PIC time in AV-8B Harrier can't be logged as time in an airplane.

Maxed-out

Maxed-out

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
81
Display Name
Display name:
Maxed-out
I just read this recent FAA legal interpretation which seems to be almost bordering on insanity.

A military pilot is requesting an interpretation of 14 CFR 61.159, which specifies the aeronautical experience required for an airplane category rating for an ATP certificate. His question is whether PIC time in an AV-8B Harrier can be logged as time in an airplane. He wrote the letter in July 2015 and is getting the reply in January 2016.

This is an excerpt from the FAA legal reply to the pilot:

With the creation of a separate aircraft category for powered lift aircraft, the FAA precluded the possibility of counting PIC time in a powered-lift aircraft, such as the AV-8B Harrier, towards the aeronautical experience requirements for a different aircraft category rating such as airplane or rotorcraft. The 1997 rule created § 61.163, aeronautical experience for a powered-lift category rating. Thus the regulations currently do not allow for crediting PIC time in a powered-lift category aircraft towards the aeronautical experience for an airplane category rating. An individual may seek relief from regulations by applying for an exemption under 14 C.F.R. part 11. /1/

/1/ The FAA does not take any position on whether such relief would be granted. Petitions for exemption are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the provisions of 14 C.F.R. part 11.
Click to expand...

Here's the link to the letters:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../2016/fiust - (2016) legal interpretation.pdf

I sincerely hope the FAA is in the process of, or has given this pilot his exemption. Who would have ever thought that time in an AV-8B Harrier jet CAN'T be logged as time in an airplane. I understand the problem with the regulation, but they should have granted the exemption and moved on instead of sending this ridiculous letter. All things considered, this pilot probably deserved the exemption back in July 2015.
 
That's nuts! I wonder if guys flying the F-35b will run into the same issue. I hope this pilot gets it worked out and is allowed to count it
 
A very close friend of mine is a famous research psychiatrist. While knocking back a couple of brews at Christmas he commented that based on current law models he could make a case that the people who work at the FAA are all legally and violently insane.
Personally, I don't disagree.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Never certified by the FAA. Flew the sim and because it is not a certified aircraft or sim you can't count the hours even if you are with a rated instructor.
Click to expand...
You talking about the sim or time in the actual aircraft?

Most military aircraft are not certified by the FAA.
 
Regulations are about line drawing. Where would you draw the line? The Harrier doesn't takeoff, fly, or land like an airplane. Should Harrier time count as airplane time? What about the reverse? The Osprey takes off and lands like a helicopter. Should it count as RW time? Airplane time? A friend flew B-52s in the USAF and now flies 777s. But he has no SE rating and couldn't get one without additional flight experience that's required to be in an SE airplane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You talking about the sim or time in the actual aircraft?

Most military aircraft are not certified by the FAA.
Click to expand...

+1. None of the various aircraft I have flown in the military have an equivalent FAA type rating. My flight time still counts though towards ATP requirements, all of it being fixed wing turbine/jet. If true, this is a really bizarre restriction that I have not heard of from any of the AV-8 guys I know…….not that I have ever asked, but I would think it would be something that would have come up by now. Quite silly since they really don't seem to spend much time using the true VTOL capabilities of the aircraft aside from landing on an LHD, so I would hardly lump them into any other category than fixed wing tacair for 99% of their flight hours. I haven't lived at Cherry Point, but I have been around them a decent amount, and the only time I've actually ever seen a vertical takeoff or landing was during an airshow demo.
 
Lindberg said:
Regulations are about line drawing. Where would you draw the line? The Harrier doesn't takeoff, fly, or land like an airplane. Should Harrier time count as airplane time? What about the reverse? The Osprey takes off and lands like a helicopter. Should it count as RW time? Airplane time? A friend flew B-52s in the USAF and now flies 777s. But he has no SE rating and couldn't get one without additional flight experience that's required to be in an SE airplane.
Click to expand...

Except most of the time Harriers are operated like normal aircraft. While they can take off and land vertically, they don't do that unless there is an operational requirement. It's a whole lot safer to use a runway and they usually do.

