ICAO ATPL to EASA ATPL: UPRT certificate

[Zlip]

Good morning everyone.

I searched on the forum (and on google) but didn't find anything specific to my question.

I fully converted my licence from a Canadian ATPLto an EASA ATPL on the Jetstream 32. I'm waiting for my licence to be sent at this time and a question come up: do I need the UPRT to apply at an airline?

From my understanding, UPRT is required if you don't have a valid type rating, since I (should) hold a Jetstream 32 type rating I should be exempted but there is nothing in the law that affirm or deny my reasoning.

Why don't you ask the authority you say? Back in August, I asked two times, two differents authorities if I needed to get an MCC because of my experience, both said yes. Once I send the papers to continue the process, guess what? MCC wasn't required at all. 3000€ in the trash.

If anyone went trought the same process, would be glad to have some light! Thanks!

[Zlip]

Found some people asking the question but nobody answered. No one seems to know ?

[A320LGW]

If you have a valid type rating you won't need one, UPRT training is covered as part of the rating. If you don't have any rating then you'll need one. It isn't a requirement for fATPL issue but airlines will ask for it unless you have a rating.

[Zlip]

Check ! Thank you very much ! :-)

[redsnail]

A couple of new hires at NetJets Europe need to do this UPRT as they are coming from the Portuguese Air Force. A company in Cambridge UK is conducting it.
I have no other info other than what the guys told me. Personally, I'd have thought the mil pilots would have plenty exposure to upset and unusual attitudes but there you go. EASA knows best.

[Zlip]

Honestly, I can't wait what will be the requirments when I will hit retirement age (if any...). It drives me crazy. CAA doesn't know which rules apply, why, etc... I did my MCC at Simnest in Budapest. They had to deviate from their own SOP's and had to ask their own CAA in order to provide the course for me. Yet, I still don't have the certificate simply because I don't have an EASA licence and an IR.

Thanks for your inputs !

[Rivet gun]

If you have a valid type rating you won't need one, UPRT training is covered as part of the rating. If you don't have any rating then you'll need one. It isn't a requirement for fATPL issue but airlines will ask for it unless you have a rating.
The advanced UPRT course is not covered as part of the type rating because this is an aircraft course intended to teach things which cannot be learnt in a simulator (such as the feeling of different g loading).
Technically the course is required before the first multi pilot type rating, so if you already have a type rating on a multi pilot aircraft you would not require it, but some airlines / operators will require it anyway.
If you are going to do a UPRT course do choose your instructor carefully (ask about his / her licence, experience, types flown). The course is supposed to teach skills and knowledge which are transferable to transport aircraft, but it is possible that there are some advanced UPRT instructors who hold only a PPL and have never flown a transport aircraft. Also make sure the ATO uses aerobatic category aircraft for the UPRT course.

[hamburgerboy]

Also make sure the ATO uses aerobatic category aircraft for the UPRT course.

What's the argument to strictly pick an aerobatic aircraft for the uprt course?

[Theholdingpoint]

You can't legally complete the required training with a non aerobatic aircraft.

[Rivet gun]

What's the argument to strictly pick an aerobatic aircraft for the uprt course?
The course requirements are covered at Part-FCL 745.A and AMC.
This states the course should:
"be delivered in a suitable training aircraft in order to expose trainees to conditions that cannot be replicated in an FSTD;"
Which is a vague bit of EASA rule making that does not explicitly require an aerobatic aircraft. However the course requires:
"exercises to demonstrate... the physiological effects of different g-loads between -1 and 2.5G"
It is hard to see how -1 g can be properly demonstrated in a non aerobatic aircraft. Also this exercise needs a g meter which are not usually fitted to non aerobatic aircraft (though one could be fitted)
The course further requires:
"training in techniques to recover from:
(i) nose high at various bank angles;
(ii) nose low at various bank angles"
Another vague bit of EASA rule making that does not explicitly state what range of bank angles. However a good AUPRT course will include how to recover from bank angles beyond 90 deg. This requires an aerobatic cat aircraft.
(There are many cases of transport aircraft that have experienced upsets in excess of 90 deg bank including a Japanese operated Boeing 737 in 2014 which rolled to more than 131 deg bank)
Some ATOs in Europe may offer the AUPRT course on non aerobatic aircraft such as the Pipistrel Virus which is certified to CS-LSA and hence restricted to not more than 60 deg bank.

