Expired Type Rating
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expired Type Rating
Scenario:
EASA ATPL(A)
Ratings previously held by holder: B737 300-900
Expiry of LPC on B737 300-900: 31 December 2006.
My question is:
Taking cogniscience of CAP 804, which states:
'FCL.740 Validity and renewal of class and type ratings
(b) Renewal. If a class or type rating has expired, the applicant shall:
(1) take refresher training at an ATO, when necessary to reach the level of
proficiency necessary to safely operate the relevant class or type of
aeroplane; and
(2) pass a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to Part-FCL.'
I'm still not clear what the rules are under EASA to renew an expired Type Rating on the B737?
I know I have read something to do with this on PPRuNe recently, but a search has failed to find it.
I remember one discussion concerned the terms 'shall' and 'should' as to whether the whole of the training was required to renew the rating.
Taking the definitions at paragraph 1.3 in CAA Standards Document 21 as guidance:
'Shall' and 'Must' are used to indicate a mandatory requirement;
'Expect' and 'Should' are used to indicate strong obligation; and
'May' is used to indicate discretion.
Do the rules/references (I remember seeing, but cannot find) over ride the requirements of FCL.740 and, if so, on what basis?
EASA ATPL(A)
Ratings previously held by holder: B737 300-900
Expiry of LPC on B737 300-900: 31 December 2006.
My question is:
Taking cogniscience of CAP 804, which states:
'FCL.740 Validity and renewal of class and type ratings
(b) Renewal. If a class or type rating has expired, the applicant shall:
(1) take refresher training at an ATO, when necessary to reach the level of
proficiency necessary to safely operate the relevant class or type of
aeroplane; and
(2) pass a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to Part-FCL.'
I'm still not clear what the rules are under EASA to renew an expired Type Rating on the B737?
I know I have read something to do with this on PPRuNe recently, but a search has failed to find it.
I remember one discussion concerned the terms 'shall' and 'should' as to whether the whole of the training was required to renew the rating.
Taking the definitions at paragraph 1.3 in CAA Standards Document 21 as guidance:
'Shall' and 'Must' are used to indicate a mandatory requirement;
'Expect' and 'Should' are used to indicate strong obligation; and
'May' is used to indicate discretion.
Do the rules/references (I remember seeing, but cannot find) over ride the requirements of FCL.740 and, if so, on what basis?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its training as defined by the Head of Training up to full re training. Basically what happens is we give you an assessment and decide what is needed to renew the rating. I have no idea on the 737 as our type ratings are all turboprop but if it was one of ours for an 8 year expired rating you would be looking at doing most of it again unless you are current on something similar.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks chaps for your replies.
Yes, very much as I imagined.
However, with a full type conversion course initially and approximately 1,500 hours on type I haven't forgotten all I learn't!
I suppose the question I'm asking (and which you have basically answered) is whether it's possible to do an 'as required' re-training course rather than a full type rating?
Whether I'd find anyone to do that is another matter - or if employed whether the airline would accommodate such a notion (and adjust any bonding arrangements accordingly!!!)?
Yes, very much as I imagined.
However, with a full type conversion course initially and approximately 1,500 hours on type I haven't forgotten all I learn't!
I suppose the question I'm asking (and which you have basically answered) is whether it's possible to do an 'as required' re-training course rather than a full type rating?
Whether I'd find anyone to do that is another matter - or if employed whether the airline would accommodate such a notion (and adjust any bonding arrangements accordingly!!!)?