28 Mar 2024, 21:36 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 20 Jun 2021, 22:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2514 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Ah, ok. But you took the first check ride in a real plane, so technically no need for the 25 hours SOE, right? What did you do during those two months to make the DPE happy on the second ride? He implied that for liability purposes it wouldn't look good that he released me sp on a 5 day initial type. I just flew for a couple months and came back for the sign off. At that point it wasn't an "initial" so everyone is happy... That seems to be a common story recently. So during those two months you had an "SIC Required" notation on the rating and flew around with an SIC to get some experience? How many hours did you fly?
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 00:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/27/10 Posts: 1849 Post Likes: +823 Location: KFFZ & KGRR
Aircraft: BE36, CE501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As I understand it (from reading this thread, I have not yet tried to look it up anywhere), if you take the check-ride in a Single Pilot aircraft and pass the check-ride without the DPE acting as a crewmember, you have demonstrated that you can safely operate the aircraft SP. Isn't that the whole point of the check-ride? Why do they think that they can mark you SIC required simply "because they feel like it"? You make the decision up front whether you are applying for a single pilot or crew type rating. Then you either pass the ride or you fail.
_________________ Last 60 mos: CL65 type rating, flew 121, CE680, CE525S, and CE500 type ratings.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 00:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/25/12 Posts: 3711 Post Likes: +3661 Location: KRHV San Jose, CA
Aircraft: A36, R44, C525
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As I understand it (from reading this thread, I have not yet tried to look it up anywhere), if you take the check-ride in a Single Pilot aircraft and pass the check-ride without the DPE acting as a crewmember, you have demonstrated that you can safely operate the aircraft SP. Isn't that the whole point of the check-ride? Why do they think that they can mark you SIC required simply "because they feel like it"? You make the decision up front whether you are applying for a single pilot or crew type rating. Then you either pass the ride or you fail.
Had a couple guys in my class decide not to do the SP. seemed like a waste after all the work they had done. FAA still requires 25 hour mentor before they change your license to SP no restrictions.
_________________ Rocky Hill
Altitude is Everything.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2514 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As I understand it (from reading this thread, I have not yet tried to look it up anywhere), if you take the check-ride in a Single Pilot aircraft and pass the check-ride without the DPE acting as a crewmember, you have demonstrated that you can safely operate the aircraft SP. Isn't that the whole point of the check-ride? Why do they think that they can mark you SIC required simply "because they feel like it"? You make the decision up front whether you are applying for a single pilot or crew type rating. Then you either pass the ride or you fail. John, that's not what some people are reporting. Apparently they applied for SP but got SIC Required. Maybe the DPE said "I'm going to fail you as SP but if you change your application to crew I'll pass you"?
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/20 Posts: 1276 Post Likes: +1270 Location: Tulsa, OK - KRVS
Aircraft: C501SP
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It’s interesting that so much of the conversation revolves around how to eliminate/minimize required flight time, sim time, ground instruction, check rides, etc. Perhaps escaping such dreadful and expensive things isn’t the best way to go. Think about it. Posting at midnight is probably not a great idea, but you, sir, are putting words in people's mouths and also drawing conclusions about things you know nothing about. The question is around the rules for a CE-500 check-ride. DPEs do not get to make up rules. My understand is that if you pass the ride in aircraft, SP, to standards you get the rating, no restrictions. The DPE cannot add restrictions based on how they are feeling that day. It is then up to you (and your insurance broker) to decide if/when you are proficient. Same as any other rating. My problem with the SIC required designation is that it requires another DPE ride to remove. Not only are they expensive but they are notoriously hard to schedule (and may involve travel). Also, by what standards is the DPE removing the SIC required? They obviously don't give a crap about the regulations so the sky is the limit right? Go back and read Israel's post and the few after it: viewtopic.php?p=2901807#p2901807As I understand it, there are DPEs "making crap up" and giving people SIC required when they passed the ride SP. I believe Kevan had a similar experience. For me, I want to get the rating out of the way so I can practice (with an instructor/mentor pilot) ACTUAL things that I will need to do in operating my plane. Things like IMC, SIDS, STARS, etc. You don't do those things for the type rating. As I noted before, I have not dug into the regs on the CE-500 type rating. I hope to do that this week. It is possible that my understanding of the process is wrong.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23613 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It’s interesting that so much of the conversation revolves around how to eliminate/minimize required flight time, sim time, ground instruction, check rides, etc. Perhaps escaping such dreadful and expensive things isn’t the best way to go. Think about it. I think the goal here is not minimum money and effort, but spending that effort and money in the right place. Doing stupid paperwork box checking stuff isn't as good as doing something else. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:50 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/24/18 Posts: 727 Post Likes: +340 Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: He implied that for liability purposes it wouldn't look good that he released me sp on a 5 day initial type. I just flew for a couple months and came back for the sign off. At that point it wasn't an "initial" so everyone is happy... That seems to be a common story recently. So during those two months you had an "SIC Required" notation on the rating and flew around with an SIC to get some experience? How many hours did you fly? about 40
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 02:01 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/21/21 Posts: 545 Post Likes: +624
Aircraft: B55 Owner
|
|
Here’s how CE-500 ratings work:
If you do the checkride in a non-SP airplane (not a 501 or 551) you don’t get an “SIC REQUIRED” restriction, as an SIC being required is implied unless you’re flying a 501 or 551, or flying under a SP waiver.
