SET class rating has evolved into a type rating with 24 month validity
Yep, that’s it. It’s referred to as a class rating for reasons of legality (not complex, not multi pilot), however as every SET is a class of its own (no pun) it’s really a type rating.
The EASA system for these SETs is really poor. On a Cessna SET one can fly all of them even though they have different engines and are managed totally different.
And all of them require training in an ATO with a dedicated training program for that rating. There are many odd types and it would be a struggle to find an approved course for most of them. You would most likely have to find an ATO that is willing to implement the course and then train you.
The most sensible approach to this would be to simplify it and have these courses in a DTO and have a standard training program.
If you have flown a piston Bonanza and a PT-6 Cessna you should be allowed to just do a difference training for the Bonanza PT-6.
I don’t get why it has to be so complicated.
I own and fly a 600hp turbine helicopter…. on a LAPL(H) !
I think one reason(for making it complicated) is that most people involved in rulemaking are detached from flight operations and have little or no actual experience from GA.
We see it in my country all the time…
The Gazelle? Great machine, one of the first helicopter I ever hung out of.
Yes the gazelle, it’s a fabulous helicopter and I smile every flight. I’m such a massive fan of turbines, I find it shame they they are both hard to access and so expensive. For example an Alouette helicopter could be bought for as little as 80k… but aeroplanes seem to be 500k+
carlmeek wrote:
For example an Alouette helicopter could be bought for as little as 80k
Say no more, I have one for sale 
The entry-level turbine fixed wing space is very interesting. I would like to own something like the aircraft in OP, if even for a year or two. The Soloy A36, 206 or Silver Eagle would be achievable with a bit of horse-trading. I remember reading about the aircraft in the OP when the ex RAF owner bought it. There was a piece in Pilot Magazine in the 90’s about him when they ferried it over.
Peter wrote:
You need HPA,
No, you don’t. BE36TC-SET is not an HPA class rating.
EASA doesn’t regard a non pressurized type a HPA.
But ultimately, all these turbine conversion type planes suffer when they’re not pressurized. And because they normally are stuck with the same fuel capacity of the “donor” aircraft – in combination with being forced to fly lower than what would be ideal for a turbine – they tend to have terrible range.
Yes, but the one on planecheck does not seem bad. With the tip tanks and additional fuselage tank, this one has at least 135 gallons. Divide this by 25 GPH for the Allison turbine and you get more than 5 hours. Of course, it lacks pressurization, but maybe it’s not all that much of a problem in practice. Just go in FL100 (particularly when you have a headwind!), accept the slightly lower TAS and be done with it. And when there is weather, or a nice tailwind, ok, go to FL200 and use some oxygen. A big bottle, O2D2 and boom cannulas will take care of it nicely.
It still offers a lot over the piston version:
If I were ever to upgrade from the SR22, that one would be tempting to me. I am just not attracted by the 210 airframe, and hence not by the Silver Eagle. And not by the Jetprop either. The latter are also a different price league.
I would rather be concerned about maintenance services in Europe for this exotic conversion as well as support.
