EASA FCL and N-reg TBM700

[peterh337]

It currently appears that some sort of equivalent EASA pilot papers may be required post 2014, on top of the State of Registry pilot papers required under ICAO.

The Q is how far does this go.

I believe that ICAO Type Ratings will be accepted by EASA, so you won't need to re-do your ICAO TR.

But what about HPA?

In 2010 I checked this out for a TBM (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tbm850/index.html) and the EASA requirements then were (from the article):

US registered aircraft
No Type Rating is required because the TBM is below 12500lb and is not a turbojet. There is a "High Altitude Endorsement" ground course with 1 flight to simulate explosive depressurisation and oxygen mask use, etc.
FAA prerequisites are: PPL, CPL or ATPL. To be PIC of N-reg TBM you need three endorsements, all of which can be issued by any FAA instructor: High Altitude (all aircraft certified above FL250), High Performance (all aircraft with more than 200 HP per engine), and Complex (all aircraft with retractable gear).

EASA registered aircraft
In EASA-land, no Type Rating is required but there is a Class Rating called: "Aerospatiale S.E.T." (the name will soon be changed to "Aerospatiale TBM").
The Class rating is valid for 2 years and it is mandatory to pass a Class Rating proficiency check to renew the Class Rating every 2 years. This Class Rating can be done by a Class Rating Instructor (CRI); it is not mandatory to do it in a Flight Training Organisation (FTO) but in reality very few CRIs are qualified to do it. After the training, the Check Ride will be done by a Class Rating Examiner (CRE).
JAA prerequisites are: PPL, CPL or ATPL, and an "HPA" (High Performance Airplane") course certificate (which is not needed if one has passed the ATPL exams or holds any ICAO ATPL). The "HPA" course must be done in a Flight Training Organisation (FTO), by a TRI (SPA).

In essence, one prerequisite for the second lot would be to sit all 14 ATPL exams and then throw half of them away (the other half being used towards the JAA IR).

Does anybody think this will be required, and if so is there any way around doing all those ridiculous exams?

The same issues apply to a Meridian of course.

For the Jetprop there appears to be a different route whereby you first collect the papers for a Malibu and then use that to collect the papers for the Jetprop conversion. This does not need the ATPL exam passes.

[achimha]

Why not just get the HPA endorsement? You need to attend a 60h course at an ATPL accredited FTO (40h if you're a CPL holder). The exam is conducted by your FTO, 60 multiple choice questions designed by the FTO. As there are very few HPA students, I would expect FTOs to just have you sit in their ATPL courses.

[BillieBob]

The "HPA" course must be done in a Flight Training Organisation (FTO), by a TRI (SPA).Nonsense. The HPA course is solely theoretical knowledge and need not even be conducted by a pilot, let alone a TRI(SPA).
In essence, one prerequisite for the second lot would be to sit all 14 ATPL exams and then throw half of them away (the other half being used towards the JAA IR).No, one alternative would be to do as you suggest but that would be both unnecessary and stupid. The sensible alternative is to complete the HPA theoretical knowledge course, which should only take a bit of distance learning and a couple of days in the classroom. Whilst there may, as achimha suggests, currently be mandatory minimum training times in some countries, there are no such minima included in Part-FCL.

Since there are no significant changes from the JAR-FCL 1 requirements for the addition of a SP SET class rating, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[peterh337]

This is useful. I will update the requirements in the article. The original text came from Socata, BTW, and was checked at the highest level, so probably reflected the DGAC requirements at the time (2010).

But my main Q was whether EASA FCL, interpreted to some justifiable extent, will be mandating the HPA stuff in the first place for an N-reg TBM whose operator is somehow determined to be based in the EU. The licenses required to fly say a TBM here are a PPL, and for practical reasons an IR. You already have the ICAO-mandated other papers from the FAA. EASA is accepting ICAO Type Ratings so why not accept the other stuff.

[achimha]

The way it works here (Germany) is that the CAA maintains a list of aircraft that fall under the HPA category. JAR-FCL 1.215 (b)(1) and 1.220 (c)(1) define a few criteria that characterize HPA but does not mention any aircraft. It looks like it's up to the local CAA to apply the criteria to individual aircraft.

HPA and Type Ratings are two different things. The TBM requires HPA but no TR, the Jetprop requires both HPA and TR. I would think that flying the TBM requires more skills than flying the Jetprop but the TBM probably has a better safety record.