Cessna Caravan

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Can the Caravan be flown legally by a private pilot?

Gross 8800LBS
Turbne power
Fixed gear single.
I say yes, but will require a complex and high horse endorsement
 
In the United States yes it can it does not require a type rating as it's under the weight and doesn't have a jet/turbofan. It does not require a complex, only a high performance endorsement.

Now while legal It would obviously be a good idea to get some training in that type of airplane before taking it for a lap around the pattern
 
On wheels I don't believe it would require a complex endorsement. On floats however, it would.
 
JustinD said:
In the United States yes it can it does not require a type rating as it's under the weight and doesn't have a jet/turbofan. It does not require a complex, only a high performance endorsement.

Now while legal It would obviously be a good idea to get some training in that type of airplane before taking it for a lap around the pattern
Click to expand...

meh the hardest part about flying a caravan is starting it.
 
as usual in these questions, it is not the regulations which impede a pilot's access to flying a higher level a/c, it is insurance requirements....if insurance is desired.
 
A private pilot can legally fly anything with the proper type rating. You could theoretically have a 747 type rating on your private pilot certificate. As was said, though, the Van does not require a type.
 
If your bank account is big enough, the possibilities are endless.
 
Doesn't the prop and engine controls make it a complex?
 
Tom-D said:
Can the Caravan be flown legally by a private pilot?

Gross 8800LBS
Turbne power
Fixed gear single.
I say yes, but will require a complex and high horse endorsement
Click to expand...


Yes, PPL with high performance

Now if you want to insure it, I'd wager you'd be looking at IFR 1000tt, good amount of high perf time.

They are sweet heart planes, just be careful with ice and don't exceed max TQ or ITT/EGT (depending on if it's a weak PT6, or nice TPE van)
 
Tom-D said:
Doesn't the prop and engine controls make it a complex?
Click to expand...

No, you need to ether add retracts, which vans don't have, or a retractable water rudder (straight floats) for it to be complex.
 
Tom-D said:
Doesn't the prop and engine controls make it a complex?
Click to expand...
No.

14 CFR 61.1(b)(3): Definition of “complex airplane”
Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, including airplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control.

James331 said:
No, you need to ether add retracts, which vans don't have, or a retractable water rudder (straight floats) for it to be complex.
Click to expand...

There is no mention of a water rudder in the regs. Just flaps and controllable pitch propeller for a seaplane.
 
cheap weenie said:
There is no mention of a water rudder in the regs. Just flaps and controllable pitch propeller for a seaplane.
Click to expand...
Those are considered retractable landing gear. as they are a part of the floats.
 
Tom-D said:
Those are considered retractable landing gear. as they are a part of the floats.
Click to expand...

If that were true, a pure flying boat (no landing gear) would not be complex by your statement as it likely doesn't have a retractable water rudder. But it would be complex based on what the regulations actually say: "in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller".
 
cheap weenie said:
If that were true, a pure flying boat (no landing gear) would not be complex by your statement as it doesn't have a retractable water rudder. But it would be complex based on what the regulations actually say: "in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller".
Click to expand...
Do you know of such aircraft? Every hull type seaplane I know of under 12,500 has retractable gear, Lakes, Sea Bee ? All straight floats have retractable rudders. The Sea Bee even has a retractable tail wheel.
 
Tom-D said:
Do you know of such aircraft? Every hull type seaplane I know of under 12,500 has retractable gear, Lakes, Sea Bee ? All straight floats have retractable rudders. The Sea Bee even has a retractable tail wheel.
Click to expand...
I believe some of the smaller experimental flying boats are or can be non-amphibious. The point, however, is that you're inventing conditions which are not present in the regulations. Nowhere does it talk about water rudders, or that water rudders are equivalent to landing gear, or any such nonsense. Only flaps and and a controllable pitch propellor is required. Period.
 
cheap weenie said:
I believe some of the smaller experimental flying boats are or can be non-amphibious. The point, however, is that you're inventing conditions which are not present in the regulations. Nowhere does it talk about water rudders, or that water rudders are equivalent to landing gear, or any such nonsense. Only flaps and and a controllable pitch propellor is required. Period.
Click to expand...
Other than the rudders are a portion of fully equipped float kit that are the landing gear. and must be raised and lowered.
Your regulation does not say the gear must be a wheel.
 
Tom-D said:
Other than the rudders are a portion of fully equipped float kit that are the landing gear. and must be raised and lowered.
Click to expand...
Okay, Tom, you win. You obviously have deep knowledge of what the FAA meant to write when they accidentally didn't mention any of that in the regulations.
 
cheap weenie said:
Okay, Tom, you win. You obviously have deep knowledge of what the FAA meant to write when they accidentally didn't mention any of that in the regulations.
Click to expand...
They do write the regs that way for a purpose
 
tom you are wrong.
here is the reg:
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller), unless the person has—

that is the legal definition of a complex seaplane. period.

bob
 
James331 said:
Yes, PPL with high performance

Now if you want to insure it, I'd wager you'd be looking at IFR 1000tt, good amount of high perf time.

They are sweet heart planes, just be careful with ice and don't exceed max TQ or ITT/EGT (depending on if it's a weak PT6, or nice TPE van)
Click to expand...

