IR(H) on Agusta 109

[172510]

Where in Europe can I get a dual training TR + IR(H) on an Agusta 109
What school could do a distance learning bridge course ATPL(A) to ATPL(H) with IR?

[GoodGrief]

Castle Air, Gloucester.

[Northernstar]

Bristol Groundschool for the bridging exams. Then IR in 109 could be done at Sloane Northamptonshire afterwards. Or Castle but aircraft availability has been an issue. Starspeed can also provide 109 IR.

[Ovc000]

Bristol for Groundschool and Helicopter Services in White Waltham for the 109 TR+IR.

[rudestuff]

Are you sure you're converting in the right direction?!

[ersa]

Originally Posted by rudestuff

Are you sure you're converting in the right direction?!

I was thinking the same, why the hell would you spend over 70-80 thousand quid , when the airlines are screaming for pilots

What gives ?

[Dick Smith]

Is it a fact that in the USA no specific endorsement is required for A109? as far as the FAA is concerned ? Learn to fly in an R22 and you can fly the 109?
Surely not!

[Non-PC Plod]

Yes, below a particular weight - cant remember - is it 10,000lb? There is no type rating required.

[Non-PC Plod]

Of course - you may find insurance is a problem unless you have done some type training....

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Is it a fact that in the USA no specific endorsement is required for A109? as far as the FAA is concerned ? Learn to fly in an R22 and you can fly the 109?
Surely not!

Yes, that is correct. Anything you want under 12,500 lbs with no type rating. No multi-engine rating for helicopters either. You can go directly from a 22 to anything you want. Absolutely no violation of FAA regulations. But you would be uninsurable, of course.

In all US of aviation, FAA regulations reflect only the minimum requirements. The insurance industry effectively takes over after that and they slather a rather thick layer of virtual reg's on top. Want to hire pilots for your tiny little R44 tour operation? The insurer says they have to have 500 hours minimum, not the FAA.

If you choose not to insure, or self-insure, you have a wonderful degree of freedom, at the risk of being sued into oblivion. This is a fine example of how almost pure capitalism works, by the way. If the FAA got out of the pilot certification business and left that to industry as well it would be completely pure.

[Paul Cantrell]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Is it a fact that in the USA no specific endorsement is required for A109? as far as the FAA is concerned ? Learn to fly in an R22 and you can fly the 109?
Surely not!

Dick,

As aa777888 says, unless the aircraft requires a type rating ( weight above 12,500 lbs ) one license covers them all, single or twin. So yeah, in theory take your private exam in an R22 and then hop into a S76 that afternoon.

One aircraft I fly is owned by someone wealthy enough to self insure, but liability insurance is a different story. He can afford to lose the hull ( and has saved enough money to buy a couple hulls over the years) but being as wealthy as he is makes him a target for lawsuits, so liability insurance is pretty much required. You probably would need to be a billionaire to not need liability insurance. Rich enough to exhaust anyone's ability to sue you... I'm guessing that part is true in OZ as well?

In any case, the insurance company is very strict - the only place authorized for recurrent training is at the factory, and they have a minimum of 1,000 hours to be pic... Some other minimums I can't remember at the moment. So, as aa777888 says, pretty much regulated by the insurers unless you are a complete idiot.