Type Rating vs LOA

Sinistar

En-Route
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
3,712
Display Name

Display name:
Brad
Okay, just trying to learn more about the differences here. And it seems that it is also sometimes LOOA?

So from the Cirrus thread I learned a lot about Type Rating. But I also had heard about LOA's. So let me see if I get this right:

If you want to fly a DC-3 you'll need a Type Rating due to its weight. Sticking with piston aircraft. It seems you'll need a LOA to fly that gorgeous F4U Corsair or P-51 mustang. The later have very high horsepower, high Vne speeds and are experimental (which I didn't know). But there must be something of WWII vintage that is both heavy and high enough horsepower and experimental that could need both? Isn't a B-17 or B-29 experimental and high horsepower and sort of meets both requirements?
 
I don't believe you would need both, only one or the other is sufficient.
 
I believe that someone can only get type rated in aircraft that have type certificates. Without a type certificate, aircraft are certificated under one of the experimental categories (such as exhibition or racing) and if they would require a type rating (for weight or powerplant) under civilian rules, require the pilot to get an LOA. Some military aircraft have civilian type certificate equivalents such as a WWII C-47 had a civilian counterpart, the DC-3 so to fly a C-47, you'd need a DC-3 type rating. There were no civilian F4s so to fly one as a civilian you'd need an LOA.
 
Thanks @Witmo.

So it sounds like the Type Rating requirement is perhaps more straightforward. As an aircraft is designed and manufactured, if it will be for civilian use and is over 12,500lbs or a Turbojet (or both) it will require a Type Certificate and thus anyone flying in command of that plane will need a Type Rating which would be indicated specifically on their certificate. For the older warbirds (as an example) some are of a speed or horsepower or performance characteristic that will require something similar to a Type Certificate. However they were not released for civilian use so they never had a Type Certificate and thus the LOA. It looks the old T-6 does not require a LOA but a P-51 mustang does. So either the T-6 eventually had a Type Certificate (but I can't find any mention of one) or it just doesn't meet a specific requirement for the LOA and thus a T-6 would only need the HP, complex and tailwheel endorsements?
 
It looks the old T-6 does not require a LOA but a P-51 mustang does. So either the T-6 eventually had a Type Certificate (but I can't find any mention of one) or it just doesn't meet a specific requirement for the LOA and thus a T-6 would only need the HP, complex and tailwheel endorsements?

The T-6/Harvard fleet are a bit different in that US built ships are Standard Category and have a TC, while Canadian built Harvards are Experimental Exhibition, no TC. No type rating or LOA required as they are less than 800hp and Vne is less than 250 kts, so, you are correct with the HP, complex and tailwheel endorsements being good to operate a T-6.

The LOA for the experimental warbird types is called an "Experimental Aircraft Authorization". For a little light reading on the subject, see FAA FSIMS 8900...
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch9,Sec2
 
Thanks @Witmo.

So it sounds like the Type Rating requirement is perhaps more straightforward. As an aircraft is designed and manufactured, if it will be for civilian use and is over 12,500lbs or a Turbojet (or both) it will require a Type Certificate and thus anyone flying in command of that plane will need a Type Rating which would be indicated specifically on their certificate. For the older warbirds (as an example) some are of a speed or horsepower or performance characteristic that will require something similar to a Type Certificate. However they were not released for civilian use so they never had a Type Certificate and thus the LOA. It looks the old T-6 does not require a LOA but a P-51 mustang does. So either the T-6 eventually had a Type Certificate (but I can't find any mention of one) or it just doesn't meet a specific requirement for the LOA and thus a T-6 would only need the HP, complex and tailwheel endorsements?
The P-51D does have a procedure to "convert" it to a standard type certificate, non-experimental.

Apparently there were enough of them that made it into civilian ownership to make it worthwhile.
 
Back
Top