Caravan always got me home, even when by all rights it shouldn't have. Good airplane.
 
unsafervguy said:
tom you are wrong.
here is the reg:
(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane (an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller; or, in the case of a seaplane, flaps and a controllable pitch propeller), unless the person has—

that is the legal definition of a complex seaplane. period.

bob
Click to expand...
The argument became:
is a water rudder a retractable landing gear?
I except that it is not complex, with out being on floats.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
The argument became:
is a water rudder a retractable landing gear?
I except that it is not complex, with out being on amphibian floats.
Click to expand...
Captain-Picard-Facepalm.jpg
 
Yeah water rudders have nothing to do with a seaplane being complex or not.
 
Why would anyone question if a PP can fly a Caravan when they fly PC-12s, TBMs, Meridians and other such SE turbine aircraft all of the time?

I agree with those saying that a water rudder has nothing to do with whether a seaplane is complex or not. I also agree that a seaplane need not be an amphib to be complex. The reg seems pretty clear to me.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Why would anyone question if a PP can fly a Caravan when they fly PC-12s, TBMs, Meridians and other such SE turbine aircraft all of the time?

I agree with those saying that a water rudder has nothing to do with whether a seaplane is complex or not. I also agree that a seaplane need not be an amphib to be complex. The reg seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

Didn't have the FAR in front of me, I might have been the one that got tom started on the rudder bit.

Only additional thing to the other SE turboprops you listed would be a high altitude endorsement.

Ofcourse unless you're not insuring, or self insuring, the pencil pushers are going to want a little more then basic PPL
 
To fly a Caravan requires only a PPL and a High Performance endorsement.
It is not a complex aircraft, it is not pressurized nor does it have a certified ceiling above 25000 feet so no high altitude or complex endorsement.
Your insurance company will determine any other requirements. Typically an instrument rating, annual training at Flight Safety plus the initial course. And some minimum amount of experience, ask your agent.
Caravan insurance is not cheap, for example, insurance on an mu2 with no previous flight time ran half the premium than for a caravan with over 12 years and 7000 hours experience with the same company and same hull values.
Insurance even more than the FAA makes the rules.
If your wealthy and single you can blow off the insurance and do what you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Melting said:
To fly a Caravan requires only a PPL and a High Performance endorsement.
It is not a complex aircraft, it is not pressurized nor does it have a certified ceiling above 25000 feet so no high altitude or complex endorsement.
Your insurance company will determine any other requirements. Typically an instrument rating, annual training at Flight Safety plus the initial course. And some minimum amount of experience, ask your agent.
Caravan insurance is not cheap, for example, insurance on an mu2 with no previous flight time ran half the premium than for a caravan with over 12 years and 7000 hours experience with the same company and same hull values.
Insurance even more than the FAA makes the rules.
If your wealthy and single you can blow off the insurance and do what you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hull value and the number of seats insured, has most to do with insurance costs. Add in the pilot time and a few other factors and you'll know how the insurance companies determine premiums.
Want to put it on floats? If so the insurance companies know they will be buying an aircraft. It's just a matter of how many payments you make prior to the accident.
 
To add to this thread. can the average run of the mill A&P-IA do an annual on one operating in part 91, private ownership?
 
Tom-D said:
To add to this thread. can the average run of the mill A&P-IA do an annual on one operating in part 91, private ownership?
Click to expand...
My guess would be "no", since I've never seen a turbine airplane with an annual inspection.
 
MauleSkinner said:
My guess would be "no", since I've never seen a turbine airplane with an annual inspection.
Click to expand...
The question becomes then, is the PT-6 required to be on continuous maintenance program ?
 
Tom-D said:
...
Want to put it on floats? If so the insurance companies know they will be buying an aircraft. It's just a matter of how many payments you make prior to the accident.
Click to expand...

Really Tom?

Lots of float planes rocking around who have never been destroyed.

I'd wager old weekend warrior in a tailwheel, would be a far higher risk than the type of pilots who meets the mins for most float van jobs.
 
James331 said:
Really Tom?

Lots of float planes rocking around who have never been destroyed.

I'd wager old weekend warrior in a tailwheel, would be a far higher risk than the type of pilots who meets the mins for most float van jobs.
Click to expand...
Call your insurance agent, tell them you use placed your 180 on floats, see how much more money they want?
 
Tom-D said:
Call your insurance agent, tell them you use placed your 180 on floats, see how much more money they want?
Click to expand...

My 185 is on amphibs, and yes it's more, but it's just because float flying is way more dynamic, but saying a crash is inevitable is total nonsense.
 
James331 said:
My 185 is on amphibs, and yes it's more, but it's just because float flying is way more dynamic, but saying a crash is inevitable is total nonsense.
Click to expand...
The insurance companies know when floats crash, some one dies.
 
Tom-D said:
The insurance companies know when floats crash, some one dies.
Click to expand...

Uhh, the last few I've heard of no one was hurt. A DHC2 had a emergency landing, right in your neck of the woods actually, a week or so ago and everyone was just fine.
 
image.jpeg I guess I'm suicidal :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top