banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 13:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 1769 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 ... 118  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 20 Jun 2021, 22:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2513
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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 00:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 00:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3431
Post Likes: +2381
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
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.

_________________
Previous A36TN owner


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 00:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2513
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"? :scratch:
_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/25/12
Posts: 3711
Post Likes: +3661
Location: KRHV San Jose, CA
Aircraft: A36, R44, C525
The DPE still needs to see you act in a crew fashion. I don’t think they can just give you a consolation prize.

_________________
Rocky Hill

Altitude is Everything.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:38 
Offline


 Profile




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#p2901807

As 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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:42 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 01:50 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 02:01 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 08:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/04/13
Posts: 2568
Post Likes: +1234
Location: Little Rock, Ar
Aircraft: A36 C560 C551 C550S
I’m confused.

Robert T


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 08:40 
Offline


 Profile




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#p2901807

As 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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 08:40 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
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

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 09:42 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5520
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? ;) :stir:

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp
PostPosted: 21 Jun 2021, 09:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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? ;) :stir:

Certainly not cheaper...
_________________
"No comment until the time limit is up."


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 1769 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 ... 118  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.airmart-85x150.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.