Lear down TEB

[PaulS]

While I understand the whole “personal minimums” thing, also keep in mind that if you make it your goal to be proficient to published minimums, your personal minimums will reasonably be lower than if you only strive to be good enough for your personal minimums, in which case your personal minimums will probably have to increase substantially over time.

That's what I'm hoping. Cirrus actually does recommends levels via experience and proficiency level. I plan on following their recommendations.

 

[dtuuri]

Dturri, I'm a newly minted instrument pilot, I like going through these things to learn stuff. I have a good instructor who told me that circling to land, at night, at mda, in instrument conditions, for the type of flying I do, recreational, is probably not a smart thing to be doing.

Your instructor knows you better than I do. I'm only trying to let you and others know how to do it safely and what pitfalls to watch out for. I can see from this thread it's hard for experienced pilots and controllers to have a conversation using nuanced terms like "circle" and "visual" without confusing the heck out of newbies listening in.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Your instructor knows you better than I do. I'm only trying to let you and others know how to do it safely and what pitfalls to watch out for. I can see from this thread it's hard for experienced pilots and controllers to have a conversation using nuanced terms like "circle" and "visual" without confusing the heck out of newbies listening in.

And @PaulS, be sure to have your instructor have you do a circle at night. Mine did... And my natural reaction to what I saw would have likely put me in the trees, because when you first see the airport lights at circling minimums, it looks like a plain old traffic pattern, but you're way below TPA and if you begin descending the way you've practiced before, that's bad news.

So, we flew over to final, landed, and then went back up for a normal VFR traffic pattern. It was only then that I really saw the difference, and it was a big difference! It's just very difficult to tell at night.

 

[Sluggo63]

Just reread the report and cockpit recording. They were flying the approach at 180 knots, TORBY is at 3.8 miles which was within the 4.5 miles for a Cat E approach.

...

They were flying an instrument approach, Torby was within the protected area for the speeds they were flying and the instruction ATC made sense for this aircraft being flown the way it was being flown.

...

I thought was outside the protected area but now I know it was not for the speeds being flown. I should have read the reports again, I would have answered my own question.

I wasn't going to open this whole bag of worms, but since you brought it up... your first reading was exactly right. This is the other reason that I think the "circling" instructions given by the tower were bad. You are correct, that at 180 kts, that put the Lear into a Cat E circle. There is no Cat E minimums on the chart. The only obstacles that were looked at were the ones in the Cat D protected airspace. Nobody knows what obstacles were between 2.3 and 4.5.

We can kind of see that when they went from the "old" minima to the "new." When the Cat D protected airspace went from 2.3 (old) to 3.7 (new), the MDA went up 220', from 820 MSL to 1040 MSL. The circling airspace gives you 300' of protection above any obstacle in the protected airspace. So, when they looked at the expanded area, there must be an obstacle (somewhere) in that new area that's about 740' MSL. So conceivably, with a circle at TORBY, at 180 knots at 820' MSL, you could be flying around with only 80' of obstacle clearance.

Again, it's a bad instruction. I know the others on here will come and say that hundreds of pilots fly this approach every day and don't hit anything, and that's true. But I think it sets people up for a false sense of security, and they may then take that lax view of circling protected airspace and circling MDAs to another airfield where it DOES matter. They they hit a guy wire from a tower they didn't see, and we'd all wonder what they were doing maneuvering down low outside the circling protected airspace.

Dturri, I'm a newly minted instrument pilot, I like going through these things to learn stuff. I have a good instructor who told me that circling to land, at night, at mda, in instrument conditions, for the type of flying I do, recreational, is probably not a smart thing to be doing. I agree with him. I'd prefer a precision approach, or at least one aligned with the runway and conditions not at minimums. Some will say "what's the point of having the rating if you can't fly to minimums?" My answer to that is we can't all be Aces, if it works for you, have at it.

Your instructor is smart and you have the right attitude towards this. Don't let the naysayers tell you otherwise. Aviation is all about risk mitigation. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having personal minimums, in fact, as a newly-minted instrument pilot, I would highly encourage you to set personal minimums and use them. As you become more proficient and comfortable, you can lower them, or get rid of them altogether. The airlines do it and as does the Air Force, so don't worry, you'd be in good company.