[hamburgerboy]

The course requirements are covered at Part-FCL 745.A and AMC.
This states the course should:
"be delivered in a suitable training aircraft in order to expose trainees to conditions that cannot be replicated in an FSTD;"
Which is a vague bit of EASA rule making that does not explicitly require an aerobatic aircraft. However the course requires:
"exercises to demonstrate... the physiological effects of different g-loads between -1 and 2.5G"
It is hard to see how -1 g can be properly demonstrated in a non aerobatic aircraft. Also this exercise needs a g meter which are not usually fitted to non aerobatic aircraft (though one could be fitted)
The course further requires:
"training in techniques to recover from:
(i) nose high at various bank angles;
(ii) nose low at various bank angles"
Another vague bit of EASA rule making that does not explicitly state what range of bank angles. However a good AUPRT course will include how to recover from bank angles beyond 90 deg. This requires an aerobatic cat aircraft.
(There are many cases of transport aircraft that have experienced upsets in excess of 90 deg bank including a Japanese operated Boeing 737 in 2014 which rolled to more than 131 deg bank)
Some ATOs in Europe may offer the AUPRT course on non aerobatic aircraft such as the Pipistrel Virus which is certified to CS-LSA and hence restricted to not more than 60 deg bank.

I find this an interesting discussion. I agree that an aerobatic aircraft is optimal but it is not necessary for the AUPRT course excercises, you could easily fly FCL.745.A in a 172, and most certainly the things you just mentioned. Good instructor = good course.
For the run of the mill student who never flew beyond a stall; I don't think that e.g. an E330LX is of any great benefit, as they most likely won't be able to use/appreciate its properties. The exposure to upset positions, varying g-loads and recovery is probably already saturating enough for the mind and stomach. Most auprt courses also do some aero's to kill time, as you can finish the syllabus in <3h block. Things such as loops, slow rolls, cubans etc. are all nice and fun but very expensive at the hour rate of an auprt course :-). Ofcourse a 172 also has downsides in upsets recovery training, such as its high positive stability, i.e. it wants to recover.

So I'd suggest to take those things into consideration when picking an auprt provider and that depending on yourself a 172 might even be perfectly fine.

[Rivet gun]

Most auprt courses also do some aero's to kill time,.

This should not happen. If there is time to spare on the AUPRT course it should be spent practicing and improving UPRT skills, not in aerobatics. See GM1 FCL.745.A (b) (4).

Check out this video for an insight into what constitutes good UPRT (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection with this organisation)
https://academy.apstraining.com/p/persistent-threat-of-loss-of-control-and-solutions
click "watch promo"

Note that a normal cat aircraft such as C172 is restricted to the yellow region in the pitch roll attitude diagram. To quote Ransbury "The bad news is, the skills from the blue and the yellow boxes don't transfer into the red region"

[hamburgerboy]

This should not happen. If there is time to spare on the AUPRT course it should be spent practicing and improving UPRT skills, not in aerobatics. See GM1 FCL.745.A (b) (4).

Check out this video for an insight into what constitutes good UPRT (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection with this organisation)
https://academy.apstraining.com/p/persistent-threat-of-loss-of-control-and-solutions
click "watch promo"

Note that a normal cat aircraft such as C172 is restricted to the yellow region in the pitch roll attitude diagram. To quote Ransbury "The bad news is, the skills from the blue and the yellow boxes don't transfer into the red region"

I think that you're overestimating the content of the average EASA AUPRT acc. FCL745A. Check it out on youtube, not much to it and yes, they all do loops and rolls etc. pure aerobatics well outside of the scope of auprt.

With regards to the plane, sure it can't hurt to do it on a E330. But why learn to drive in a Ferrari when you can achieve the same goal in a Fiat Panda? As long as your learning doesn't suffer - and for this crucial part I doubt that the airplane matters for most students.
Why: 90% of ab initio students never flew a turn greater than 45 degrees AOB. Are they able to absorb significantly more from an auprt course in an E330? Doubt it to be honest. Mental and physical saturation point is pretty low if this is all new for you.

