Antonov AN-2 - multi-pilot plane ?

[Ericson]

Hello !

I recently started flying on world's biggest single engine bi-plane but I've doubts how I should write hours flown.

I've been on various sites and I can't find answer to questions : Is Antonov An-2 multi-pilot plane ? Can I log hours on RH seat as co-pilot time ?

POH cleary says that 2 man crew is requried - 2 pilots or 1 pilot and flight engineer ( with valid licence of course ) but I've heard various theories from local folks how to write hours flown. JAA PPL(A) with SEP(L) is enough to fly this plane.

AN-2 has a MTOW of 5.5 tons and it's signle engine pistion and can carry up to 12 souls + 2 man crew.

Thanks !

[aviate1138]

My favorite version is the Chinese Y-5

[BillieBob]

The AN-2 does not have an EASA type certificate and so the crewing and licensing requirements are a matter for the state of registry of the particular aircraft concerned. The requirements may not be the same in all states of registry - some may accept a JAA licence without validation, others may not.

So far as claiming hours for JAA licensing purposes is concerned - if the aircraft is classified as single-pilot, you obviously cannot claim P2 time at all and if the aircraft is classified as multi-pilot you cannot claim P2 time unless you hold a valid multi-pilot type rating issued or validated by the state of registry.

If you do intend to claim the hours for JAA licensing purposes, you can log them any way you like.

[Ericson]

Thanks for reply

As far I know it would be a little silly idea to claim those AN-2 RH hours to unfreeze JAA ATPL

In my logbook I've a columns to mark if flight was on single pilot or multi pilot aircraft. I came up with idea of marking that flight was on single pilot aircraft but I'd write hours flown ( when on RH seat ) as a co-pilot time. No such problems when PIC

Few years ago in my country ( EU member state ) we had only ICAO PPLs and you should have AN-2 TR to fly this baby. When we joined EU, JAR's came into play to relief of many folks as now simple SEP(L) is enough.

[EDMJ]

I've flown in one in Germany as a passenger, at least there it is a single-pilot aircraft.

The pilot told me that in Germany, only a limited number of ex-Interflug and Gesellschaft für Sport und Technik aircraft got a one-off CoA to carry up to 9 passengers, commercially as well after the reunification. All other An-2's in Germany are limited to 6 occupants legally.

[AN2 Driver]

The normal AN2 is definitly and per AOM a multi crew aircraft. AFAIK only a special variant is rated for single pilot ops, and I would not encourage this. The engine is pretty work intensive and you'll be happy to have 2 pilots or at least an FE (which also makes it multi crew, but only one driver) available to work the multiple engine controls while the other pilots the aircraft.

When I did the type transition in Bulgaria, I did a direct entry to PIC, as I had the necessary license (CPL) and after an evaluation flight with the head of the FTO (wasn't called that way then, but whatever) who pronounced my skills sufficient to go directly left. Nevertheless, I have flown several missions after this from the right hand seat as FO and logged the hours accordingly. The Bulgarians were very clear on that fact and the operator asked to see the logbook after every periode of training/flying to sign it off.

The only single pilot variant I have seen in Bulgaria was a "M" type agricultural one which was cleared for single pilot ops if the pilot was as well, otherwise it was flown like the others in 2 man configuration.

I have not flown in BG since EASA invaded, all my former babies are now stored in Dobrich awaiting their fate and are for sale... The para plane at a local field here is flown in a 2 man config and under Bulgarian Civil register, so I reckon the same rules still apply.

Therefore I should think that you should be able to log those hours, unless the operator of your aircraft and/or the registrar state clearly sais it is a single pilot aircraft. For JAA/EASA Purposes that rises the ugly question if a multi crew endorsement is needed for this, but then again, as it is an annex II plane, the question would then be if this applies or if the type rating as multi crew is enough.

Best regards
AN2 driver.

[BillieBob]

When we joined EU, JAR's came into play to relief of many folks as now simple SEP(L) is enough.

The only way that this can be in accordance with JAR-FCL 1 is if the aircraft is considered as single-pilot. JAR-FCL 1.220(b) requires multi-pilot aeroplanes to have a type rating and not a class rating. According to the AN-2 flight manual, the second mandated crew member may be a (properly licensed) flight engineer or navigator and so the aircraft may be said to be multi-crew but not necessarily multi-pilot. This is significant as JAR-FCL refers to multi-pilot and not multi-crew aeroplanes.

Consequently, if the state of registry permits the AN-2 to be flown on a SEP(L) class rating (as, in this case, it does) then the implication must be that it is considered to be a single-pilot aeroplane for licensing purposes. If it is to be considered as a multi-pilot aeroplane then, to act as a member of the crew, you must hold a type rating.

Whilst not directly relevant, it is also worth bearing in mind that JAR-FCL 1.215(b)(2) restricts the privileges of a type rating for an aeroplane not included in the 'associated administrative procedures' (i.e. the EASA type rating list) to aircraft registered in the state that issued the rating.

None of the above, however, prevents the recording the hours flown on the AN-2 in a pilot's logbook, which is merely a personal record of flight experience. Whether those hours may subsequently be counted towards experience requirements for future qualifications will be entirely at the discretion of the state of licence issue and will not be binding on other JAA member states.

The same will be true under EASA when Annex II aircraft will be the responsibility of individual states and arrangements put in place by one state may not be accepted by others. It will also be the case under EASA that experience gained on Annex II aircraft will not be accepted towards the requirements for issue/revalidation of an EASA licence or rating.

