New poblem with EASA and ATO certifying base training touch and goes.
 

Hello,
I must undergo a corporate jet type rating course. The problem is that since the 8 of april the Spanish Aviation Authorities (AESA)want the ATO that gives the simulator to certify the base training. Flight Safety International, who must give me the course, tells me they can not do that, they only do the sim part. Spanish AESA tells me that these are the new European rules and that this is the way to do it. I left my previous job to start to fly in a new aircraft so my situation is critical. Any of you knows something about this in your European countries or is having the same problem?

I assume then that it isn't an EASA approved course?

Yes, it's an approved course, with Flight Safety International. The problem is that with new EASA rules the ATO must certify the base training, it's new stuff, and FSI does not want to do that. There are several pilots with this problem. They told me in the spanish civil aviation authorities that this is like this in all EASA state members, but I'm not sure if this is true or it's only in Spain...

See AMC2 ORA.ATO.125 (n) which seems to cover your case. Trouble is with EASA, who knows.

The advice given by ZFT is correct. Use that reference to get FS to certify the training they have given you then find another ATO to complete your landings. You may find that many European TRTOs have not yet converted to ATO status but this should not be a problem if you check with your FCL department before hand. Take both completion certificates with you when you get the type added to your Licence.

MM

Hello ZFT and Miles Magister, many thanks for the information.
I've been reading AMC2 ORA.ATO.125 (n) and here is the parraf that I think is where I can find some light:

"The ATO is permitted to contract elements of training to a third party training provider. In such cases the contracted organisation should normally be approved to conduct such training. When the contracted organisation is not an ATO, the competent authority should, within the approval process of the ATO, include the contracted organisation and be satisfied that the standard of training intended to be given meets the requirements. The other obligations of the ATO, such as student progress monitoring and an adequate management system, can be exercised by the ATO seeking approval and which retains responsibility for the whole course."

I'm not english and I have a problem understanding it correctly, Could you please explain me what do they mean when they say " When the contracted organisation is not an ATO, the competent authority should, within the approval process of the ATO, include the contracted organisation and be satisfied that the standard of training intended to be given meets the requirements". Does it mean that in my case, Flight Safety could contract the company that is hiring me, who is not an ATO to do the landings with our plane?

Your understanding is correct but it is very unlikely that FS will allow another unknown company to complete training on their certification. You should get a completion certificate from FS for the elements they have completed and then do your 6 landings with a local ATO or TRTO under their approvals with the agreement of your FCL office.

MM

Actually this has been the rule for years, it hasn't changed. What is new is EASA auditing the NAA's and making them enforce it.
Go back to FSI and tell them you're going to sue for the cost of the course back if they can't deliver a type rating. Their standard contract says that you must provide an aircraft for any flight (as opposed to sim) training, but if you are working for an operator that shouldn't be an issue. They just have to provide a suitably qualified instructor. They don't want to because they are pretty rare and charge lots of money!

Good luck:ok:

As a UK TRTO (ATO) (Bristol Flying Centre) on the B200 & C525 and as a TRI/TRE on both I receive quite a few inquiries of this nature. The problem is that companies such as Flight Safety who provide excellent training are all sim based and don't seem to let their JAA/EASA students know that they still need to complete 6 landings in the aeroplane then a base check (OPC). This can cost as much as £3k

A TRE through an ATO can deal with this however if for example I am examining for a Spanish license holder we usually have to give 5 days notification to the license holders aviation authority.

You will find that most sim based courses are not conducted by type rated pilots and they rarely have them on their books. I wouldn't say TRE's are expensive just good value but hiring the aircraft is expensive.

Hope this helps

jtelling,

A couple of issues:-

If you refer to a TRTO it can now lead to confusion as there is no such thing under EASA

I would disagree as SFIs have to be - FCL.910 SFI (a) & FCL.915.SFI(b) refers

Thank you Miles Magister, BizJetlock, Jtelling and ZFT. The cost of the plane is not a problem, nor finding a TRI, but FSI is reluctant for the moment to certify the base training on the plane of my company. The problem is I can not contract any other ATO for the touch and goes, there's no one in Europe for the moment for that plane, or so have they told me. I still haven't done the sim, so I can't sue anyone... I'm sure that if I had done the sim part they would give me a solution.
I'm thinking of sending my licence file to another AESA state member such as the UK or France and do my Type Rating after, as it looks like only the spanish civil aviation authorities are giving so much trouble with this.

