EASA - new rules for SEP Type Rating Renewal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the Alps
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA - new rules for SEP Type Rating Renewal
Just in case not everybody got the news: With the new EASA rules, it is now possible to do just one check ride to refresh all of your SEP type ratings. E.g. if you have both an R22 and R44 type rating, you now only have to do one proficiency check per year on alternating types.
FCL.740.H Revalidation of type ratings — helicopters
(3) When applicants hold more than 1 type rating for single-engine piston helicopters, they may achieve revalidation of all the relevant type ratings by completing the proficiency check in only 1 of the relevant types held, provided that they have completed at least 2 hours of flight time as PIC on the other types during the validity period.
The proficiency check shall be performed each time on a different type.
FCL.740.H Revalidation of type ratings — helicopters
(3) When applicants hold more than 1 type rating for single-engine piston helicopters, they may achieve revalidation of all the relevant type ratings by completing the proficiency check in only 1 of the relevant types held, provided that they have completed at least 2 hours of flight time as PIC on the other types during the validity period.
The proficiency check shall be performed each time on a different type.
Sorry to dash your hopes but R22 and R44 are EXCLUDED from SEP Groups (as they were under JAR).
Next paragraph down CAP804 refers to Acceptable Means of Compliance published by EASA.
4 Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material – (AMC and GM)
AMC and GM published by EASA may be found on the EASA website. Any UK
Alternative Means of Compliance and Guidance Material published by the CAA for these requirements will be found below.
If you search the EASA website for these you will find AMC for SEP Group revalidations includes the following types only;
Bell47
Brantley B2
HU269
ENF28
Cabri G2
Hiller UH12
Unless of course it's changed AGAIN. Page 261(ish)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-me...20Part-FCL.pdf
Next paragraph down CAP804 refers to Acceptable Means of Compliance published by EASA.
4 Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material – (AMC and GM)
AMC and GM published by EASA may be found on the EASA website. Any UK
Alternative Means of Compliance and Guidance Material published by the CAA for these requirements will be found below.
If you search the EASA website for these you will find AMC for SEP Group revalidations includes the following types only;
Bell47
Brantley B2
HU269
ENF28
Cabri G2
Hiller UH12
Unless of course it's changed AGAIN. Page 261(ish)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-me...20Part-FCL.pdf
Last edited by misterbonkers; 18th Nov 2012 at 21:28.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dontcha just love reading legislation
AMC1 FCL.740.H(a)(3) Revalidation of type ratings — helicopters
Only the following SEP helicopter types can be considered for crediting of the proficiency check. Other SEP helicopters (for example the R22 and R44) should not be given credit for.
Bell47
Brantley B2
HU269
ENF28
Cabri G2
UH12
AMC1 FCL.740.H(a)(3) Revalidation of type ratings — helicopters
Only the following SEP helicopter types can be considered for crediting of the proficiency check. Other SEP helicopters (for example the R22 and R44) should not be given credit for.
Bell47
Brantley B2
HU269
ENF28
Cabri G2
UH12
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the Alps
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn, now you gotta read AMC as well .. as if the FCL alone wouldn't be cumbersome enough to read 
And I don't really understand why they're not putting that info up front into the FCL part (like JAR did).
Anyway, gotta check what my local CAA says about compliance, since they eventually issue the licence.
And I don't really understand why they're not putting that info up front into the FCL part (like JAR did).Anyway, gotta check what my local CAA says about compliance, since they eventually issue the licence.
And I don't really understand why they're not putting that info up front into the FCL part
It's not only a matter of referring to Part-FCL and the AMCs; there is also the Cover Regulation and the Basic Regulation to consider, both of which contain requirements that are not repeated in the implementing rules.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 41
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much use for anyone who doesn't fly G2, S300, B47 etc simultaneously.
Almost feels like unwritten SFAR73 as in FAA system, where people have to be current on specific Robbies.
Almost feels like unwritten SFAR73 as in FAA system, where people have to be current on specific Robbies.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When new regulations are developed there are some fundamental choices about how they are written. Perspective is one of the more significant issues.
So, they can be written from the perspective of:
users, so they are clear, easy and straightforward to understand; or
the Committee of bureaucrats who created careers generating them, so they reflect the endless process by which they were generated (and will be endlessly updated and revised;
lawyers (or NAAs), so they will be made as incomprehensible as possible, with so many sub-clauses and qualifications that no one knows what they mean.
Guess who this lot was written for?
So, they can be written from the perspective of:
users, so they are clear, easy and straightforward to understand; or
the Committee of bureaucrats who created careers generating them, so they reflect the endless process by which they were generated (and will be endlessly updated and revised;
lawyers (or NAAs), so they will be made as incomprehensible as possible, with so many sub-clauses and qualifications that no one knows what they mean.
Guess who this lot was written for?
or
the Committee of bureaucrats who created careers generating them, so they reflect the endless process by which they were generated (and will be endlessly updated and revised;
lawyers (or NAAs), so they will be made as incomprehensible as possible, with so many sub-clauses and qualifications that no one knows what they mean.
Here again, this old bureaucratic fundamental law:
"If they don't understand you, then confuse them even more "
And all becomes clear )))
the Committee of bureaucrats who created careers generating them, so they reflect the endless process by which they were generated (and will be endlessly updated and revised;
lawyers (or NAAs), so they will be made as incomprehensible as possible, with so many sub-clauses and qualifications that no one knows what they mean.
Here again, this old bureaucratic fundamental law:
"If they don't understand you, then confuse them even more "
And all becomes clear )))
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yup the situation of aviation regulation is unacceptable. it is not proportionate, it is unworkable and unaccountable. Which political body can we the electorate lobby for reform, against this self perpetuating nonsense?