If you do the checkride in a SP airplane (501, 551) and don’t use an SIC, then you don’t get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. On the other hand, if you DO use an SIC, you get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction.
To be eligible for a single pilot waiver issuance, you must have a type rating without the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 08:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/12/20 Posts: 9 Post Likes: +1
Aircraft: CE-501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It’s interesting that so much of the conversation revolves around how to eliminate/minimize required flight time, sim time, ground instruction, check rides, etc. Perhaps escaping such dreadful and expensive things isn’t the best way to go. Think about it. Posting at midnight is probably not a great idea, but you, sir, are putting words in people's mouths and also drawing conclusions about things you know nothing about. The question is around the rules for a CE-500 check-ride. DPEs do not get to make up rules. My understand is that if you pass the ride in aircraft, SP, to standards you get the rating, no restrictions. The DPE cannot add restrictions based on how they are feeling that day. It is then up to you (and your insurance broker) to decide if/when you are proficient. Same as any other rating. My problem with the SIC required designation is that it requires another DPE ride to remove. Not only are they expensive but they are notoriously hard to schedule (and may involve travel). Also, by what standards is the DPE removing the SIC required? They obviously don't give a crap about the regulations so the sky is the limit right? Go back and read Israel's post and the few after it: viewtopic.php?p=2901807#p2901807As I understand it, there are DPEs "making crap up" and giving people SIC required when they passed the ride SP. I believe Kevan had a similar experience. For me, I want to get the rating out of the way so I can practice (with an instructor/mentor pilot) ACTUAL things that I will need to do in operating my plane. Things like IMC, SIDS, STARS, etc. You don't do those things for the type rating. As I noted before, I have not dug into the regs on the CE-500 type rating. I hope to do that this week. It is possible that my understanding of the process is wrong.
Exactly my experience. This should be disclosed up front both by the flight school AND the DPE. As others have said, I’m sure both parties know this is a likely outcome. Perhaps it’s not being stated because it clearly goes against what the 8900.2C provides in terms of guidance to DPEs. Or perhaps because doing so would be a bad business decision?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 08:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23613 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here’s how CE-500 ratings work: Not exactly in my experience. Quote: If you do the checkride in a non-SP airplane (not a 501 or 551) you don’t get an “SIC REQUIRED” restriction, as an SIC being required is implied unless you’re flying a 501 or 551, or flying under a SP waiver. Just did a FlightSafety CE-500 initial, in a 550 sim, as a crew, and got "SIC REQUIRED". So either you are incorrect or FlightSafety is. I think the "modern" approach to this is that all crew ratings now come with "SIC REQUIRED" otherwise how do you tell the difference between someone who did a crew rating and someone who did a signal pilot rating? This all stems from the fact there is no CE-500S (single pilot) type rating and the CE-500 type rating can be used to fly single pilot or crew airplanes. If there was, things would be MUCH clearer. Quote: If you do the checkride in a SP airplane (501, 551) and don’t use an SIC, then you don’t get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. On the other hand, if you DO use an SIC, you get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. I can't speak to this since I didn't do it that way. Quote: To be eligible for a single pilot waiver issuance, you must have a type rating without the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. I can go for a single pilot exemption (SPE) recurrent with my present status of "SIC REQUIRED". Once I complete the SPE 61.58, then I will have the SPE and the "SIC REQUIRED" limitation will be removed. You do not need to be absent "SIC REQUIRED" to be eligible to take an SPE 61.58 recurrent. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 09:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5521 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here’s how CE-500 ratings work:
If you do the checkride in a non-SP airplane (not a 501 or 551) you don’t get an “SIC REQUIRED” restriction, as an SIC being required is implied unless you’re flying a 501 or 551, or flying under a SP waiver.
If you do the checkride in a SP airplane (501, 551) and don’t use an SIC, then you don’t get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. On the other hand, if you DO use an SIC, you get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction.
To be eligible for a single pilot waiver issuance, you must have a type rating without the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. Isn't it just easier to get a P180 Avanti?
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 09:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/12 Posts: 6819 Post Likes: +7927 Company: Minister of Pith Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Here’s how CE-500 ratings work:
If you do the checkride in a non-SP airplane (not a 501 or 551) you don’t get an “SIC REQUIRED” restriction, as an SIC being required is implied unless you’re flying a 501 or 551, or flying under a SP waiver.
If you do the checkride in a SP airplane (501, 551) and don’t use an SIC, then you don’t get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. On the other hand, if you DO use an SIC, you get the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction.
To be eligible for a single pilot waiver issuance, you must have a type rating without the “SIC REQUIRED” restriction. Isn't it just easier to get a P180 Avanti? Certainly not cheaper...
_________________ "No comment until the time limit is up."
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|