LOA's

[HarvardIV]

Hello Everybody:

Does anyone know what the LOA Old Rules are? I guess they are still applicable on some of the jet warbirds. I know the LOA Recent RUles were 1000 hrs TT and training in the type. What about the newest Type Rating Rules (No longer called LOA).

Lastly, I'm sure there aren't, but just in case are there any loop holes which allow the 1000 hrs required to be circumvented?

Thanks,

Chris

[Cindy]

chris, there are a number of resources for that information. you can check with aopa or eaa as a start.

question....why in the world would you want a 'loop hole' to get around the 1000 hr requirement????? having flown jets a couple times, I can tell you, I think it's a good rule. with that much speed and power - compared to a prop job - you need the training and experience. the rest of us in the air are safer for it

[HarvardIV]

question....why in the world would you want a 'loop hole' to get around the 1000 hr requirement????? having flown jets a couple times, I can tell you, I think it's a good rule. with that much speed and power - compared to a prop job - you need the training and experience. the rest of us in the air are safer for it

Well, I don't have 1000 hrs, and I think the FAA goes too far in dictating what it thinks people need to do.

For example, A.F. pilots are flying T-37s with less than 1000 hrs.

[jcw]

You can NOT GET an LOA anymore.. the old rule of 1000 hours TT could NOT be waived.. except by those dishonest enough to TRY and pass off parker pen time…(it is a small community) as for how they are going to handle the new “type ratings” that is still up in the air and the FAA is having a hard time trying to figure it out. As for all of us with unlimited LOA’s it looks like we will lose them… if you can show you had a checkout and flew a type then they will decide whether or not to add it to your “new” license. If you need to fly something that is not on your new license and you had an unlimited LOA then too bad you have to go get typed on the new acft you want to add.. How is this going to affect the new acft being built???? ie, lets just say a Buffalo???? The answer is they don’t know as there hasn’t been one flying in 50+ years and no one is left that has time in one and can give you the training required and a flight check… ooops single seat…. If these new rules are going to be applied like the old type ratings then you would need an extensive ground training course (approved by the FAA), a min of 3 hours of dual flight training and then a formal ground eval and flight eval.. yes they are making it much more difficult to get into this warbird thing..

Now for the kids flying T37’s with less than 50 hours of TT.. face it, these are folks that this is there job now and they live and breath flying 24/7 in a very controlled environment.. they spend 4 to 6 hours preparing for a flight then they fly it to a very scripted (mostly dual) training sortie and they do this 3 to 4 days a week for a year. Now, after that they are either a copilot, or for the fighter types, they are a wingman and supervised for a couple of years before they upgrade to go out on there own… when you are willing to put up and buck up ($) with this kind of training then you too can fly jets…better yet join the military and they pay you to do it…

Ok now I’ve said more in one post than I do for a year so I’m in self imposed lock out..

That good enough jack???

[Randy Haskin]

For example, A.F. pilots are flying T-37s with less than 1000 hrs.

USAF student pilots fly the T-37 (and the T-6, the Americanized Piltaus PC-9) with less than *50* hours, and when I went through pilot training in '98 there were guys who flew the Tweet solo with less than *25* hours.

However, comparing what a USAF student is capable of in his early stages of training and what a civil-trained pilot can do at that same experience level is absolutely apples and oranges.

Stick with me as I go off on a tangent here...

USAF students in primary training "go to school" for 12 hours every day for a year -- it is their *life* while they are in primary training. On their (mandatory) 12 hours off they're sleeping for 8 of them and likely studying during the other 4. The depth of knowledge required of a USAF student is several times that of a new/recent private pilot, and every sortie from the very first flight is graded to Commercial standards.

I went to USAF pilot training as a Private Pilot with about 200 hours and complex and taildragger signoffs. When I compare the airmanship and knowledge level I had as a Private Pilot to the levels required when a USAF student, there is simply no comparison. I was a *much* better pilot as a USAF student, due directly to the high academic and airmanship standard that I had to live up to. When was the last time you had to state an emergency procedure out of the POH word-for-word at the drop of the hat? USAF students have to do that...and if they can't do it perfectly (no "um" or stumbling over words) they fail the flight or don't get to fly that day at all. When was the last time that you had to sit down with a blank sheet of paper and recite all the operations limits of your aircraft and engine number-for-number perfectly? Again, this is a daily task for USAF students. The standards they have to live up to are WAY higher than what was ever required out of me as a civil pilot.

