Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Must resist yet another project... The pictorial!

Krister,

I did not say the reg was a fake, just I believe it is not easily legal to fly to foreign countries, a bit like experimental class. I guess you will not find many photos with RA-0 * shot elsewhere from Russia. This reg is legal for domestic use I think, but really I cannot tell what the details about different sorts of registration schemes are. There are several registers in Russia and for sure you will have big troubles with all of them when trying to import an aircraft there. So in our case I wonder how the owner will procede under these conditions .
Vic

Last Edited by vic at 22 Oct 22:13
vic
EDME

Thing with the MU-2’s is they used to be the bargain twin turboprop. Best bang for buck, by far. Because they scared a lot of people away with their accident statistics. As the SFAR (FAA mandated recurrent training) came into play, their accident rate has plummeted (it was mostly pilot induced anyway). This has resulted in their value increasing by quite a bit, to the point where I think they have become more expensive than Commanders. Both planes are very similar in performance, but the Commanders are a bit more forgiving and have better range. Speed-wise they’re neck and neck. MU-2 perhaps for the upper hand in structural integrity – they’re tough birds.

But having to dedicate a week to recurring training each year away from home, is a big deal for a busy owner/operator. As someone once said about the Phenom 300: “Having to do a 14 day type rating and a week long recurrent training each year, makes it the slowest plane I’ve ever owned”. Something to be said for that. Yes, training is great, but TP’s without a SFAR are easier to time manage and train on ‘in situ’.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 23 Oct 21:52

AdamFrisch wrote:

As someone once said about the Phenom 300: “Having to do a 14 day type rating and a week long recurrent training each year, makes it the slowest plane I’ve ever owned”. Something to be said for that. Yes, training is great, but TP’s without a SFAR are easier to time manage and train on ‘in situ’.

I actually disagree and think that if you are not prepared to devote that much time to training in a very serious, high performance, high altitude, complex aircraft you are potentially a danger to yourself and others.

But having to dedicate a week to recurring training each year away from home, is a big deal for a busy owner/operator.

So is death.

I think this whole, “I am too busy to undertake proper training in my aircraft” is a load of rubbish. If you can’t do it then don’t fly..

Last Edited by JasonC at 23 Oct 22:32
EGTK Oxford

vic wrote:

I did not say the reg was a fake, just I believe it is not easily legal to fly to foreign countries, a bit like experimental class. I guess you will not find many photos with RA-0 * shot elsewhere from Russia.

@vic, no, it’s not about national or experimental or anything of that kind. In Russia, xx in RA-xxyyy is an aircraft type designator: 85 = TU-154, 96 = IL-96, 46 or 47 = AN-24, etc., and this is what you usually see on photos or at airports. However, this is only true for popular types, and not all two-digit series are allocated. Rare types (including virtually all GA) receive registration from the pool of unallocated series.

Last Edited by Ultranomad at 23 Oct 22:46
LKBU near Prague, Czech Republic

JasonC wrote:

I think this whole, “I am too busy to undertake proper training in my aircraft” is a load of rubbish. If you can’t do it then don’t fly..

I took the point to be that this category of owner/pilot could be more interested in aircraft which — due to different flight and systems characteristics — do not require the same amount of recurrent training even if performance is slightly worse.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I would consider having to travel to the US every year for training to be a major hassle. If the training can be achieved locally in a flexible manner, that would be a big plus.

Also one can question the amount of prescribed training. Not everything they come up with might be justified.

Airborne_Again wrote:

I took the point to be that this category of owner/pilot could be more interested in aircraft which — due to different flight and systems characteristics — do not require the same amount of recurrent training even if performance is slightly worse.

I don’t think so. Discussion was around large old twin turboprops. You certainly want to take serious initial and recurrent training with those whether there is an SFAR or not.

achimha wrote:
I would consider having to travel to the US every year for training to be a major hassle. If the training can be achieved locally in a flexible manner, that would be a big plus.

Well of course. But I see a large number of people who buy a very high performance aircraft and then try to shortcut the normal appropriate training regime for the type on the basis that they are too busy.

Last Edited by JasonC at 24 Oct 09:39
EGTK Oxford

If you can do your recurring training for one week in your own aircraft, or have to do that week at a facility or with a specialist in America, which one will you chose if there’s no performance difference?

There’s a reason you don’t see MU-2’s in Europe on the N-reg. It’s a hassle for the owner to go to the US to train with the few who are allowed to do the SFAR training.

AdamFrisch wrote:

If you can do your recurring training for one week in your own aircraft, or have to do that week at a facility or with a specialist in America, which one will you chose if there’s no performance difference?

There is a massive , supermajor, incredible performance difference between training on a real aircraft or in a specialist facility (= simulator level C/D). As everyone can tell you who has done both. In “my” sector of commercial GA lots of customers have found about that by now and will not fly with crews who have not been simulator trained/retrained within the last 12 months.

EDDS - Stuttgart
@ultranomad: Thanks for clarifying some of the Russian reg systematics, I did not notice that a few aircraft types were reflected in the reg numbers. But my specific topic was the zero behind the RA – 0*** that I see as some sort of mainly domestic or in a way experimental , prototype, or PtF register. These RA-0*** you can see on lots of small private aircraft but also on e.g. Mi 26 helicopters. The whole registration process in Russia is a big mess and of course I cannot know the present situation in detail and never knew. It just looks like this RA-0*** might be the minimal pain to get an aircraft legally into the air – if at all. Some of these RA-0*** got a G behind the numbers, some RA-12345 got a G too, for many years the Pilot club FLA orgainsed private aircraft with RA-0***K on “their” register but that was blown up some time ago as illegal. I could imagine some big problem with this MU-2 with that RA-0*** sitting at this foreign airfield for ages due to some regs troubles. It is not easy to get info about procedures in Russia today and would never rely on anything you may get told there. So any potential buyer of that MU-2 be prepared for anything to happen aftersales ! Vic
vic
EDME
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top