MEP Rating Expired by 5 Years

[S-Works]

I have a candidate wishing to renew an MEP rating that expired 5 years ago. Am I correct in thinking its training as required to pass the test or did I read somewhere that its full retraining? For the life of me I can't find anything on the CAA website.

[S-Works]

Ah, found it!

AMC1 FCL.740(b)(1):

(iv) expiry longer than 3 years: the applicant should again undergo the training required for the initial issue of the rating....

[drag king]

AMC1 FCL.740(b)(1):

(iv) expiry longer than 3 years: the applicant should again undergo the training required for the initial issue of the rating....

Asked the very same question the HoT of an ATO here down south and he said I need to re-sit the written test (it can be done in-house) and the fly with a CRI to figure out how much is required in order to pass the flight-test.

I still have to find a CLEAR answer on this matter, though.

DK :hmm:

[bingofuel]

Note the word used is 'should' not 'must'.

Standards document 16 , version 6 , para 4.4 clarifies it somewhat.

[BEagle]

The AMC is being re-written to emphasise that the refresher training flying required is on a case-by-case basis and the 'recommendations' are NOT obligatory.

This was thrashed out the Dec 2013 TAG/SSCC/FCL meeting as it has been causing a lot of trouble.

You only need to discuss your proposals for refresher training with the applicant and to supply the CAA with a description of the training when the renewal proficiency check paperwork is submitted.

So yes, training as required and the test - but tell the CAA what training was conducted.

[Whopity]

he said I need to re-sit the written testGood old JAR stuff but can he quote an EASA reference for this?

[drag king]

Good old JAR stuff but can he quote an EASA reference for this?

Fair point, I wasn't aware of this. I'll ask the question to the man himself if and when company decides I need the rating again, mate!

DK :cool:

[3 Point]

The AMC material was never mandatory, just suggestions. The EASA IRs require that an ATO (presumably the HoT) should determine the appropriate training on a case by case basis. Just like Beagle said!

A great piece of legislation which allows the HoT to apply his professional judgement relying on his relevant experience to tailor the most appropriate training for the individual. Much better than a one size fits all or an arbitrary determination by some Authority official!:D:D:D

Happy landings

3 Point

[BEagle]

3 point, unfortunately some EU Member States seem to need rules for everything and cannot accept the concept of reasoned determination by professionals..... Hence they've adopted any AMC/GM as 'Rules vich must be obeyed vizout kvestion....'.

Plus certain unscrupulous training organisations have sniffed money in the air and have used the AMC/GM as the excuse for demanding excessive training requirements. For example, one UK TRTO tried to tell a 737 captain with over 8000 hours that because his JAR TR had lapsed by more than 3 years, he would have to do entire B737 TR course again! Even though he had a non-EASA TR on the jet which lapsed about a year ago.... Fortunately we secured confirmation from the CAA that the TRTO was talking through its backside - assessment/training/prof. check was all that was needed.