PPL on MEP?

[Trim Stab]

The daughter of my employer wishes to obtain a PPL/IR, but her family will not allow her to fly a SEP. Is there any way that she can obtain any form of licence without flying SEP?

I believe that this is not possible under JAR, but is it possible under FAA? Or could she do it on an axial twin? Alternatively, I know of FTOs which offer a modular CPL/ME course on DA42 - are there any that do ab initio CPL/MEs?

[DFC]

It is 100% possible under JAR-FCL. Section 6 of the JAR-FCL Skill Test provides for asymetric flight.

Of course since it is multi-engine training it will have to be done at an FTO.

It is going to be very expensive but not impossible.

Perhaps you would remind their family that many piston twin aircraft can not maintain height on one engine when fully loaded, and an engine failure on the runway / just after rotation will have the same result. Just so that they are not incorrectly thinking that a light piston twin provides the same level of safety as a performance A aircraft.

[Trim Stab]

Thank you - I didn't realise that it was possible.

The family are adamant that she will not fly in SEPs - no argument!

She already has 150 hours in RHS of the family CJ1+ (with me, C525 CRI), and about 35 hours dual on a DA42 (with me, FI and MEP, but not CRI on DA42). I don't suppose any of this will count to the minimum hours required for PPL issue?

[Prophead]

I thought you needed 60 hours PIC before starting the MEP course? How can you do a PPL on an ME aircraft?

[DFC]

No those hours won't count.

Prophead,

Almost correct - it is 70 hours PIC and must be held prior to the test rather than prior to the course.

Nothing wrong with doing the PPL course on a a multi and having 70 hours solo (PIC) before doing the test.

However, in this case it seems that is no problem since they want a PPL/IR and they will need plenty of PIC time - The applicant for an IR needs 50 hours PIC crosscountry time.

I would be very interested in finding out what the insurance loading would be if one was to ask their insurance company to cover ab-initio solo flying on the FTO's multi-engine aircraft. I would also be interested in finding out what FTO's would risk the aircraft they use for Multi-IR training being used for first solo.

So in the end it is going to be a money factor rather than a regulatory one.

At an absolute minimum they are looking to doing something like;

25 dual PPL training
5 solo PPL training circuits
5 solo PPL training ccty
4 dual night training
1 solo night training
59 solo (day or night) of which 45 must be crosscountry

then;
40 dual FNPT2 IR training
15 dual IR training

Let's use 380 as an hourly rate (it would probably be more)- I make that about 43,320 pounds for the 114 hours in the aircraft then 7,400 for the FNPT2 which makes over 50,000 pounds before we even talk about tests, exams and the highly likely training over-run.

The other issue for an FTO is - are you going to fill a booking slot on your expensive multi-engine aircraft with a student who will want to fly solo which is very weather dependent or an IR student who will fly?

One way round many of the problems would be to purchase, insure and maintain a suitable aircraft which is approved an put on the FTO's fleet. It is then used as required and either sold or taken-on by the FTO after the course is complete

Having a suitable "exclusive" aircraft on the FTO fleet could solve many of the problems. i.e. Purchase suitable aircraft, pay for insurance, maintenance and approval with it on the FTO's fleet and after completion sell aircraft. This would save a lot of money - if you can get the insurance at all.

[DFC]

Forgot to add that all that solo time would have to be done in the UK and the UK is quite a small place at 1.5 or more times the speed of the more usual PPL training aircraft.

Hmmmm - 59 hours on your own droning round the Uk at low level VFR.

If they followed the normal course format i.e. they did their PPL in a single and then did the hourbuilding as a PPL holder, much of the PIC hour building time could be done with another person in the aircraft (an experienced pilot or even instructor).

I would love to see what a professional risk assessor's report would say about the relative risks - PPL training and hour building in well maintained low inertia single engine aircraft limited to large tarmac airfields with available off-airport landing areas compared to first solo in a multi which can not climb after engine failure and - see the many accident reports - have killed experienced professional pilots who were unlucky enough to experience engine failure after take-off.

Don't think that the twin would overall have less risk considering the situation.




Edited to clarify the statement regarding hourbuilding with another person!!