John
 
This is why you don't write letters asking for FAA clarification/interpretation. The answer is always stupid, and rarely the one you're looking for.
 
To my knowledge there's only one civilian harrier out there, Art Nalls's sea harrier. There are only three people I believe authorized to fly it (Art himself, General Joe Anderson (ret) who sets a record every time he flies it as the longest and oldest flying harrier pilot, and another ex-marine pilot). I don't think any of these guys are sweating the characturization in their log book of their AV8 time.
 
flyingron said:
To my knowledge there's only one civilian harrier out there, Art Nalls's sea harrier. There are only three people I believe authorized to fly it (Art himself, General Joe Anderson (ret) who sets a record every time he flies it as the longest and oldest flying harrier pilot, and another ex-marine pilot). I don't think any of these guys are sweating the characturization in their log book of their AV8 time.
Click to expand...


I don't think this is about those three. This is about marine corps pilots who want to get their ATP fixed-wing for the post navy career.

Given that Harriers are launched and landed in airplane mode more often than not this seems petty.

Probably one of those questions that should have never been asked.
 
weilke said:
I don't think this is about those three. This is about marine corps pilots who want to get their ATP fixed-wing for the post navy career.

Given that Harriers are launched and landed in airplane mode more often than not this seems petty.

Probably one of those questions that should have never been asked.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It is not like flying the F-35B where you land by pushing a button.
 
I wouldn't say they're operating in airplane mode, like a normal airplane would. While they might be using a runway, the majority of the time they use nozzles for STOL. Don't think that should matter though. The aircraft should allow for logging airplane category time.

Nalls has got two Harriers now (2 seater). MGen Anderson (ret) backs him up. Actually awarded me a NAM back in the day.
 
I guess it depends what you want to use it for. Most military guys flying harriers probably have sufficient other time for the getting the certificate itself. If you're counting time for getting hired with the airlines, they've always had their own ideas as to what counts for what.

Yeah, Art and Joe traded off flying at Oshkosh the year they were there. My wife used to work for Joe and got a short ride in the Art's L-39 with Joe at the controls.
 
flyingron said:
Most military guys flying harriers probably have sufficient other time for the getting the certificate itself..
Click to expand...

Not if they leave at the end of their initial tour.
 
jsstevens said:
Except most of the time Harriers are operated like normal aircraft. While they can take off and land vertically, they don't do that unless there is an operational requirement. It's a whole lot safer to use a runway and they usually do.
Click to expand...
Is that a rule, or does it just happen to be how it works out? As I said, regulations are lines drawn. And they're drawn based on general rules. There will always be corner cases where the regulations appear unfair or arbitrary.
 
Cooter143 said:
Not if they leave at the end of their initial tour.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I doubt even 20-30 year career Harrier pilots would have ATP mins if they couldn't count AV-8 time. The notable exception would be the handful of guys who cycle through the training command in T-45/T-34/T-6, but there are a ton of guys (prob the majority) who don't do that, and thus only ever flew Harriers after flight school. USN/USMC aviation is not really a place where you bounce around between types of airplanes very much unless you end up in test/VX (even that is pretty much limited to the TPS course and not your actual test tour, which is normally in your community/aircraft).
 
Lindberg said:
Is that a rule, or does it just happen to be how it works out? As I said, regulations are lines drawn. And they're drawn based on general rules. There will always be corner cases where the regulations appear unfair or arbitrary.
Click to expand...

It's not a rule, it's the intention to be safer. So unless there is a pressing need for VTOL (or even STOL) they just use normal runways.

John
 
fiveoboy01 said:
This is why you don't write letters asking for FAA clarification/interpretation. The answer is always stupid, and rarely the one you're looking for.
Click to expand...

Yup, just take the checkride and don't ask questions. You'd really have to have a d1ck of a DPE for them to bother you about this trivial garbage, in which case I'd just cancel the check you handed him and find another DPE.
 
jsstevens said:
It's not a rule, it's the intention to be safer. So unless there is a pressing need for VTOL (or even STOL) they just use normal runways.
Click to expand...