A night, circling approach at MDA in marginal weather is an extremely high risk item. For me, that would require significant planning and forethought before I would do it, especially at an unfamiliar field, if I would do it at all.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I wasn't going to open this whole bag of worms, but since you brought it up... your first reading was exactly right. This is the other reason that I think the "circling" instructions given by the tower were bad. You are correct, that at 180 kts, that put the Lear into a Cat E circle. There is no Cat E minimums on the chart. The only obstacles that were looked at were the ones in the Cat D protected airspace. Nobody knows what obstacles were between 2.3 and 4.5.

We can kind of see that when they went from the "old" minima to the "new." When the Cat D protected airspace went from 2.3 (old) to 3.7 (new), the MDA went up 220', from 820 MSL to 1040 MSL. The circling airspace gives you 300' of protection above any obstacle in the protected airspace. So, when they looked at the expanded area, there must be an obstacle (somewhere) in that new area that's about 740' MSL. So conceivably, with a circle at TORBY, at 180 knots at 820' MSL, you could be flying around with only 80' of obstacle clearance.

Again, it's a bad instruction. I know the others on here will come and say that hundreds of pilots fly this approach every day and don't hit anything, and that's true. But I think it sets people up for a false sense of security, and they may then take that lax view of circling protected airspace and circling MDAs to another airfield where it DOES matter. They they hit a guy wire from a tower they didn't see, and we'd all wonder what they were doing maneuvering down low outside the circling protected airspace.

I'm not going to say hundreds of pilots fly this every day...I'm going to say "show me the reg that says you must be at MDA to circle."

MDA is a minimum altitude. If you want to go down there to circle, fine...it's your responsibility to make sure you're in protected airspace and/or clear of obstacles. Personally, I think it's foolish to circle at MDA when pattern altitude is available. YMMV.

I'd also question the judgment of someone who feels the need to descend from TORBY to MDA in excess of 1000 fpm, which is what you'd have to do to leave protected airspace without violating Newark's airspace.

 

[dtuuri]

You are correct, that at 180 kts, that put the Lear into a Cat E circle. There is no Cat E minimums on the chart. The only obstacles that were looked at were the ones in the Cat D protected airspace. Nobody knows what obstacles were between 2.3 and 4.5.

First, that was a well written post I thought.

Next, on the quoted part, I've got around 1700 hours in Learjets, including a number of landings at TEB. Although it's been 40 years since the last one in a Lear, there's no way somebody is planning to circle at 180 kts. These pilots simply didn't seem to know where the airport was. In the Lear cockpits I'm familiar with there were no moving maps, PFDs or GPS readouts from the end of the runway and I've learned not to trust my eyes for distance information. Besides that, I had MDA for cat C set on an altimeter ring and may have had a step-down altitude in mind, too, before breaking out and acquiring an airport visually. Being set up like that for the worst case, I, for one, wouldn't want to also have another category's minimums and distances competing for my limited brain's RAM resources. So for me, breaking off early (and by early I mean before arriving at my personal favorite position squarely over the airport) and then circling to another runway becomes a 'visual approach' whatever the ceiling and visibility actually are. From over the airport, a 'circling approach' by comparison, airspeed and altitude control protects me from what my eyes might not see. IMMHO.

 

[N53KL]

Flight,

I think all this talk about MDA's, categories and ATC instructions is very instructional and I thank those who bring it to the table. I agree with a lot that has been said here but the simple fact is this crew had an incompetent Captain and an inexperienced First Officer (who had more situational awareness but failed to prevail). There is no question in my mind, the Captain was focused on landing straight ahead on RW6 no matter what he was cleared or instructed to do. When this Captain finally saw the error he chose the worse possible and most dangerous course of action.....

To be honest, I see no fault with ATC. Before my retirement, TEB was a common destination. Over the 45 years and hundreds of approaches to TEB, I found the controllers very clear, competent and helpful (except for a few occasions)

This tragedy has been an opportunity for ALL of us to learn no matter how much experience we have. It's just sad.

Kevin

 

[Ted]

The AOPA Air Safety Institute put out a video on this crash a couple of days ago that I thought was worth sharing:

The main thing they left out is I think they tried to paint the captain as not quite as unqualified as he really was. They did point out that he'd been deemed unfit to be captain at previous employers and noted issues on his recent training, but I seem to recall that he'd had a history of failures similar to the SIC from early on in his flying career.

