Thoughts on Pilot Qualifications

[MIKE]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

Using CAP Solo Pilot as an example: This would thus change it so that it is not possible for a member to solo outside of CAP and automatically rate CAP Solo Pilot with just an endorsement from a CAP IP. The member would have to solo again in a CAP aircraft under appropriate conditions to qualify for the rating/aviation badge... Like a form 5.  Maybe make a section for a solo flight check.

[SJFedor]

For some reason, I remember seeing an old CAPF 5 that had a "Solo" block on it. Anyone that's been around a while know?

Personally, IMO, solo badges and pre-solo badges should be restricted to cadet wear only. I see seniors in their 40's that are wearing solo badges because they solo'ed back when they were a cadet. It's rather ridiculous.

Now, as far as the CAP aircraft thing, I can understand that to a point, and 99% of people who complete a F5 are going to do so in a corporate aircraft. Those that don't are doing it in a Wing approved member owned aircraft, whereas that member plans, at some point, to be able to provide it to the CAP in the event of the fecal matter striking an air moving mechanism. Even still, people who provide their own planes to CAP typically also get F5s in the corporate birds.

I'm guessing part of this stems from the debate as to whether or not a cadet can get their F5 signed off by a DPE, and then have it reviewed by a CAP CP and off they go. If the cadet is doing their checkride in a CAP corporate aircraft, by all means, but if they're just doing it in some FBO plane, then no, they should have to do a F5 in a corporate bird.

YMMV

[Eclipse]

What's the issue?  As long as its the same type as we fly, a Cessna is a Cessna.
In some areas, CAP planes are not easily accessible, and initial Form 5's are not funded, so if you have to drag a plane to you (or vice-versa), its on your nickel.

The only caveat(s) I would make:

* If a CAP airframe is sitting next to your rental, then no - that's silly and we need the hours on our planes.

* And you should need the permission of the WING/DO or similar to curtail abuse.

But if a member wants to spend money renting an airplane, and it benefits CAP, I don't see the issue.

[MIKE]

I do not agree that I soloed (on my own dime in someone else's plane.), or yeah I'm a pilot... Gimme my wings. is appropriate for award of a CAP aeronautical rating/badge.  I think you should have to qualify in a CAP aircraft first... Yes, I include member owned aircraft in this definition so long as it is an approved flight activity as defined by CAPR 60-1.

In other words... Your a pilot... that's great, but you aren't a rated CAP Pilot until you are checked out in a "CAP aircraft."

[Eclipse]

Yes, it should be a full, separate "CAP Checkride", not a form stapled to an FAA solo ride.

[jimmydeanno]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

[Al Sayre]

The only difference between CAP aircraft and the one you rent at the FBO is the extra radio and DF equipment, neither of which is used on a normal Form 5, the Form 91 is a different story.  Basically a Form 5 is the same as a BFR checkride, and many checkpilots will do both for you at the same time.  

As far as the aircraft go, there are two basic models of 172, either fuel injected or carburated.  Other than the starting procedure, everything else is pretty much the same.  If you can fly one, you can fly any of them.  Same basic situation with the 182's except that we also have the Glass panel versions which are a slightly different beast and require a different check ride, but a steam gauge 182 is a steam gauge 182, not much difference.  

If it's your dime and it's get's us more qualified pilots I don't see any problem doing a CAPF-5 in a non-CAP aircraft, provided it is similar to the CAP aircraft you would be flying.  That means you can't do your CAPF-5 in your homebuilt low-wing tail dragging Buzzmaster 5000 that you have 2000 hous in and then jump in a CAP Cessna when you haven't flown a Cessna since 1957 when you got a 1/2 hour ride from the factory rep demonstrating the new land-o-matic tricycle gear...  but doing your CAPF-5 in a rental Cessna 172 a the the local FBO, no big deal.  YMMV

[Al Sayre]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

[Trung Si Ma]

I fly my 172 to various locations in the wing to participate in SUI's.  The nearest CAP aircraft (also a 172) is located 30 min (flying) / 75 min (driving) away from me in the opposite direction of the one I need to travel.

