Differences training requirements-part 91
08-21-2012, 10:55 AM
#1
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 14
Differences training requirements-part 91
Take this scenario:
A pilot is type rated in a B-737 (on the certificate) but was trained in the 737-200. What would be required for that pilot to fly as FO on a BBJ? I've seen the reg that basically says "differences training required" but does it make a difference if the pilot is only FO? What dictates the required training for the differences? I can't seem to find what would be considered "proper differences training" (besides a 142 school).
You can apply this situation to similar type rating relationships, such as the G-V type which is all you have on your certificate when you get G450/G550/GV typed.
It's obvious how this would go in the airlines, but I'm talking part 91 where even an SIC "type" could be hardly more than an endorsement and and 3 landings.
A pilot is type rated in a B-737 (on the certificate) but was trained in the 737-200. What would be required for that pilot to fly as FO on a BBJ? I've seen the reg that basically says "differences training required" but does it make a difference if the pilot is only FO? What dictates the required training for the differences? I can't seem to find what would be considered "proper differences training" (besides a 142 school).
You can apply this situation to similar type rating relationships, such as the G-V type which is all you have on your certificate when you get G450/G550/GV typed.
It's obvious how this would go in the airlines, but I'm talking part 91 where even an SIC "type" could be hardly more than an endorsement and and 3 landings.
08-21-2012, 11:09 AM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 49
Technicaly, 3 bounces would be approriate.
However, Operator and/or Insurance requirements may be different. If I was running a BBJ Operation, the budget for the flight department would allow the SIC to go thru formal training. The financial commitent involved in running a BBJ Operation is quite high, the training involved is negligible (annual ramp fees are prob higher)
However, Operator and/or Insurance requirements may be different. If I was running a BBJ Operation, the budget for the flight department would allow the SIC to go thru formal training. The financial commitent involved in running a BBJ Operation is quite high, the training involved is negligible (annual ramp fees are prob higher)
08-21-2012, 12:56 PM
#3
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
I am not familiar with the 737 at all, however I would assume that a BBJ is configured for 20 seats or more or has 6000lbs payload or more and this is not for a cargo or non passenger repositioning flight.
Based on that assumption you need to look at part 125 subpart I. Particularly 125.285 and 125.287.
Based on that assumption you need to look at part 125 subpart I. Particularly 125.285 and 125.287.
08-23-2012, 08:01 AM
#4
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by wtrav8r
Technicaly, 3 bounces would be approriate.
However, Operator and/or Insurance requirements may be different. If I was running a BBJ Operation, the budget for the flight department would allow the SIC to go thru formal training. The financial commitent involved in running a BBJ Operation is quite high, the training involved is negligible (annual ramp fees are prob higher)
However, Operator and/or Insurance requirements may be different. If I was running a BBJ Operation, the budget for the flight department would allow the SIC to go thru formal training. The financial commitent involved in running a BBJ Operation is quite high, the training involved is negligible (annual ramp fees are prob higher)
I am not familiar with the 737 at all, however I would assume that a BBJ is configured for 20 seats or more or has 6000lbs payload or more and this is not for a cargo or non passenger repositioning flight.
Based on that assumption you need to look at part 125 subpart I. Particularly 125.285 and 125.287.
Based on that assumption you need to look at part 125 subpart I. Particularly 125.285 and 125.287.
08-23-2012, 08:50 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
That is true however the max payload of a BBJ is greater than 6000lbs above 35,000lbs I think, therefore it meets the requirements of Part 125 and is to be operated for passenger carrying operations under a Part 125 Operating Certificate if it is to carry any passengers. It would be nice when someone posts something trying to help answer your question that you read the entire post or at least take the time to look at the applicability of Part 125.
§ 125.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved.
(b) The rules of this part do not apply to the operations of airplanes specified in paragraph (a) of this section, when—
(1) They are required to be operated under part 121, 129, 135, or 137 of this chapter;
(2) They have been issued restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness certificates, special flight permits, or experimental certificates;
(3) They are being operated by a part 125 certificate holder without carrying passengers or cargo under part 91 for training, ferrying, positioning, or maintenance purposes;
(4) They are being operated under part 91 by an operator certificated to operate those airplanes under the rules of parts 121, 135, or 137 of this chapter, they are being operated under the applicable rules of part 121 or part 135 of this chapter by an applicant for a certificate under part 119 of this chapter or they are being operated by a foreign air carrier or a foreign person engaged in common carriage solely outside the United States under part 91 of this chapter;
(5) They are being operated under a deviation authority issued under §125.3;
(6) They are being operated under part 91, subpart K by a fractional owner as defined in §91.1001 of this chapter; or
(7) They are being operated by a fractional ownership program manager as defined in §91.1001 of this chapter, for training, ferrying, positioning, maintenance, or demonstration purposes under part 91 of this chapter and without carrying passengers or cargo for compensation or hire except as permitted for demonstration flights under §91.501(b)(3) of this chapter.
(c) The rules of this part, except §125.247, do not apply to the operation of airplanes specified in paragraph (a) when they are operated outside the United States by a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
(d) The provisions of this part apply to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless otherwise specified.
