PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   C210 "RATING" Referred to by overseas employers (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/620404-c210-rating-referred-overseas-employers.html)

jjhews 11th Apr 2019 04:20

C210 "RATING" Referred to by overseas employers
 
If anyone can shed some light:

I'm very aware you can't get a "rating" (to use operators' word) in Australia on a C210 as it is covered under the SEA provision. Design feature wise, if a candidate already has MPPC and RU endorsed on the CPL via Multi Engine Class Rating, then what exactly is considered a "C210 type rating"? Is this simply just time on type?

Just looking at general requirements with overseas charter operators and would like some comments on people with CASA licenes who've had to prove that they're "rated".

Tankengine 11th Apr 2019 09:04

Flown one solo? - you’re “rated”. ;)

jjhews 11th Apr 2019 10:59

That easy? I look into hiring then :D

Capt Fathom 11th Apr 2019 11:09

Come on jjhews, it’s not that hard!
You have a logbook with C210 time logged! That’s what you put in your job application.

Look Mum - no hands 11th Apr 2019 20:50

Fair enough question if you haven't had to deal with it before. The issue for the employer may be that their national regulator still lists type ratings for smaller aircraft, and you will need to convince them of suitable qualifications and/or experience. Pilots coming to Australia had the reverse problem with light multi-engine type endorsements until Part 61 came in.

Generally if you can provide logbook evidence that you have command time on the type, or a statement of some sort from a training organisation that you have completed training and demonstrated competency etc. etc. most regulators will be satisfied.

jjhews 11th Apr 2019 22:04


Originally Posted by Look Mum - no hands (Post 10445499)
Generally if you can provide logbook evidence that you have command time on the type, or a statement of some sort from a training organisation that you have completed training and demonstrated competency etc. etc. most regulators will be satisfied.


Great, thanks a lot for your response.

roundsounds 12th Apr 2019 12:04

CASA have effectively created “type ratings” for every type and for the same type depending on the equipment fitted.
Sure, you can go and jump into something you’ve not flown before with the appropriate class and design feature qual’s. If you bend it, you’d be likely deemed not competent and subject to CASA action.

General Competency Rule (61.385)

Cloudee 13th Apr 2019 08:14


Originally Posted by roundsounds (Post 10445954)
CASA have effectively created “type ratings” for every type and for the same type depending on the equipment fitted.
Sure, you can go and jump into something you’ve not flown before with the appropriate class and design feature qual’s. If you bend it, you’d be likely deemed not competent and subject to CASA action.

General Competency Rule (61.385)

The general competency rule (61.385) is really just common sense. CASA’s administration of it probably won’t be. As a previous poster said, have some sort of paper trail. Getting checked out to hire and fly the aircraft should cover it.

poteroo 14th Apr 2019 01:47


Originally Posted by Cloudee (Post 10446521)

The general competency rule (61.385) is really just common sense. CASA’s administration of it probably won’t be. As a previous poster said, have some sort of paper trail. Getting checked out to hire and fly the aircraft should cover it.

Agree. Ask for your logbook to be endorsed with a statement to effect that ' found competent to fly this aircraft under 61.385'
happy days,

longrass 14th Apr 2019 12:41


Originally Posted by poteroo (Post 10447025)
Agree. Ask for your logbook to be endorsed with a statement to effect that ' found competent to fly this aircraft under 61.385'
happy days,

hahahahahaha........

longrass 14th Apr 2019 12:44


Originally Posted by poteroo (Post 10447025)
Agree. Ask for your logbook to be endorsed with a statement to effect that ' found competent to fly this aircraft under 61.385'
happy days,

FWIW, I was let loose on a 210 without anyone onboard. Had a CPL and 200 hours and no ******* idea. I still remember thinking to myself after takeoff, what the **** do I do. A few hours later im fairly close to realising I still don’t know **** all.

sicamore 15th Apr 2019 12:12


Originally Posted by jjhews (Post 10444751)
If anyone can shed some light:

I'm very aware you can't get a "rating" (to use operators' word) in Australia on a C210 as it is covered under the SEA provision. Design feature wise, if a candidate already has MPPC and RU endorsed on the CPL via Multi Engine Class Rating, then what exactly is considered a "C210 type rating"? Is this simply just time on type?

Just looking at general requirements with overseas charter operators and would like some comments on people with CASA licenes who've had to prove that they're "rated".

Depends on what country you are going to and their regulations. Some will accept time on type some won't and you will have to sit a ground exam and maybe a flight test on aircraft. Really it all depends on the country. Africa generally will want you to do a type rating but they will accept some certification if you can get it of your Training

jjhews 16th Apr 2019 02:07

Thank you all for your replies!

B2N2 16th Apr 2019 02:53

If you’re in the US get your training provider to print a snazzy certificate stating you’ve received x.x hrs of ground instruction and x.x hrs of flight instruction and you’re proficient in the operation of airplane X.
We used to do this frequently for foreign students.

Okihara 16th Apr 2019 08:50

The instructor who helped me transition onto a complex aircraft told me that CASA's aeroplane questionnaire is used by some operators as evidence that a pilot is proficient on type. It probably won't hurt to just fill one out for the C210 and have it checked and signed by a school.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:02.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.