MEP class rating

[Pace152]

Hi all,

Just a quick question.

If you are the holder of a valid and current JAA MEP rating but want to fly an MEP you havent flown before, for example a seminole or seneca, do you need to fly first with an instructor on that type of aircraft? Or is it covered under the MEP class rating?

Thanks in advance.

[polohippo]

I'm pretty sure you would need a checkout for insurance purposes.

[madlandrover]

Differences/familiarisation training required to go onto a new type within the MEP class rating. Training as required at the discretion of the FI/CRI providing the training, although bearing in mind that differences such as turbocharging don't carry up from previous SEP differences training.

[redbar1]

Hi pace152,

Quick answers to your quick question(s):

do you need to fly first with an instructor on that type of aircraft?
Yes :*

Or is it covered under the MEP class rating?
No! :mad:

Thanks in advance.
You're welcome! :ok:

These matters are so basic, and so well described in JAR-FCL subpart F, that you might consider going back to wherever you trained for your exams, and ask for some refund.... :p

Cheers,
Redbar1

[hugh flung_dung]

Redbar1, please could you quote the bit of FCL that requires a flight with an FI.

1.215 states "... In order to change to another type or variant of the aeroplane within one class rating, differences or familiarisation training is required"
1.235 states "Familiarisation training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge"

My understanding is that, providing there is no system which requires differences training, it is permissible to read the POH and fly. Life would be very tedious for some people if this were not the case.

HFD

[DFC]

If you are the holder of a valid and current JAA MEP rating but want to fly an MEP you havent flown before, for example a seminole or seneca, do you need to fly first with an instructor on that type of aircraft? Or is it covered under the MEP class rating?



Differences Training is Required and it must be with an FI or CRI.

This is why there is a "(D)" opposite the MEP Land Class in EASA / JAR-FCL / LASORS.

The CAA says that instructors should be "reasonable" in the amount of training they require for example where the pilot has flown similar aircraft.

Regards,

DFC

[hugh flung_dung]

DFC,
I know about the statement in LASORS but what "D" are you talking about and where is the requirement in JAR-FCL?

HFD

[redbar1]

HFD,

The document DFC and I refer to is the List of Class of Aeroplanes. In Amd 3 to JAR-FCL 1 this was Appx 1 to 1.215. However, the UK is now on Amd 5. Before this amendment, the list was moved (but not materially changed in basic principles) to the JIP/AGM (Joint Implementation Procedures/Administrative and Guidance Material). I assume it is also in your LASORS, but I don't have neither LASORS or the JIP here in my living room..:uhoh:

Quote from list, as in Amd 3: "(a) the symbol (D) in coloumn 3 indicates that differences training is required when moving between variants or other types.....

The "D" referred to by DFC is just this D in the table for MEP, coloumn 3.

Even within the same "type" there can be great variances depending on production year. Many of us who have been instructors and examiners for longer than we care to remember have seen some horrible examples of "self-checking" on other types:bored:

I do not really understand this apparent reluctancy to do a short stunt with an FI or CRI, and then be able to fly with greater confidence. Training never hurts, you know. And the more professional you get as a pilot, the more stringent are the training requirements, ref. line trng, opc trng, loft, etc etc.

I hope this satisfies the curiosity, and that everyone's happy.:ok:

Best regards, and happy flying,
redbar1

[hugh flung_dung]

Thanks for the useful reply redbar1, now I think I understand the confusion.

You only gave a partial quotation, the full quote is: "column 3 indicates that differences training is required when moving between variants or other types of aeroplane which are separated by a line in column 2" - this does not, to my mind, say or imply that differences training is required when not crossing lines in column 2 - in other words within a class and with no new differences.
I believe that you and DFC have misinterpreted this table so please have another look and tell me if you still maintain your original assertion. (For those in the UK it's appendix B of section F in the 2008 LASORS). If you still think I'm wrong I'll ask the CFE and will happily fall on my sword if it's me that's wrong.

I should explain my motivation. I'm an SEP/MEP examiner so I fully support the benefit of training and in many cases it is necessary. However, to compel Differences training when only Familiarisation training is required would be a real pain in other cases. My tame FIE has assured me that familiarisation was sufficient and that's how I have interpreted the table. If we're wrong we need to know.

I need to confess my ignorance - where do I find the JIP/AGM?

(BTW, LASORS does say "For MEP Class aeroplanes, differences training with a FI or CRI is always required when converting to another type or variant within the class. However, some common sense must be applied; the amount of training will depend on the similarity of the new MEP type to those already being flown. The training must be sufficient to ensure that
the pilot can operate the aeroplane systems and operate the aeroplane safely." ... but AFAIK there is no authority for this in JAR-FCL.)