The whole thing is sad, but the good part is that they didn't take out anyone but eachother and the airplane, and no innocent passengers or people on the ground.

 

[N1120A]

The ASI video wasn't as good and detailed as some of the previous ones. It didn't go as far into the recordings and details of the botched approach as it could have. Not only was the crew an awful pair to have together, there were numerous times they could have saved the approach. Or, they could have gone around. The Captain was FIXATED on the circling approach minimums, as opposed to following the instruction to circle at TORBY (which would mean circling at a higher altitude). They both missed the instruction to circle at TORBY, which is basic instrument pilot stuff.

 

[Ted]

The ASI video wasn't as good and detailed as some of the previous ones. It didn't go as far into the recordings and details of the botched approach as it could have. Not only was the crew an awful pair to have together, there were numerous times they could have saved the approach. Or, they could have gone around. The Captain was FIXATED on the circling approach minimums, as opposed to following the instruction to circle at TORBY (which would mean circling at a higher altitude). They both missed the instruction to circle at TORBY, which is basic instrument pilot stuff.

My opinion, neither pilot should have ever advanced to the point of flying 135 in a Lear. They probably should've washed out by the point of getting their commercial.

There is a balance between making sure we're giving people a second chance over a mistake (everyone makes a mistake, and tests stress out many people) vs. pushing people through. Unfortunately, there's the latter happens because nobody wants to screw up a career pilot's income source and the testing centers have the conflict of interest that if they have a reputation for being "too hard" people will go elsewhere.

For the most part, the system works out. Regs generally require two pilots in more challenging aircraft, 135 requires more experience and training, aircraft limitations are written to keep people well inside the envelope. So then you get a situation like this - two pilots who shouldn't have been flying paired together, the experience and training didn't wash either of them out or get their skills where they should be, and operated outside of the aircraft limitations due to multiple factors.

Any one of those would've prevented the crash. Sigh.

 

[N1120A]

My opinion, neither pilot should have ever advanced to the point of flying 135 in a Lear. They probably should've washed out by the point of getting their commercial.

The captain sounded like he was actually able to fly the airplane. His problems stemmed from his unwillingness to take command and lead, and probably needed to learn something about flight planning. He was a good FO and not ready to be a captain. The FO needed a lot more training to get to the point where he could be flying anything with passengers.

Something I fault is our system that actively discourages really going out and planning flights and flying them off that plan. The focus on "time building" by flying BS local cross countries you've done a thousand times at 50% power with the flaps hanging out is absurd. People need to learn how to plan trips and fly places that are challenging. High DAs, busy airports, etc. Commercial tickets should require flying an XC into a Class B airport (or ANC if you're in Alaska) as part of training. I bet the couple of business trips into busy airspace I did with an instructor, before I even got my PPL, were more flight planning than these guys were doing. Even in the EFB era, there's no reason to not spend a few minutes looking at the route and understanding what you're getting into. On a 20 minute flight, like these guys were on, how do you not just look up the weather at TEB on your phone or iPad before departure and realize that you're going to be landing Runway 1?

 

[Ted]

The captain sounded like he was actually able to fly the airplane. His problems stemmed from his unwillingness to take command and lead, and probably needed to learn something about flight planning. He was a good FO and not ready to be a captain. The FO needed a lot more training to get to the point where he could be flying anything with passengers.

I suppose the impression I got was that the captain could probably fly the plane better than the FO, but still couldn't fly it very well. His sim sessions didn't seem to indicate good ability to control the aircraft (granted that's in "the box") and the history was overall better.

Thinking about it another way, my mother was a better driver than my grandmother, but they were both awful drivers and the roads are better without either of them driving. I think that's where these two were.

Something I fault is our system that actively discourages really going out and planning flights and flying them off that plan. The focus on "time building" by flying BS local cross countries you've done a thousand times at 50% power with the flaps hanging out is absurd. People need to learn how to plan trips and fly places that are challenging. High DAs, busy airports, etc. Commercial tickets should require flying an XC into a Class B airport (or ANC if you're in Alaska) as part of training. I bet the couple of business trips into busy airspace I did with an instructor, before I even got my PPL, were more flight planning than these guys were doing. Even in the EFB era, there's no reason to not spend a few minutes looking at the route and understanding what you're getting into. On a 20 minute flight, like these guys were on, how do you not just look up the weather at TEB on your phone or iPad before departure and realize that you're going to be landing Runway 1?

