MEP Rating Expired by 5 Years
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEP Rating Expired by 5 Years
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
(iv) expiry longer than 3 years: the applicant should again undergo the training required for the initial issue of the rating....
I still have to find a CLEAR answer on this matter, though.
DK
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good old JAR stuff but can he quote an EASA reference for this?
DK
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Happy landings
3 Point
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!
Happy landings
3 Point
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.
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.
