joliet
New Member
They said Flight Safety says the same.
I'll call Flight Safety, just to put minds at ease.
What's the CL-65 type good on?
- Thread starter wheelsup
- Start date
They said Flight Safety says the same.
I'll call Flight Safety, just to put minds at ease.
Nice. Very motivational.
Anyway, six FSDO's will give you twelve different answers on the same question.
joliet
New Member
Wait so FSDOs are just going to start making up answers regarding pilot certification? I thought the FAA at least would get that right.
Kind of like saying a FSDO might issue a 717 type instead of DC-9.
editL Not sure why my post had to be motivational. Just correcting misinformation.
CL-65:
CRJ-100/-200/-440/700/705/900
CL-600 (challenger type):
Challenger 600
CL-601:
Challenger 601
CL-604:
Challenger 604
CL-605:
Challenger 605
BD-700:
Global express
CRJ 800 series:
Poor man's global
I am working on a corporate gig (again after waiting to upgrade :bangheadand they fly the CL-604's and a 605. 2 type ratings although VERY similar. But its only the "short course" to transition- much like differences training between the CRJ's.
There is no "CL-601" Type Rating. The CL-601 is covered by the CL600 Type.
And yes, I know for sure - I have the CL 600, CL604 and CL65 types on my license.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
You could always go to a different site . . .
Here's my experience with the FSDO.
Back when the FAA said that all first officers need a "Second In Command Type Rating", the Air Carrier Inspector and my company got together to find a way to certify three or so thousand first officers. Basically, it was an 8710 form, with the name of the director of training electronically signing the 8710 form so basically, all the pilot would have to do is travel to his local FSDO with proper airline and state ID and turn it in.
So, I went to the local FSDO and one inspector said I didn't require a second-in-command type rating because I've already done a 121 SIC check and was current and that I was wasting his time.
I called ATL for clarification and indeed, the FAA was requiring SIC type ratings.
He wanted a fax from the ACI in Georgia, which he received to confirm that I needed one, but I had to set another appointment.
The next appointment came, I turned in my paperwork and then I was told that I had a falsified signature on the 8710 form because it was electronically signed and wasn't actual pen and ink. Besides, I'd have to go down to PHX CMO (Cert. Mgmt Office?) in order to process that since it was a 121 issue.
Well, the PHX CMO...
Oh hell, well you get the gist!
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Try 21 different answers, one answer per person who passes you on to someone who should know, on average 3.5 per FSDO.
I called up the airmen certification branch to ask if there was an update to the 5 year old AC, and they were clueless.
higney85
Property of Scheduling
Thanks for the info! you don't need to get testy on a public board when nobody has quoted a source beyond heresay. The main point of boards is to hear the gossip and try and find the true facts.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Testy? Seemed pretty helpful to me.
higney85
Property of Scheduling
Sorry. Maybe I took it wrong- it's been one of those days...
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
I'm going to keep humping both of your guys' legs.
Testy??? Sorry you're having a bad day. Seems like everyone in this thread is having a bad day.
There is a document from the FAA that lists all of the type ratings and which aircraft they cover. If it's not on that list, it's not a type rating. Period. So far the FSDOs have been correct - a CRJ is a CRJ is a CRJ regardless of what kind of interior it has.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
That would be the 5 or 6 year old AC. Hence some of the confusion for anything certified after that.
bobsakamano
Well-Known Member
Re: Jolipdedia
I just received a follow up email from the recruiter. He apologized for the confusion and that they would indeed accept a CL65 type for Challenger 850. Too bad the position already filled.
In my first message, I was simply relaying what I was told by a pilot recruiter in the rejection letter. Nothing more. Why the attack? Thanks Jolipedia.
I just got a "dear john" email for a job flying an 850. Reason: CL65 type is not an 850 type. I thought it was interchangeable because it's a converted 50 seater. Apparently it's a different type. Maybe it's due to having longer range fuel tanks or other slight differences. Maybe it's an airline conspiracy to make a CL65 type even more worthless
I just received a follow up email from the recruiter. He apologized for the confusion and that they would indeed accept a CL65 type for Challenger 850. Too bad the position already filled.
In my first message, I was simply relaying what I was told by a pilot recruiter in the rejection letter. Nothing more. Why the attack? Thanks Jolipedia.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
True, but the -700/900 is still a CL-65 type. If it's the same airframe, just a different interior, then it SHOULD be the same type. Do you need a different type for a 737 and a BBJ? (honestly, I really don't know about that last one, but I would guess the answer would be "no.")
joliet said:
No one is making up answers. The problem with the FAA is so many things are left open ended by wording that different FSDOs and the inspectors that work there have different interpretations of the rules. Logging instrument time in a 121 environment is a prime example. You can't operate the aircraft without the PNF, yet he's not manipulating the controls. Can he log it or not? You'll get 8 different answers in ONE FSDO.
Anyone thought of trying to get an answer from Bombardier?
joliet
New Member
I had Bombardiers number ready to go........
135/121 whoever signs for the aircraft is PIC, and that is how it is recognized industry wide, even if both pilots are typed. Logging time otherwise is considered less than honest, and can easily be found out by your next employer more than likely.
Pt91, well, let's go shoot a 0/0 approach, and see how it goes since at the end of every ILS is a runway.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
As I try to bow out of this conversation (unless someone calls me a low down SOB)
I attach the FAA AC and the JAA documentation on types. The JAA type includes the 850 as it is more up2date.
Peace
I attach the FAA AC and the JAA documentation on types. The JAA type includes the 850 as it is more up2date.
Peace
Tram
Well-Known Member
Ever posted at FlightInfo.com? LOL