That and the increased payload. It"s wikipedia so I don't know how accurate, but they give:
  • Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
  • Vertical: 20,755 lb (9,415 kg)
...for the two operating conditions. I assume a vertical takeoff with full weapons complement requires refueling capability in the area
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
That and the increased payload. It"s wikipedia so I don't know how accurate, but they give:
  • Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
  • Vertical: 20,755 lb (9,415 kg)
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif]for the two operating conditions. I assume a vertical takeoff with full weapons complement requires refueling capability in the area.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Yes, that too. And they burn a lot of fuel doing VTOL. Apparently using the wings for lift really helps. :)

John
 
jsstevens said:
Yes, that too. And they burn a lot of fuel doing VTOL. Apparently using the wings for lift really helps. :)

John
Click to expand...
And water. I don't recall the specifics, but the Harrier has a water tank onboard. I believe it's purpose is for cooling in the vertical mode. You can only get so many bounces before the tank runs out.
 
I'm pretty sure that they don't land like a normal airplane. Whenever I've seen them approach to land, it's kind of in an in between mode. They seem to be doing around 60kts or so.
 
Fearless Tower said:
And water. I don't recall the specifics, but the Harrier has a water tank onboard. I believe it's purpose is for cooling in the vertical mode. You can only get so many bounces before the tank runs out.
Click to expand...

We called NKT one night when we were bored. About 5 minutes worth of water before they're out.

One of the things I thought was cool is they used to do their nozzle call as a flight over the departure freq. Hogged the freq a bit but not really a factor.

AC- "Departure, Stone11 deck check climbing to two."
ATC- "Stone11 departure, climb and maintain 10,000."
AC- "Stone11, 10,000...rolling, rolling, rolling, now."
 
Cooter143 said:
I'm pretty sure that they don't land like a normal airplane. Whenever I've seen them approach to land, it's kind of in an in between mode. They seem to be doing around 60kts or so.
Click to expand...

That much is true, and a little weird to share the pattern with for that reason. I think they slow down between the 180 and 90 (downwind abeam numbers and base respectively) which makes judging spacing/interval on them a little wonky unless you know what to expect.
 
I've been in the pattern with an Osprey. It's kind of neat to watch them. They regularly depart from Lejeune and head out to some sleepy Carolina airport to practice.

Of course, there's nothing like having the Blackhawks buzz our field when they're practicing their NVG stuff (our runway lights even when they are on are very feeble).
 
35 AoA said:
That much is true, and a little weird to share the pattern with for that reason. I think they slow down between the 180 and 90 (downwind abeam numbers and base respectively) which makes judging spacing/interval on them a little wonky unless you know what to expect.
Click to expand...

I would expect them to create a lot of wake turbulence even in that transitional regime.
 
James331 said:
Yup, just take the checkride and don't ask questions. You'd really have to have a d1ck of a DPE for them to bother you about this trivial garbage, in which case I'd just cancel the check you handed him and find another DPE.
Click to expand...

My DPE only takes cash....
 
flyingron said:
I've been in the pattern with an Osprey. It's kind of neat to watch them. They regularly depart from Lejeune and head out to some sleepy Carolina airport to practice.

Of course, there's nothing like having the Blackhawks buzz our field when they're practicing their NVG stuff (our runway lights even when they are on are very feeble).
Click to expand...

hah I remember when I was stationed at Miramar, making a mad rush to get to the hold short before the V-22 guys did. If you got behind them, it was like a 3 minute delay since they flew the same departure but we were about 2-300 knots faster than they were. They are cool to watch though, good buddy of mine recently flew the last active Marine Phrog flight and made the transition……recently I suppose meaning a year and a half or so ago. He seems to like them a lot.
 
Sorry necro-post, but gotta make sure the aviation nerd wannabes that get ahold of this thread are getting the right info...

