BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 17:30

Username Protected wrote:

Paul:

I mean this with all due respect. I kind of feel it myself from time to time. Sometimes it seems like you “look away” for a moment and everything you grew up has changed when you look back. Crew vs SP. coffin corner margins. Fuel economy at FL450. Who can teach in turbojets?

I feel you brother.

You add value. Don’t ever think otherwise.

:bud:

That's OK Mark, time has not changed my view of Part 91 turbo jet operations. The old saying will always be true "just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's safe." As you know, I didn't write that rule, people with more experience and wisdom than I did; I just happen to agree with them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 17:37

Username Protected wrote:

Paul:

I mean this with all due respect. I kind of feel it myself from time to time. Sometimes it seems like you “look away” for a moment and everything you grew up has changed when you look back. Crew vs SP. coffin corner margins. Fuel economy at FL450. Who can teach in turbojets?

I feel you brother.

You add value. Don’t ever think otherwise.

:bud:

That's OK Mark, time has not changed my view of Part 91 turbo jet operations. The old saying will always be true "just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's safe." As you know, I didn't write that rule, people with more experience and wisdom than I did; I just happen to agree with them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 17:43

Username Protected wrote:

It is unquestionably legal but insurance would have a field day.

You told them???

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 17:55

[

Thank god 121’s require all there training captains to be CFIs. Wait they don’t. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s safe.[/quote][/quote]

____________________________________________________________________

Whether or not a CFI doesn't have much to do with it. It's the potential to just put a warm body in the right seat and say he's certified so somebody can fly their two-pilot jet around under the existing rules. 121 SIC's get a checkride, i.e. "practical test." All this is not to say that the training an SIC gets under Part 61 can't be safe, but it has the potential to be abused with the stroke of a pen, and I'm sure it is. I didn't always fly 121; I was in the Part 91 turbojet game too for several years, and I know what goes on.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:00

Username Protected wrote:

It is unquestionably legal but insurance would have a field day.

You told them???

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:09

[
You told them???[/quote]

Asking for a friend :rofl:

[/quote]

________________________________________________________________________

No matter the FAR's, the point about insurance is a valid one. In the Part 91 jet operations I flew insurance required both pilots to complete annual training at Flight Safety or the equivalent , and I never experienced any Santa Clauses at Flight Safety, they busted one of my bosses for PIC.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:11

Username Protected wrote:

[
You told them???

Asking for a friend :rofl:

[/quote]

No matter the FAR's, the point about insurance is a valid one. In the Part 91 jet operations I flew insurance required both pilots to complete annual training at Flight Safety or the equivalent , and I never experienced any Santa Clauses at Flight Safety, they busted one of my bosses for PIC.[/quote]

Did they retrain and pass him or was it the end for him?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:14

Username Protected wrote:

[
You told them???

Asking for a friend :rofl:

[/quote]

No matter the FAR's, the point about insurance is a valid one. In the Part 91 jet operations I flew insurance required both pilots to complete annual training at Flight Safety or the equivalent , and I never experienced any Santa Clauses at Flight Safety, they busted one of my bosses for PIC.[/quote]
We have $300 million in liability per plane and they don’t require it. Just current according to FARs

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:17

Username Protected wrote:

[
You told them???

Asking for a friend :rofl:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:22

Username Protected wrote:

Your're flying a King Air, right?

Yup and N-265-65 and G-1159B

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:24

Username Protected wrote:

Your're flying a King Air, right?

Yup and N-265-65 and G-1159B

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:25

AIS Gallagher Part 91

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:33

[
I just got inssured SP in an Ultra that has $200m limits. i was surprised they had limits that high.[/quote]

Me too.

I'm even more surprised that Eric is training his own FO's without sending them to a professional training and certification school like Flight Safety or Simuflight, and still insured for $300 million, but life is full of surprises.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 18:47

Username Protected wrote:

[
You told them???

Asking for a friend :rofl:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 May 2018, 19:20

Username Protected wrote:

Ok...here is what I have discovered.

1) Any type rated guy can act as the trainer in the aircraft he is typed in if it is for SIC training purposes. Don't even need an ATP. I knew this from another post on BT.
Signed a guy off and the FSDO was fine with it.

2) Mike C is correct that the SPE requires the pilot who is acting a a SP PIC must sit left seat.

3)No one I have talked with has been able to answer whether or not the SIC trainer must be seated in the left seat.

4) Allen W is likely right that insurance has a preference.

I like it. A real brain teaser.

Also, the “SIC Training flights” have to be just that, training flights (no pax and day VFR or day IFR) correct?

I’m guessing that the training can be done from either seat. You aren’t exercising your SPE or SP privileges at that point, you are a multi pilot crew with an SIC in training. I’d just ask your FSDO.

Flying the Citation II