PA46 Type Rating
Posted: Thu 18. Apr 2013, 07:55
For those of us who fly foreign registered aircraft (FRA's) - which are mainly on the N reg - there is a problem coming on 8th April 2014.
As of that date, EASA will require all pilots of FRA's based in an EASA country to have an equivalent EASA licence.
Members might know that there is currently active engagement between EASA and the FAA on the BASA FCL - the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement on Flight Crew Licensing. If this is successful then there is a possible way that FAA licences might be changed into EASA licences. This might be true for the PPL and the IR. A skill test might be necessary, but possibly no additional training.
There is a problem however with the PA46. Under FAA rules no type rating is required. There is a need for an instructor sign off for complex aircraft, high performance aircraft and high altitude aircraft. But this does not equal a type rating. Under EASA rules it is proposed that a type rating will be required.
The problem is worse for PA46 owners rather than, say, TBM owners. For a reason that is not quite clear, the TBM is a 'class' rating and the PA46 is a 'type' rating. This might seem a small problem but it might be bigger than we think.
Under JAR rules (which are being broadly adopted by EASA) a foreign class rating can be converted to an EASA class rating with 100 hours in the class and a skill test. But for a type rating, 500 hours on type are required to convert a foreign type rating to an EASA type rating.
Many PA46 pilots might have 100 hours on type, but not too many will have 500 hours on type. So this could force a PA46 pilot who has been safely flying for several years to find an Approved Training Organisation for PA46 aircraft (not easy), take a week out of their life, and spend Euro 10,000 to get a type rating.
I am now chairman of the PPLIR Europe and I have been discussing this with Julian Scarfe who represents us at EASA on a number of Rule Making Tasks. he and I are agreed that this was probably not what was intended by the rules. it has happened this way through ignorance, not a deliberate decision.
Do we need to raise this issue with the EASA OEB and see if anything can be done. As chairman of PPLIR Europe, we have several members who also fly PA46 aircraft and perhaps there is some room here for discussions and a joint venture.
Regards
Paul Sherry
Jetprop N921GG Liverpool UK
As of that date, EASA will require all pilots of FRA's based in an EASA country to have an equivalent EASA licence.
Members might know that there is currently active engagement between EASA and the FAA on the BASA FCL - the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement on Flight Crew Licensing. If this is successful then there is a possible way that FAA licences might be changed into EASA licences. This might be true for the PPL and the IR. A skill test might be necessary, but possibly no additional training.
There is a problem however with the PA46. Under FAA rules no type rating is required. There is a need for an instructor sign off for complex aircraft, high performance aircraft and high altitude aircraft. But this does not equal a type rating. Under EASA rules it is proposed that a type rating will be required.
The problem is worse for PA46 owners rather than, say, TBM owners. For a reason that is not quite clear, the TBM is a 'class' rating and the PA46 is a 'type' rating. This might seem a small problem but it might be bigger than we think.
Under JAR rules (which are being broadly adopted by EASA) a foreign class rating can be converted to an EASA class rating with 100 hours in the class and a skill test. But for a type rating, 500 hours on type are required to convert a foreign type rating to an EASA type rating.
Many PA46 pilots might have 100 hours on type, but not too many will have 500 hours on type. So this could force a PA46 pilot who has been safely flying for several years to find an Approved Training Organisation for PA46 aircraft (not easy), take a week out of their life, and spend Euro 10,000 to get a type rating.
I am now chairman of the PPLIR Europe and I have been discussing this with Julian Scarfe who represents us at EASA on a number of Rule Making Tasks. he and I are agreed that this was probably not what was intended by the rules. it has happened this way through ignorance, not a deliberate decision.
Do we need to raise this issue with the EASA OEB and see if anything can be done. As chairman of PPLIR Europe, we have several members who also fly PA46 aircraft and perhaps there is some room here for discussions and a joint venture.
Regards
Paul Sherry
Jetprop N921GG Liverpool UK