On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:08:01 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:51:08 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:


Not necessarily straw-men. An airline pilot with an atr, perhaps
backed with a cpl multiengine - ir, is not permited to fly a single
alone until he obtains that class

Brian W



That's just plain not true.

try again


There have been cases where a non pilot buys a twin, and learns to fly
in it. Those guys are not licensed for singles. No training in off
airport power off landings, for one important thing.

Casady


Few and far between.

And an ATR rating is just that - a rating.
Not a license.



Ho hum - when you're in a hole - it's best to stop digging.

If the folks who actually have a pilot ticket take it out they will
probably see under Para II "Ratings & Limitations:"
airplane single engine land.

If they DON't see that, the FAA might be interested if they
hear about single engine flight that is not in the light sport or
ultralight brackets.
And that applies to pilots with an atr (a.k.a an ATPL or ATP
depending on who issued it....)

Brian W



Mine says single engine land.

But I personally don't know, nor have I heard of any, who have a
multi-engine rating and don't have the single engine rating as well.

Do you?

You mean like most USAF pilots?
Last I heard, the USAF was teaching pilots from scratch in twin engine
planes, and they automatically got commercial, including instrument,
licenses limited to CLT twins. In piston planes, this would by the
Cessna Skymaster, and nothing else. My commercial license is for
single engine land, if it matters. My instructor told about one guy
who did have a single engine ATR, not multi. He said the usual ATR
didn't cover singles unless you took an ATR checkride in one. The
simulated emergencies are different, for one thing. In the case in
question, the inspector gradually reduced the power to simulate
accumulating ice. At one inch MP per minute, he wouldn't have had time
to dick around.

Casady