I do not ask for reimbursement from CAP for the flights, but to take credit for the "donation", my tax gal says that I have to go through all of the normal CAP procedures (CAPF5, flight release, mission #, etc) to claim the flight.  My insurance company also likes the idea of annual CAPF5 checkouts in my airplane.

My 172 is going in the shop over Thanksgiving to get the STOL kit, HD nose gear, powerflow exhaust and significantly bigger tires put on it.  It will neither fly, nor land, like a CAP 172.  A corporate aircraft CAPF5 is pretty worthless to me since I don't plan on flying any of their aircraft.

Don

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

[MIKE]

For the purposes of this thread a CAP aircraft is:

1-6. a. CAP Aircraft. Any aircraft (either member owned/furnished or CAP corporate) used in a CAP flight activity

.

[Fifinella]

Not sure what your concern is on this issue. 

In my case, I came to CAP with a Commercial Multi-Engine license.  [Due to having been an AF pliot, and taking the FAA military equivalency test, I could legally fly planes with 2 or more engines, but not less.] 

The way 60-1 is written, I could not use CAP aircraft to receive training for my Single engine add-on because I was not already a CAP pilot, and I could not become a CAP pilot because I didn't have a Single engine rating, and therefore, could not check out in a CAP plane.

So I paid out of my own pocket, driving 2 hrs each way to the flight school, to get my single-engine rating.  I took my checkflight with an FAA examiner who was also a CAP evaluator, and received my FAA certification and my Form 5 on the same flight.

According to your construct, I should not have been able to become a CAP pilot and MTP in this way, but should instead have gotten my FAA cert and then taken a Form 5 flight in a CAP aircraft.  Why?

I am trying to bring my expertise to CAP.  Why make it more difficult/annoying/expensive than it already is?

[Eclipse]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

Yes, lots of wings do...



Many CAP flight academies have sections on ballon training.

[jimmydeanno]

HOLY BALLOONS BATMAN!  I have never seen one of those!  Guess you learn something new every day...  Thanks!

[BlueLakes1]

Not sure what your concern is on this issue. 

In my case, I came to CAP with a Commercial Multi-Engine license.  [Due to having been an AF pliot, and taking the FAA military equivalency test, I could legally fly planes with 2 or more engines, but not less.] 

The way 60-1 is written, I could not use CAP aircraft to receive training for my Single engine add-on because I was not already a CAP pilot, and I could not become a CAP pilot because I didn't have a Single engine rating, and therefore, could not check out in a CAP plane.

So I paid out of my own pocket, driving 2 hrs each way to the flight school, to get my single-engine rating.  I took my checkflight with an FAA examiner who was also a CAP evaluator, and received my FAA certification and my Form 5 on the same flight.

According to your construct, I should not have been able to become a CAP pilot and MTP in this way, but should instead have gotten my FAA cert and then taken a Form 5 flight in a CAP aircraft.  Why?

I am trying to bring my expertise to CAP.  Why make it more difficult/annoying/expensive than it already is?

If the person who gave you the checkride was both a FAA examiner and a CAP check pilot, I see no issue with it at all. I would see one were the FAA examiner not a CAP check pilot, though.

Actually, I think that there is a loophole in 60-1, and there is a way that you could have done your single engine training in a CAP plane, but you'd have to do some hardcore barracks lawyering to get it done. Your way, while a pain, was probably simpler.

Don't you wish you'd have just gone through UPT now with the T-6? Then you'd already have a single engine rating too! 

[Fifinella]

Don't you wish you'd have just gone through UPT now with the T-6? Then you'd already have a single engine rating too! 

Yeah, that would've been much easier.   But I'm not sorry for the chance to have flown T-37's and T-38's.  What a blast!

[BlueLakes1]

Yeah, that would've been much easier.   But I'm not sorry for the chance to have flown T-37's and T-38's.  What a blast!

Lucky...I've simmed all three types (T-6, T-37 and T-38), and I'd do just about anything for some stick time in the real deal (though I have to admit I'd want the T-6 first...that's loggable PIC time!)

What was your MWS when you got done?

[Fifinella]

^^My first MWS was KC-135's. (air refueling)  Nobody Kicks A** Without Tanker Gas!

[BlueLakes1]

^^My first MWS was KC-135's. (air refueling)  Nobody Kicks A** Without Tanker Gas!

