Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885304
Genghis the Engineer wrote:I just read those, I see the phrase "the ATO" multiple times, and "The instructor" never. Anywhere else?

Were you reading the latest version? This only came about relatively recently (18 months or so?).

This is from pp. 789-90 of the EASA Easy Access FCL document:

FCL.740 (b)(2)(ii) wrote:ii) at a DTO, at an ATO or with an instructor, if the rating expired no more than three years before and the rating concerned a non-high-performance single-engine piston class rating or a TMG class rating.

AMC1 FCL.740 (b) wrote:RENEWAL OF CLASS AND TYPE RATINGS: REFRESHER TRAINING AT AN ATO, A DTO OR WITH AN INSTRUCTOR
...
(d) After successful completion of the training, the ATO, the DTO or the instructor, as applicable, should issue the applicant with a training completion certificate or another document specified by the competent authority, describing the evaluation of the factors listed in (a), the training received, and a statement that the training has been successfully completed.
Last edited by GrahamB on Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AirGus liked this
#1885305
Lefty wrote:Of course you can do it on your own aircraft.
At Waltham, I do several reveals per month on private owner aircraft, albeit my time is invoiced through the club (an ATO).



Is that like..... Tadaaaaaaaa :clown:
kanga liked this
#1885347
Please correct me if I'm wrong here ...

You can do the "hour with instructor" in your own aircraft provided it is Part-21.

If it is not a Part-21 aircraft then it needs to be on the books of an ATO/DTO.
From: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy_Access_Rules_for_Part-FCL-Aug20.pdf
AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Recency and revalidation requirements

All hours flown on aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation or that are specified in Annex I to the Basic Regulation should count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of points FCL.140.A, FCL.140.S, and FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) under the following conditions:
(a) the aircraft matchesthe definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category, class, and type ratings; and
(b) the aircraft that is used for training flights with an instructor is an Annex-I aircraft of type (a), (b), (c), or (d) that is subject to an authorisation specified in points ORA.ATO.135 or DTO.GEN.240.


From the CAA: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Pilot-licences/EASA-requirements/EASA-pilot-licence-recency-and-revalidation-requirements/
There is also a requirement for a refresher training flight with an instructor and this cannot be conducted in a microlight aircraft of any configuration. In addition, the aircraft used must be subject to an authorisation by the ATO or DTO (ORA.ATO.135 or DTO.GEN.240).


I'd love it if someone could prove me wrong :D

OC619
#1885348
Well all my "instructor hours" have been on my own LAA aircraft.

Presumably this means I have been flying illegally since 2011?

Rob P
#1885351
OpenCirrus619 wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong here ...

You can do the "hour with instructor" in your own aircraft provided it is Part-21.

If it is not a Part-21 aircraft then it needs to be on the books of an ATO/DTO.
From: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy_Access_Rules_for_Part-FCL-Aug20.pdf
AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Recency and revalidation requirements

All hours flown on aeroplanes or sailplanes that are subject to a decision as per Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation or that are specified in Annex I to the Basic Regulation should count in full towards fulfilling the hourly requirements of points FCL.140.A, FCL.140.S, and FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) under the following conditions:
(a) the aircraft matchesthe definition and criteria of the respective Part-FCL aircraft category, class, and type ratings; and
(b) the aircraft that is used for training flights with an instructor is an Annex-I aircraft of type (a), (b), (c), or (d) that is subject to an authorisation specified in points ORA.ATO.135 or DTO.GEN.240.


From the CAA: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Pilot-licences/EASA-requirements/EASA-pilot-licence-recency-and-revalidation-requirements/
There is also a requirement for a refresher training flight with an instructor and this cannot be conducted in a microlight aircraft of any configuration. In addition, the aircraft used must be subject to an authorisation by the ATO or DTO (ORA.ATO.135 or DTO.GEN.240).


I'd love it if someone could prove me wrong :D

OC619


No you are not wrong it’s FCL035 but trust me no one cares about FCL035, neither insurance, nor national regulators, nor ATOs who are supposed to do the aircraft evaluation…it’s the problem when the law becomes stupid and everybody just ignore it (I am not aware of an NAA who has clarified this, they just ignore it and kick it down the road), putting that bit aside, anyone who thinks an instructor should not fly with owner in his aircraft need to tell us why and come up with better safety case?

So far sending 1h in Zlin to CZCAA, 1h in Jodel to DGAC, 1h in Bulldog to UKCAA… do not seem to bother anyone :thumleft:
Insurance seems to like dual flights with owners in their aircraft :D

In any case, just carry as before nothing new under the sun
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885430
@Ibra it appears (some of) the FI/CRI training ATOs and seminar providers care about this enough to include it. It will be harder to ignore it as numbers of those trained or re-educated grow and slowly permeate the aviation world.
#1885447
That could be true but not everybody was in that seminar? and I am not sure what was “new to be discussed”? if there is an issue with dual training with owners aircraft outside ATO/DTO it’s up to CAA to accept/reject srg1119e (FCL035 was around for years now, hardly something new)
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885466
@Ibra not their job to do that as they do not have the evidence. The caa control the content of FI seminars. The CAA could have been involved in exempting or altering this nonsense. Solve it permanently at source and publish the names of the committee that brought this anti GA regulation in.
Ibra liked this