Incipient senility, or just dumb?

Henning said:
:confused::confused::confused: It's not? Doesn't it have a Type Certificate?
Click to expand...

Less thant 12500lbs, doesn't require a 'type rating' in the formal sense. Still, the SFAR requires aircraft specific training and at the end of the day the expense is similar or higher than a type rating for a jet or >12500lb aircraft.One of those distinctions without a difference.
 
weilke said:
Less thant 12500lbs, doesn't require a 'type rating' in the formal sense. Still, the SFAR requires aircraft specific training and at the end of the day the expense is similar or higher than a type rating for a jet or >12500lb aircraft.One of those distinctions without a difference.
Click to expand...


Just because an aircraft doesn't require a type rating to fly does not mean it's not a type.
 
This is nit picking and has nothing to do with the OP. I was just pointing out SFAR 108 it is not a type rating rather a special FAR just for the MU2 which is of the catagory "airplane" and the class "multi engine". This is not a "type". Many use the term "type" when they are talking make and model.
The MU2 is a Mitisubishi (make) MU2 (model) it is a multi engine airplane, catagory and class.

If it does not have a type designation, for example "Lear" then it requires no special liscense. A King Air 200 is a good example. As far as the FAA is concerned any pilot with a multi engine, airplane rating can fly a 200 up to 17,500 feet and up to its service ceiling if instrument rated. Now the insurance is a whole new thread.

Sorry for the nit picking:rolleyes:.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I have nothing really against the Navy. Someone has to babysit the Marines. I would have probably enjoyed it if they had let me join, but then MY parents were married. :D
Click to expand...

To each other? :D (edit - dang - I see Clark beat me to that punch line)
... And after they divorced, were they still cousins? :D

I've got nothing against the puddle pirates, either. My best friend from high school was a coastie. I didn't meet the height requirements of 6'1" - I understand that's so you can wade ashore after your boat sinks? :dunno:

Anyway, seriously, after seeing some of the Alaska work and high surf work the Coast Guard performs, my hat's off to that service, just like any of the others.
 
gkainz said:
To each other? :D (edit - dang - I see Clark beat me to that punch line)
... And after they divorced, were they still cousins? :D

I've got nothing against the puddle pirates, either. My best friend from high school was a coastie. I didn't meet the height requirements of 6'1" - I understand that's so you can wade ashore after your boat sinks? :dunno:

Anyway, seriously, after seeing some of the Alaska work and high surf work the Coast Guard performs, my hat's off to that service, just like any of the others.
Click to expand...

No sweat. I don't get riled over the normal inter-service ribbing. Anyone who has served knows the root of all the BS is mutual respect. We all had different missions, and different tools. (OBTW - - I am exactly 6' 1", just barely squeaked by. :D )
 
Threefingeredjack said:
No sweat. I don't get riled over the normal inter-service ribbing. Anyone who has served knows the root of all the BS is mutual respect. We all had different missions, and different tools. (OBTW - - I am exactly 6' 1", just barely squeaked by. :D )
Click to expand...

6'3". I could still SEE if we sank.

I've met and worked with people in all the services, and each service has plenty to be proud of (and a few things to be teased about). At the root though of every service is a desire to put yourself on the line for something you think is bigger and more important than you are.
 
To explain the height joke:

Why are all Coast Guardsmen over six feet tall?
.
.
.
.
.
So they can walk back to shore when their boat sinks.
 
gkainz said:
To each other? :D (edit - dang - I see Clark beat me to that punch line)
... And after they divorced, were they still cousins? :D
Click to expand...

No, they were step-bro & sis by that time...
 
My estimates are probably low. They come from someone else who always estimates on the low side.

The 6-month recurrent training would be good. You don't need to be Superman to fly it, but the statistics show you do have to know WTF you're doing.
 
ronnieh said:
This is nit picking and has nothing to do with the OP. I was just pointing out SFAR 108 it is not a type rating rather a special FAR just for the MU2 which is of the catagory "airplane" and the class "multi engine". This is not a "type". Many use the term "type" when they are talking make and model.
The MU2 is a Mitisubishi (make) MU2 (model) it is a multi engine airplane, catagory and class.

If it does not have a type designation, for example "Lear" then it requires no special liscense. A King Air 200 is a good example. As far as the FAA is concerned any pilot with a multi engine, airplane rating can fly a 200 up to 17,500 feet and up to its service ceiling if instrument rated. Now the insurance is a whole new thread.

Sorry for the nit picking:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

The SFAR is not a Type Rating, The MU-2 is a Type and is assigned a Type Certificate, not a Make and Model certificate.
 
Last edited:
My biggest criticism of the MU-2 is the cockpit workload is fairly high. I don't think the spoileron-induced handling issue is that big a deal if you fly it like a jet. Fly it like a Baron and you'll think otherwise.

The cockpit workload is basically due to lousy ergonomics -- the panel is modeled after 1950s jets and the dial/switchology is a shotgun approach. It makes flow checks hard to do and requires instant identification of where the item you're looking for can be found.

But it's actually a nice airplane to fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top