HFD

[S-Works]

Differences training is required when moving between types within the MEP class. The differences training does not REQUIRE any flying, it may be sufficient for the candidate to just sit down with the FI/CRI and go through the POH etc as a brief maybe sat in the cockpit and then have the FI/CRI endorse the logbook accordingly. It may be that the differences are of such a degree that a flight is needed. An experienced Seneca pilot going to a Duchess for example may not need to actually fly the aircraft but would need some element of differences training to understand where the static drains were or how to drop the gear in an emergency etc.

I have been sat with a CAA staff Examiner for the last 2 days and have discussed this very subject to death!

[Pace152]

redbar1, I'd hate to be trapped in a lift with you fella - you'd probably pass the time by quoting the lift manual page by page from your memory.

Section F of Lasors does unfortunatly say that it is always neccessary to do differences training with an FI or CRI when changing between a type or variant within the same class for the MEP.

[S-Works]

Section F does indeed say that differences training is required. However it does not say that a flight is required.......

[DFC]

HFD,

The list of class and type ratings can be found at;

OEB General -TypeRatings list (Aeroplanes/Helicopters) and Licence endorsement list (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/c_oeb_general.php)



column 3 indicates that differences training is required when moving between variants or other types of aeroplane which are separated by a line in column 2


There is a big important "or" in that statement.

So the above quote says;

Where you see a (D) it means that differences training is required when moving brtween types of aeroplane which are separated by a line in column 2 or when moving between variants.

If you look at the MEP line there is a (D) which based on your quote requires differences training when moving between variants.

---------

Bose,

If you sit in the aircraft and talk about the operation then the person whom you have spent the time with will have gained knowledge alone.

You can talk all day about the undercarriage system and it's back-up but until the system is used then noting other than knowledge has been obtained.


JAR-FCL :

Differences training requires
additional knowledge and training on an
appropriate training device or the aeroplane.

Familiarisation training requires
the acquisition of additional knowledge.

It is thus clear that sitting in the aircraft having everything explained and discussed is familiarisation training.

Flying with the student and getting them to operate the aircraft and system(s) is differences training.

Remember that the differences training required when moving between MEP variants is not simply because of a different system (VP prop) or retractable undercarriage it is simply because the type is a different variant.

Thus going from a seneca to a seminole requires differences training - skill training - not because the aircraft systems are difference but because they are different aircraft.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

DFC, now that you seem to have replaced Pat as CFE I look forward to reading your Notex on the subject.

Until it arrives I will continue to follow the CFE and Staff Examiners guidance on the subject. Advice that was discussed at length in the last week with policy making staff.

I will leave you to to your usual interpretation and rule making.

[DFC]

Anyone here think that they can impart something other than knowledge to a student simply by talking to them.

Perhaps you think that PL would approve of a B737-300 pilot sitting in and having a chat for a while before being signed off to fly the B737-800 with a full load of pax. That may be your understanding of what is ment by "differences training" but it is not EASA or JAA or CAA or (insert any other authority name) opinion.


If all you do is impart knowledge then all you have done is familiarisation training.

Every good instructor remembers - brief, demonstrate, practice, debrief.

Where in your "differences Training" is the demonstrate or practice and how can you debrief a student on their performance if you have never seem them do anything?

Unless you have a sim, flying is the only option for diferences training.

I will take it all back when PL puts it in writing that differences training can be accomplished by simply doing a brief.

Regards,

DFC

[hugh flung_dung]

DFC
Your understanding of the effect of grammatical disjunctions differs from mine. Since we are only expressing personal opinions about text that is unclear I'll contact the horses mouth and report back.

On the other point that you're debating with Bose: I don't think anyone is suggesting that Differences training can be done without a practical component, this would be called Familiarisation training. The issue is which of these is required; it appears that the guidance is unclear and that some is not supported by JAR-FCL. As I said above, I'll investigate and report back.

HFD

[S-Works]

HFD, I raised the question this week with a CAA FE who sat auditing a Multi Engine Examiner course. The exact question was raised during the CRE course and the answer as I gave in an earlier post.

DFC is legendary for creating his own rules and regulations and trying to convince the rest of us he is correct so everyone should take his interpretation with a good dollop of salt.

In the meantime I will continue to follow the guidance given to me from the horses mouth!!1

[DFC]

HFD,

Have a look at the SEP section. Since both a C152 and a PA28-140 would appear on the same line then differences training is not required even though they are different types.

However a C182 is on a different line from a C182RG because the C182RG has something extra that requires differences training when compared to the C182.

If you look at the MEP then the (D) signifies that differences training is required when moving between everything. i.e. to move from a simple fixed pitch tricycle fixed gear twin to another different type which also has fixed pitch, trycycle fixed gear requires differences training.

