New poblem with EASA and ATO certifying base training touch and goes.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: On the wrong side of the equator
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same shàit in Italy guys....
they are interpreting the rules in the more restrictive way and they re scared of taking responsibility .... so much bull**** in southern europe with EASA
they are interpreting the rules in the more restrictive way and they re scared of taking responsibility .... so much bull**** in southern europe with EASA
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Moon
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch&Go landings
.. Just spoken to the Italian CAA (our Company Tutor).... for them nothing changed... there is still the possibility to do the full type-rating course through an ATO (like FSI/CAE) and to attend the touch&go landings part through another ATO or Operator.... 
Cheers !
Cheers !
N4790P
so much bull**** in southern europe with EASA
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you've got that completely back to front. The requirement is quite clear, and hasn't changed from JAR. EASA are telling the NAA's that they can't just sweep it under the carpet, they have to enforce it. So they are.
Like so many EASA things, it is highly debatable whether there is any value in the requirement, but "rules is rules"!
Like so many EASA things, it is highly debatable whether there is any value in the requirement, but "rules is rules"!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question and I hope this is the right place for it.
My ME IR has expired 1 week ago and I'm wandering if it make sense to re-validate it. Do I need valid ME/IR if I will attend a B737 Type Rating in 5 or 7 months?
My ME IR has expired 1 week ago and I'm wandering if it make sense to re-validate it. Do I need valid ME/IR if I will attend a B737 Type Rating in 5 or 7 months?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Base Training for Type Rating endorsement
No doubt, the rules ask for the landings to be done within an ATO/TRTO. However, for not “airline type” operators without an integrated ATO/TRTO this is almost impossible to comply with. The problem for third party providers (CAE, FSI etc) is the fact that they are not able/willing to be held liable for training conducted on a multimillion dollar jet, which they are not in control of. This is one (of many) examples, how the rules are written for the big players and are almost impossible to be complied with for the rest of the aviation community.
Spain started a query amongst EASA member states related to this particular problem, last week. Interestingly, the practice to deal with this problem within the NAA’s varies from strictly enforcing the landings to be done within a TRTO/ATO to accepting the landings when completed with a JAR/EASA licensed TRI. However, all Authorities have the possibility to file a derogation in accordance with article 14 of the basic regulation and shall give reasons demonstrating the need to derogate from the rule concerned, as well as the conditions laid down to ensure that an equivalent level of protection is achieved. This is probably what’s going to happen once the NAA’s have agreed to a common procedure.
Cheers,
g5tom
Spain started a query amongst EASA member states related to this particular problem, last week. Interestingly, the practice to deal with this problem within the NAA’s varies from strictly enforcing the landings to be done within a TRTO/ATO to accepting the landings when completed with a JAR/EASA licensed TRI. However, all Authorities have the possibility to file a derogation in accordance with article 14 of the basic regulation and shall give reasons demonstrating the need to derogate from the rule concerned, as well as the conditions laid down to ensure that an equivalent level of protection is achieved. This is probably what’s going to happen once the NAA’s have agreed to a common procedure.
Cheers,
g5tom
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prerequisites for the issue of class or type ratings
Radudumb
Yes, as per FCL.720 (d)(2), you are required to have a valid ME/IR:
FCL.720(d) Multi-pilot aeroplanes. An applicant for the first type rating course for a multi-pilot aeroplane shall be a student pilot currently undergoing training on an MPL training course or comply with the following requirements:
(1) have at least 70 hours of flight experience as PIC on aeroplanes;
(2) hold a multi-engine IR(A);
(3) have passed the ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge examinations in accordance with this Part; and
(4) except when the type rating course is combined with an MCC course:
(i) hold a certificate of satisfactory completion of an MCC course in aeroplanes; or
......
Cheers,
g5tom
Yes, as per FCL.720 (d)(2), you are required to have a valid ME/IR:
FCL.720(d) Multi-pilot aeroplanes. An applicant for the first type rating course for a multi-pilot aeroplane shall be a student pilot currently undergoing training on an MPL training course or comply with the following requirements:
(1) have at least 70 hours of flight experience as PIC on aeroplanes;
(2) hold a multi-engine IR(A);
(3) have passed the ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge examinations in accordance with this Part; and
(4) except when the type rating course is combined with an MCC course:
(i) hold a certificate of satisfactory completion of an MCC course in aeroplanes; or
......
Cheers,
g5tom
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Between
Age: 44
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you please share your experience with authorities regarding base training, in Latvia it is almost impossible to add new business jet type anymore. They interpret the rule only ATO must sign base training, but there is no EASA approved ATO for business jets all.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sometimes even home...
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is also the case in Finland right now.
Initially, Finland informed EASA, that they will continue to issue permits for AOC holders to conduct the required landing trainings as before. This information was also passed to the operators.
Around 1,5 months ago, National Authorities had a EASA standardization meeting where EASA pushed everyone to follow the requirement that all the type rating training has to be done thru ATO.
Shortly after this, around a month ago, all the Finnish operators received a notification stating, that as of that day, NO more permits for AOC holder's landing trainings will be issued!!!!
The regulation is clear. The problem is that ATOs conducting simulator training do not generally have any aircraft. And then using the 3rd parties..., well..., then the liability questions come into the play.
On the other hand, it is my understanding, that f.ex. in the UK, the landing practise after the type rating course and the passed check ride is not even considered as a part of the type rating course, and therefore does not need any kind of approval.
Go figure, Europe and EASA, one happy family with the same rules and same treatment for everyone. Or not...
Initially, Finland informed EASA, that they will continue to issue permits for AOC holders to conduct the required landing trainings as before. This information was also passed to the operators.
Around 1,5 months ago, National Authorities had a EASA standardization meeting where EASA pushed everyone to follow the requirement that all the type rating training has to be done thru ATO.
Shortly after this, around a month ago, all the Finnish operators received a notification stating, that as of that day, NO more permits for AOC holder's landing trainings will be issued!!!!
The regulation is clear. The problem is that ATOs conducting simulator training do not generally have any aircraft. And then using the 3rd parties..., well..., then the liability questions come into the play.
On the other hand, it is my understanding, that f.ex. in the UK, the landing practise after the type rating course and the passed check ride is not even considered as a part of the type rating course, and therefore does not need any kind of approval.
Go figure, Europe and EASA, one happy family with the same rules and same treatment for everyone. Or not...
