Current Valid IR, for start of additional Type Rating.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London / Edinburgh
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current Valid IR, for start of additional Type Rating.
Regarding the entry requirement, for an additional Type Rating, under the old regulations, it used to be something along the lines of:
An applicant for an initial Multi Pilot Type Rating must have a valid and current IR. However, if the applicant has already held a MPTR, then the currency of the IR is not required.
Can someone direct me to an appropriate reference, within the EASA regs.
Thanks, in advance.
An applicant for an initial Multi Pilot Type Rating must have a valid and current IR. However, if the applicant has already held a MPTR, then the currency of the IR is not required.
Can someone direct me to an appropriate reference, within the EASA regs.
Thanks, in advance.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is a bone of contention with a few TRTO's
As such the rule hasn't changed but they have it in their pre-course requirements that you hold a valid IR at the time of starting the course. And as its in the manuals they stick to it.
quite why they are doing this nobody has quite worked out.
As such the rule hasn't changed but they have it in their pre-course requirements that you hold a valid IR at the time of starting the course. And as its in the manuals they stick to it.
quite why they are doing this nobody has quite worked out.
The relevant EASA requirement for entry to a first MPA type rating course is for the applicant to "hold a multi-engine IR(A)". In EASA-speak, 'current' and 'valid' mean the same thing and you do not 'hold' an IR unless it is valid.
For second and subsequent ratings it is only necessary to hold a multi-engine IR(A) for issue of the rating, not for entry to the course.
For second and subsequent ratings it is only necessary to hold a multi-engine IR(A) for issue of the rating, not for entry to the course.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are more than a few TRTO's including UK ones that don't have that interpretation.
I know 3 people personally who had to get expensive LPC's on an aircraft type that they were never going to fly again just to be allowed onto a type rating course.
One even used an extra ratings page in his license and forged a signature and then binned it after the course completion and then got the new rating issued because he was redundant and couldn't afford to get his MEP class rating & SPA IR back or a LPC on his previous type which was out by a month. If he hadn't done that he wouldn't have got the job.
Normally I would be very anti that sort of behaviour, but to get round stupid red tape I could understand why he did it even though technically he could get 5 years in prison for doing it.
Personally I agree with your interpretation Billiebob but there are quite a few TRTO's that don't and even if technically we are correct they have it in the TRTO's pre course requirements which a NAA approved and are stricter than required so therefore valid.
Which is I suspect the wall that has prompted the question from the OP.
I know 3 people personally who had to get expensive LPC's on an aircraft type that they were never going to fly again just to be allowed onto a type rating course.
One even used an extra ratings page in his license and forged a signature and then binned it after the course completion and then got the new rating issued because he was redundant and couldn't afford to get his MEP class rating & SPA IR back or a LPC on his previous type which was out by a month. If he hadn't done that he wouldn't have got the job.
Normally I would be very anti that sort of behaviour, but to get round stupid red tape I could understand why he did it even though technically he could get 5 years in prison for doing it.
Personally I agree with your interpretation Billiebob but there are quite a few TRTO's that don't and even if technically we are correct they have it in the TRTO's pre course requirements which a NAA approved and are stricter than required so therefore valid.
Which is I suspect the wall that has prompted the question from the OP.
It is hardly an 'interpretation'. FCL.720.A(f) quite clearly states, "An applicant for the issue of additional multi-pilot type ratings and single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes type ratings shall hold a multi-engine IR(A)". Examples of ATOs setting non-compliant requirements should be appealed to the competent authority issuing the approval. I have, in the past, recommended this action to a number of candidates with considerable success.