So, back to the topic at hand. USAF students fly jets from day one, and the training program is mighty intense. Even then, it takes about 300 hours total to even become a basically-trained pilot in a Major Weapon System (C-17, F-15...anything not a trainer). They're not "turned loose with the keys to the jet" until after 2 years and 300+ hours of intense training.

I'm not putting down civil pilots in any way, because certainly military jocks aren't the end-all, be-all of aviators (and there are plenty that really suck!). I absolutely think that civil-trained pilots can be just as good as military trained pilots. However, if you look at a civilian pilot with 300 hours and a military pilot with 300 hours you will see a clear difference in skill set.

So, while I agree that 1,000 hours may be too much for a jet LOA, I don't agree that civilian pilots should get turned loose in jets at the same hourly experience level as military pilots (who have been flying jets to a very high airmanship standard since day one).

[mrhenniger]

Stick with me as I go off on a tangent here...

No problem. Thanks for the insight.

Mike

[wendovertom]

Randy,

So what your saying is that you'd be in a good position to fly a F-100F around, right

As much as I hate to agree - because I'd dearly love to fly a jet warbird - I agree with a high TT as the safety factor is there - even experienced guys can run afoul (Delashaw & the Hunter incident) and I'd hate to think what a jet in trouble in the hands of a really inexperienced pilot would mean - NO OFFENSE MEANT TO ANYONE -

Tom P.

[Jase]

Then buy a -6 (or finish yours) and fly the wings off it and *GET* 1000 hours.

Here's the thing: With all the recent GA & Business Aviation accidents, the spotlight is heavily on all of us. There is no room for a pilot flying an L-39/Hunter/F-86/MiG that is "behind the airplane before the engine starts" anymore.

And, so far as the Feds, they are a REACTIVE organization. I *think* the whole LOA deal came from the F-86 ice cream parlor accident, but that was kinda before my time so it could be wrong.

question....why in the world would you want a 'loop hole' to get around the 1000 hr requirement????? having flown jets a couple times, I can tell you, I think it's a good rule. with that much speed and power - compared to a prop job - you need the training and experience. the rest of us in the air are safer for it

Well, I don't have 1000 hrs, and I think the FAA goes too far in dictating what it thinks people need to do.

For example, A.F. pilots are flying T-37s with less than 1000 hrs.

[HarvardIV]

Well, Thanks guys for the good insight.

Thanks,

Chris

[Randy Haskin]

So what your saying is that you'd be in a good position to fly a F-100F around, right .

I know you're flipping me a little sh*t, but to be perfectly honest, I'd give my left arm to be qualified to fly *any* warbird (that's if you don't consider current front-line fighters as "warbirds" even with combat time on 'em.).

I have tons of respect for the guys who can jockey a Mustang or even a Mitchell or B-17 around. Based on the small amount of T-6 time that I have, flying a warbird is no easy task. In fact, I'd venture to say that flying the T-6 was significantly tougher in terms of stick-and-rudder skills than flying the F-15 or the T-38 (the airplanes I have the most time in). From what I understand the Mustang is tougher to fly than the T-6, so I can draw the natural conclusions there. Flying around in an airplane with hydraulic boosted and computer fly-by-wire flight controls is eeeeaaaasy, and I really had to do some serious re-training of my hands in the T-6. Yeah, I can think at 420 knots, but muscling one of these beasts through basic acro took all the brain and brawn I had to accomplish.

So, I guess I'm saying that given my experience I could probably handle a 'Hun easier than someone with just a piston or light civilian jet background, but that certainly doesn't qualify me in any way to fly the piston Big Iron out there.

[HarvardIV]

Hey Randy:

I sure appreciate your humility on the subject, and a salute to you for defending the homeland.

Maybe you can tell everybody about the F-15E

[Randy Haskin]

I sure appreciate your humility on the subject, and a salute to you for defending the homeland.

