TeeS
6th Jun 2016, 20:33
Greetings all
Having previously got all stressed out by the training guidelines of the draft EC145 OEB reports that our Authority insisted we follow, I've just been looking at the EC175 OSD report for which the training (section 4) I believe is now mandatory. A few questions spring to mind:
1. Why have we gone from a list of OEB reports easily available on the EASA website to contacting the airframe manufacturer and asking if you can please have a copy.
2. The EC175 has a very complex autopilot and display system and the OSD report requires 16 hours of classroom training for this - can't complain too much at that but - what about a pilot that I'm converting from EC145T2 to EC175 - he knows the helionix system inside out and I suspect the EC175 system is near as damn it identical - it's not going to take me 16 hours to explain he's got one more screen than he used to have!
The minimum format/timescale of a type rating course should be agreed between the ATO and the Authority - not set by deciding a timescale based upon a worst case scenario for the most incompetent pilot ever seen.
3. OEB reports were supposed to be created by a team which included launch customer input (although I never saw this happen). Presumably, this was to get some 'real world' perspective into the OEB report. The list of contributors to the OSD reads like a who's who of management and test pilots - where does the customer get to feed into the process?
4. It appears that Category 'A' (class 1) operations are considered an add on in European manufacturer's eyes. So, if Mr. Rich Bloke employs a factory trained pilot as his personal aircrew and Mr. Bloke looks at the fresh licence, how does he know the pilot has the first idea about how to come out of a congested hostile environment at his factory? The idea that a type rating course doesn't include class 1 profiles is mad (and a way of charging a little extra at the factory school!?)
5. And so we come to the IR! This is contentious but where in part FCL is there mention of a 'multi-pilot IR' and if there is such a thing, how would you convert it to a single-pilot IR on that type or vice versa?
6. I'm confused by the table giving flight training times for MET MP IR but if I'm reading it correctly, it's suggesting if you do all the training in the aircraft, it'll take 20:30 but if you have the benefit of a FFS it'll take you 33 hours - What!!
7. Lastly, and perhaps I'm being picky, but section 4.2 b states: As per EASA Part-FCL, skill test is required for Initial Type Rating, Additional and IR extension.
Sorry but a Skill test is required for the type rating, both single pilot and multi-pilot and an initial instrument rating, not to extend the instrument rating to another multi-engine type - that requires a proficiency check on type!
I've picked on the EC175 because that was the only one I could find on the internet - it's here (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/OSD%20Report%20EC175B%20Original%20%20Jms%2031%2010%202014.p df) if you want a look; however, the OEB for the EC135, EC145 and AW139 seemed to follow a similar path of inflexibly maximising the length of a course. Strangely, if you check the similar documentation for the Bell 429, I think you will find a much more lenient/flexible (dare I say sensible) minimum training requirement.
I just find it annoying that instead of adjusting the course content to the experience, background and ability of the student, we have now developed a system where everyone has to do a course directed at the lowest common denominator.
Rant over, sorry.
TeeS
Having previously got all stressed out by the training guidelines of the draft EC145 OEB reports that our Authority insisted we follow, I've just been looking at the EC175 OSD report for which the training (section 4) I believe is now mandatory. A few questions spring to mind:
1. Why have we gone from a list of OEB reports easily available on the EASA website to contacting the airframe manufacturer and asking if you can please have a copy.
2. The EC175 has a very complex autopilot and display system and the OSD report requires 16 hours of classroom training for this - can't complain too much at that but - what about a pilot that I'm converting from EC145T2 to EC175 - he knows the helionix system inside out and I suspect the EC175 system is near as damn it identical - it's not going to take me 16 hours to explain he's got one more screen than he used to have!
The minimum format/timescale of a type rating course should be agreed between the ATO and the Authority - not set by deciding a timescale based upon a worst case scenario for the most incompetent pilot ever seen.
3. OEB reports were supposed to be created by a team which included launch customer input (although I never saw this happen). Presumably, this was to get some 'real world' perspective into the OEB report. The list of contributors to the OSD reads like a who's who of management and test pilots - where does the customer get to feed into the process?
4. It appears that Category 'A' (class 1) operations are considered an add on in European manufacturer's eyes. So, if Mr. Rich Bloke employs a factory trained pilot as his personal aircrew and Mr. Bloke looks at the fresh licence, how does he know the pilot has the first idea about how to come out of a congested hostile environment at his factory? The idea that a type rating course doesn't include class 1 profiles is mad (and a way of charging a little extra at the factory school!?)
5. And so we come to the IR! This is contentious but where in part FCL is there mention of a 'multi-pilot IR' and if there is such a thing, how would you convert it to a single-pilot IR on that type or vice versa?
6. I'm confused by the table giving flight training times for MET MP IR but if I'm reading it correctly, it's suggesting if you do all the training in the aircraft, it'll take 20:30 but if you have the benefit of a FFS it'll take you 33 hours - What!!
7. Lastly, and perhaps I'm being picky, but section 4.2 b states: As per EASA Part-FCL, skill test is required for Initial Type Rating, Additional and IR extension.
Sorry but a Skill test is required for the type rating, both single pilot and multi-pilot and an initial instrument rating, not to extend the instrument rating to another multi-engine type - that requires a proficiency check on type!
I've picked on the EC175 because that was the only one I could find on the internet - it's here (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/OSD%20Report%20EC175B%20Original%20%20Jms%2031%2010%202014.p df) if you want a look; however, the OEB for the EC135, EC145 and AW139 seemed to follow a similar path of inflexibly maximising the length of a course. Strangely, if you check the similar documentation for the Bell 429, I think you will find a much more lenient/flexible (dare I say sensible) minimum training requirement.
I just find it annoying that instead of adjusting the course content to the experience, background and ability of the student, we have now developed a system where everyone has to do a course directed at the lowest common denominator.
Rant over, sorry.
TeeS