I agree, and perhaps one of the biggest things I fault with the 1500 hour rule is that it's encouraged people to go out and just hit a number rather than a goal to do flying that they actually learn from. Then you get people in the right seat of an RJ or bizjet who have no turbine experience, barely any multi engine experience, and the bare minimum of XC experience (with those XCs all being within 100 miles or so of their home airport)... and they're flying around paying passengers.

 

[N1120A]

I suppose the impression I got was that the captain could probably fly the plane better than the FO, but still couldn't fly it very well. His sim sessions didn't seem to indicate good ability to control the aircraft (granted that's in "the box") and the history was overall better.

Thinking about it another way, my mother was a better driver than my grandmother, but they were both awful drivers and the roads are better without either of them driving. I think that's where these two were.



I agree, and perhaps one of the biggest things I fault with the 1500 hour rule is that it's encouraged people to go out and just hit a number rather than a goal to do flying that they actually learn from. Then you get people in the right seat of an RJ or bizjet who have no turbine experience, barely any multi engine experience, and the bare minimum of XC experience (with those XCs all being within 100 miles or so of their home airport)... and they're flying around paying passengers.

Then again, this FO was a sub 1500 hour commercial guy and got a Lear SIC rating.

 

[denverpilot]

Then again, this FO was a sub 1500 hour commercial guy and got a Lear SIC rating.

Not that I like the practice, but the company did technically say he wasn’t supposed to be PF at ALL yet.

Another ding on the Captain who probably thought the rules weren’t for his safety or applicable, and told the kid to fly.

Probably trying to “be nice” thinking he was a great mentor or something... and could handle it.

The entire concept of a pilot who’s not allowed to fly the aircraft is inherently broken, however. Incapacitations happen. It’s beyond stupid that FAA allows it.

But they’re all about “safety”, of course. Losing the bar for safety.

* It’s one thing to allow high minimums or similar. But an SIC who can’t fly... that’s just not safe.

 

[midwestpa24]

I suppose the impression I got was that the captain could probably fly the plane better than the FO, but still couldn't fly it very well. His sim sessions didn't seem to indicate good ability to control the aircraft (granted that's in "the box") and the history was overall better.

The captain probably had the ability to fly the airplane. He was lacking the command in the Pilot in Command. He delegated control of the aircraft to someone who wasn't qualified, shown by the company's policy rating of 0, to be flying the airplane.

 

[Lance F]

Would be nice if somehow watching this video could be required viewing for all 2 person crew pilots - left and right seater. My mentor Lear captain was a bit of a cowboy in some aeronautical areas (he was a crop sprayer, a highly rated aerobatic pilot, etc), but when he got in a Lear (and he had some 8 or 9 thousand hours in them) he got very serious. This attitude rubs off on the right seater. That wasn't happening with this crew. Flying the old 24/25/35A Lears is a blast, but they can bite quick. You sure better respect them and stay ahead of them. Shame that didn't happen with these two.

 

[Ted]

The captain probably had the ability to fly the airplane. He was lacking the command in the Pilot in Command. He delegated control of the aircraft to someone who wasn't qualified, shown by the company's policy rating of 0, to be flying the airplane.

He definitely lacked the command portion of the PIC. However I don't think he was particularly good at flying, either, from what I read.

Also note that the "SIC 0" was something that the 135 got flack over. Now, this was absolutely a leg where this particularly SIC shouldn't have been pilot flying, but there were surely legs that would've been appropriate ones for him to be pilot flying since he started at the company.

 

[Ted]

Would be nice if somehow watching this video could be required viewing for all 2 person crew pilots - left and right seater.

Agreed, Lance. Everything CRM wise was done wrong on this flight.

 

[N1120A]

How the PIC could even think he was "hundreds of miles away" when the flight wasn't even 100 miles is beyond me. They never even left the terminal environment.

Not that I like the practice, but the company did technically say he wasn’t supposed to be PF at ALL yet.

Another ding on the Captain who probably thought the rules weren’t for his safety or applicable, and told the kid to fly.

Probably trying to “be nice” thinking he was a great mentor or something... and could handle it.

