malibu, which requires a > type rating. Can I ask what singles the Piper Malibu out as different? D. >> The Single Engine Piston (Land) class rating covers all >> single-piston-engined landplanes except the Piper Malibu, which >> requires a >> type rating. > > Can I ask what singles the Piper Malibu out as different? It's pressurised. (and v.quick!)  Signature...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to end this post. 'It is rumoured that his last words were, "Watch this..."' Duke Elegant http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117465 <snip> >> Can I ask what singles the Piper Malibu out as different? > > It's pressurised. > (and v.quick!) And, according to my image search, it comes complete with Buffy. What more could one want? http://24.87.76.254:50100/images/1LarryBurgess/BuffyPiperMalibu.jpg Jim > <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And, according to my image search, it comes complete with Buffy. What > more could one want? Blimey. I'll take two. Signature...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to end this post. 'It is rumoured that his last words were, "Watch this..."' Duke Elegant http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117465 > > <snip> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Blimey. I'll take two. One for me? That's very kind of you. Paul >> > <snip> >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > One for me? That's very kind of you. :o) I'm sure I can lend you the spare one. And when I need to go somewhere, we can go in formation - just in case the primary one goes tech, I can still get back home in time for my Yoga class and Spooks. Signature'It is rumoured that his last words were, "Watch this..."' Duke Elegant http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117465 "B S D Chapman" <mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk> wrote in message > I'm sure I can lend you the spare one. > And when I need to go somewhere, we can go in formation - just in case the > primary one goes tech, I can still get back home in time for my Yoga class > and Spooks. Formation flying in a Malibu...nice! I see next month has Enstone as a free landing fee again. Paul >It's pressurised. >(and v.quick!) It's pressurised, but it's "quick" only if you fly high enough (say 25000ft) to get a decent TAS gain :) I don't think the IAS is significantly more than any decent piston single. Peter. -- Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail. E-mail replies to peter1234@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y. Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary. >> It's pressurised. >> (and v.quick!) > > It's pressurised, but it's "quick" only if you fly high enough (say > 25000ft) to get a decent TAS gain :) I don't think the IAS is > significantly more than any decent piston single. Indeed: However, this makes it even more important to have suitable training (apprieciation?), as a high IAS-TAS multiple makes descent planning critical because of the lack of drag. Signature'It is rumoured that his last words were, "Watch this..."' Duke Elegant http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117465 >> It's pressurised, but it's "quick" only if you fly high enough (say >> 25000ft) to get a decent TAS gain :) I don't think the IAS is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >training (apprieciation?), as a high IAS-TAS multiple makes descent >planning critical because of the lack of drag. We are going to end up hijacking yet another thread here :) I doubt the Malibu is more slippery than any other sort of piston single. There is a slight step-up from flying around at 95kt in a C152 to flying at say 150kt in something else, and there will be a further step-up to flying around at 220kt (TAS) but none of this should be a problem to somebody who knows about IFR navigation, flight planning etc. AIUI the reason why the Malibu needs a type rating is that it is pressurised. Doesn't for example the Cessna 421 need a type rating too? Admittedly that's a twin so one would need a twin rating. I suppose it's easier to get a Malibu to break up in flight (way exceed Vne) if one starts at 25k feet, with a frozen over pitot tube, and points the nose down. Peter. -- Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail. E-mail replies to peter1234@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y. Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary. > I suppose it's easier to get a Malibu to break up in flight (way > exceed Vne) if one starts at 25k feet, with a frozen over pitot tube, > and points the nose down. I suspect the reason for needing a type rating for the PA46 is that a statistically significant number of pilots have done precisely that. Pressurization in itself does not require a type rating (e.g. the P210 doesn't), though it does require differences training. Julian > > The Single Engine Piston (Land) class rating covers all > > single-piston-engined landplanes except the Piper Malibu, which requires a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > D. There were some crashes with it, and the FAA (IIRC) decided that further training was required for this aircraft. I can't remember the reason, but there were in-flight breakups. It's a big plane, I saw an "N" reg one at Elstree last year, and it reversed out from the parking slot. it was quite funny as they had flowers all along the edge, and this lazy bugger just revved the hell out of it with the prop in reverse. Made a lot of noise, and blew the tops of all the flowers and onto the people sitting outside the cafe. Also, the SEP land rating covers only basic planes, you need differences training, and rating, to fly variable pitch props and rectractable undercarriages. John >>> The Single Engine Piston (Land) class rating covers all >>> single-piston-engined landplanes except the Piper Malibu, which requires >>> a type rating. I thought the Extra 400 needed a type rating, too. Stefan >>>> The Single Engine Piston (Land) class rating covers all >>>> single-piston-engined landplanes except the Piper Malibu, which >>>> requires >>>> a type rating. > > I thought the Extra 400 needed a type rating, too. Isn't that only available as a TP? Signature...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to end this post. 