Single Pilot / Multi Pilot Type Ratings (EASA)

[logicfreezone]

Hello all,

I tried my luck with this in Flying Instructors & Examiners but I didn't get any replies:

An operator uses a single pilot ME helicopter in both single-pilot and multi-pilot operations (depending on the contract, in accordance with the Ops Manual).

Under EASA, do the pilots need only 1 generic type rating, or do they need both a SP type rating and a MP type rating? If the latter, how are these revalidated? i.e. 2 different LPCs each year?

Now extend the same scenario out to including IR on that type. How does that work under EASA?

Any references would be greatly appreciated!

[Mustapha Cuppa]

or do they need both a SP type rating and a MP type rating?

See AMC2 FCL.725(a) paragraph (d).

If the latter, how are these revalidated? i.e. 2 different LPCs each year?

See paragraphs 13-15 and Part C of Appendix 9 to Part-FCL.

Now extend the same scenario out to including IR on that type. How does that work under EASA?

See Part B of Appendix 8 to Part-FCL.

[logicfreezone]

Many thanks for the reply, the references are very useful.

So under EASA you would have listed (for example) in XII Ratings, certificates and privileges
A139 (SP)
A139 (MP)
IR (SPH)
IR (MPH)

And consequently, without the (MP) a pilot would not be permitted to operate that particular type in a multi-crew environment? And vice versa for (SP).

Is that correct?

[Mustapha Cuppa]

From a UK-issued licence:



Note that there is really no such thing as an MP or SP IR, only the type rating is MP and/or SP.

And consequently, without the (MP) a pilot would not be permitted to operate that particular type in a multi-crew environment? And vice versa for (SP).

Is that correct?

That's how I read it.

[logicfreezone]

Thank you again for the reply.

Curiously, I have actually come across a couple of EASA licences (non-UK) that specify MPH for the instrument rating.

I'm not allowed to post images with my post count yet, but this is what is listed under the type ratings in XII (where your example just says Instrument - Nil):

Class/Type/IR - Remarks/Restrictions
IR (MPH) - IR Valid for MPH only
-or-
IR (MPH) - IR valid for MPA only

[Mustapha Cuppa]

I am not aware that either Subpart G, Appendix 3, Appendix 6 or Appendix 7 to Part-FCL make any differentiation between an SP or MP instrument rating. I therefore consider a licence entry e.g IR(MPH) to be tautologous as it is the type rating that determines the requirement for SP or MP.

I guess to a limited extent, it is up to the NAA to determine what is entered onto a licence.

[SFIM]

I saw some pilots who held an IR who did a “VFR bridge course” from MP to SP for a type rating (all that is required) and then their authority would only give a VFR type rating for SP while allowing MP/IR on the grounds that they didn’t do some SP instrument approaches in the bridge course (which isn’t required).
the bridge course is more about rejects and emergencies on your own as I understand.
so even the authorities are confused on this subject 🤪

[Same again]

I have always used the 'if you don't want the answer then don't ask the question' approach which has worked well these past 40 years flying helicopters across the globe. I am quite sure that even the people who write these paragraphs to parts of an appendix have no idea either.

[Non-PC Plod]

Show me 5 different licences from some EASA authorities, and I can show you 5 different ways the rules are interpreted and applied. On my own licence, I received a new version recently when I added a rating, and the way that SP/MP for pilot /instructor ratings are recorded is completely different from how it was done 6 months ago.
It remains a very grey area.

[SFIM]

Also I have seen some countries licence where you don’t have the SP or the MP unless it’s specifically stated.
some countries where if it says MP you also have the SP, but not necessarily the other way round
and some where it says nothing you have both the SP and the MP
my authority list the same aircraft as 2 different ratings; one for the SP and on a different line the MP, whereas the UK put it all on one line in the syntax A139/SP/MP/IR for example.
You couldn’t design a bigger mess if you tried 😬