Originally Posted by
Rivet gun
(d) Aeroplanes used in this course should be:
(1) appropriately certified and operated by the ATO in a manner that takes into account the effects of repeated training manoeuvres on airframe fatigue life; and
(2) provide sufficient safety margins to cater for student and instructor errors.
My emphasis in bold face. I don't see how a CS23 normal cat aircraft can meet these requirements.
I understand it was once intended that the training should be 3 hours actual training not counting taxi, take off, climb and recovery. However the way Part-FCL is written the minimum is 3 hours from the moment an aircraft first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
.
Sadly there remains a substantial amount of confusion for a regulation that becomes mandatory one week from today.
I participated in EASA RMG.0581 that ended up writing FCL.715.A. I completely agree that the psychological objectives of the on-aircraft UPRT programme cannot be met in anything other than an aerobatic aircraft. People are completely missing the point if they attempt the training in a non-aerobatic platform.
And yes, the intention was AND STILL IS that the training should be 3 hours of actual training - I wrote the original requirement along with a member of the APS team. The way Part-FCL has been written is misleading; EASA have subsequently confirmed to me - which I have relayed to the CAA - that the requirement IS 3 hours of actual training.
With one week to implementation, my understanding is that the CAA have yet to approve any FCL.915(e) courses that qualify FIs to deliver FCL.745.A, which will make life interesting. Our course was submitted 8 months ago for approval; heard this week that it's 'being worked on'.