[BillieBob]

Since the student will not hold a licence, the qualifying PIC time could not be done with anyone else in the aircraft - an unlicensed pilot cannot carry passengers and the only way an FI could be considered a member of the crew is if the flight were dual. The only exception to this is SPIC flying, which is restricted to integrated CPL or ATPL courses. The flying would also have to be managed and authorised by the FTO conducting the PPL training for the same reason.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If Dad has an executive jet than I would think money is not a problem. Tell him to buy a good Skymaster, the only piston light twin that IMO actually confers a real safety benefit in having the second engine in all phases of flight. It also has the benefit of flying like a Cessna single. I did part of a PPL on a Cessna C 182 and other than making sure the student kept the nose up in the flare, the aircraft worked just fine for ab intio training. Since the Skymaster and the C182 handle very similarly I am sure it would work fine. I am not familar on how training works in the UK, but the least administratively burdensome method would be to contract with a flyign school to put the aircraft on their books and conduct the training.

[Trim Stab]

I would only go the Skymaster route if it were the only way forward. I have nothing against the Skymaster - but she can already fly the DA42 competently, and I think it preferable that she continues with a conventional retractable twin with glass cockpit, FADEC etc as that is what she is used to on the Citation. Moreover, we have access to a DA42, and there is an FTO nearby that operates them.

Is the "UK only" a JAR requirement? Or is it a CAA requirement? I haven't heard of that limitation before - how do really small JAR countries (eg Luxembourg) issue PPLs if all the training has to be in their airspace?

[DFC]

Solo only within the UK is an international basic standard - you can't fly in another country's Territory without an acceptable licence.

Jersey for example have an agreement with France due to both their location and the size of the State.

Just because learning to fly in England with a twin is going to eat up a lot of airspace does not justify an approach to France requesting that an unqualified pilot be permitted to fly in their airspace while building experience beyond that required to obtain a PPL.

The UK has enough room to not only do the PPL qualifying crosscountry, it has enough room to do the CPL one.

I was thinking however, that 70 solo hours by an ab-initio in a light twin VFR is increasing the probability of a mishap to quite a high level. Even confining them to flying circles in the local area is going to lead to boredom which leads to experimentation which leads to.......

There is also the issue of dual / solo currency. Do the PPL course training elements then send them on 59 hours of solo and what do you think their standard will be at the end of that i.e. at the point where they want to sit the skill test?

Also, don't do the exams too early because with typical UK weather, doing all that solo is going to take time even if they do fly every day.

I would not recomend the skymaster, rear engine cooling issues, recognition of which engine has failed issues (no yaw), noise issues, not allowed at some UK airfields issues etc etc etc Plus at the end of it all they get a raying limited to centerline thrust which I don't think is what they are after.

Finally, TrimStab, how long do you intend flying the CJ for? of should I say, how long do you think that you will be flying is after they qualify on it? :)

[Whopity]

JAR-FCL States (c) Facilities wishing to offer training for
PPL only and located in the JAA Member States
shall register for that purpose with the Authority
(see JAR–FCL 1.125). There is no mention of the type or class of aircraft to be used therefore I do not believe that the training on a MEP would have to be conducted at a FTO. In the Helicopter World you can receive PPL training on either a R22 or a R44 at a Registered Facility but to add either as a second Type, you have to then go to a FTO or TRTO. Applying the same logic to aeroplanes, PPL training on a MEP could be conducted at an RF.

The 70 hours PIC required is for licence/rating application and does not prohibit the test being taken earlier. In fact you could take the MEP PPL skill test after 38.5 hours (25 + 10 + 3.5 Assy)but then would need another 60 hours PIC before the licence could be issued.

I doubt that anyone has done this since the introduction of JAR-FCL solely because of the 70 hours PIC. Clearly those who wrote the rules did not consider the possibility of anyone training on a MEP even though there is nothing to prevent it and the Skill Test has provision for it. I would have thought that insurance was the major issue; if you can't get the insurance its a non starter!

[BillieBob]

An interesting thought, Whopity, and you may be right except that a registered facility cannot give training for a MEP class rating, which is integral to the PPL course on a ME aeroplane. Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 1.125 lists, as part of the application form, the training for which a facility may be registered and this includes SEP and TMG, but not MEP class ratings.

This parallels, to an extent, the JAR-FCL 2 requirement that prevents a RF from giving PPL(H) instruction on a helicopter with more than 4 seats, which (it says) can be done only by an FTO. Mind you, the UK CAA seems to make up it's own rules in this area, as in many others, in a completely random fashion and irrespective of JAR-FCL, so it would appear that anything is possible if you have the right connections.