I think that any pilot who doesn't know his limitations or overestimates his abilities is setting himself up for serious problems. As for the defense of the good ol' US of A, I'm not doing much of that these days in my current job as a T-38 instructor. Definitely a change of pace going from being in the thick of the action during OIF last year to now training students who are going off and doing the real job. At least I'm not sleeping in a tent!

Maybe you can tell everybody about the F-15E

Every pilot loves to talk about his steed....but I'm afraid that 45,000 pounds of jet-powered steel and sex appeal just doesn't "do it" for most of the warbird crowd!

[Jase]

I'm not a Fed, nor am I a Pilot Examiner, but anecdotaly what I have heard is this: Say you have a Buffalo. You have to have Commercial and 1000 hrs TT. Then you will need to have 50-100 hrs T-6 or equivalent (In other words, a guy that has owned a -51 that has 150 hrs PIC in it could get the T-6 time waived). Then, the DE, who would probably be one of the NDPERs (National Designated Pilot Examiners Registry), would fly with you in a T-6, you flying from the back seat. Then he'd issue you an authorization to fly the Buffalo much like Experimental/ Flight test (Not more than 100 miles from home airport, no class Bravo airspace, not even densly populated areas etc) Finally, after 10-20 hours flight test, you get the type rating.

I pity the first few guys through this process, as the Feds will be feeling it out as they go along.

If you need to fly something that is not on your new license and you had an unlimited LOA then too bad you have to go get typed on the new acft you want to add.. How is this going to affect the new acft being built???? ie, lets just say a Buffalo???? The answer is they don’t know as there hasn’t been one flying in 50+ years and no one is left that has time in one and can give you the training required and a flight check… ooops single seat…. If these new rules are going to be applied like the old type ratings then you would need an extensive ground training course (approved by the FAA), a min of 3 hours of dual flight training and then a formal ground eval and flight eval.. yes they are making it much more difficult to get into this warbird thing..

[srpatterson]

Sorry Jase, that's not correct.

First, you don't need a Commercial ticket for an ETR (Experimental Type Rating), a Private rating will do. Next, while you had to have 1000 hours PIC time for an LOA, the new requirement is 500 hours. Also, you don't have to have an Instrument ticket, although it was originally proposed this way by the FAA.

Now comes your checkout. The first thing you will need is an approved training program for your aircraft. If you've just bought a P-51 this is not really a problem, as there are already instructors, ground schools, and new ETR examiners (although I can't remember what the new examiners are called now). If you're the first to go through the process (as I was with the Sea Fury) you'll have to work with an approved instructor to create a training program and get it approved. What's needed? Well, that all depends. The T-6 is the trainer of choice these days, and many of the approved programs call for T-6 training if dual in type is not available, but it really comes down to you and your instructor. I was fortunate enough to get dual in a 2 place Sea Fury, but my checkride was in my single seater.

JD Martin, the FAAs Warbird Director who is in charge of this transition was great to work with. I've converted two LOAs to ETRs and added another ETR and I've had nothing but efficiency from OK City.

There are some pluses to the new system. Gone are the days of waiting for an LOA to show up from the FSDO after your instructor sent the paperwork in. Sometimes this could take months. Now, you pass the checkride and you get your new temporary license with the endorsement (ie you can fly home). In a couple of months your new license shows up with the new rating attached. None of my ratings has any limitations concerning airspace or flight test time. Pass the test, get the rating. The Experimental Exhibition aircraft have the limitations, not the pilot.

One last thing concerning this discussion on competancy. Some of the best warbird pilots I've seen have been guys who don't fly for a living and who don't have 20,000 hours in the logbook. Flying is about proficiency. You are either safe to fly, or you're not. When I got checked out on the L-39 the guy before me had nothing more complex than Cessna 210 time. Sure, he spent more dual before his instructor sent him off for the checkride, but he was proficient and safe, and he still is today. BTW, our instructor was a former Eagle Driver and 1000 hour T-38 instructor, so L-39 school looked a lot like UPT.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion.

Steve

[airnutz]

I Luuvvvvvv... this bar!!!!