Very nice...my office is at Grissom ARB, home of the 434th ARW. I love the 135...and I've got a NKAWTG tab around here somewhere too. 

[Fifinella]

Small world...Grissom was my first assignment (after training).

[Carl C]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

Using CAP Solo Pilot as an example: This would thus change it so that it is not possible for a member to solo outside of CAP and automatically rate CAP Solo Pilot with just an endorsement from a CAP IP. The member would have to solo again in a CAP aircraft under appropriate conditions to qualify for the rating/aviation badge... Like a form 5.  Maybe make a section for a solo flight check.

What is the basis for your opinion?   Why would you object to a checkout in a non CAP a/c?

[Carl C]

Yes, it should be a full, separate "CAP Checkride", not a form stapled to an FAA solo ride.

What is an FAA solo ride?

[BillB]

The only difference between a CAP Cessna 172 and a non-CAP Cessna 172 is probably only the N Number. So what difference does it make. As long as both have same basic instrimation (glass cockpit vs round dial cockpit) there should be no difference in flight characteristics.

[Nomex Maximus]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

Yes, lots of wings do...



Many CAP flight academies have sections on ballon training.

Isn't it a bi-otch when NHQ changes the corporate logo and you have to go out and buy a whole new balloon?

[BillB]

No they just slap a new logo decal over the old one, thats why in the photo the balloon leans.

[Nomex Maximus]

Shame you can't do more with a balloon... highbird mission maybe???

[SAR-EMT1]

Or Firewatch   

[flyguy06]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

Using CAP Solo Pilot as an example: This would thus change it so that it is not possible for a member to solo outside of CAP and automatically rate CAP Solo Pilot with just an endorsement from a CAP IP. The member would have to solo again in a CAP aircraft under appropriate conditions to qualify for the rating/aviation badge... Like a form 5.  Maybe make a section for a solo flight check.

I agree with this. The whole point of the regulation is to get members to fly "CAP" aircraft. If we dont use CAP aircraft we will loose them. National allocates the number of aircraft based on usage. If they are not used National wil take them away. SO I think members ehould use "CAP" aircraft. Inmy unit, our Commander has his own plane so he rarley if ever flies in CAP aircraft. because of this we have no plane near our squadron and I have to drive 30 mins to get to the nearest plane.

[RiverAux]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

How exactly is this a problem?  I'm not sure I've run across very many pilots who have joined CAP and haven't gotten a form 5 so that they could fly a CAP aircraft.  About the only place where this might come up is with cadets and if getting to wear wings on their CAP uniforms is any sort of incentive to get them to get a pilots license, whether or not they become a "CAP Pilot" is fine by me. 

Inmy unit, our Commander has his own plane so he rarley if ever flies in CAP aircraft. because of this we have no plane near our squadron and I have to drive 30 mins to get to the nearest plane.

That isn't an issue with the pilot qualifications regulation.  He isn't going to stop flying his personal plane in order to wear pilot wings on his CAP uniform and even then you're not talking about anything more than the time spent to do a form 5. 

[BillB]

Once CAP wings are earned, they are permanent. Even if the pilot doesn't renew a medical, he is still a CAP pilot. Of course without the current medical he can't fly CAP or any other aircraft, but he still has a CAP pilot rating.

[riffraff]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

didn't realize there was anywhere else to land?   

[Trung Si Ma]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

didn't realize there was anywhere else to land?   

Why do we call them airfields if they look like roads?

[SJFedor]

Same reason you drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway. 

[flyguy06]

How would that translate to CAP Balloon Pilots?  There aren't CAP Balloons for them to qualify in...

MSWG has a CAP balloon...

Yes, lots of wings do...



Many CAP flight academies have sections on ballon training.

Isn't it a bi-otch when NHQ changes the corporate logo and you have to go out and buy a whole new balloon?

I like that

[SarDragon]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

didn't realize there was anywhere else to land?   

Why do we call them airfields if they look like roads?

Because they used to land on fields without any lines or paving.

[MIKE]

Topic.

[Mustang]

In my non-pilot opinion,

This thread should've stopped here. Why do you even care?  In my pilot opinion, non-pilots have no business opining on pilot-related subjects or policy.