The only other way would be to list every MEP type and separate them by lines and get rid of the "or" in the simple requirement?

Regards,

DFC

----------

Bose,

No answer to my respone? Only able to manage a sad childish personal attack?

Nothing of use to add? - Debate over!

[S-Works]

No answer to my respone? Only able to manage a sad childish personal attack?

Sorry DFC if you read and attack into my response. I was merely pointing out your tendancy to maek up rules.

Who am I to believe in this instance, you who has a long history of making up rules and regulations to suit yourself or the CAA Staff Examiner auditing a multi engine Examiner course who gave official policy when asked this very question?

Bose,

If you sit in the aircraft and talk about the operation then the person whom you have spent the time with will have gained knowledge alone.

You can talk all day about the undercarriage system and it's back-up but until the system is used then noting other than knowledge has been obtained.

Quote:
JAR-FCL :

Differences training requires
additional knowledge and training on an
appropriate training device or the aeroplane.

Familiarisation training requires

the acquisition of additional knowledge.

It is thus clear that sitting in the aircraft having everything explained and discussed is familiarisation training.

Flying with the student and getting them to operate the aircraft and system(s) is differences training.

Remember that the differences training required when moving between MEP variants is not simply because of a different system (VP prop) or retractable undercarriage it is simply because the type is a different variant.

Thus going from a seneca to a seminole requires differences training - skill training - not because the aircraft systems are difference but because they are different aircraft.

Regards,

DFC

Your quote of JAR FCL does not state that a flight of any type is required, it is just a normal instance of you cutting and pasting partial paragraphs to support your argument.

You have stated your opinion and nothing more. The view of the CAA is that a training flight is not required but may be neccessary depending on the scope of differences. You are quite right that sometimes merely briefing someone on the differences may not be enough. That is down to the CRI/FI doing the differences training to decide.

Quoting excerpts that relate to SEP differences training to support a discussion on MEP differences is nothing less than I would expect from you.

You are an old adversary at this game and to date you have never provided proof to support your arguments just distortion of facts that when they eventually come out in the wash are proven wrong.

If you choose to override the CAA guidance then that is your choice and I pity those who come to you and are fleeced into non required flying time as a result.

[DFC]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Differences training can be done without a practical component

Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what someone claims the CAA approves.

No doubt we will never see such in writing.

Quite wrong I think to name people in this forum and associate them with certain incorrect claims without their own input or permission.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Quite wrong I think to name people in this forum and associate them with certain incorrect claims without their own input or permission.

It has never been my experience when asking a policy question of a CAA Staff FE that any response has been on a nudge or a wink and that any response made as policy is for public dissemination.

I also don't recall having named the Staff FE in this case. In fact that only mention of any name was pulling your leg that you must have replaced Pat Lander as CFE.....

You may get away with distorting facts to suit your self with other people DFC, but I have watched your game for far to long to fall to it.

[DFC]

Someone claimed in post number 14 that the idea that differences trainig could be completed without having to complete a flight was the CFE's guidance on the subject and that they would follow that guidance.

The CFE does not use PPRune to provide guidance.

People should not claim that the CFE has approved something when they have not and should not drag the CFE into childish arguments regarding clearly laid down policy that is available to everyone in LASORS and JAR-FCL.

End of discussion!

Regards,

DFC

[hugh flung_dung]

C'mon chaps, play nicely and don't squabble :E

As I said before, I'll ask formally and let you know here what the formal reply is.
FWIW I have always understood that Familiarisation training was sufficient and that all I or anyone else had to do was to read the POH and go (assuming no systems "Differences", as defined). Having to find an FI who's current on an MEPL variant before being able to fly it would sometimes be a pain.

HFD

[S-Works]

Someone claimed in post number 14 that the idea that differences trainig could be completed without having to complete a flight was the CFE's guidance on the subject and that they would follow that guidance.

The CFE does not use PPRune to provide guidance.

People should not claim that the CFE has approved something when they have not and should not drag the CFE into childish arguments regarding clearly laid down policy that is available to everyone in LASORS and JAR-FCL.

End of discussion!

Regards,

DFC

Now thats what I like about you DFC, always prepared to distort the facts to suit your own argument. If you can't separate a humorous dig at you being the new CFE from the comment following it then it is a poor job.

As was stated, I have taken advice from a CAA Staff FE on this subject and the answer was as stated.

Like it or lump it. or to use your term, end of discussion.....




DFC, now that you seem to have replaced Pat as CFE I look forward to reading your Notex on the subject.

Until it arrives I will continue to follow the CFE and Staff Examiners guidance on the subject. Advice that was discussed at length in the last week with policy making staff.

I will leave you to to your usual interpretation and rule making.