Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Must resist yet another project... The pictorial!

vic wrote:

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.

No, the leading zero is certainly not experimental/PtF/whatever. The three classes of registration in Russia are civil aviation (RA-00000…99999), state aviation (RF-00000…99999) and general aviation (RA-0000A…9999Z, but only the xxxxG block is currently allocated, and most of these have the leading zero just because the numbers are allocated sequentially). In the first two classes, the leading zero means nothing in particular; MI-26 are indeed in the 06*** block, there are also plenty of AN-2 with the leading zero. And the Russian concept of experimental aviation is quite different from what most of the world implies by it. The official term is “aircraft of unique design”, and these also include modifications of certified airframes that invalidate the original certification. For example, you can put a Mazda engine into a Cessna 172 airframe and register it as a “unique design”. A certified aircraft overhauled in an unapproved way can also be registered as a unique design. In fact, these bastards form a major part of Russian GA just because it’s the cheapest way to get off the ground. What’s still more interesting, these aircraft are not necessarily relegated to non-commercial use only; instead of a blanket prohibition, their commercial use is “authorised on an case-by-case basis”. Sure enough, the ones getting this authorisation are usually just the pre-production aircraft of the newly designed types pending certification, but I’ve seen exceptions. Accordingly, these aircraft may be registered in any of the above three classes, not only in general aviation.

Last Edited by Ultranomad at 24 Oct 18:03
LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

achimha wrote:

How would you get to LDLO then?

I rely on their promise to extend the runway

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Emir wrote:

If I owned Phenom 300 for my pleasure flying

How would you get to LDLO then?

AdamFrisch wrote:

Phenom 300 initial is 3 weeks long, not 2 weeks. That’s a long time anyway you slice it.

If I owned Phenom 300 for my pleasure flying, I would easily dedicate 3 weeks for initial training and 1 week every year to stay current

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Sure.

I have done both. Sim training is extremely useful and good. But so is individual training in the very aircraft you fly (not just same model and make). But this is not my point, my point is, training in awkward and costly locations, at inflexible times, with niche providers, will probably dampen the appetite for that particular model. Not arguing that training is bad.

BTW, Phenom 300 initial is 3 weeks long, not 2 weeks. That’s a long time anyway you slice it.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 24 Oct 14:21
@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

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

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.

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

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.

35 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top