Why doesn't a ME check ride give SE privileges?

[stratobee]

If you go for a multi engine seaplane check ride, you can't fly a single engine seaplane? Or a ME Instrument ride you're not allowed to a fly a SE approach?
I've never understood this. Makes no sense. A higher rating should trump and cover all the ones below it in my book.

What is the reasoning behind this? More money?

 

[bqmassey]

The FAA's position is that it's not a higher rating, it is a different rating. (Same category, but different class, like helicopter vs gyroplane.)

It's only a "higher" rating because that's the order it's typically taught in.

 

[JeffDG]

Yep, you can go get your private in a multi if you like. The rules are basically the same (40 hours, 10 solo, etc), then you can do a single-add-on.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you go for a multi engine seaplane check ride, you can't fly a single engine seaplane?

Correct. You don't get any class privilege until you take a ride in that exact class.

Or a ME Instrument ride you're not allowed to a fly a SE approach?

Not correct. If you take your initial Instrument ride in a twin while holding both SE and ME ratings already, you do not get any restriction on your Instrument-Airplane privileges. OTOH, if you do your initial instrument in a single while holding both SE and ME ratings already, your new certificate will show the ME rating limited to VFR-only until you take a short ME instrument ride.

I've never understood this. Makes no sense. A higher rating should trump and cover all the ones below it in my book.

The FAA doesn't consider SE vs ME to be higher/lower for class rating considerations, just different.

What is the reasoning behind this?

Safety.

More money?

No. The FAA doesn't get paid for any of this, and the DPE's who do are not part of the rulemaking committee.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If you go for a multi engine seaplane check ride, you can't fly a single engine seaplane? Or a ME Instrument ride you're not allowed to a fly a SE approach?

I've never understood this. Makes no sense. A higher rating should trump and cover all the ones below it in my book.



What is the reasoning behind this? More money?

Don't have one myself, so I'll ask: is there a PTS requirement on the ASES to demonstrate a landing with an engine failure like there is for ASEL?

If so, that would be the key basis. For ASEL, it is one of a few items that require you to take a separate flight test in a single if you do the initial rating in a twin.

 

[poadeleted20]

Don't have one myself, so I'll ask: is there a PTS requirement on the ASES to demonstrate a landing with an engine failure like there is for ASEL?

That's "Emergency Approach and Landing (Simulated)", Area X, Task B, for PP-Airplane (Single Engine), and it applies to both ASEL and ASES.

If so, that would be the key basis. For ASEL, it is one of a few items that require you to take a separate flight test in a single if you do the initial rating in a twin.

If you do your initial certificate test in a twin, you still have to take an additional rating test in a single, and in that situation, there are more than what I would call "a few" items to accomplish -- there are in fact 12 Tasks for a PP-AMEL to add the ASEL rating, and I wouldn't call any one of them "the key" item on the list. See the Additional Rating Task Table in the PP-Airplane PTS for details.

 

[EdFred]

I find it interesting I can fly multi-land and single-sea but not multi-sea. I've already done the OEI, and I already know how to sail, taxi, beach, etc...

 

[Henning]

I find it interesting I can fly multi-land and single-sea but not multi-sea. I've already done the OEI, and I already know how to sail, taxi, beach, etc...

Landing MES on one is considerably different from landing MEL on one, also MES is always 'dirty'.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That's "Emergency Approach and Landing (Simulated)", Area X, Task B, for PP-Airplane (Single Engine), and it applies to both ASEL and ASES.

If you do your initial certificate test in a twin, you still have to take an additional rating test in a single, and in that situation, there are more than what I would call "a few" items to accomplish -- there are in fact 12 Tasks for a PP-AMEL to add the ASEL rating, and I wouldn't call any one of them "the key" item on the list. See the Additional Rating Task Table in the PP-Airplane PTS for details.

I'll let you do the math there Ron..., but I'm guessing 12 tasks for a SEL addon is pretty small compared to the total tasks required for the Private or Comm initial if done in a twin.

I know my SE oral and flight test for my Commercial was very brief compared to the initial Comm MEL.

 

[EdFred]

That's "Emergency Approach and Landing (Simulated)", Area X, Task B, for PP-Airplane (Single Engine), and it applies to both ASEL and ASES.

