This is what OGP think about the matter: (my bold)

4.3.4 Pilots flying more than one aircraft type
Aircraft operator policy regarding how many types of aircraft their pilots may fly varies significantly from company to company. The advisability of pilots flying more than one type will vary with the types involved, the experience level and ability of the individual pilot. Nevertheless, because flying several types on a day-to-day basis inevitably increases the danger of incorrect responses in the case of emergency, and the likelihood of handling errors or errors of omission, a limit must be placed on the practice.

It is expected that aircraft operators have a written policy on the subject, which applies across their operations. While pilots are quite correctly endorsed on a number of aircraft types, it is recommended that only in exceptional circumstances would more than 2 types be flown on a day-to-day basis, with a preference to see a single type flown, or scheduling in blocks of days on a particular type. If more than one type is flown, recency flying and type training must be closely monitored both by individual pilots and by a nominated member of the flying, training or operations staff.

(From OGP Report No 390, Aircraft Management Guidelines)

Bold statement? I would have thought that it was a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Canros,

... and your qualifications for making such a statement are?

Jim

Epiphany ....did you really mean that ??!! You really believe that a piece of paper makes you a safer pilot ? I know that if i had to choose between flying as a pax with pilot A 200 hrs just got type rating and pilot B 2,000 hrs ( 1,000 on type but no type rating )....i would chose the 2,000 hr pilot . He may not be safer ...he may be equally safe but he will have a hell of a lot more experience to draw on in an emergency ...and thats what i would want ...good airmanship.
Bravo . I see the sense of this for commercial ops in complicated ME machines but honestly is there any difference between flying any of the singles ??? ( dont count robbos as they are a case all of their own ).
I guess the only people who will care about this is the ones who will get hit with more red tape and more cost of unnecessary hrs of flight tests /instruction .
ps what do you think will happen to the 1,000s of people who now fly around much safer with an FAA IMC ?

FYI but the OGP guidelines also cover single pilot, SE operations. The same recommendations and restrictions apply.

Nigel,

Surely the question should be whether you would choose a pilot who just 'stepped' into a new type without any rating or one who has just passed a rating exam.

It is questionable whether a licence should permit a pilot to fly any type below 5,700kg without undergoing some training and checks? Remember that below 5,700kg are the S76, the AS365, the BK117, the A109 (did you fly that without any training), the EC135, the AS355, the MD902, the BO105 etc.

Jim

I've got this piece of paper see... sais I own a bridge in London... would you like to buy it?

Jim..I have flown approx half of the types without any rating . I have always had some training before going solo and then always done a few hrs solo before taking pax . I have always felt totally up to speed on any single within an hour ...not due to any skill but just the fact that they all fly pretty much exactly the same !!! ( my last CFI check ride was in a 300c which i havent flown for 20 yrs and i had 45min famil flight before the test ...and past ). The 109 took a bit longer but just due to more complicated procedures etc Am i missing something or are FAA pilots jumping into machines without training and killing themselves ?? My example was of a pilot with many hrs experience in that type against a low hr pilot who had the piece of paper .

So you're telling us you were up to speed in a 109 in little more than 45mins? Really? You must be a helicopter flying god. Ok, you could probably fly it, but to know all of the immediate actions in a multi eng helo in less than an hour? Total rubbish. One day we'll no doubt be reading your obituary.

Birddog,

Not from someone who doesn't have a current type rating. I wouldn't trust you.

Acshurely, I have 4 current type ratings on one of my licenses.

That mean I can sell you 4 bridges? ;)

No. Because if you have 4 current type ratings on a PPL(H) then you obviously do not need any more money. Just more sense.

I guess I better not tell you then about the other 4 types and their variants I fly on my FAA ticket lest you have an implosion of paperwork envy. :p

Envy and FAA are not two terms that I would use together. I hold both UKJAR and FAA ATPL's are I know which one I take seriously. I also have 14 helicopter type ratings but one twin and one single are all that I am allowed to operate by my company - thankfully.

Nigelh - sorry, but your statement:

Epiphany ....did you really mean that ??!! You really believe that a piece of paper makes you a safer pilot ? I know that if i had to choose between flying as a pax with pilot A 200 hrs just got type rating and pilot B 2,000 hrs ( 1,000 on type but no type rating )....i would chose the 2,000 hr pilot . He may not be safer ...he may be equally safe but he will have a hell of a lot more experience to draw on in an emergency ...and thats what i would want ...good airmanship.

needs taking up.

I have flown with pilots with 2-300 hours whom I would trust with anything. I have also flown with pilots that have 17,000 hours whom I wouldn't trust with a pram.

As for other comments about currency, as one who was once current on 6 reasonably different types (3 fixed wing and 3 helicopter) for more than a year, I can assure you it is hard work. There is a limit for a reason!

Phil

Paco . I quite agree with you but was trying to make a point ( unsucessfully it seams ) . It appears that i am in a minority thinking it is unecessary to make pilots, with 30 yrs experience and thousands of hours , sit in a helicopter and fly it for x hrs with an instructor who in all probibility knows less about the type than he does .:ugh:

Epiphany . Birddog ( the one with too much money ...) seems to have found your achilles heel ....we now know you are insecure and dont take your FAA licences seriously as you have a "proper" licence ...

Coning .... say after me " i am a naughty boy as i didnt read the post properly " You really should not make smart arse remarks about obituaries on this site . It is in bad taste and poss too close to home for some unfortunate people . After 30 yrs i think it is fair to say that if i and my instructor feel happy that i am competent ...then possibly i am .:rolleyes:

As soon as people start to say "that requirement shouldn't apply to me as I have loads of experience" or even if chief pilots or management say some pilots are more experienced so therefore "that regulation shouldn't apply to him" the situation immediately becomes hopeless and inconsistent, and special cases and variations pop up all over the place.

Validations aside, If people are based here then to me clearly they should have a JAR/EASA licence, if they are based in an FAA territory then they should have an FAA licence. For someone to say themselves that "I don't need to do proper type rating training on this type because I have a foreign licence" to me sounds ridiculous, in that case they should go to that country if they want to operate like that.

Using an FAA licence is to me just a "device" to avoid being subject to the same regime as the rest of us, who would like to save money as well but have chosen to use the system that was designed for our area of operation rather than for another continent.

If you have more than 100 hours on type all you have to do is a LPC with an examiner to get a EASA/JAA typerating (<3150 kg) So if you're current no problem at all.

Nige - It seems you are in a minority! I have examined people who have way more hours than I have, and vice versa. It's simply the luck of the draw, and we both had something to offer each other. In any case, if you have lots of similar types, you only need an lpc on one to make them all current.

cheers

Phil