Type Rating / Aircraft Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
1,551
Location
Georgia
Question: If an aircraft is capable of more than the 12,500 pound limit but will be operated at less than 12,500, is there an FAA mechanism for, say, placarding or wavering somehow that aircraft so that non-type rated crew can operate it? Two examples under consideration are Beech 250 and Twin Otter. Both have versions for over 12,500. Reason for question: crew cost training timeline and expense. I will be checking with FSDO and others but I don't like breaking cover till I have "some" data.
grin.gif
 
You need to ask two different questions. 1) can the airplanes be modified to decrease the weight? and 2) will decreasing the weight eliminate the type rating requirement?
 
Originally Posted By: wkcars
You need to ask two different questions. 1) can the airplanes be modified to decrease the weight? and 2) will decreasing the weight eliminate the type rating requirement?
Be sure to have Spartan grads make the modifications. Fix er up good.
 
This is an FAR question, and I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is the 12,500 pounds (that makes it a transport category airplane and requires two pilots) is based on the maximum takeoff gross weight of which the airplane is capable.

The time to make that number less than 12,500 was when the airplane was designed and certified, as Lear did with one of their models.

The weight at which YOU operate it is irrelevant in the FAR definition.

I'm reasonably sure that's how it reads...

You need to talk with someone who deals in this...like a FSDO.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input Astro. I agree about the reg itself. I'm just trying to see if a waiver might be "gettable". I will indeed be talking to my regional guys about it. The interest is driven by the current relatively affordable availability of specific aircraft but limited by the client's on-payroll pilots i.e. doesn't want to pay outsiders. I'm hopeful that a way may be found. I could be a bit of a hero if so. The goal is not to overload the aircraft, just the opposite; it's only to be able to operate a 12.5K+ unit for a limited time period while stipulating that it will never exceed 12.5K. We'll see. I'll report back.
 
I'd be curious what they say...I suspect they'll be inflexible...but you won't know until you ask...

This (FARs) is definitely not my area of expertise, but I did look it up and read it before posting.

My experience with the FAA is that they're rigidly dogmatic...and adhere to the letter of the law instead of the spirit unless tremendous resources are applied...

There are some great folks at the FAA, some of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, but institutionally, they tend to be monolithic...
 
I went back and reviewed parts of it also. Subsection 61.31 is the central (maybe only) issue for discussion. The main reason I can see that helps support the proposition (making the mistake of thinking logically while approaching a bureaucratic monolith) is that both aircraft under consideration are usually under 12.5 gross and even in the heavier variants of these two the weight over 12.5, while significant, is not out of the realm of "normal piloting skill" (made up phrase). The -300 Twin Otter is one of the Ikhana increased GW STC while the Beech is a production variant of the 200/250. The limited amount of time needed, 1-2 months, may also help the argument.

Beyond this is still the issue of what Part the aircraft would operate under. It is "for hire" but not as a revenue passenger vehicle. It will carry two equipment operators but can they be considered "crew", etc.? Both company pilos are commercial and IFR licensed and otherwise qualified to fly complex King Airs except for currency checks. And, further, whose ticket do you use - the lessor or lessee? This is one of those exercises that if it doen't start getting a little easier as you dig deeper it is likely to fail especially if there is a time factor. Still, as you said, it will be interesting to see what they say. I've already called them and waiting for the call back.
 
Last edited:
I got "forwarded" to a couple of different people today and left messages. I told the two I talked to that I certainly didn't expect an authoritative answer over the phone. I just wanted to know if there was a process for exception. Note: There is ALWAYS a process for exception but you have to find the right lever. Luckily this doesn't actually have to happen until August or so. Maybe tomorrow. There will still be Transport Canada questions too. They have to approve any aircraft lease. Application fee? About $1,000CDN. You pay it even if they disapprove it! O Canada!

08.gif
 
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
I got "forwarded" to a couple of different people today and left messages. I told the two I talked to that I certainly didn't expect an authoritative answer over the phone. I just wanted to know if there was a process for exception. Note: There is ALWAYS a process for exception but you have to find the right lever. Luckily this doesn't actually have to happen until August or so. Maybe tomorrow. There will still be Transport Canada questions too. They have to approve any aircraft lease. Application fee? About $1,000CDN. You pay it even if they disapprove it! O Canada!

08.gif




The Operations Branch Chief at the Atlanta FSDO will call me back on Monday. I'm told. Nobody has slam dunked me so far so maybe.....
 
I finally had a definitive discussion with the FAA's Atlanta FSDO today. The answer is a little convoluted. To restate the issue: Can multi qualified pilots operate an aircraft of more than 12.5k gross weight without having a type rating for that aircraft? Recall that the possible aircraft would be capable of up to 14.5k gross (Twin Otter variant or a Beech 250 HGW version). There apparently are two answers.

In the case of the Twin Otter where its gross weight has been increased via an STC, there is no issue. Why? They say the aircraft was not certified in the "heavy" category. The STC would govern, have both piloting and performance chart amendments and notwithstanding 61.31 it would not require a type rating. The Beech 250 HGW "may" require one but he was unwilling to address that without further investigation. The FSDO was very congenial to deal with and I was impressed with their professionalism. It takes time to deal with the FAA but it can be done.

All this is water under the bridge though. The complications and cost of trying to operate the aircraft in Canada finally forced the customer to hire a Canadian company (not Borek but I can't remember who he said) to carry the payload. So a bit of a futile exercise but no worse than most make-buy processes. Cheers.
 
Even if a paperwork derate in MGTOW were obtained, there'd still be the issue of insurance.
The average av insurer would probably have said "ah, no".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom