EASA CPL course changes
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Barbados
Age: 29
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA CPL course changes
So I completed my 15 hours of EASA CPL training and all set to go for the checkride when the day before EASA comes out with they are no longer accepting ICAO IR for the 10 hour reduced course.
Due to having an FAA IR I qualified for the 15 hours course as apposed to 25 hours (10 extra hours of instrument training).
With no notice they've come out with this new rule. No publication, nothing. It's thrown me into a really bad spot, trying to get in with an instructor to do the 10 more hours now.
Anyone else heard of this?
Due to having an FAA IR I qualified for the 15 hours course as apposed to 25 hours (10 extra hours of instrument training).
With no notice they've come out with this new rule. No publication, nothing. It's thrown me into a really bad spot, trying to get in with an instructor to do the 10 more hours now.
Anyone else heard of this?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Barbados
Age: 29
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe just a full IR.
I have a full FAA IR, but EASA has suddenly decided that it cannot qualify for the 10 hour credit to the 25 hour EASA CPL course. Only an EASA IR can qualify. This change wasn't published or anything, just came out of nowhere.
I have a full FAA IR, but EASA has suddenly decided that it cannot qualify for the 10 hour credit to the 25 hour EASA CPL course. Only an EASA IR can qualify. This change wasn't published or anything, just came out of nowhere.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
With aan ICAO IR, you might want to investigate the CBIR, which is a less formal route. Given your FAA IR, you can do the technical knowledge "exams" on the check ride.
EASA (or, more properly, the EU Regulation) has never permitted abridgement of a CPL course on the basis of an ICAO IR.
The relevant requirement in Appendix 3E to Part-FCL states, "Applicants holding a valid IR(A) shall be fully credited towards the dual instrument instruction time." However, GM1 FCL-005 states, "Whenever licences, ratings, approvals or certificates are mentioned in Part-FCL, these are meant to be valid licences, ratings, approvals or certificates issued in accordance with Part-FCL. In all other cases, these documents are specified." Therefore, since the Appendix does not specify an ICAO IR it means an EASA IR.
The fault lies not with EASA but with whoever misinformed you that abridgement was possible in the first place.
The relevant requirement in Appendix 3E to Part-FCL states, "Applicants holding a valid IR(A) shall be fully credited towards the dual instrument instruction time." However, GM1 FCL-005 states, "Whenever licences, ratings, approvals or certificates are mentioned in Part-FCL, these are meant to be valid licences, ratings, approvals or certificates issued in accordance with Part-FCL. In all other cases, these documents are specified." Therefore, since the Appendix does not specify an ICAO IR it means an EASA IR.
The fault lies not with EASA but with whoever misinformed you that abridgement was possible in the first place.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fault lies not with EASA but with whoever misinformed you that abridgement was possible in the first place.
Nearly every conversion I know has done - and it's credit is commonplace at many schools, both in the US, the UK, Iceland and Spain and Poland
The ridiculous part is that you can get credit for a full IR conversion on what we (in the UK) used to call the "applied" section i.e holding approaching, but we can't give credit for the CPL BIFM "no applied" section i.e the basic full panel and limited panel section.
There's no sense in that at all!
