Can a TH-67 type rating be added after completing WOFT??

[annerajb]

From what I understand the Army trains you on the TH-67 (in the future in the LUH/Lakota.
I always figure that the same way you have a S-70 Type rating You would also have a Bell 206 one.

I recently saw a guys pilot certificate and he had the S-70 but no Bell 206 on it.

Any reason why are you not trained enough hours for the FAA to grant it to you??
Or is it just not worth it of putting it on the certificate considering the plane being almost obsolete.

[Wally]

Because the FAA doesn't "type rate' below 12,500 lbs?

[Joe_P148]

Wally nailed it. No type rating on 206.

[Lindsey]

The only regular Army aircraft you'll get type ratings for are the Chinook and Blackhawk (because of the 12,500 lbs mentioned above).

[oh58mech]

http://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/

 

Page 8 lists the applicable aircraft:

 

"Effective August 4, 1997, the following type ratings defined as "small" aircraft for helicopters weighing 12,500 pounds or less are no longer issued on pilot certificates. 14 CFR 1.1 and 14 CFR Part 61.5(b(7)(i): "

[annerajb]

Thank you I am not well verse with the Sea of FAA regs.

[Ahelopilot]

The only regular Army aircraft you'll get type ratings for are the Chinook and Blackhawk (because of the 12,500 lbs mentioned above).

 

It's not just because of the weight. Aircraft such as the AH-64A/D/E, F-22, F-15, A-10, B-2, etc., all weigh well over 12,500. The weight is part of it; that's the cut line, if you will. The other part is whether or not there is a civilian equivalent of that aircraft, or are there versions of these particular aircraft being flown in the civilian world. In the case of Blackhawks and Chinooks, yes, there are versions of these aircraft flown in civilian aviation. In the case of the examples I listed, no, there are not versions of these aircraft flown in the civilian world. So, to be completely accurate, type ratings are not only based on weight, or else I would have an AH-64A/D type rating right next to my SK-92 type rating on my ATP certificate since an Apache has a max gross weight of 23,000 lbs. Here's a helpful list of FAA type ratings. Interestingly, you will see a lot of vintage military aircraft listed because there are lots of them that are now owned and operated by civilians and aviation historical societies. Hope this helps.

 

http://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/?YouCantCacheThis=0.5

[stearmann4]

More specifically, it's because most military aircraft don't have FAA Airworthiness certificates, meaning the manufacturers' never went through the process of getting the designs tested and certified, so if they don't possess an AWC, a type rating isn't available regardless of speed or weight.

 

These aircraft could be flown by civilians, but they could never conduct commercial operations or be registered is standard, or even restricted category. Most ex-military aircraft are registered in Experimental or Experimental-Exhibition category, which has a large list of where and how they can be flown. If a government agency obtains ex-military aircraft, they can operate them under "Pubic Use" which doesn't require an AWC.

 

What is required is a Letter of Authorization issued by the FAA to operate aircraft that exceed 12,500, or are capable of certain speeds.

 

Mike-

[dondlhmn]

Wally nailed it. No type rating on 206.

WRONG!! I have a type rating in the B206 that got put on my license when I took an ATP ride in a B206....but they don't do that any more, so there are not many of them around...BUT THE DO EXIST!!. I also have, among several corporate jet type ratings, one for a Helo that says SK-70. So far...at least for the last few decades.... that and a buck would get me a cup of coffee, but then I never tried to get a civilian job with anyone that had UH-60s like some LEOs/DNR-like organizations do.

[Wally]

WRONG!! I have a type rating in the B206 that got put on my license when I took an ATP ride in a B206....but they don't do that any more, so there are not many of them around...BUT THE DO EXIST!!. I also have, among several corporate jet type ratings, one for a Helo that says SK-70. So far...at least for the last few decades.... that and a buck would get me a cup of coffee, but then I never tried to get a civilian job with anyone that had UH-60s like some LEOs/DNR-like organizations do.

 

Yeah, my ATP says 206 also, which results in a great deal of laughter at various training sessions. But I paid for the ride, completely, and it was the most reasonable airframe I was proficient in at the time: twenty-something years ago. And it works just like an ATP in a 'serious aircraft".

Like you said "but they don't do that any more, " so nobody's getting an FAA type rating in the 206 anymore.

