Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Keep your EASA MEP / EASA IR up to date!

It would count as a valid IR yes.And a valid EASA iR also. For pilots who go the route of getting their SEP IR first and then the MEP IR, examiners are most keen to point out that the MEP IR part is not really an IR test but more a difference test. That is of course if you already hold an MEP qualification.

France

What happens if
SE IR is valid and
ME IR is lapsed more than 7 years?

ATPL / IFR Instructor
Europe

Snoopy wrote:

ME IR is lapsed more than 7 years?

If you haven’t flown multiengine for so long then I guess you need to do your ME rating from the beginning.

Poland

I believe it’s the same. Still more MEP centred than IR centred, but an ATO might suggest you have a little time in a sim.The MEP IR revalidation is not very different from an SEP revalidation, except that it contains things like asymmetric flight.

France

@Qalupalik will know for sure but AIUI any ICAO IR removes the “re-do exams after 7 years” silly business, and this is now formalised under EASA FCL.

What an ATO thinks you need to do in terms of training is another matter…

Also check “Threads possibly related to this one” below

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

What an ATO thinks you need to do in terms of training is another matter…

Exactly.
After 14 years after my MEP(L) became invalid – in spite of flying big aircrafts all that time – I needed to redo the whole MEP program. 6 hours (it was decided by an ATO). And moreover – I found it very helpful!

Poland

Ok, redoing ME rating (MEP) is copied, and what about the ME IR?

ATPL / IFR Instructor
Europe

The MEP and ME IR will need a flight test as mentioned before. If you still have the SE IR it will be more of an MEP test than an IR. The IR part should be quite relaxed unless of course the test takes place on a really crappy day. It should be able to be done at the same time IIRC.

France

Remember that it’s in the interest of the ATO to require as much training as possible. It should be “Training As Required” and no more. I recently asked an ATO as to what I would need to fly my MEP with an IR considering that I’m very current on the MEP and also the IR but in a different category. The answer was that I would need the full IR syllabus. I’m not using that ATO

LFMD - Cannes Mandelieu, EGLL - London Heathrow, France

it’s in the interest of the ATO to require as much training as possible

Outside the larger integrated schools there are relatively few ATOs which can carry out MEP/IR training, these days. The large integrated schools do not carry out bespoke training. While suggesting a full IR syllabus seems over the top, perhaps there was something lost in translation and they meant cover all the exercises required for the test?

In any event preparing students the ATO doesn’t know for ad hoc revalidation, or conversion of an IR from SEP to MEP, is difficult to judge. The ATO in effect is helping out doing something outside it’s norm, and using relatively scarce resources, both the ageing MEP and the ageing MEP IR instructor, both becoming endangered species, to carry out some be spoke training.

It is not that unusual in this scenario that the bespoke training is under estimated and a first series, and even a second series fail ensues. Resulting in a regulator administered third series attempt.

@Raven congratulations on revalidating your MEP and your ATO probably was realistic and sensible. When I revalidated a lapsed MEP some years ago, I very much enjoyed covering the course again in an early Piper Apache. (the spell checker wrote mush for much, and indeed asymmetric in the lovely Apache was quite mushy :)j

Oxford (EGTK)
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top