[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
I work for a well known simulator operator in West Sussex teaching and examining on the Citation II and XLS. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
I can describe how my company has chosen to comply with the regulation. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
I am able to conduct OPCs on all European operators but undertook a Citation XLS OPC with an Oxford based UK operator before I could conduct UK OPCs. They raised form SRG 1187 and paid the CAA £51 admin charge and the authority then issued me with a rating endorsed with the Oxford operator. The paperwork took a month.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
I will have to do the same thing again to conduct UK OPCs on the Citation II because it’s a different type rating.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
The practical solution for S & K is to OPC two of the Simulator training providers SFEs. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
Then witness the SFEs conducting an OPC on his pilots but sign his pilot’s paperwork as the SFEs will have to wait for the CAA to issue the new endorsed rating. Once they receive their paperwork the SFEs will be able to check S&Ks plus other UK operators and keep themselves in check.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
I agree this is an extra level of burocracy added by the CAA. 
Their intent is good. Making examiners aware of the individual company SOPs. I find it bizarre that once I have an OPC with one UK operator on type you can examine others with just a letter of agreement.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
My company always requests the SOPs of all operators 5 days before check so that we can familiarise ourselves with them. With the Citations I have not seen a vast amount of difference between them. We have established a good working relationship with customers based on feedback. Most say they benefit from ‘crosspollination’ training with us as we have seen ‘different ways to skin the cat’. Some have modified their SOP as a result. Our aim is to make it safer for all.
[/FONT]