EASA aerobatic rating

[RedKnight]

Does EASA require 40hrs of PIC experience on the appropriate flight category/type before one is eligible for the aerobatic rating?

This document (https://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/npa/2008/NPA%202008-17b.pdf) dated 2008 seems to suggest that it does, but subsequent documentation/guidance (http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2011/2011-016-R/AMC%20and%20GM%20to%20Part-FCL.pdf) dated 2011 makes no reference to such a requirement. Has it been eliminated?

[Prop swinger]

Yes, you need 40 hours PIC post-solo flight time in the appropriate category of aircraft (or 120 flights for sailplane licence holders) before applying for the rating the EASA way.

[RedKnight]

Thank you, but is there any official documentation that you may be able to point me to that details this requirement?

On a related note, presumably this condition isn't a prerequisite for the AOPA aerobatics course - just for the EASA rating?

[Prop swinger]

CAP804 quotes Part FCL (https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5000) (p285.) The AMC is complementary to Part FCL, it doesn't override it.

AIUI any licence or rating gained before the end of the derogation period can be converted to its EASA equivalent, so I suppose you could do whatever is required for the conversion (eg an AOPA course) & then apply.

[BillieBob]

FCL.800 Aerobatic Rating

(a)....

(b) Applicants for an aerobatic rating shall have completed:(1) at least 40 hours of flight time or, in the case of sailplanes, 120 launches as PIC in the appropriate aircraft category, completed after the issue of the licenceNote: "after the issue of the licence" and not "post-solo" as previously suggested.

[RedKnight]

Fantastic, thank you. That led me to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:0001:0193:EN:PDF) (which "lays technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council"), which confirms the experience requirement described above.

[BEagle]

According to Europe Air Sports, they have been trying to get rid of the stupid 40 hrs / 120 launches PIC since licence issue nonsense as part of FCL.002 - the NPA for which still hasn't been released. At least, that's what their FCL-IF representative has said, so if nothing appears we won't be very impressed!

Don't forget that, if you wish to fly aerobatics in a Chipmunk or Bulldog, you do not need an Aerobatic Rating - but you do if you wish to fly aerobatics in a Pup or the Cessna so-called 'Aerobat'.

[Zulu Alpha]

You can do the AOPA course,which is about 10 hrs, but there is an easier way.

If you go to a British Aerobatics Assoc beginners day, then you will have documented evidence of aerobatic experience and this will allow you to get the rating under the grandfather rules.

[BEagle]

If you go to a British Aerobatics Assoc beginners day, then you will have documented evidence of aerobatic experience and this will allow you to get the rating under the grandfather rules.

This is only true if you have received the theoretical knowledge specified in AMC No 1 to FCL.800, have signed to that effect on your application and have flown aerobatic manoeuvres at a BAeA sanctioned event (including glider events), providing evidence (other than log book records) of having flown aerobatic manoeuvres at such an event.

See CAP804 Part I Section 4 Part P (pp 46-47 in the current edition).

[Zulu Alpha]

providing evidence (other than log book records) of having flown aerobatic manoeuvres at such an event.

You get this automatically at a BAeA event, and it has been used with the CAA.

No idea about the theoretical knowledge bit. I didn't think you were asked to sign anything, just tick the " I want an aerobatic rating" box.

Also, if you do this on the initial issue, the aerobatics rating is free.

This rating is another bit of Eurobolleaux. You can fly any non EASA aerobatic aircraft quite legally without the rating. It is only needed for EASA certified aircraft. ie most of the Pitts S1s, lasers, Edges, Skybolts don't need the rating but Pitts S2 A/B/Cs and Extras etc. do need it.
There is no renewal or currency requirement.

[BEagle]

This rating is another bit of Eurobolleaux.

I agree. But it's the law.

Industry and the CAA worked together to mitigate the impact of this nonsense; the results are now in CAP 804.

End of.

[Zulu Alpha]

This rating is another bit of Eurobolleaux.
I agree. But it's the law.

Industry and the CAA worked together to mitigate the impact of this nonsense; the results are now in CAP 804.

End of.

I agree, but there are ways to mitigate it eg the BAeA competition route rather than spending 10 hrs on an AOPA course.

The point I was trying to make was that it isn't necessary to spend a lot of money on the AOPA course to get the rating.

[foxmoth]

If you have the experience it can also be done by a letter from an Aeros Instructor confirming you have the relevant experience and knowledge, may need a flight with him if he does not know you well, but a lot less than the full course. I have done this for a couple of guys and seemed to go through no problem.:ok:

[RedKnight]

Yes - but regardless, I assume all of the options detailed above will still require 40hrs of PIC experience post the license issuance before the EASA rating may be award?

[GipsyMagpie]

Not yet - but expect the rules to tighten up once transition to EASA is complete.

[bookworm]

According to Europe Air Sports, they have been trying to get rid of the stupid 40 hrs / 120 launches PIC since licence issue nonsense as part of FCL.002 - the NPA for which still hasn't been released. At least, that's what their FCL-IF representative has said, so if nothing appears we won't be very impressed!

