Soloviev -
Now there's a good idea
Absolutely understand and agree the GM and several other points you make. Next time we (all) in EASA gain a 'level playing-field' it will be a first
This wasn't designed to be a treatise on EASA and NAAs, nor was it marketing either. Just that if faced with an intransigent Regulatory Authority, anywhere in the world, if the buzz words "Part 147 course" eases the passage to Certifying staff authorisation, we are only too pleased to help. And we are MILES cheaper than an OEM, since we have less overheads and we are "of" the industry (both principals are Part 66 LAEs and occasionally practising ones since it is less frustrating
)
BTW the Lama was an add-on to the current portfolio of all the EC and Bell singles and twins, together with the engines; it is not the lead-machine on our books though personally I wish it was (Lama people are rather special people - and they drink wine too, well most of them do) PM me for details if you are interested.
African Eagle - in 2020. This may be an interesting scenario. Assuming that spares can be acquired prior to the cut-off date, without doubt the aircraft can be maintained to an airworthy standard BUT.......... if they no longer have someone underwriting the Type Certificate, I really suspect they would not be allowed to operate CAT. Private, yes, CAT no. What does anyone else think? They are NOT Public transport aircraft anyway (really), so maybe a concession could be given for Aerial Work as a category - at which they excel - but it is a good question, since what is decided by EASA may well have a domino effect throughout the global regulatory authorities.
Look forward to any comments fielded, thank you in advance -VFR