As for cadets soloing, something all you flatlanders seem to forget is that not every wing has C-172s in their fleet; nary a wing in the western US does, where all you will find are C-182s, C-206s and GA8s.  So you'd elect to tell cadets in those states "too frickin' bad, go cry to your mama"?

[MIKE]

As for cadets soloing, something all you flatlanders seem to forget is that not every wing has C-172s in their fleet; nary a wing in the western US does, where all you will find are C-182s, C-206s and GA8s.  So you'd elect to tell cadets in those states "too frickin' bad, go cry to your mama"?

CAP aircraft as defined by 60-1, can be a member owned aircraft used as part of an approved flight activity.

[RiverAux]

This thread should've stopped here. Why do you even care?  In my pilot opinion, non-pilots have no business opining on pilot-related subjects or policy.

Although I didn't start the thread, as an Observer/Scanner I have to say that I and others in my position certainly have a vested interest in insuring that the people flying the plane are qualified to do so. 

[Frenchie]

I agree with this. The whole point of the regulation is to get members to fly "CAP" aircraft. If we dont use CAP aircraft we will loose them. National allocates the number of aircraft based on usage. If they are not used National wil take them away. SO I think members ehould use "CAP" aircraft. Inmy unit, our Commander has his own plane so he rarley if ever flies in CAP aircraft. because of this we have no plane near our squadron and I have to drive 30 mins to get to the nearest plane.

If we're talking about the form 5 ride in particular, it can make good sense to do them in non-CAP aircraft sometimes.  Let's say the squadron has a 172 and no CAP 182 aircraft are readily available in the immediate area.  If the pilot is already CAP qualified in the 172, he can take his form 5 ride in a non-cap 182 and be qualified in the 182 AND the 172 (assuming both aircraft questionaires were completed).  This is a real value to CAP because the more CAP aircraft you're qualified in, the more value you are to CAP.

[sparks]

Havng a CAP aircraft available for "O" flights and missions can have an effect on recruitment and retention. When that asset is taken away squadrons are impacted.  The obvious solution would be to permit "O" rides in member airplanes. The downside is that might reduce hours on corporate aircraft and liability insurance would be another consideration.

Maybe CAP has too many aircraft for the actual missions it flies. If someone actually calculated how many hours aircraft are needed for training and actual OPS it might indicate the fllet is too big. I can hear the sacred cow falling over now! This isn't in line with the corporate thinking. No, I'm not an aircraft owner. I do belopng to a flying club and fly the CAP plane too.   

[flyguy06]

In my non-pilot opinion, It should not be possible to qualify for any CAP aeronautical rating without flying a CAP aircraft.  Some have stated that in CAP aircraft does not mean that the qualifying flight need be completed in a CAP aircraft... If this is true, I believe that CAPR 60-1 3-2 should be changed to reflect that the qualifying flight(s) must occur in a CAP aircraft.  CAP aircraft as defined by CAPR 60-1 1-6. a.

Using CAP Solo Pilot as an example: This would thus change it so that it is not possible for a member to solo outside of CAP and automatically rate CAP Solo Pilot with just an endorsement from a CAP IP. The member would have to solo again in a CAP aircraft under appropriate conditions to qualify for the rating/aviation badge... Like a form 5.  Maybe make a section for a solo flight check.

Its done like all the time at flight schools. If a student solos at flight school A then goes to fligh school B, he will have to get with a CFI and try to solo all over again

[flyguy06]

Not sure what your concern is on this issue. 

In my case, I came to CAP with a Commercial Multi-Engine license.  [Due to having been an AF pliot, and taking the FAA military equivalency test, I could legally fly planes with 2 or more engines, but not less.] 

The way 60-1 is written, I could not use CAP aircraft to receive training for my Single engine add-on because I was not already a CAP pilot, and I could not become a CAP pilot because I didn't have a Single engine rating, and therefore, could not check out in a CAP plane.

So I paid out of my own pocket, driving 2 hrs each way to the flight school, to get my single-engine rating.  I took my checkflight with an FAA examiner who was also a CAP evaluator, and received my FAA certification and my Form 5 on the same flight.

