AgustaWestland TRTO Suspended?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: worldwide
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an update...seems that both the DGAC (French) and German Aviation Authority have made formal enquiries to ENAC (Italy) about the type rating training on the AW139....seems that Agusta are issuing Multi Pilot Ratings ...although the syllabus of training is Single Pilot...??!!
my previous experience with Agusta was that the Type Rating Instructors- were solely Single Pilot...!!.....
Not a checklist in sight!
my previous experience with Agusta was that the Type Rating Instructors- were solely Single Pilot...!!.....
Not a checklist in sight!
Last edited by End of the Line; 27th Apr 2011 at 18:02.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New JAA MCC adds 20 hrs FTD/SIM time plus 25 groundschool to any type conversion for non-mcc individuals. Helisim France have an MCC Course approved, dunno about Agusta.
JAR FCL 2.261(D) refers: The MCC course shall comprise at least 25 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction and exercises and 20 hours of MCC training. Students attending an ATP integrated course may have the practical training reduced by 5 hours. Wherever possible, the MCC training should be combined with the initial type rating course on multi-pilot helicopters.
JAR FCL 2.261(D) refers: The MCC course shall comprise at least 25 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction and exercises and 20 hours of MCC training. Students attending an ATP integrated course may have the practical training reduced by 5 hours. Wherever possible, the MCC training should be combined with the initial type rating course on multi-pilot helicopters.
Last edited by irishhelipilot; 29th Apr 2011 at 11:34.
What a load of borocrapic ****e.... How difficult can it be for 2 monkeys to steer a heliplopter 
Next the CIA will be measuring dick size to see who should rightfully be the Captain..
Where did all the fun go chaps???
Next the CIA will be measuring dick size to see who should rightfully be the Captain..
Where did all the fun go chaps???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: worldwide
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was my understanding...Agusta are not in the position to offer MP training....reasons being all too obvious...no suitably qualified MP Instructors....no SOP's...no syllabus of training MP...no reference to MCC...no reference to behavioural markers.....no checklist operation....the list goes on..!
Although two operators - one German and one French operator sought and received MP ratings on AW139....
Go Figure..??.....
Although two operators - one German and one French operator sought and received MP ratings on AW139....
Go Figure..??.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an innocent (honest M'lud) bystander, I am more than a little confused. You have a pilot who is qualified to fly by himself. He is joined by another pilot, also qualified to fly by himself, for safety reasons. Since either of them can legally operate the aircraft alone why do they need a licence to say they can do it together?
Alan
Alan
So an MPH MCC trained pilot goes for a type rating on the AW139. Their licence is not restricted as per some fixed wing brethern to mulit-pilot aircraft. Is the AW139 exclusively an MPH? Do the FCLs say a [further] MCC course is required? Are the JAR-FCLs law? Are all countries recommended for mutual recognition at the same level of compliance in all areas?
This thread is like a piece of string.
This thread is like a piece of string.
Is the AW139 exclusively an MPH?
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Day - One pilot unless otherwise required by
operating rules. Single pilot operation not permitted from left seat.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Night and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
Day/Night - Two pilots.
For VFR Night Single Pilot Operation see Supplement 24.
For IFR Single Pilot Operation see Supplement 22.
Supplement 22:
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
— Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Day/Night - One pilot unless otherwise
required by operating rules.
— Single pilot operation not permitted from left hand seat.
Supplement 24:
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
— Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Night - One pilot unless otherwise
required by operating rules.
— Single pilot operation not permitted from left hand seat.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Day - One pilot unless otherwise required by
operating rules. Single pilot operation not permitted from left seat.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Night and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
Day/Night - Two pilots.
For VFR Night Single Pilot Operation see Supplement 24.
For IFR Single Pilot Operation see Supplement 22.
Supplement 22:
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
— Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Day/Night - One pilot unless otherwise
required by operating rules.
— Single pilot operation not permitted from left hand seat.
Supplement 24:
MINIMUM FLIGHT CREW
— Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Night - One pilot unless otherwise
required by operating rules.
— Single pilot operation not permitted from left hand seat.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This demonstrates the crass stupidity of the JAA LSST(H) in developing the definition of a multi-pilot helicopter and the the equallly crass incompetence of EASA in not correcting the original error. If a helicopter is certified for operation by one pilot and the type rating course and, more importantly, the LST is performed single pilot then the UK, at least, issues a single-pilot helicopter type rating without restriction. The privileges of this type rating, according to JAR-FCL 2, are 'to act as pilot of the type of aircraft specified in the rating'. There is no mention of single-pilot or multi-pilot operations, simply 'to act as a pilot'.
Now, consider a scenario - I hold a type rating on the S76, which is certified as a single pilot helicopter. The course and LST were conducted in a single-pilot environment and, consequently, I have not received nor did I require any MCC training prior to the type rating course. My type rating, issued by the UK CAA, entitles me to act as a pilot (in any capacity) on the S76. Consequently, I can operate an S76, either as PIC or Co-pilot in a multi-pilot environment (subject to completing an approved Operator Conversion Course and meeting any experience requirements in accordance with JAR-OPS 3 if it is a public transport operation) without completing MCC training despite the fact that JAR-FCL 2 defines the S76 as a multi-pilot helicopter in those circumstances.
The AW139 is in exactly the same situation, being certified for single pilot operation in VFR. There is no provision in either JAR-FCL 2 or EASA Part-FCL for retrospective MCC training in the event that a pilot changes roles and so the requirement for MCC (except in the case of helicopters certified for more than one pilot) is entirely unenforceable and, therefore, utterly pointless. It stands as a monument to the ineptitude of those formulating the rules that will strangle our industry.
This situation may not endure, however, as it is rumoured that EASA intends, through its JOEB structure, to mandate specific training requirements type by type, irrespective of the certification status of the individual aircraft and the requirements of Part-FCL. I suppose that's one way to give European manufacturers an edge - make it cheaper and easier to train on a Eurocopter than a Sikorsky or Bell product.
Now, consider a scenario - I hold a type rating on the S76, which is certified as a single pilot helicopter. The course and LST were conducted in a single-pilot environment and, consequently, I have not received nor did I require any MCC training prior to the type rating course. My type rating, issued by the UK CAA, entitles me to act as a pilot (in any capacity) on the S76. Consequently, I can operate an S76, either as PIC or Co-pilot in a multi-pilot environment (subject to completing an approved Operator Conversion Course and meeting any experience requirements in accordance with JAR-OPS 3 if it is a public transport operation) without completing MCC training despite the fact that JAR-FCL 2 defines the S76 as a multi-pilot helicopter in those circumstances.
The AW139 is in exactly the same situation, being certified for single pilot operation in VFR. There is no provision in either JAR-FCL 2 or EASA Part-FCL for retrospective MCC training in the event that a pilot changes roles and so the requirement for MCC (except in the case of helicopters certified for more than one pilot) is entirely unenforceable and, therefore, utterly pointless. It stands as a monument to the ineptitude of those formulating the rules that will strangle our industry.
This situation may not endure, however, as it is rumoured that EASA intends, through its JOEB structure, to mandate specific training requirements type by type, irrespective of the certification status of the individual aircraft and the requirements of Part-FCL. I suppose that's one way to give European manufacturers an edge - make it cheaper and easier to train on a Eurocopter than a Sikorsky or Bell product.
The point is that JAA considers "Multi pilot" or "Single pilot" as 2 distinct qualifications for a same type of helicopter, even if this helicopter is single pilot certified.
When operating in a multipilot context (operational rules) pilots must be "MP" qualified (even on a "SP" certified helicopter)
To get a "MP" edorsement on your licence, you must have followed an approved MCC "generic" course, and an MP check ride on the type, or prove to your licensing Authority a previous level of experience with MP ops.
Now, you are not automatically "SP" (single pilot) qualified with a "MP" endorsement, you'll need for this a "SP" check-ride, of course done by a "type- SP" qualified TRE....(he must not only be MP qualified)
Validity of "MP" and "SP" matches the validity of the attached type qualification.
For instance, I'll not be allowed to fly with an engineer on the left seat, a S76 for a track and balance air test if I am not holding a valid "SP" endorsement. (even if I've flown hundred hours as a 76 "SP" in the past)....
Basically to keep SP and MP current, we need within the current type validity period ( 12 months) one SP check ride and one MP check ride....OK I'm stopping here, time for my sleep injection....
When operating in a multipilot context (operational rules) pilots must be "MP" qualified (even on a "SP" certified helicopter)
To get a "MP" edorsement on your licence, you must have followed an approved MCC "generic" course, and an MP check ride on the type, or prove to your licensing Authority a previous level of experience with MP ops.
Now, you are not automatically "SP" (single pilot) qualified with a "MP" endorsement, you'll need for this a "SP" check-ride, of course done by a "type- SP" qualified TRE....(he must not only be MP qualified)
Validity of "MP" and "SP" matches the validity of the attached type qualification.
For instance, I'll not be allowed to fly with an engineer on the left seat, a S76 for a track and balance air test if I am not holding a valid "SP" endorsement. (even if I've flown hundred hours as a 76 "SP" in the past)....
Basically to keep SP and MP current, we need within the current type validity period ( 12 months) one SP check ride and one MP check ride....OK I'm stopping here, time for my sleep injection....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CPT is quite correct. Its not just the certification that matters, is how you are using the aircraft, and what your Ops manual and the authority require. If your Ops manual states that you operate multi-crew, then you need a multi-crew rating, even on an aircraft which may also be operated single-crew for other jobs. I have forgotten the exact wording but if you look at the definitions in JAR-FCL2 for "Multi pilot helicopter" it tells you that it is a helicopter which is required to be operated by more than one pilot, either because of certification, or by the authority, or by the ops manual. So, if your ops manual says so, it is de facto a multi-pilot helicopter and you must have MCC qualification and a multi-pilot rating.
End of the line - I dont know where you get all your information from. There is an MCC course available at A-W. There is also an SOP. I know, 'cos I wrote them both 2 years ago, although I have not yet been asked to deliver a course. There are also people who are perfectly capable, experienced and qualified to teach multi-crew on the simulator. There are also checklists, and we have a behavioural marker scheme. We have UK-qualified CRMIs and CRMIEs (there is no Italian equivalent). There are some obstacles still to be overcome particularly with regards to introducing multi-crew instruction on the real aircraft, but it is inaccurate to suggest there is no capability.
End of the line - I dont know where you get all your information from. There is an MCC course available at A-W. There is also an SOP. I know, 'cos I wrote them both 2 years ago, although I have not yet been asked to deliver a course. There are also people who are perfectly capable, experienced and qualified to teach multi-crew on the simulator. There are also checklists, and we have a behavioural marker scheme. We have UK-qualified CRMIs and CRMIEs (there is no Italian equivalent). There are some obstacles still to be overcome particularly with regards to introducing multi-crew instruction on the real aircraft, but it is inaccurate to suggest there is no capability.
Last edited by Non-PC Plod; 30th Apr 2011 at 16:37.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't get is why it has to be a separate qualification - SP/MP?
Surely the purpose of Type Rating training is to complete the necessary conversion so you can fly the damn thing while MCC training is to ensure proper inter-action on the flight-deck between two already type-rated pilots (it doesn't alter one's ability to physically fly the aircraft, does it?) - at least in broad brush-strokes?
Why is it not that the the Type Rating is a regulatory requirement, regardless of single or multi-crew operation (assuming the aircraft is certified for SP ops in the first place) while the MCC training is an operator requirement/obligation in order for the operator to meet certain regulatory requirements, such as those for PT operations?
Not being well versed in all of this, I assume I'm missing something really obvious here?
22
Surely the purpose of Type Rating training is to complete the necessary conversion so you can fly the damn thing while MCC training is to ensure proper inter-action on the flight-deck between two already type-rated pilots (it doesn't alter one's ability to physically fly the aircraft, does it?) - at least in broad brush-strokes?
Why is it not that the the Type Rating is a regulatory requirement, regardless of single or multi-crew operation (assuming the aircraft is certified for SP ops in the first place) while the MCC training is an operator requirement/obligation in order for the operator to meet certain regulatory requirements, such as those for PT operations?
Not being well versed in all of this, I assume I'm missing something really obvious here?
22