[Joe_P148]

WRONG!! I have a type rating in the B206 that got put on my license when I took an ATP ride in a B206....but they don't do that any more, so there are not many of them around...BUT THE DO EXIST!!. I also have, among several corporate jet type ratings, one for a Helo that says SK-70. So far...at least for the last few decades.... that and a buck would get me a cup of coffee, but then I never tried to get a civilian job with anyone that had UH-60s like some LEOs/DNR-like organizations do.

Ok so you're right, but you can't get the type rating anymore so the guy coming out of ARMY FLIGHT SCHOOL TODAY can't get it. That's what I said, isn't it? That's the awnser to the original posters question.

 

If your gonna make an argument just for the sake of being right, at least make it relevant information that relates to current regulations.

[dondlhmn]

Ok so you're right, but you can't get the type rating anymore so the guy coming out of ARMY FLIGHT SCHOOL TODAY can't get it. That's what I said, isn't it? That's the awnser to the original posters question.

 

If your gonna make an argument just for the sake of being right, at least make it relevant information that relates to current regulations.

Nope..that is NOT what you said...why don't you go back and read the BLANKET STATEMENT that was made? i was merely correcting an error, not attempting to make a statement about what is or is not possible right at this minute...and you can no longer get a B206 Type rating.

[Dnr032]

Hey Wally,

 

I have a type rating in a helicopter even smaller than your B-206.....

 

I took my ATP-H ride in a S-300 back in 1997. I just looked and I still have a HU-269 type rating on my certificate. I thought it was removed with this 'new' post 9/11 certificate but it is still there.

 

Go figure.....

[01CelicaGTS]

If a government agency obtains ex-military aircraft, they can operate them under "Pubic Use" which doesn't require an AWC.

 

What exactly is "Pubic Use"? Sounds...uncomfortable!

 

LOL, sorry....I couldn't help myself.

[CharyouTree]

Nope..that is NOT what you said...why don't you go back and read the BLANKET STATEMENT that was made? i was merely correcting an error, not attempting to make a statement about what is or is not possible right at this minute...and you can no longer get a B206 Type rating.

 

Taken in context, he's correct.

 

A current student(?) asked about type ratings.

Wally responded with current information "The FAA doesn't type-rate below 12,500 lbs"

Joe responded with "Wally nailed it. <There is> no type rating on 206." More current info.

 

You could have said "Previously there was a type rating, but that stopped back in 19-dickety7." There's "correcting an error" and there's "Walking into a room of people you don't know and being a jerk".

 

I'm sure you know more than I do, and that's cool; a lot of people do. But aviation has no place anymore for the "I'm smarter than you, and let me tell you why" attitude. Do we want to be good examples, or bad examples of our profession, today?

[dondlhmn]

Gee...thanks for the lecture and the snotty "holier than thou" attitude....I really needed that to re-appreciate why I am so greatly enjoying NOT being involved with so may self righteous types that just GOTTA have the last word, NO MATTER WHAT!! Now...here is your next opportunity for the last word...HIT IT!!!

[Joe_P148]

Gee...thanks for the lecture and the snotty "holier than thou" attitude....I really needed that to re-appreciate why I am so greatly enjoying NOT being involved with so may self righteous types that just GOTTA have the last word, NO MATTER WHAT!! Now...here is your next opportunity for the last word...HIT IT!!!

Dude, you have a bad attitude. Frankly, I quit the conversation when I realized you had to be right. Your stupid remarks just proved it.

 

Noone has time for your attitude. This is the oldtimer, toxic way of demanding respect because you technically proved me wrong. You know what? I'm probably wrong about half the stuff I say on here.

 

At least have the humility to compromise with people once in a while instead of demanding everyone think like you.

[Wally]

Hey Wally,

 

I have a type rating in a helicopter even smaller than your B-206.....

 

I took my ATP-H ride in a S-300 back in 1997. I just looked and I still have a HU-269 type rating on my certificate. I thought it was removed with this 'new' post 9/11 certificate but it is still there.

 

Go figure.....

 

I'm a real fan of the 300 series, but taking the ride in 206 is easier.

 

Back to this thread and "dodndlhmn" (because I love an argument)

 

The OP asked:

 

"From what I understand the Army trains you on the TH-67 (in the future in the LUH/Lakota.

I always figure that the same way you have a S-70 Type rating You would also have a Bell 206 one.

 

I recently saw a guys pilot certificate and he had the S-70 but no Bell 206 on it.