The entire concept of a pilot who’s not allowed to fly the aircraft is inherently broken, however. Incapacitations happen. It’s beyond stupid that FAA allows it.

But they’re all about “safety”, of course. Losing the bar for safety.

* It’s one thing to allow high minimums or similar. But an SIC who can’t fly... that’s just not safe.

No one should be in a pilot role that can't fly the plane. I'm trying to figure how the guy was type rated with that kind of lack of ability to fly the plane, however.

The captain probably had the ability to fly the airplane. He was lacking the command in the Pilot in Command. He delegated control of the aircraft to someone who wasn't qualified, shown by the company's policy rating of 0, to be flying the airplane.

Oh, 100%

Would be nice if somehow watching this video could be required viewing for all 2 person crew pilots - left and right seater. My mentor Lear captain was a bit of a cowboy in some aeronautical areas (he was a crop sprayer, a highly rated aerobatic pilot, etc), but when he got in a Lear (and he had some 8 or 9 thousand hours in them) he got very serious. This attitude rubs off on the right seater. That wasn't happening with this crew. Flying the old 24/25/35A Lears is a blast, but they can bite quick. You sure better respect them and stay ahead of them. Shame that didn't happen with these two.

Absolutely. The AOPA video, the NTSB video, the audio, everything done on this. Should be day one of ATP-CTP.

 

[Ted]

Then again, this FO was a sub 1500 hour commercial guy and got a Lear SIC rating.

I have no type ratings and don't want to talk down to the accomplishment of getting one. But, we are talking about an SIC type here. I don't think that this should be taken as an indication of his ability as a pilot.

But the SIC knew that this was above his level and acknowledged it... repeatedly. The PIC is certainly deserving of most of the blame here.

 

[N1120A]

I have no type ratings and don't want to talk down to the accomplishment of getting one. But, we are talking about an SIC type here. I don't think that this should be taken as an indication of his ability as a pilot.

But the SIC knew that this was above his level and acknowledged it... repeatedly. The PIC is certainly deserving of most of the blame here.

Oh sure. Still, the SIC type meant that someone said he was fully capable of flying the airplane.

The PIC has to get nearly all the blame here. He refused to take over and was behind the plane, despite not actually having to fly it. Did they even bother using their AP?

 

[Dave Theisen]

An SIC type rating means little. You can take your training records down to the FSDO and they’ll issue the certificate. If the outfit wasn’t even letting him fly the airplane, I don’t put much stock in their training program.

 

[denverpilot]

I have no type ratings and don't want to talk down to the accomplishment of getting one. But, we are talking about an SIC type here. I don't think that this should be taken as an indication of his ability as a pilot.

It had better or the rating doesn’t mean what FAA says it means.

But we all know that’s the case ... with 1) approval of a 135 SOP by a FSDO allowing for a non-flying pilot in the Op Specs as well as 2) the insurance companies disagreeing for decades...

Just sayin’.

 

[Ted]

It’s worth noting I’ve seen people do the SIC type ratings both with in-plane (3 takeoffs and landings with a PIC and good to go) and in the sim (actually a curriculum). I’m not sure what this guy had, but I had been assuming the latter since that’s what my friend who has a Lear SIC type did. But, I could be wrong and it could’ve been three smash and gos with a PIC.

 

[Lance F]

It’s worth noting I’ve seen people do the SIC type ratings both with in-plane (3 takeoffs and landings with a PIC and good to go) and in the sim (actually a curriculum). I’m not sure what this guy had, but I had been assuming the latter since that’s what my friend who has a Lear SIC type did. But, I could be wrong and it could’ve been three smash and gos with a PIC.

Depends. I got my Falcon 20 SIC type at SimCom in a full motion sim and did virtually everything a pilot getting a a PIC would except the check ride.

 

[midwestpa24]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here.

I can understand a company wanting a wet behind the ears SIC flying the plane when passengers are on board. It doesn't help the business to beat on the self loading cargo. But to allow an SIC that can't be trusted to even touch the controls??? Then to pair that SIC, with a PIC that spent most of his life as an SIC, and probably never had the command ability to serve as PIC in the first place? This was a disaster just looking for a place to happen, and its happened time and time again. The most recent is the Amazon Prime crash in Houston. Same scenario, weak captain, inept first officer. One gets a perfectly good airplane in trouble, the other can't fix it, down they go.