PS a 172 can do more than SLF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC2Jn1h0nLg

[flapsupboy]

I think that you're overestimating the content of the average EASA AUPRT acc. FCL745A. Check it out on youtube, not much to it and yes, they all do loops and rolls etc. pure aerobatics well outside of the scope of auprt.

With regards to the plane, sure it can't hurt to do it on a E330. But why learn to drive in a Ferrari when you can achieve the same goal in a Fiat Panda? As long as your learning doesn't suffer - and for this crucial part I doubt that the airplane matters for most students.
Why: 90% of ab initio students never flew a turn greater than 45 degrees AOB. Are they able to absorb significantly more from an auprt course in an E330? Doubt it to be honest. Mental and physical saturation point is pretty low if this is all new for you.

PS a 172 can do more than SLF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC2Jn1h0nLg

🙌🏻 agreed!!

[Theholdingpoint]

(d) Flight instruction should include:
(1) exercises to demonstrate:
...
(iv) the physiological effects of different g-loads between -1 and 2.5G;


(d) Aeroplanes used in this course should be:
...
(2) provide sufficient safety margins to cater for student and instructor errors

What's the negative G limit for a utility category aircraft? Does it have a G-meter?

[hamburgerboy]

What's the negative G limit for a utility category aircraft? Does it have a G-meter?

Equal or less than -1,76G, so it depends on the aircraft itself.

Ofcourse g-meters aren't standard equipment in such a plane, it would need to be retrofitted.
But in all honesty, seat of the pants is an excellent g-meter if you are trained. Which I presume the average auprt fi is.

[Theholdingpoint]

"Presuming" and "seat of the pants" while pushing a 60 years old airplane to it's certification limits are not a great display of professionalism IMHO.

[hamburgerboy]

"Presuming" and "seat of the pants" while pushing a 60 years old airplane to it's certification limits are not a great display of professionalism IMHO.

Interesting take, it highlights exactly why EASA mandated auprt and what I've been trying to explain all along in this thread:
If you are clueless about upsets/increased/decreased g-loads etc.: a-uprt in a C172 or Katana is probably more than sufficient.

fyi; -1.76G in a C172? really? and seat of the pants is THE aerobatic tool.
Other than the C172 the often used cat U aircraft usually have less than -2G limit i.e. DA20 (-2.2), Pipistrel (-2.0). etc.

[Theholdingpoint]

fyi: you're not doing aerobatic, YOU are supposed to do UPRT (not the "seat of the pants" FI).

[hamburgerboy]

Ofcourse you're not flying aerobatics, where did you get idea that from. Besides you are not flying solo are you?
he instructor is there to demonstrate, guide and protect you. What do you expect from a student, to check the G-meter? if you're used to nothing you'll be under the impression of pulling 9Gs when in fact it was 2.5:)

[Theholdingpoint]

The G-meter not installed in the 172 you'd like to use you mean? I've spent enough of my time with the Smart Aviation Poznan marketing department, have fun with your quality training.

[hamburgerboy]

The G-meter not installed in the 172 you'd like to use you mean? I've spent enough of my time with the Smart Aviation Poznan marketing department, have fun with your quality training.

Don't know what you're aiming at or how SA is relevant, but since you can't come up with any arguments you probably agree with what I've said.

This discussion is derailing the thread. I've tried to lay some perspective on using a non-aerobatic aircraft such as a C172/Katana/Pipestrel for AUPRT acc fcl745. I hope to have helped the ones looking for some info on the matter.

Why? because If I were in their shoes, I would've liked to know the other side of the medal. Before spending 2,5-3k on a-uprt in an E300, just because everyone is parrotting to do it in an aerob plane.
Even worse is that the ones who are the most vocal about it usually don't fly anything else than straight lines at 1G. Blind leading the blind.
I am not saying that you should not do it in an aerobatic plane either! just that it isn't strictly necessary to achieve your objective, especially if your're new to it.

That's it from my side, derail the rest of the thread as you wish

[crj100200]

Hi guys! I have a question, maybe someone can help me.
I am finishing my conversion from ICAO to EASA ATPL. I have airline experience (CRJ and Boeing) but all my types are in the ICAO license.
Do I have to take de Advanced UPRT anyway? I know that is mandatory before your first type on the EASA license, but I already have type ratings (but not in the EASA one).
Thanks in advance!