23 Apr 2024, 02:54 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 10:22 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/17/21 Posts: 88 Post Likes: +42
Aircraft: C550
|
|
Never had A SIC limitation with my initial , but I assumed since it was a 550 certified to be a crew airplane & never flew it without a SIC till I received the SP waiver.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 10:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/10/12 Posts: 6829 Post Likes: +7941 Company: Minister of Pith Location: Florida
Aircraft: Piper PA28/140
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mark took the time long ago to explain that there are different SP waivers available for the 500 series. These planes weren’t initially designed to be flown SP. Later, different waivers emerged. If you’re on an SP track, best to look into who has the waiver and what it takes to get it. It does take a second ride the first time. I got rated as Mike did with the SIC restriction. I could have gone back later to get that dropped, but didn’t since I’m not flying that bird now. When I got rated, certain DPEs were known not to favor SP waivers for folks with little jet time. Were not the 501 and 551 certified as SP?
_________________ "No comment until the time limit is up."
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 10:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/16/07 Posts: 17628 Post Likes: +21394 Company: Real Estate development Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Were not the 501 and 551 certified as SP? Yes Tom. I should have been clearer. The others were originally not meant to be flown single pilot. Mark went into all those details when he got his ratings. When I got typed, Shawn Rich explained all that, but I don't have my notes handy and it gets complicated.
_________________ Dave Siciliano, ATP
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 10:50 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/21/21 Posts: 545 Post Likes: +624
Aircraft: B55 Owner
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. True that you do not need to be absent of “SIC REQUIRED” to be eligible to take a SPE. My words were chosen carefully; I said “ To be eligible for a single pilot waiver issuance“ That was said to imply that once issued, the restriction is removed.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 11:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/17/21 Posts: 88 Post Likes: +42
Aircraft: C550
|
|
I agree with you on being able to fly a 501 or 551 with C500 rating without "SIC required". Not a good idea but probably legal.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 11:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/14 Posts: 2152 Post Likes: +1644 Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
We often said that the cheapest part of the airplane is the two guys up front.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 14:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/30/12 Posts: 4006 Post Likes: +4411 Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: We often said that the cheapest part of the airplane is the two guys up front. True, but the second guy up front is the most difficult part of the airplane to schedule. It's not just about training and safety. If I could have a SIC who lived in my hangar, never drank, never took vacation, was always rested, had no kids and perfect health, and was available every single time I said "Hey, I need to be 1,000 miles away tomorrow morning by 9am" - then I'd have no objection to always having a copilot. I got the plane to give me freedom to travel where I want when I want. The copilot severely restricts that freedom.
_________________ Be Nice
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 20:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16187 Post Likes: +8797 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: We often said that the cheapest part of the airplane is the two guys up front. True, but the second guy up front is the most difficult part of the airplane to schedule. It's not just about training and safety. If I could have a SIC who lived in my hangar, never drank, never took vacation, was always rested, had no kids and perfect health, and was available every single time I said "Hey, I need to be 1,000 miles away tomorrow morning by 9am" - then I'd have no objection to always having a copilot. I got the plane to give me freedom to travel where I want when I want. The copilot severely restricts that freedom.
Train your wife
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 21 Jun 2021, 22:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I got the plane to give me freedom to travel where I want when I want. The copilot severely restricts that freedom. I call it "chartering the human". The SIC brings all the same problems chartering does, so why have your own airplane and still suffer that? Everything about having an SIC is nice while in flight. Any other time, it is expensive, annoying, and limiting. Note that insurance requirements are often WAY more restrictive on SIC than the FAA. My current open pilot warranty on SIC (not PIC!) is this: "Commercial / Multi-engine / Instrument license, 1,500 Total Time, 1,000 Multi-engine, 500 Jet, 100 Make and Model plus approved ground and flight school in the M&M within the 12 months preceding the intended flight." Note that this applies AFTER the mentoring period, so this isn't the mentor requirements which are much higher. So the "train someone you fly with" tactic is unlikely to work. Meanwhile, when I go get the SPE, then I can have anybody sit in the right seat as long as they don't "fly". Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 22 Jun 2021, 10:41 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/23/09 Posts: 1071 Post Likes: +564 Location: KSJT
Aircraft: PC-24 Citabria 7GCBC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Brent.
Not sure about that.
With most Jet LOC like the 501 in TN and the 525 in UT there could have been a system issue that the pilot could not figure out. While he is trying to figure it out he loses control. At least with the 525 in UT it was clear there was a system issue. He was confused and lost. Sometimes it’s as simple as a pitot heat not on. Knowing what that looks like and fixing it fast can save your life.
I think many LOC are caused by confusion about what the plane is doing or not doing. Look at the Boeing Max system. When you hear what those guys were fighting and knew all they had to do was pull back power and shut down the system that was trying to kill them. All those people died because those guys didn’t understand the aircraft systems, not flying skills.
Basically those guys were doing their ground school training with passengers in the air.
Mike Hey Mike, I'm not advocating doing away with systems training, just moving some of the systems training time to more sim (or in aircraft) LOC/UPRT training. I agree about lack of systems knowledge causing confusion in the accidents you mentioned but troubleshooting systems is a distraction and frequently leads to a LOC event. After a LOC event, the pilot has about 5-10 seconds to get control. The training industry needs to provide better training in that area to prevent the high number of LOC accidents. Take a looked at the 525 UT accident docket and the pilot's training records. https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=92582The 525 pilot attended a well known full motion training provider two times each year for 12 years. A very model pilot/owner! The providers 525 recurrent consists of 14.5 hours of ground training and 6 hours of sim training, likely typical of the all of the big name training providers. I would say he had more than ample systems training, but as you pointed out, everything indicates he was still confused (and I'll add distracted from flying the plane). However, of the training provider's 6 hours of sim time, less than .5 SIM was training in stalls and/or unusual attitudes (and no UPRT). Note that most providers want you to recover at first indication of a stall (stall warning shaker, etc); hardly a LOC event. The 525 pilot had a total of 348 ground training and 144 hours of sim time over his 525 ownership. I wonder if the outcome would have been different if he spent 1 hour each recurrent in UPRT? Airlines are investing in UPRT for their pilots (both in aircraft and sim based). NTSB had LOC on their top 10 list a few years ago. While I think systems training is important, I don't think it will lead to fewer LOC events which accounts for more than 50% of fatal accidents. I don't think anyone disputes the value of UPRT, I just wish training providers would move some of the ground/systems time into UPRT for recurrents.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 24 Jun 2021, 17:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/27/10 Posts: 1880 Post Likes: +829 Location: KFFZ & KGRR
Aircraft: BE36, CE501
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you received an unrestricted 500 rating by taking a check ride in a 550, would you be able to hop in a 501/551 and fly it single pilot? I think the answer to that is “no”.
_________________ Last 60 mos: CL65 type rating, flew 121, CE680, CE525S, and CE500 type ratings.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Citation 501sp Posted: 24 Jun 2021, 17:58 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/04/13 Posts: 2592 Post Likes: +1255 Location: Little Rock, Ar
Aircraft: A36 C560 C551 C550S
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you received an unrestricted 500 rating by taking a check ride in a 550, would you be able to hop in a 501/551 and fly it single pilot? I think the answer to that is “no”.
It may be no now, but it used to be yes.
Robert T
|
|
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
|
|
|
|