[DFC]

The 70 hours PIC required is for licence/rating application and does not prohibit the test being taken earlier.


One can not take the skill test until one has the experience required for the issue of the class rating;

Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.130 and 1.135

SKILL TEST
6 An applicant for a skill test for the PPL(A) shall have received instruction on the same class/type of aeroplane to be used for the skill test. The applicant shall be permitted to choose to take the test on a single-engine aeroplane or, subject to the experience requirement in JAR–FCL 1.255 or 1.260 of 70 hours flight time as pilot-in-command, on a multi-engine aeroplane. The aeroplane used for the skill test shall meet the requirements for training aeroplanes (see Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.125).

JAR FCL 1.261 covers where the training for a multi engine class rating must be completed.

When one applies for a PPL one is applying for two things - the issue fo the licence and the issue of the rating / ratings that are to be included in that licence. There is no reduction in the requirements for rating issue simply because it is being done at the same time as licence issue.

[Whopity]

DFC

I concede I misread the line re the 70 hours PIC; the issue is normally whether a student can begin the training without the 70 hours PIC.

Re where the training is conducted, JAR-FCL 1.110 states;
(b) Conditions
(1) An applicant for a PPL(A) who has
complied with the conditions specified in
JAR–FCL 1.100, 1.105, 1.120, 1.125(a) and
(b), 1.130[ ][,] 1.135 [and, if applicable,
1.010(a)(4)] shall have fulfilled the
requirements for the issue of a PPL(A)
including at least the class/type rating for the
aeroplane used in the skill test.There is no reference to having to complete the Class Rating in accordance with Sub-part F or JAR-FCL 1.261 other than with respect to the 70 hrs PIC.

JAR-FCL 2.261 which is largely the same as JAR-FCL 1.261, states that helicopter Type ratings shall be conducted at a FTO or TRTO yet the first type rating is still conducted at a RF as part of the PPL training conducted in accordance with Sub-part C. That sets a precedent for doing the same with a MEP PPL on aeroplanes.

No FTO has an approved MEP PPL syllabus; and its probably not worth their while applying for one?

[BillieBob]

Again, I accept that you may be right, although the helicopter RF is constrained to training on helicopters with 4 seats or less (i.e. single piston types until the R66 appears) and so does not have carte blanche so far as that first type rating is concerned. Indeed, it could be posited that this reinforces the idea of constraining a fixed-wing RF to training on a similarly simple aircraft (i.e. SEP/TMG) as Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 1.125 implies.

I doubt that there are that many RFs that would consider training on an MEP that are not already also FTOs with approval for the MEP Class Rating and, in any case, it will all become academic the year after next when RFs disappear and everyone is approved.

[Whopity]

Its interesting that its taken 10 years for someone to actually want to do a PPL on a multi, to highlight how badly written it all was and how whilst quite possible, will probably never happen because its all too difficult.

[Trim Stab]

Re where the training is conducted, JAR-FCL 1.110 states;

Quote:
(b) Conditions
(1) An applicant for a PPL(A) who has
complied with the conditions specified in
JAR–FCL 1.100, 1.105, 1.120, 1.125(a) and
(b), 1.130[ ][,] 1.135 [and, if applicable,
1.010(a)(4)] shall have fulfilled the
requirements for the issue of a PPL(A)
including at least the class/type rating for the
aeroplane used in the skill test.
There is no reference to having to complete the Class Rating in accordance with Sub-part F or JAR-FCL 1.261 other than with respect to the 70 hrs PIC.



I'm left wondering whether it might be possible to do it all on the Citation?

She already has about 150 hours!

[BillieBob]

It's certainly possible so long as you can find an FTO (or RF) able to do the training.

Mind you, as an FI with ME privileges and the C525 on your licence (not sure why you bothered with a C525 CRI), and assuming that Whopity's interpretation is correct, there is nothing to stop you registering as a PPL training facility and doing it all yourself. Now that really would give the small-minded EASA bureaucrats something to think about!:}

Of course, to get the PPL issued on a C525, your student would need 200 hours total flying experience (and the 150 on the CJ will not count) and to have completed an approved pre-entry course (or have passed the ATPL exams) but hey, if money is no object.....