 

Any reason why are you not trained enough hours for the FAA to grant it to you??

Or is it just not worth it of putting it on the certificate considering the plane being almost obsolete."

 

In other words, why can't one get a 206 type rating out of US Army flight school?

 

Best answer, I think- the FAA doesn't do type ratings below 12,500. But, they didn't type in that weight range when I took my ATP ride either- except that the type you were tested on was placed on your certificate...

 

So, If one completed flight school with the experience necessary for an ATP rating; IF you could pass the knowledge (I don't remember having that level of instruction in flight school); and if the FAA were specifying airframe on an ATP cert... Well, then, yes- you would get a "206 type rating" on your ATP. So, did/does a 206 type rating exist? A commercial pilot couldn't (and still can't) be typed in a 206 even when you and I took our ATP rides.

 

Do 206 ratings exist? I have one, you have one, and they are valid, if archaic. They existed for an ATP but never a Comm. I have a better chance of dating Scarlett Johannson than the OP has of getting one NOW.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Wally

[Velocity173]

Gee...thanks for the lecture and the snotty "holier than thou" attitude....I really needed that to re-appreciate why I am so greatly enjoying NOT being involved with so may self righteous types that just GOTTA have the last word, NO MATTER WHAT!! Now...here is your next opportunity for the last word...HIT IT!!!

There was no need for the "WRONG!" I thought it was quite obvious that Joe was replying to the question as it applies today. The OP didn't ask if they issued B206 type ratings 30 yrs ago. He wants to know current information.

 

Nothing wrong with giving a historical context behind a regulation / policy but do it tactfully.

[dondlhmn]

There was no need for the "WRONG!" I thought it was quite obvious that Joe was replying to the question as it applies today. The OP didn't ask if they issued B206 type ratings 30 yrs ago. He wants to know current information.

 

Nothing wrong with giving a historical context behind a regulation / policy but do it tactfully.

OK...then he was RIGHT!! I can't change the fact that the type rating was put on tickets, on MY ticket, is still valid and STILL exists. Yeah...when someone makes a blanket statement like "No type rating on 206.", as if it is just gospel and flat true with no dispute allowed to correct something.... with no context, definition or history at all, I tend to get a tad "direct". But then you are probably right and the guy that said " No type rating on 206." is totally right...I'll go explain to the FAA about how there is no type rating for a Bell 206 contrary to all the guys that Do have them right there on their tickts (for what actual USE, I have no idea...) Then again, I guess I am the only guy that understands and could give some "historical context behind a regulation / policy", huh?

[Velocity173]

OK...then he was RIGHT!! I can't change the fact that the type rating was put on tickets, on MY ticket, is still valid and STILL exists. Yeah...when someone makes a blanket statement like "No type rating on 206.", as if it is just gospel and flat true with no dispute allowed to correct something.... with no context, definition or history at all, I tend to get a tad "direct". But then you are probably right and the guy that said " No type rating on 206." is totally right...I'll go explain to the FAA about how there is no type rating for a Bell 206 contrary to all the guys that Do have them right there on their tickts (for what actual USE, I have no idea...) Then again, I guess I am the only guy that understands and could give some "historical context behind a regulation / policy", huh?

Once again, the OP wasn't asking whether a type rating existed in the past. Pretty sure all of us, except for you, understood the question pertained to today, not when you got your type.

 

"Can you get assigned OV-1s out of flight school?"

 

"No. No OV-1s."

 

"WRONG! I got OV-1s back in 1985 right out of flight school. They still exist today in a few civilian hands."

 

Doesn't matter what happened 30 years ago. The OP wants to know about CURRENT practices.

[Yamer]

Holy cow, you two are bickering over type rating crap? Really? Who cares who's right at this point. It's a tiny helicopter anyways... Sheesh.

[Velocity173]

Holy cow, you two are bickering over type rating crap? Really? Who cares who's right at this point. It's a tiny helicopter anyways... Sheesh.

It's not tiny if you've only flown R22s. For Lindsey it's like flying a Super Stallion.

[Cantankerously]

At fort rucker the 206 type rates you.

[Lindsey]

It's not tiny if you've only flown R22s. For Lindsey it's like flying a Super Stallion.

"Wait, you mean, we can go...we can go IN the clouds? Not just pretend to? And we can...we can go that high?? We have real power for that??" *faints*