Recurrency training
 

Hi all...

Trying to find under EASA, JAR, CASA...wherever.. information regarding recurrency training for types. Under the present CASA which is a copy of EASA 66 A 20 and 23 it mentions the 6 months in 2 years.....however is not clear on alternative formal training. Can anyone advise on requirements for formal training and 147 providers of such.
Our friends in Blighty would probably be the best source of info as the 66 regs are still unfolding elsewhere...:confused:

I'm not sure what you mean by recurrent training? and I think you have a couple of things mixed together, but here's my two-penn'orth...

In UK, to remain current (and reasonably competent) on a single type an LAE must be able to show at least 6 months experience on that type in the last two years. However, in the past I have seen the rules bent with agreement from national authorities. I am not sure if the rules would be as bent in todays environment of ticking boxes.

Continuation Training, in which the LAE should be updated with the latest mods installed and techniques or processes a particular company wishes to promote, should, coincidentally, be conducted every two years.

Hope this helps?

Thanks, it's the continuation training. Is it known as anything else?

Where in the regs can it be found. What 147's conduct the training?

The quote given to me as.....performed a technical training function relevent to the type rating....

The 6 months is quite clear......this is not.

Couldn't be clearer, there is no such thing as alternative training:


The requirement of 6 months’ experience within the preceding 2 years is only for the validity of the certification authorisation. The licence itself is valid 5 years from the last renewal. Only the certification privileges are affected by the recency of experience.

To regain your experience, you may:

either continue to accumulate maintenance experience until you gain the missing time required, or meet the provisions for the issue of appropriate privileges, which means:

going to a type-training course again, including OJT as necessary, or
when the aircraft does not require a training (aircraft belonging in Group 2 or 3), pass a type-examination, including practical assessment. See GM 66.A.20(b)2.

Neither a short period of job training session nor an aircraft type refresher training are acceptable. Demonstration of experience should be made on similar aircraft. Definition of ‘similar’ aircraft is provided by the AMC to 66.A.20(b)2.

Sounds like the continuous training our friend Rigga mentions....is nice to have and not actually in the regs. Probably a company in-house thing.

Thanks to all, and if something comes to light, please pass it on to me...:ok:

See EU 1321/2014 - Annex II & 2015/1008

145A.35(d), AMC145A.35(d)

This defines what is continuation Training


<<<< Extract>>>>>>>>>>>

The method of training is intended to be a flexible process and could, for example, include a Part-147 continuation training course, aeronautical college courses, internal short duration courses, seminars, etc.
The elements, general content and length of such training should be specified in the maintenance organisation exposition unless such training is undertaken by an organisation approved under Part 147 when such details may be specified under the approval and cross referenced in the maintenance organisation exposition.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't get to hung up on 147 involvement as it all falls under the 145 and should be listed in the MOE

with a half baked request lacking knowledge followed by a rapid exit I smell a rat. I hope you were not trying to get a type rating reactivated on the cheap?

Some alleviation can be given on the 6 month rule if you have relevant experience as listed in the AMC's. Alternative training to reactivate an expired type rating however doesn't exist except in those shady places where they offer "refresher training/alternative training" as it has sometimes been called.

Hence the bold text in my previous post.

I have started a contract in a "developing country" and just had this laid on me. I have no access to the regs at all, and am told the 6 months/2 years does not apply here, and the "recurrency" does in its place. Just trying to do things by the book, and find a 147 that can provide, as a contingency.
Thanks again for all the help.;)

Let's clarify one issue .......

A Part 147 approval is ONLY to carry out training required under Part 66, ie Basic Training (for an EASA AME licence) and Type Training for AMEs who have an EASA licence.

Training that is required under Part 145 and/or Part M, such as Continuation Training (Part 145.A.35), EWIS training, Human Factors, and Fuel Tank Safety must be approved by an organisation's Quality Manager. The National Aviation Authority will not approve it. Normally such training is carried out in-house by an organisation, within its Quality System, but if an outside provider is called in, or on-line delivery is used, it is up to a Quality Manager to make sure the training complies with requirements.

Part 147-approved training organisations can and do deliver Part 145/Part M training. That's fine, but it will NOT be audited or even looked at by the National Aviation Authority, and would never be "approved" by them. Beware also of "approved by industry"; there is no such thing. It usually means "bought by one company".

Part 147 organisations who advertise that their various non-Part 66 courses, such as EWIS, Human Factors, Continuation Training and so on are done under their Part 147 approval, are lying. It is also illegal, as it happens, to issue certificates for such training showing a Part 147 approval number, although this is not enforced.

It does not follow that because they have a Part 147 approval, everything they do will be to that standard. Indeed, some of the worst Human Factors, EWIS and Fuel Tank Safety courses on offer are from Part 147-approved organisations, because it is not their core business, and they are just trying to make a fast buck using their Part 147 approval as a sales tool.

Are we talking continuation training or recency ?
I have first hand experience of the differences between QA managers as to what is accepted as recency , always directly proportional to the company's needs at that time !