[S-Works]

It will also be the case under EASA that experience gained on Annex II aircraft will not be accepted towards the requirements for issue/revalidation of an EASA licence or rating.

What a curious situation. So this would leave for example the owner of a Chipmunk unable to use the time flown in it for revalidation of an SEP rating?

Other aircraft like the Finist for example which is currently Annex II are type rated under some JAA countries and Class rated I assume are exempt by the fact that they are revalidated by test? But what about putting the rating on to an EASA licence in the first place?

[BillieBob]

Curious indeed! The Agency has stepped back from its previous position, where it did not acknowledge any experience in Annex II aircraft, but only as far as allowing experience in microlights to count towards the LAPL requirements. The amount of credit that will be allowed for this purpose will be decided by the ATO providing the training on the basis of a pre-entry flight test. However, no other credits will be available (e.g. for issue of a PPL, CPL or ATPL or revalidation of a type or class rating, FI certificate, etc.). You are, therefore, correct that any time flown in a Chipmunk will not count towards the revalidation of an EASA SEP class rating.

EASA's repeated mantra in the CRD on Part-FCL is "Aircraft included in Annex II to the Basic Regulation are excluded from the scope of Community competence; therefore, they are excluded from Part-FCL."

The regulation of Annex II aircraft will be the responsibility of individual member states, who will determine their own licensing requirements. Should a state choose to use the EASA licence for Annex II aircraft (which I expect most will do), it will be able to enter a 'national' rating in the licence, just as the UK currently do for the Finist, Jetstream 100/200, etc. on a JAA licence.

[Maoraigh1]

Can someone give a link/ lead to this EASA rule re only Annex 1 flying counting for SEP revalidation?
In the second year towards revalidation, I flew all of my 90+ hours in an Annex 2 taildragger. I did my hour with an instructor in a Pa28 and my license revalidation slip was signed. I was (am?) illegal if this is the case.

[S-Works]

No you are not. EASA Part FCL does not come into force until 2012 at the earliest........

[S-Works]

The AN2 is not certificated as a multi pilot aircraft. Just because local rules might require 2 pilots does not make it a multi pilot aircraft...........

[MichaelPL]

Refreshing the topic, albeit with a little different question.

I might have an opportunity to do some flying on An2. It could be left hand seat, but PIC(US). From what I read in JAR-FCL 1 my understanding is it can be done and counted towards PIC hours for subsequent CPL.

Question is - are there any details/loopholes I missed? And another one - does it change (and how) when the EASA rules come into force in the mean time (8 april, is it?)

[S-Works]

PICUS is only used on an integrated course. You are either PIC or PUT.

[Whopity]

PICUS was invented by the JAA to allow a pilot who does not hold an IR to obtain the necessary IFR experience as part of an Integrated course. A FI with an IR sits in the right hand seat whilst the student gains PIC time from the left hand seat when operating IFR.

[MichaelPL]

Hmm, is PICUS only for integrated?
1.080 (c) (1) (v) says "A co-pilot acting as pilot-incommand under the supervision of the pilot-in-command on an aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane or as required by JAR–OPS provided such pilot-in-command time under supervision (see (c)(5)) is countersigned by the pilot-in-command."
What am I missing?

Also, from what I know, the Type Certificate (which is held by a Polish company) does say the aircraft is multi-pilot.

It all seems to be a little bit in the grey zone for me, and I would like to get it right, to avoid any possible problems in the future...


@Whopity: So, if I have an entry in my logbook for when I did my SEP(L) revalidation with a class examiner countersigned by him as PICUS, is that wrong? (That's they way he told me to do it.)

[S-Works]

If you do a 2 year revalidation flight then it would have been PUT. If you did a skill test then it would have been P1/S with the Examiner as Captain but logged in the P1 column.

PICUS is ONLY available for integrated courses. Simple.

The AN2 is not recognised as a multi pilot aircraft for the purposes of JAR FCL.

[MichaelPL]

Whew. Now I'm even more confused than I was before.

First of all, my logbook (which does say jar-fcl 1.080 compliant) only has columns for PIC, COPILOT, DUAL, and INSTRUCTOR. What is PUT and P1/S, and how do those translate into the 4 I mentioned? (Not well acquainted with the UK nomenclature, sorry). The flight was a 2 year revalidation, in the last 3 months, NOT by the 12h/12last months rule, which made it a proficiency check with an examiner (in contrary to the 1h flight instruction you need when going the 12h route).

As for Antonov and JAR-FCL, where do I find the source that says it's not recognised as such? I do need to have another good look at the Type Certificate, which I don't have handy right now, but I am pretty sure that An2 IS an "aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane".

I do hope you won't take it as arguing, I just want to get to the bottom of the subject.

[Whopity]

Actually SPIC is for Integrated courses, PICUS or P1S or whatever you want to call it is for tests.

an "aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane".

Then it requires a type rating for both pilots as stated earlier. A friend of mine flies one and he says its SEP but its useful to have another pilot to assist. You really must check with the State of registration.

[cambioso]

On the Hungarian Reg (as a lot are) it's deffo a single pilot aircraft - no arguments, no "maybes"!!.
I flew it for 2 airshow seasons (and 300 hours) SP, it was a like a huge Tiger Moth and not the slightest bit complicated or high workload.............
Jez