(e) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane.
§ 125.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved.
(b) The rules of this part do not apply to the operations of airplanes specified in paragraph (a) of this section, when—
(1) They are required to be operated under part 121, 129, 135, or 137 of this chapter;
(2) They have been issued restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness certificates, special flight permits, or experimental certificates;
(3) They are being operated by a part 125 certificate holder without carrying passengers or cargo under part 91 for training, ferrying, positioning, or maintenance purposes;
(4) They are being operated under part 91 by an operator certificated to operate those airplanes under the rules of parts 121, 135, or 137 of this chapter, they are being operated under the applicable rules of part 121 or part 135 of this chapter by an applicant for a certificate under part 119 of this chapter or they are being operated by a foreign air carrier or a foreign person engaged in common carriage solely outside the United States under part 91 of this chapter;
(5) They are being operated under a deviation authority issued under §125.3;
(6) They are being operated under part 91, subpart K by a fractional owner as defined in §91.1001 of this chapter; or
(7) They are being operated by a fractional ownership program manager as defined in §91.1001 of this chapter, for training, ferrying, positioning, maintenance, or demonstration purposes under part 91 of this chapter and without carrying passengers or cargo for compensation or hire except as permitted for demonstration flights under §91.501(b)(3) of this chapter.
(c) The rules of this part, except §125.247, do not apply to the operation of airplanes specified in paragraph (a) when they are operated outside the United States by a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
(d) The provisions of this part apply to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless otherwise specified.
(e) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane.
Last edited by dapper993; 08-23-2012 at 08:59 AM. Reason: frustration
08-26-2012, 10:37 AM
#7
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 14
Don't understand your "DELETE" post.
As for the regulation you posted, I was referring to part 91 operations that are not common carriage and not fractional. I should have been more specific.
I was just going off my knowledge of two local operators that have BBJs operated under part 91 for company business only. One operator has two 737-300s that are setup with typical airline setup but they do not charter them and use them for company business...those ARE operated under 125. The pilot I spoke with claimed those were 125 due to seating while the BBJ was part 91 due to seating capacity. Perhaps not the best source?
If it makes it less arguable, then let's narrow the question down to the GV vs G550 aspect. Differences required under part 91. Any thoughts?
As for the regulation you posted, I was referring to part 91 operations that are not common carriage and not fractional. I should have been more specific.
I was just going off my knowledge of two local operators that have BBJs operated under part 91 for company business only. One operator has two 737-300s that are setup with typical airline setup but they do not charter them and use them for company business...those ARE operated under 125. The pilot I spoke with claimed those were 125 due to seating while the BBJ was part 91 due to seating capacity. Perhaps not the best source?
If it makes it less arguable, then let's narrow the question down to the GV vs G550 aspect. Differences required under part 91. Any thoughts?
08-26-2012, 12:08 PM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
Delete Post- Wrote something then decided to remove however they don't let you remove so I just edited to say Delete.
The seating capacity would not come into play for the 737 due to the payload and basically all 737 not operated under 91k, 121 or 135 that are carrying passengers will operate under 125. I believe most try to operate with less than 20 so that they are not required to have a flight attendant on board per reg but I could be wrong about that. The only reason I brought 125 up was because they have there own training and testing requirements in addition to which would have applied to your first example.
Using your GV example then...Assuming that you are current and typed in the aircraft (3 landings etc...) I would argue that you would only need to become familiar with the aircraft to the extent the differences apply per 61.55b1. However if you wanted to know what those differences were then on the GV product I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the guidance that a 135 or 142 training center would use and comply with: (Flight Standardization Board Report Rev 8.GULFSTREAM GIV-X (G350/G450)
GULFSTREAM G-V
GULFSTREAM GV-SP (G500/G550)) In the case of GV it is all A,B,C lvl differences and does not require time in the variant aircraft.
The seating capacity would not come into play for the 737 due to the payload and basically all 737 not operated under 91k, 121 or 135 that are carrying passengers will operate under 125. I believe most try to operate with less than 20 so that they are not required to have a flight attendant on board per reg but I could be wrong about that. The only reason I brought 125 up was because they have there own training and testing requirements in addition to which would have applied to your first example.
Using your GV example then...Assuming that you are current and typed in the aircraft (3 landings etc...) I would argue that you would only need to become familiar with the aircraft to the extent the differences apply per 61.55b1. However if you wanted to know what those differences were then on the GV product I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the guidance that a 135 or 142 training center would use and comply with: (Flight Standardization Board Report Rev 8.GULFSTREAM GIV-X (G350/G450)
GULFSTREAM G-V
GULFSTREAM GV-SP (G500/G550)) In the case of GV it is all A,B,C lvl differences and does not require time in the variant aircraft.
08-26-2012, 08:59 PM
#9
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 11
An OEM can also put differences training required in the Limitations section of the AFM (not saying thats what happened w/ the 737/BBJ).
Dassault did this when upgrading EASy to EASy II avionics. An absolute waste of $10k and 2 days.
Dassault did this when upgrading EASy to EASy II avionics. An absolute waste of $10k and 2 days.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