For what its worth, I've done Part 135 SIC before. The checkride wasn't super hard, as long as you had a basic understanding of how to fly the aircraft and didn't screw up. We as an industry really need to set the bar higher, or else Congress will.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I have no type ratings and don't want to talk down to the accomplishment of getting one. But, we are talking about an SIC type here. I don't think that this should be taken as an indication of his ability as a pilot.

An SIC type rating means little. You can take your training records down to the FSDO and they’ll issue the certificate.

It had better or the rating doesn’t mean what FAA says it means.

It doesn't mean much. SIC types are a new thing since I began flying, and IIRC they came about because the EU started requiring it. US airlines didn't want the expense of PIC type training and checkrides for all their international FOs, so the FAA added the SIC types.

A SIC type is train-to-standard. There is no checkride. I repeat, THERE IS NO CHECKRIDE. There isn't even a second person verifying that the instructor who signed you off isn't pencil-whipping. It's a signoff by a single person, no more.

In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty meaningless. The "FAA says it means" that you're OK to fly in the right seat if you go to the EU, which previously required nothing more than the appropriate level of pilot certificate and category/class ratings (IE, you could be in the right seat of a 747 with nothing more than Commercial Pilot - Airplane Multiengine Land).

Happy side effect of all this is that several organizations are keeping their warbirds flying by training people for SIC types in them.

 

[N1120A]

It doesn't mean much. SIC types are a new thing since I began flying, and IIRC they came about because the EU started requiring it. US airlines didn't want the expense of PIC type training and checkrides for all their international FOs, so the FAA added the SIC types.

A SIC type is train-to-standard. There is no checkride. I repeat, THERE IS NO CHECKRIDE. There isn't even a second person verifying that the instructor who signed you off isn't pencil-whipping. It's a signoff by a single person, no more.

In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty meaningless. The "FAA says it means" that you're OK to fly in the right seat if you go to the EU, which previously required nothing more than the appropriate level of pilot certificate and category/class ratings (IE, you could be in the right seat of a 747 with nothing more than Commercial Pilot - Airplane Multiengine Land).

Happy side effect of all this is that several organizations are keeping their warbirds flying by training people for SIC types in them.

I thought all US airlines PIC typed their pilots anyway? Now, 135 and 91 is a different story.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I thought all US airlines PIC typed their pilots anyway? Now, 135 and 91 is a different story.

Nope - Why would they? That would cost them a lot more money.

There are exceptions - Long international flights requiring extra crewmembers, for example. Maybe @Greg Bockelman can weigh in here.

Another exception - I think Southwest still requires you to get your own 737 type rating before they hire you, thus their FOs all have a PIC type in the 737. But, that is not the norm and I wouldn't be surprised if they've relaxed that requirement in the current pilot employment climate.

 

[N1120A]

Nope - Why would they? That would cost them a lot more money.

There are exceptions - Long international flights requiring extra crewmembers, for example. Maybe @Greg Bockelman can weigh in here.

Another exception - I think Southwest still requires you to get your own 737 type rating before they hire you, thus their FOs all have a PIC type in the 737. But, that is not the norm and I wouldn't be surprised if they've relaxed that requirement in the current pilot employment climate.

Forcing self paid type ratings is illegal in multiple states where WN has bad as, so they don't require that any more.

 

[Sluggo63]

Nope - Why would they? That would cost them a lot more money.

There are exceptions - Long international flights requiring extra crewmembers, for example. Maybe @Greg Bockelman can weigh in here.

Yes. For aircraft where you will be flying as an RFO/IRO/"Bunkie" you will get a full-up type rating. Since at some point during the flight, it will just be two FOs in the seat, everyone needs a type. What it meant when I was going through FO training was that at the end of the course, I sat in the left seat, taxied around a bit and performed an RTO from that seat. I think that was all that was required on top of everything else I did in the right seat.

When the requirement for SIC types popped up, for the non-long-range flyers, all they had to do was show up at Ops one day and we had our FAA reps there scribbling out the forms to get the SIC types added. Obviously all the FOs were pretty well trained, so it was just a paperwork drill.

Another exception - I think Southwest still requires you to get your own 737 type rating before they hire you, thus their FOs all have a PIC type in the 737. But, that is not the norm and I wouldn't be surprised if they've relaxed that requirement in the current pilot employment climate.