I've recently completed a european rating on a jet, which was signed off on a new EASA license by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. The type rating course was signed off by Bombardier training, the landings were signed off by an Austrian TRE. There were a couple of minor problems but I did not have the issues you mention. There were 2 separate forms, one completed by Bombardier, the other by the TRE.

Regulatory authorities can be difficult to deal with, especially at a distance. My suggestion would be either :

a) to find a Spanish TRE, or someone similar who deals with the authorities there regularly, and get their advice

b) to go and see the authorities yourself and insist on seeing someone in the relevant department to explain the issue to and come up with a solution.

I doubt that Flight Safety are going to change their mind. If you look at it from their side, why should they sign off some training they have no control over or visibility of ? You probably need to tackle it from the Spanish end.

US and Canadian license holders dont have any of these issues because they dont have to do the touch and gos !

ND

Dewoitine, that is silly.

a) Suing FSI will not help you as - if the claim is admitted - it will take longer than the six months that the ground school / simulator part of the type rating is valid for.
b) Once you have done the simulator part, FSI will forget about you because they have fulfilled their part of the contract.
c) Transferring your licence to another state takes about one month and half and is only permissible if you or your employer are based in that state.
d) As the other state's CAA will enforce the same EASA rules you will not have gained anything.

Hi Nildesperandum and Max Payne, thank you for the help.That's what I'm trying, to find a solution from the spanish side. I'm in contact with them but they do not want to hear nothing, they say the only thing to do is to get the base training certified by FSI or by the ATO who gives me the sim. I don't want to sue anybody, and even if I wanted I couldn't, I have not signed any training agreement with anybody, I haven't done the sim part yet. To transfer my licence to another state would be a solution, because as far as I know even if it's EASA rules only the Spanish CAA is applying it to the last extreme. I've been told in this same forum that to live or have my employer in another state is no longer a requisite to transfer my licence. Even if it is, I will go to live anywhere the time it takes to get my licence transferred, my situation is desperate, I find myself with no job after resigning and without being able to get the type rating I need for the new job. The people who are hiring me won't be able to wait for me months...

I heard of someone who did the course and did check flights under EASA and FAA and after several hours on type with FAA License he applied to UK with the EASA check form with proof that landings had been done by virtue of FAA license flights and was given the endorsement.

Dewoitine,

Mate, do not fret. FS have never and will never will certify the 6 landings on their ATO. This is not part of their service and will never ever assume the legal responsibility for some organisation they have never dealt with. They only do the ground school and the sim.

The procedure is to do the rating at FS then come back to Europe and do the landings with any European ATO / TRTO. Just over a year ago a friend of mine did a type rating in Holland on a Dutch TRTO under Dutch JAA approvals with a Danish examiner on a Danish licence and the landings in England with an English AOC company and got an EASA type rating whilst everyone was meant to be using EASA! It can be done. You just have to check that the authority will accept the TRE you are going to use for the LST and the landings. The TRE may have to contact the Spanish CAA for a briefing.

Best wishes

MM

Those "several hours" are 500, then one will get an unrestricted endorsement. If it is less than that, the endorsement will be restricted to US-registered aircraft. As those four (respectively six) landings are an integral part of the type rating, an EASA-certified TRI has to "teach" you how to land the aircraft - "learning by doing" does not suffice.

Max Payne

Is there a time limit for the 500 hours as I would think the EASA check form is only valid for 6 months?

Frankly, I do not know; but the regulation does not mention any:

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011

ANNEX III

C. ACCEPTANCE OF CLASS AND TYPE RATINGS
1. A valid class or type rating contained in a licence issued by a third country may be inserted in a Part-FCL licence provided that the applicant:
(a) complies with the experience requirements and the prerequisites for the issue of the applicable type or class rating in accordance with Part-FCL;
(b) passes the relevant skill test for the issue of the applicable type or class rating in accordance with Part-FCL;
(c) is in current flying practice;
(d) has no less than:
(ii) for aeroplane type ratings, 500 hours of flight experience as a pilot in that type;

Thank you guys for the help, I got a call from some people working for FSI and there may be a solution soon, the spanish caa is interpreting the rules differently from the other european aviation authorities, several pilots and companies are affected, and it can not stand much longer... When I know something new I will let you know.