Originally Posted by
Duchess_Driver
If you read the AMCs etc you’ll see it is full of “should”s and “may”s rather than “shall” and “must”which gives the implication of options and choice by the ATO.
The HT should then draw up a training plan for the individual appropriate to what experience, recency etc which should be submitted for approval by the appropriate CA. Depending on the HT and ATO this often falls into the “too much work/too difficult” category and what’s written becomes policy.
To be fair if you’ve been out for 6 years it would probably be the sensible option to do the full course again.
Hi,
thanks for the reply.
Very true, i mistyped shall rather than should, however the point I was trying to bring across is that some ATOs are still using the “old” 3 years rule whereas things have changed last year. It doesn’t really make a big difference in the end it’s true as ATOs can just copy/paste a full type rating program as a “tailored” training for expiries greater than 3 years.