No longer. That went away with the AirTran merger.

Forcing self paid type ratings is illegal in multiple states where WN has bad as, so they don't require that any more.

I've never heard that before. How is it any different than requiring an ATP or FE written (back when that was still a thing)?

The actual impetus for the SWA 737 type going away was (like I said above) the merger with AirTran. The SWA airlines training was never set up to issue type ratings. The training when a new hire showed up was more of a familiarization with the SWA 737s and how things are done on the line there. When SWA merged with AirTran, there was a problem that now they are bringing on pilots that may not have been typed on the 737 (they had a fleet of B717s). So now, since they acquired these pilots, they couldn't tell them they had to go and fund their own types. Maybe that's where you heard the illegality angle. That would make sense to me. So, they had to change their training in order to type all the AirTran pilots who weren't already flying the 737. At that point, it became a moot point having new hires buy their types since the training they would received when they showed up would fulfill that requirement, so the type rating thing went away. On top of that, there was a boom in hiring and applicants had choices to where they wanted to go. So, would you apply to Delta, United, American, etc. with just your ATP, or were you going to shell out $7,000 to buy a type for a shot an interview at Southwest? People made it clear that it was going to be the former.

 

[denverpilot]

It doesn't mean much. SIC types are a new thing since I began flying, and IIRC they came about because the EU started requiring it. US airlines didn't want the expense of PIC type training and checkrides for all their international FOs, so the FAA added the SIC types.

A SIC type is train-to-standard. There is no checkride. I repeat, THERE IS NO CHECKRIDE. There isn't even a second person verifying that the instructor who signed you off isn't pencil-whipping. It's a signoff by a single person, no more.

In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty meaningless. The "FAA says it means" that you're OK to fly in the right seat if you go to the EU, which previously required nothing more than the appropriate level of pilot certificate and category/class ratings (IE, you could be in the right seat of a 747 with nothing more than Commercial Pilot - Airplane Multiengine Land).

Happy side effect of all this is that several organizations are keeping their warbirds flying by training people for SIC types in them.

Safety third!

 

[IK04]

When this video first came out, I figured it would be used to demonstrate how to do everything wrong in an airplane.

 

[Kritchlow]

Depends. I got my Falcon 20 SIC type at SimCom in a full motion sim and did virtually everything a pilot getting a a PIC would except the check ride.

An SIC type can be a complete joke, or it can be serious. Mostly it’s a joke, because if it’s done in a real sim with getting all PIC stuff done, they would just give him the PIC type.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Nope - Why would they? That would cost them a lot more money.

There are exceptions - Long international flights requiring extra crewmembers, for example. Maybe @Greg Bockelman can weigh in here.

Another exception - I think Southwest still requires you to get your own 737 type rating before they hire you, thus their FOs all have a PIC type in the 737. But, that is not the norm and I wouldn't be surprised if they've relaxed that requirement in the current pilot employment climate.

FAR 121.436(b) requires all PIC and SIC pilots to have a PIC type rating now.

 

[Zeldman]

An old, bold pilot friend of mine tells me that back in the day a lot of DC-3 first officers were just warm meat in the seat. It was required to have a person sitting in the right seat, but not required for that person to be checked out in the 3. Gear up, flaps up. Training complete.

He tells me of the story of a DC-6 captain that if the FO was not in the cockpit first, the captain would close and lock the door. The FO then became a passenger in the back.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

FAR 121.436(b) requires all PIC and SIC pilots to have a PIC type rating now.

Interesting...

(b) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as second in command unless the pilot holds an airline transport pilot certificate and an appropriate aircraft type rating for the aircraft being flown. A second-in-command type rating obtained under §61.55 does not satisfy the requirements of this section.

Did that come about when the 1500-hour rule was added?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Interesting...

(b) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as second in command unless the pilot holds an airline transport pilot certificate and an appropriate aircraft type rating for the aircraft being flown. A second-in-command type rating obtained under §61.55 does not satisfy the requirements of this section.

Did that come about when the 1500-hour rule was added?

Honestly, I don’t know. It was after I started flying the 777 in 1997. Before that, I flew the 737 and A-320 as a First Officer without a Type Rating. I think the change was some time after 911.