If you do your initial certificate test in a twin, you still have to take an additional rating test in a single, and in that situation, there are more than what I would call "a few" items to accomplish -- there are in fact 12 Tasks for a PP-AMEL to add the ASEL rating, and I wouldn't call any one of them "the key" item on the list. See the Additional Rating Task Table in the PP-Airplane PTS for details.

Which brings up a question when one goes for the last of the four airplane classes. When I look at what tasks are required is it least restrictive, or most restrictive? For example, going for an MES it says under Area of operation V that if one has an AMEL they are not required to do any of the tasks, but if they have an ASES, they have to do all of them. I hadn't really thought about it, since I went SEL --> SES --> MEL and having a SES didn't change any of the tasks required for the MEL.

 

[MassPilot]

My girlfriend's father learned to fly in the Air Force. Now he flies for an airline, and holds an ATP-AMEL. He has no ASEL rating and cannot be PIC of a single-engine airplane, despite having type-ratings for 757, 767, and MD-88.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

My girlfriend's father learned to fly in the Air Force. Now he flies for an airline, and holds an ATP-AMEL. He has no ASEL rating and cannot be PIC of a single-engine airplane, despite having type-ratings for 757, 767, and MD-88.

Not knocking your girlfriends father but it is not necessarily a bad thing not having ASEL. He may be just fine in a single but that is not always the case for pilots with the background you describe.

 

[poadeleted20]

My girlfriend's father learned to fly in the Air Force. Now he flies for an airline, and holds an ATP-AMEL. He has no ASEL rating and cannot be PIC of a single-engine airplane, despite having type-ratings for 757, 767, and MD-88.

Prior to the new T-6 Texan II, USAF pilots got only some screening training in the T-41 without ever taking a PIC checkride. The only planes they were PIC-qualified on during training had two engines (T-37 then T-38 or T-1A), and then on to multiengine types. Even with the new lifetime benefit of 14 CFR 61.73, having never qualified in a SE airplane, they can't get a SE rating from the FAA without taking a practical test in class. Now, everyone does Basic in the T-6 (single-engine) and then Advanced in the T-38 or T-1A (multiengine) and gets both ASEL and AMEL when they take the FAA military competency written test after they get their wings.

 

[Henning]

My girlfriend's father learned to fly in the Air Force. Now he flies for an airline, and holds an ATP-AMEL. He has no ASEL rating and cannot be PIC of a single-engine airplane, despite having type-ratings for 757, 767, and MD-88.

I worked for a guy who flew F-100s in the AF then went straight to United Airlines, his only civilian ticket was ATP-ME. When I gave him a ride in my Travelair he said "This is the first plane I've ever been in with propellers."

 

[RotorAndWing]

I worked for a guy who flew F-100s in the AF then went straight to United Airlines, his only civilian ticket was ATP-ME. When I gave him a ride in my Travelair he said "This is the first plane I've ever been in with propellers."

Really?

So he did his AF initial training in a jet?

Seems to me back in that era (F100's) that AF pilots started out in T34's or T28's, and they definitely had propellers.

 

[Henning]

Really?

So he did his AF initial training in a jet?

Seems to me back in that era (F100's) that AF pilots started out in T34's or T28's, and they definitely had propellers.

His words, not sure when they started training whom in what. He got out of the AF just before Vietnam, and he was retiring from United in 91 at whatever the mandatory age was then. Figuring he was 22 or 23 graduating college should be able to figure from there what year he went in.

 

[RotorAndWing]

His words,

But you are writing the post.

not sure when they started training whom in what. He got out of the AF just before Vietnam, and he was retiring from United in 91 at whatever the mandatory age was then. Figuring he was 22 or 23 graduating college should be able to figure from there what year he went in.

So theoretically he was born in 1931 (In '91 age 60 rule in effect) which means if he went into AF flight training at age 24 (1955) he received his primary training in a piston powered single engine airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

Really?

So he did his AF initial training in a jet?

Seems to me back in that era (F100's) that AF pilots started out in T34's or T28's, and they definitely had propellers.

They were still flying Huns long after USAF Primary moved into Tweets. While the F-100's were introduced in the 50's, the last F-100's weren't phased out until the late 70's (Indiana ANG at Terre Haute, IIRC).