According to your construct, I should not have been able to become a CAP pilot and MTP in this way, but should instead have gotten my FAA cert and then taken a Form 5 flight in a CAP aircraft.  Why?

I am trying to bring my expertise to CAP.  Why make it more difficult/annoying/expensive than it already is?

I dont know about that. If you got a military equivilancy test, then you are recognized by the FAA to be a Commercial pilot. If thats thecase then CAP should recognize you as a commercial piot and you should not have had to go get a civilian license. Unless your military equivilency was for Commercial multi and nothing single engine. If thats the case then I can understand. You had to get an FAA single engine rating.

[Mustang]

I dont know about that. If you got a military equivilancy test, then you are recognized by the FAA to be a Commercial pilot. If thats thecase then CAP should recognize you as a commercial piot and you should not have had to go get a civilian license. Unless your military equivilency was for Commercial multi and nothing single engine. If thats the case then I can understand. You had to get an FAA single engine rating.

Most military equivalency exams result in a Commercial Pilot Airplane Multiengine Land (Limited to centerline thrust).

In any case, the latest CAPR 60-1 now permits training in corporate aircraft for holders of a Private Pilot certificate (or better) with an Airplane Multiengine Land rating, for the purpose of adding a single-engine class rating to their certificate.

[bosshawk]

A small nitpic: the issue of center line thrust only applies(I think) to Navy, Marine and AF pilots while in flight training or just after, since they tend to train on center line thrust jets.  The Army doesn't have any center line engined airplanes(twins) that I know about.  Most of my Army Mohawk buddies got Comm, Multi, Instrument with no limitations.  Helicopter guys get the same thing for helicopters.

I know about the center line deal because a buddy of mine flew recce Phantoms, after training in T-37s and T-38, both center line planes.

[WT]

As long as you are getting a checkout with a CAP checkpilot who is covering the Form5, why would you not be able to do this is a non-CAP aircraft?

[BlueLakes1]

Most USAF pilots who are in the pipeline now will finish with a commercial single engine as well. The last T-37 is being pulled from the fleet within the next two weeks, and pilots who train in the T-6 do get a single engine rating on their equivalency.

The issue of centerline thrust depends on what track you take. If you are bound for fighters or bombers, you go T-38; if you go into heavy jets, you track select into the T-1. Both of those are centerline thrust, and pilots get the restriction (although T-1 folks also get a Beechjet type rating). Many C-130 candidates go to Corpus Christi to train in the T-44/C-12, basically a King Air. Those folks don't get centerline thrust limitations.

[ricecakecm]

Most USAF pilots who are in the pipeline now will finish with a commercial single engine as well. The last T-37 is being pulled from the fleet within the next two weeks, and pilots who train in the T-6 do get a single engine rating on their equivalency.

The issue of centerline thrust depends on what track you take. If you are bound for fighters or bombers, you go T-38; if you go into heavy jets, you track select into the T-1. Both of those are centerline thrust, and pilots get the restriction (although T-1 folks also get a Beechjet type rating). Many C-130 candidates go to Corpus Christi to train in the T-44/C-12, basically a King Air. Those folks don't get centerline thrust limitations.

Matthew-

The T-1/BE-400 isn't centerline thrust.

According to AC 61-89E, the following airplanes get you a centerline thrust restriction:

With Center Thrust Limitation
1. Cessna 336/337, T-37
2. Fairchild Republic A-l0 Thunderbolt
3. General Dynamics F-111
4. Grumman A6-E Intruder
5. McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom
6. McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle
7. Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas F-18A
8. Northrop T-38 Talon
9. Rockwell International T2 Buckeye

And, believe it or not, these two planes do not have a CLT restriction attached:
Without Limitation
1. Cessna A-37 Dragonfly
2. Grumman American F-14 Tomcat

"In the case of an applicant who requests the issuance of a multiengine class or type rating
based on military qualification in an aircraft not listed herein, but for which the manufacturer
has not provided documentary evidence of a minimum control speed for that aircraft, all
available data shall be forwarded to AFS-800 for review and evaluation to determine the
limitations necessary. It is expected that aircraft models will be added to, or deleted from, this
list by AFS-800 as circumstances warrant in the future."

