FAA Commercial Multi-engine check-ride required one approach only. According to CAD54 conversion term, the applicant needs to do three approach on the multi-egnine aircraft with a cvil aviation examiner. Does it mean the applicant have to do an extra flight test to meet that requirement if I have already received my CPL?

CAD54 3.81 (c) copy of the pilot’s licence offered for conversion, to include
evidence of:
(i) a civil Instrument Rating (Aeroplanes) or an equivalent
flight test which included testing on VOR, NDB and
ILS taken in a multi-engined civil registered aircraft, an
approved civilian flight simulator, or a military
multi-engined transport type aircraft with an equivalent
civil version; and in each case the flight test was
conducted by a civil aviation Authorized Examiner and
the last date of test to be within the six years preceding
the date of application;

what i can say is that basically even though u dun have 2 approaches,

it's still valid and current instrument rating and also when u are hired, u will have to do the IFR flight test again, so i guess it really doesnt matter

what does a matter is that u should have ur ATPL written completed before thinking about the application.

Takamasa sir, I would disagree. KA will not submit his FAA CPL for conversion in HK unless the 3 approaches have been done on a flight test in the presence of an FAA examiner. If you ask Anthony Ng of the CAD, this is the only answer he will give you. I'm not saying that the FAA CPL/IR spells trouble but the CAD does scrutinise these very carefully. An extra IR flight test will have to be conducted.

Tip: As the FAA on-line application form does not have a space for putting in the number of approaches on the flight test, this will have to be written into the logbook, countersigned by the FAA examiner who inserts his name and FAA serial number against the entry (so that he becomes ultimately responsible for certifying the contents of the test, not merely by a filed flight plan).

reverse thrust

thanks for your amend.

i actually have one question.

since he's holding a FAA license, does it mean he doesn't have an license issued by ICAO state?

ReverseFlight,

Since I have done the CPL/IR with 1 approach, is that possible to do an other flight test to meet the requirement? The chief instructor of my flight school saying that an equivalent flight test can be done as well. So, he is scheduling the flight test for me with the FAA examiner. Im wondering what I should put on the remark. Something like: Flight test with 3 approaches to meet HKCAD54 requirement; Instrument rating renewal or CPL/IR checkride continue with 2 additional approaches to meet HKCAD requirement.

Any suggestion??

Thanks,

Anson Wong

takamasa,

The US is an ICAO contracting state. As a result, FAA issued certificates are in compliance with ICAO guidelines and regulations.

Anson

The certification should state clearly whether the approaches are VOR/NDB/ILS as per CAD54 Part 3 Chapter 3 section 3.8.1(c)(i).

If your area does not have NDB approaches (eg CA), you should clear with CAD PLO in writing in advance whether you can double up on one of the other approaches.

ReverseFlight,

I just send you a private message.

Anson

Just spent some time reading CAD54 and I think things are not that complicated.

If you are flying in part 141 or 142 school, simply go get the approaches/trackings done in a sim. Otherwise, in part 61 you can schedule a flight with FAA check airman and do the approaches. Don't forget to emphasize on your logbook that he/she is a check pilot:ok:. The flights or sim sessions don't have to be check-rides, just my two cents.

Even North Korea is an ICAO Contracting State...:}
It is essential to become contracting states if countries want to have air commerce.

THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION!


Takamasa sir, I would disagree. KA will not submit his FAA CPL for conversion in HK unless the 3 approaches have been done on a flight test in the presence of an FAA examiner. If you ask Anthony Ng of the CAD, this is the only answer he will give you. I'm not saying that the FAA CPL/IR spells trouble but the CAD does scrutinise these very carefully. An extra IR flight test will have to be conducted.

Tip: As the FAA on-line application form does not have a space for putting in the number of approaches on the flight test, this will have to be written into the logbook, countersigned by the FAA examiner who inserts his name and FAA serial number against the entry (so that he becomes ultimately responsible for certifying the contents of the test, not merely by a filed flight plan).


(c) copy of the pilot’s licence offered for conversion, to include
evidence of:
(i) a civil Instrument Rating (Aeroplanes) or an equivalent
flight test which included testing on VOR, NDB and
ILS taken in a multi-engined civil registered aircraft, an
approved civilian flight simulator, or a military
multi-engined transport type aircraft with an equivalent
civil version; and in each case the flight test was
conducted by a civil aviation Authorized Examiner and
the last date of test to be within the six years preceding
the date of application;

The wording of Reverse Flight's post above, and, allegedly, Anthony Ng's interpretation could be misleading and costly to people.

To clarify, if the candidate holds a 'civil instrument rating' then the flight test issue is irrelevent.

If the candidate does not hold an instrument rating or cannot show evidence of such a test, then, Reverse Flight is correct. An extra flight test would be required.

The CAD54 extract is on the topic of 'Conversion of Foreign Licence to CPL(A)'. It is not the topic of 'conversion of instrument ratings'. That is later in paragraph 10.2.2.

As I have highlighted, the word 'OR' in the first sentence is a qualifier. That is, the evidence should show 'a civil Instrument rating' OR (if without an instrument rating) the tests described thereafter, done in a multiengine aircraft.

For FAA, what would these 'tests' be?

Well, one which springs to mind would be an ATPL checkride done in a multi-engine aircraft. This checkride is considered equivelent to an instrument checkride. 61.167 states on ATP privilages, "An ATP has the same priveleges as a commercial with instrument rating." An instrument rating is not a prerequisite for taking the ATPL ride.

I'm sure the military have equivelent tests, which could be done in a multi-engine aircraft. I'm not sure, but even a Part 121 line check could also be equivelent, though I don't know why somone without an IR would be doing 121 line checks. You get my point.

HKCAD then are simply saying that all CPL conversion candidates must have, at the least, been tested in instrument procedures in a multi-engine aircraft, OR hold a dedicated instrument rating for airplanes and have met the requirements for instrument flight in multiengine aircraft.

It's all in the word 'OR', which significantly is not 'AND'.

This is to ensure that they have had at least the equivelent or better instrument training as is required for initial issunce (non-converted) of HK CPL. That's all.

At least, that's how I see it. If anyone has an official interpretation, I'd be more than interested.

-----------------------------------
What interests me is the guy states he has a CPL/IR in a multi, but has only done one approach? Is that in a multi or ever?

If he is holding an instrument rating, then he should have done all the approaches (probably in another 'instrument checkride'), just not in a multi. This is acceptable for conversion.

If he has no instrument rating, and only did 1 approach in his CPL, then he still does not have an instrument rating.

??