1) It's 90 seconds of water injection. Not usually necessary but when you're bringing weapons back to the ship and its 40C out, it's quite necessary.
2) 5 types of landings- Vertical, Rolling vertical (SOP 70 knots groundspeed touchdown), Variable nozzle slow (leave the power alone and only move the nozzles to maintain AOA; usually between 100 and 150 depending on weight/DA), Fixed Nozzle Slow (Leave the nozzles at about 60 degrees and move the power to maintain AOA; same speeds as Variable Nozzle), and Conventional (Nozzles are aft and you just land it like everybody else (150-180 knots). AND that last one is why I think we should get the airplane exemption like yesterday.
3) Not much wake turbulence. Wake turbulence comes from wingtip vortices caused by dirty wings making tons of lift. The wings are really only making about half the lift in a normal landing configuration. The jet fountain is a real thing if you're in a really stupid spot, but it doesn't behave like wake turbulence at all.


This ruling is causing a lot of guys a ton of trouble. Fortunately, if you had a PPL with ASEL category and class and a current BFR before flight training you can count all of your time in the training command (about 180 hours) as PIC (the "sole manipulator of the controls" variety) as part of your "250 hours in an airplane". Also fortunately, the airlines count it as turbine airplane time so you really just gotta find that 250 of PIC airplane somewhere.
 
weilke said:
That and the increased payload. It"s wikipedia so I don't know how accurate, but they give:
  • Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
  • Vertical: 20,755 lb (9,415 kg)
...for the two operating conditions. I assume a vertical takeoff with full weapons complement requires refueling capability in the area
Click to expand...

I recall reading the comment that the Harrier never took off vertically and bombed anything... Rolling takeoffs for those sorts of missions...
 
What exactly is the water cooling? Are we sure its not used for power augmentation in the CT?
 
Got an ex-harrier pilot living on the field here. Known a few others (and they all appear to know each other...small community).

The water is for the Pegasus engine. It is used to cool the turbine blades at the maximum power settings. The number is correct. 50 imperial gallons of water lasts you 90 seconds. The Harrier indeed can operate both lift and short lift either wet or dry.
 
35 AoA said:
hah I remember when I was stationed at Miramar, making a mad rush to get to the hold short before the V-22 guys did. If you got behind them, it was like a 3 minute delay since they flew the same departure but we were about 2-300 knots faster than they were. They are cool to watch though, good buddy of mine recently flew the last active Marine Phrog flight and made the transition……recently I suppose meaning a year and a half or so ago. He seems to like them a lot.
Click to expand...

I work with a guy who flys Ospreys and he didn't say one good thing about them. Picked his brain for about 30 minutes and he confirmed all the reports (and then some) that I've read.

He's a former Phrog guy as well. Almost made it sound like he'd still rather be flying them. I couldn't imagine going back to that speed / range though. An AF one passed me yesterday and they were moving across the screen at a pretty good pace.
 
Last edited:
PilotRPI said:
What exactly is the water cooling? Are we sure its not used for power augmentation in the CT?
Click to expand...

Water is injected into the combustion chamber in order to increase thrust. With water, the motor runs about 20 degrees cooler for a given amount of thrust. Therefore, you can run the motor at a higher RPM without reaching the temp limit. Or in the real world (where most of our operations are occurring at a temp grerater than standard day), you're really running at a higher RPM for a given temperature. More RPM equals more air molecules through the engine in a given time, equals more thrust. The thrust increase available on the current Pegasus is approximately 1200lbs over the dry max thrust. The tradeoff is higher fuel flow for a given thrust (less efficient) and a slightly reduced engine life. If you're ever watching the airshow demo and a jet goes from a relatively clean exhaust to suddenly blowing black ninja smoke the water just started flowing. Same reason the B-52 blows black smoke like it's on fire during takeoff.

It's also used on takeoff, particularly from the ship where you only get 700 feet to get 30,000lbs flying.

Also, it's a 90 gallon tank. I don't know if it's US or imperial. The gauge is in pounds and usually says between 480 and 500 when the tank is full. I would have no doubts if you told me the AV8A had a 60 imp gal tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top