'It is rumoured that his last words were, "Watch this..."' Duke Elegant http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117465 > It's a big plane, I saw an "N" reg one at Elstree last year, and it reversed > out from the parking slot. it was quite funny as they had flowers all along > the edge, and this lazy bugger just revved the hell out of it with the prop > in reverse. That seems unlikely with the SEP version. Sure it wasn't the Malibu Mirage turbine? Julian Scarfe > > It's a big plane, I saw an "N" reg one at Elstree last year, and it > reversed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Julian Scarfe Yes you're right, hadn't thought about the two versions. It was the turbine one. John > > It's a big plane, I saw an "N" reg one at Elstree last year, and it > reversed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That seems unlikely with the SEP version. Sure it wasn't the Malibu Mirage > turbine? Meridian. * John Bishop <john@london.com>: >Also, the SEP land rating covers only basic planes, you need differences >training, and rating, to fly variable pitch props and rectractable >undercarriages. VP and retractables aren't covered by "ratings"; you just need to complete the differences training and have your instructor endorse your logbook. (Source: LASORS 2004, section F, pp 6-7.) Ross SignatureRoss Younger news#N@crazyscot.com (if N fails, try N+1) Many thanks, for the replies! The aircraft I have in mind is an Antonove AN-2 (large, single engine, piston, but complex, with variable pich prop, bi-plane, capable of carrying up to 12 + 1 people - I think). It's been a big plan of mine to learn to fly one of these, and I'm just about to book a training with a company who doews this training - abroad. I was just thinking how this experience/rating would relate to my UK licence. They call this rating/licenc "PPL-B", but I have found no reference to such a thing on the CAA and the JAA web sites. I'll look into the doc you pointed me to, many thanks. Regards, Akos > They > call this rating/licenc "PPL-B", but I have found no reference to such a > thing on the CAA and the JAA web sites. I'll look into the doc you pointed > me to, many thanks. IIRC in pre-JAA days the ratings used to be: A single <5700 kg B multi < 5700 kg C anything > 5700 kg, individually typed But I have no idea if that B is related to the PPL-B your training company mentioned. Good luck Julian > Many thanks, for the replies! The aircraft I have in mind is an Antonove > AN-2 (large, single engine, piston, but complex, with variable pich prop, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thing on the CAA and the JAA web sites. I'll look into the doc you pointed > me to, many thanks. The AN-2 is a fascinating plane, indeed. A good many are flying around in the former socialist countries and it should be feasible to train there I remember the airfield of Klaipeda, Lithuania where 8 of them were sitting rather idle, though the owner told me he did a good deal of parachute drops in Sweden According such a training with your UK license seems rather hard to me, but a JAR license is a good deal closer. Perhaps is Hungary or Poland have joined JAA they might be a good bet. There certainly are AN-2's flying in Germany and you might find some operator willing to train you on one but it might be rather expensive. My 2 ?c, KA > The AN-2 is a fascinating plane, indeed. > A good many are flying around in the former socialist countries > and it should be feasible to train there There are a couple of them at Popham. Paul > Many thanks, for the replies! The aircraft I have in mind is an Antonove > AN-2 ...... many thanks. > > Akos Akos, Currently I'm looking at adding 'nice to have's' to my JAA PPL-A as well. Your idea of getting a type rating for the Ant-2 sounds to good to be true. I hope you will keep us posted in this group or would like to consider sending me a personal email when you have more info on this topic. I might even 'hijack' your plan and so a similar training (do you already have a location/FBO etc in mind ?) Best regards, Rene Hi Rene, Not sure if this is a place for advertisements, so I'll drop you a private mail about the place I have found. Thanks again, All, for the info! Cheers, Akos > Your idea of getting a type rating for the Ant-2 sounds to good to be true. > For the last good few hours I've been searching for the web (including the > JAA and CAA sites) for the list of privileges of a PPL-A licence - so far > no joy. In particular, I wanted to find out the limitats of aeroplanes > (weight, number of passengers, etc) that can be flown by a JAA PPL holder, > without any ratings. There is no such thing as a JAR license without a rating. In the JAR system, the license determines how you can fly airplanes, i.e. private, commercial or airline transport. It says nothing whatsoever about the kind of airplanes you can fly. To be of any use, the license must come with a current rating. The rating determines which airplanes you can fly, Super Cub, Boeing 747 or Mig 25. You can fly all of those as private pilot, if you have the rating and the money to operate them. Most pilots have as their first rating SEP, single engine land, because they are relatively easy and cheap to fly, but this need not be so. It's perfectly legal to learn to fly ab initio on a Lear Jet or an Airbus 340. Most light singles are covered with the class rating SEP. Some types need a difference training. A difference training is needed for flaps, retractable gear, pressurized cabin and tail wheel. For the "bigger" planes, you need a special type rating for each model. So if you have a JAR license, whichever it may be, just search a flight school and get your AN-2 type rating (VFR single pilot). There's no other problem than money. If are not a pilot yet, nothing stops you to learn to fly on an AN-2, if you find a school willing to instruct you and if you have the money. Stefan >Most light singles are covered with the class rating SEP. Some types >need a difference training. A difference training is needed for flaps, Flaps??? >retractable gear, pressurized cabin and tail wheel. For the "bigger" >planes, you need a special type rating for each model. SignatureRichard Herring <mailto:richard@clupeid.demon.co.uk> >> Most light singles are covered with the class rating SEP. Some types >> need a difference training. A difference training is needed for flaps, > Flaps??? Yes, flaps. But because most planes have flaps, chances are that you'll get that "difference" rating at the same time as your license without even noticing it. >> retractable gear, pressurized cabin and tail wheel. For the "bigger" >> planes, you need a special type rating for each model. There are two more "differences" which I forgot: Turbo charged engine and constant speed prop. I think this is the complete "difference" list. Stefan > >> Most light singles are covered with the class rating SEP. Some types > >> need a difference training. A difference training is needed for flaps, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > get that "difference" rating at the same time as your license without > even noticing it. No, not flaps. See Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.215. The list of variants is: Variable pitch propeller Retractable undercarriage Turbo/supercharged engine Cabin pressurisation Tail Wheel Julian Scarfe > No, not flaps. I've checked the JARs, and you're correct. It seems that I have confused something. Stefan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.