I think you may have the wrong end of that particular stick, BEagle. That issue has never been part of FCL.002, as the IAOPA nominee on FCL.002 will confirm to you (or you could just read the ToR (http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/tor/fcl/EASA-ToR-FCL.002-00-21072011.pdf)).

Did you not raise it in the Implementation Forum? If you feel the issue is important, why don't you ask the IAOPA rep at the FCL SSCC-TAG next week to raise it for you then? I'm not sure who's going. It's not really an implementation issue, since the rule is crystal clear, just a bad rule. But you may get somewhere.

[BEagle]

Did you not raise it in the Implementation Forum?

I most certainly did - and the EAS rep. stated that he'd be able to include it in his FCL.002 work share.

Anyway, I'll be seeing him next week at the FCL meeting and will ask him whether or not he's done anything about it.

I'm not sure who's going.

I'm sure.

[bookworm]

I'm sure.

Then enjoy your Kölsch and your conversation. Good luck fixing FCL.800: we're depending on you. ;)

[BEagle]

Kölsch? Aber selbstverständlich!!

EASA has now woken up to the problem of the children of the magenta who periodically lose control of their automated people-tubes and haven't a clue how to recover. People who seem to go 'tilt' at anything more than 25° AoB....

By making the AR more readily achievable, perhaps more people will develop better stick-and-rudder skills as a core skill set, enabling them to have a better chance of saving the situation if the automation decides to go on strike.

Quite how anyone could object to such a basic notion, I cannot undertand....

[waldopepper42]

Absolutely agree BEagle. My personal belief is that, whilst I would never claim to be a good pilot, I am nevertheless a much better pilot than I would have been without all the aerobatic practice.

And it was fun, too!

[Jonty]

Thats right, because an AOPA/EASA/BAeA Aerobatics rating is the same as a high altitude jet upset!

[BEagle]

Thats right, because an AOPA/EASA/BAeA Aerobatics rating is the same as a high altitude jet upset!

What a particularly stupid comment.

A 'high altitude jet upset' is most likely due to either inadequate training, woeful monitoring or basic complacency by thoroughly medicocre SOP-is-God people-tube minders. Or a combination of all three.

When it does go wrong, as we have seen on far too many occasions, these inept numpties haven't the faintest idea why - or what to do about it.

At least with some basic aerobatic and confidence manouevre experience, they might not turn into gibbering idiots if the AoB exceeds 25 deg....:rolleyes:

[3 Point]

Emotive language Beagle but I agree with your line of thought. Example.....

I was in the simulator a couple of years ago with a colleague (Captain, 10,000 hours experience, 3,000 on type; type was a twin jet small airliner). We were dealing with a single engine problem of some sort, he was the Flying Pilot and I was doing some sort of checklist procedures (can't remember what). He had the Auto Pilot engaged and he gave me control for some reason (can't remember - doesn't matter) but, just as I said "I have ....." the AP tripped out and the aeroplane rapidly rolled to the left and dropped it's nose. I applied corrective controls but we reached about 90 deg bank and 20 deg nose down before it started to come back, we lost about 500' which was somewhat of a concern as we had started at about 1800' agl.

The other pilot had been increasing power to level off just before he gave me control; as he increased power he had not applied any rudder nor had he trimmed the rudder so the AP had been applying more and more aileron to try to fly straight on the selected heading until eventually it reached its limit and tripped off.

So far so what but, now the scary bit! As I got us under control my colleague said "I'm glad you were flying it, I couldn't have done that"! It was actually a very simple upset recovery but with little time to spare due to the speed of departure and the low height at which it happened. We did have a discussion after the sim about recoveries.

Inadequate training? Inappropriate mental attitude? Lack of self confidence? Probably all three but it all added up to a "people tube minder" who was not able to fly his aeroplane when the need arose.

I'm sure that many others can tell similar stories. It is a worry and I do believe that more aerobatics, manoeuvring and upset recovery training should be included in an airline pilots background before he is let loose to run around the world in a people tube.

Happy landings

3 Point

[waldopepper42]

Thanks guys. Made me feel better. What I said was genuinely what I believed. Thought Jonty was a bit harsh in his/her comment. I'm never going to have to worry about a high altitude jet upset, but I'm sure that aerobatic experience has given me more confidence to cope with whatever the light aircraft that I fly can throw at me. It's by no means an "I can get out of anything" comment, just that I think I will now fare better than I otherwise would!

[Jonty]

Of course Beagle is right! After completing our EASA Aerobatics rating in our C152 Aerobats we will banish these types of accidents to the history books.

How stupid of the airline industry not to realise this earlier.

Some understanding of the reasons behind these accidents (and you don't say which specifically you're referring to) would be useful before commenting on the "children of magenta". Don't forget, many of these "children" have far more aerobatic training, in far more advanced aircraft than you give them credit for.

Basic stick and rudder skills are always useful, but to think that they will save a jet upset situation on their own shows a basic lack of understanding of the problem.

[Armchairflyer]

Some less emotional material on the benefits and limitations of aerobatic training for addressing loss of control scenarios can be found here: Aerobatics versus Upset Prevention and Recovery Training | International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (http://icatee.org/2011/04/aerobatics-versus-upset-prevention-and-recovery-training/)