A friend of mine went thru B-737 school with some guys who were Viper drivers.  The only multi-engine airplanes they'd flown had been T-37's and T-38's, so they had CLT restrictions.  Their checkride involved removing the CLT restriction, getting an ATP, and a 737 type.

[DNall]

PS - for you pilot types, the mods are because of my affinity for landing on grass, dirt, and gravel - intentionally.

You can compare notes with my cousin. He graduated the academy couple yeas ago, finishing up fighter track in Del Rio right now, just got U-28 (PC-12), headed to new mexico working for AFSOC. Now that'd be a sweet plane to land in on grass.

[a2capt]

On that topic of CAP ratings and not in CAP aircraft-

Well, if without rental/owned aircraft I would have not been able to much if any flying for CAP.

There are way more pilots and political walls than available aircraft. I have subsequently taken check rides in corporate 182's but it's not nearly as convenient.

For those units without their own aircraft it's just a scheduling nightmare sometimes.

[jayleswo]

I do remember the days of huge searches and dozens of aircraft flying them, most of which were member owned. Would have been very hard to become a CAP Pilot if you required a checkout in a corporate owned bird.

-- John

[MIKE]

That is not the point of this thread.  CAP aircraft as defined can be member owned aircraft used in an approved flight activity.

[BlueLakes1]

Most USAF pilots who are in the pipeline now will finish with a commercial single engine as well. The last T-37 is being pulled from the fleet within the next two weeks, and pilots who train in the T-6 do get a single engine rating on their equivalency.

The issue of centerline thrust depends on what track you take. If you are bound for fighters or bombers, you go T-38; if you go into heavy jets, you track select into the T-1. Both of those are centerline thrust, and pilots get the restriction (although T-1 folks also get a Beechjet type rating). Many C-130 candidates go to Corpus Christi to train in the T-44/C-12, basically a King Air. Those folks don't get centerline thrust limitations.

Matthew-

The T-1/BE-400 isn't centerline thrust.

According to AC 61-89E, the following airplanes get you a centerline thrust restriction:

With Center Thrust Limitation
1. Cessna 336/337, T-37
2. Fairchild Republic A-l0 Thunderbolt
3. General Dynamics F-111
4. Grumman A6-E Intruder
5. McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom
6. McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle
7. Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas F-18A
8. Northrop T-38 Talon
9. Rockwell International T2 Buckeye

And, believe it or not, these two planes do not have a CLT restriction attached:
Without Limitation
1. Cessna A-37 Dragonfly
2. Grumman American F-14 Tomcat

"In the case of an applicant who requests the issuance of a multiengine class or type rating
based on military qualification in an aircraft not listed herein, but for which the manufacturer
has not provided documentary evidence of a minimum control speed for that aircraft, all
available data shall be forwarded to AFS-800 for review and evaluation to determine the
limitations necessary. It is expected that aircraft models will be added to, or deleted from, this
list by AFS-800 as circumstances warrant in the future."

A friend of mine went thru B-737 school with some guys who were Viper drivers.  The only multi-engine airplanes they'd flown had been T-37's and T-38's, so they had CLT restrictions.  Their checkride involved removing the CLT restriction, getting an ATP, and a 737 type.

Interesting, I stand corrected.

I was a bit surprised to see that the T-37 was given as a CLT restricted type while the A-37s wasn't, since they're essentially the same plane. The A-37's engines are substantially more powerful than the T-37's, so that probably affected performance enough that they published a Vmc on the A-37.

Of course the F-14 isn't a CLT plane. Haven't you seen Top Gun? If the Tomcat was CLT, then the flameout of one engine wouldn't cause the plane to enter a flat spin! 

[davidsinn]

Interesting, I stand corrected.

I was a bit surprised to see that the T-37 was given as a CLT restricted type while the A-37s wasn't, since they're essentially the same plane. The A-37's engines are substantially more powerful than the T-37's, so that probably affected performance enough that they published a Vmc on the A-37.

Of course the F-14 isn't a CLT plane. Haven't you seen Top Gun? If the Tomcat was CLT, then the flameout of one engine wouldn't cause the plane to enter a flat spin! 

I knew you couldn't talk about the Tomcat and not mention that movie ;-) Congrats on your new position Major.