Kilroy

Hey guys been out of the GA side of Aviaiton for a lot of years. Currently a airbus driver in the 121 world and was thinking about getting back into the GA side for fun in a Cessna 310. Was woundering (for legal reason only, not safety) technically I’m legal to fly a Cessna 310 without any check outs or flight instruction received if I was bold enough to just jump in one and fly since it’s the same category and class?

JohnBurke

That's really completely unrelated to this thread. Your question is a legal one as asked, though in reality it's safety related, and should be in it's own thread.

If you are legal insofar as currency in category and class (landings), you're legal to fly the airplane.

If you are not familiar, you should seek the necessary checkout, and you should treat it the same as the airbus you're flying now. It's sometimes said that a Piper Cub will still kill you, just a bit more slowly (which is not always true); the 310 will kill you just as the airbus...but faster. Understand the fuel system, understand the limitations, understand that Vmca is critical and the ability to get there easier and faster than in the Airbus, and you don't have second segment performance that you can depend on in the airbus. All likely familiar, but if you're not current in light airplanes or checked out in the airplane with recent experience, easy to get you in trouble, too.

Remember that in the airbus, you're looking for a return to the runway with an engine out. In the 310, depending on circumstance, you may not have that option. The 310 does better than many light twins on one engine, but it's still a light twin; if you're not current or checked out, approach it seriously, get the checkout and know the airplane.

Read the thread; your question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

rickair7777

As JB said, this technically belongs in legal, but is really a safety topic.

You're legal in any non-jet AMEL which doesn't require type specific-training (ie MU-2).

61.56(d)(1) gets you out of the FR.

You will need the landings per part 61, but you can count landings in the bus.

If flying in the system you will also need instrument currency per part 61. You can be legal to fly an airliner but at the same time not instrument current in GA.


It would be a very bad idea safety-wise, and a very, very bad idea if you have no previous time in type.

Also no insurance would cover that, and no FBO would rent it to you. So you'd need a friend who owns one, and doesn't care that his insurance would not be valid.

67Creek

The answer is "yes".

Flying Boxes

Please elaborate on this!?

viper548

If it's been more than 6 months since your last time in the sim AND you haven't logged 6 instrument approaches, holding, etc. then you wouldn't be current.

PerfInit

Several years ago I investigated a Baron BE-55 hard landing accident that resultd in no injuries but Substantial damage. Turns out both pilots were currently flying for a 121 airline. The PIC just bought it and was letting his buddy fly it. His buddy flew an approach speed that was familiar to him (way too fast for a Baron). Flared high, bounced hard and then “forced it” to stay on the ground.

The moral is, please get some transition training from a competent instructor that has recent time in type. Please don’t think that you can just step into an unfamiliar aircraft and “know” how to fly it.

4V14T0R

Did basically everyone here NOT read what this guy/gal said. He/She specifically stated legal and in parens not safety. If he/she has the awareness to state this, can’t we just answer the question as asked without giving a lecture stating reasons that this person probably is already aware.

End lecture.

To answer the question, yes you would be legal assuming you’ve managed 3 takeoffs and landings in 90 days in the Airbus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

joepilot

Note: Part 121 pilots are not required to maintain night currency to fly at night. All other pilots are required to maintain night currency to fly at night.

Joe

JohnBurke

Take your counsel and read the replies, which you clearly haven't.

Or you simply read and didn't understand. It doesn't matter.

We've replied that yes, he's legal to do it, but that he needs the checkout anyway.

Now you've just stated that the original poster told us he's legal, and we should have read and understood this. The original poster didn't say that, at all. In fact, he asked if he's legal. The question has been addressed.

You don't get to put words in our mouths or limit the scope of what we have to say, and it's unfortunate for you, perhaps, that we haven't parroted the words you think we should have said. Gotta love the thought police.

To recap, as you've missed it:
I said the original poster is legal.
Rickair7777 said the original poster is legal.
67Creek said the original poster is legal.
You chimed in to say he's legal.

The original poster has received pointed counsel that didn't ask or care if the original poster is aware, reminding him that while he may. be legal to jump in the light twin and go, it may not be a good idea. Most of us are keenly aware of mishaps and fatalities resulting from pilots doing exactly what the original poster proposes, and felt, in our own wisdom, inclined to reply that while the original poster is legal, he should get the checkout anyway.

Very good counsel indeed, despite your need to come urinate on it.