 

[poadeleted20]

So theoretically he was born in 1931 (In '91 age 60 rule in effect) which means if he went into AF flight training at age 24 (1955) he received his primary training in a piston powered single engine airplane.

If so, it's likely it had been more than 12 months since his last SE ride in the Air Force when he did the military equivalence. Under the rules prior to about four years ago, you could only get ratings that way for things you'd flown within the last 12 months. Also, the T-37 was introduced to USAF primary training in 1957, and the max age for pilot training was 26, so he could have been in one of the first Tweet classes.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If so, it's likely it had been more than 12 months since his last SE ride in the Air Force when he did the military equivalence. Under the rules prior to about four years ago, you could only get ratings that way for things you'd flown within the last 12 months. Also, the T-37 was introduced to USAF primary training in 1957, and the max age for pilot training was 26, so he could have been in one of the first Tweet classes.

So what did the AF use all of those T34's and T28's for?

 

[poadeleted20]

So what did the AF use all of those T34's and T28's for?

The USAF didn't do a lot of primary training in either. They were used for that purpose only for a relatively short period in the 50's between the retirement of the original North American T-6 (not to be confused with the new Raytheon/Pilatus T-6A Texan II now in use) and the introduction of the T-37 in 1957. The Navy made far more use of them for far longer than the Air Force -- they were still using the piston-powered T-34B's for primary, and the T-28's for Basic and Instrument, well into the 70's.

 

[Lindberg]

Prior to the new T-6 Texan II, USAF pilots got only some screening training in the T-41 without ever taking a PIC checkride. The only planes they were PIC-qualified on during training had two engines (T-37 then T-38 or T-1A), and then on to multiengine types. Even with the new lifetime benefit of 14 CFR 61.73, having never qualified in a SE airplane, they can't get a SE rating from the FAA without taking a practical test in class. Now, everyone does Basic in the T-6 (single-engine) and then Advanced in the T-38 or T-1A (multiengine) and gets both ASEL and AMEL when they take the FAA military competency written test after they get their wings.

There's training required as well. I looked into this for a friend in a similar position. Former AF IP, big iron captain, but no ASEL. Some of the requirements in 61.109 specify "in a single-engine airplane." IIRC, the night, hood, xc, and solo.

 

[JHW]

the hardest airplane transition i ever made was my introduction to the cessna 150. It was the first single-engine-anything i had ever flown with about 3000 hrs in the logbook. I started out flying in something not dissimilar, the cessna 337, but it had been a couple years of nothing smaller than a twin turpoprop when the C-150 came along. I would have been an accident report if i had tried it without instruction.

Later on, the most frightened I have ever been in an airplane was giving a checkout to a just-retired 747 captain in his own supercub that he hadn't flown in decades.

IOW sometimes the FAA gets it right.

 

[Dr. O]

Large/fast jet aircraft are mostly flown by the numbers.
Small piston aircraft are mostly flown by sight, sound and feel.
Different skill sets, different muscle memory patterns.
When one has decades of experience in one or the other and considers himself an 'expert', switching can be a real shock - especially downwards.

The ultralight/very-light guys see that in spades when some PPL with 20 years in a Debbie or a Baron or even a jet, who considers himself superior to those lowly UL guys and jumps in one. First they don't have a clue what those Reebok covered things on the ends of their legs are for. Second they chop the throttle over the numbers while still 20 feet high and can't understand why the airplane just quits flying and drops like a rock. Usually the airplane requires repairs after the first landing attempt - hopefully they wake up and get some dual before they total the bird..

 

[poadeleted20]

There's training required as well. I looked into this for a friend in a similar position. Former AF IP, big iron captain, but no ASEL. Some of the requirements in 61.109 specify "in a single-engine airplane." IIRC, the night, hood, xc, and solo.

There aren't any night, hood, XC, or solo hours required to add ASEL to AMEL at the same or lower certificate level. The only thing that's required for this additional class rating is a CFI's endorsement that the applicant is prepared to pass the test. See 61.63(c). Of course, it might take a few hours for a C-17 pilot to get the chandelles, lazy-8's, 180-degree power-off approach and landing, etc., down pat in a 172 if the pilot wants the ASEL at the CP level, but at least a complex airplane is not required since the military pilot already did that already in the USN/USAF.