This US AOPA article is an interesting summary of the requirements.
Of course in Europe it is gold plated and EU based operators will eventually need EASA pilot papers which will include the HPA for a turboprop or above.
Peter wrote:
Of course in Europe it is gold plated
So? I moved from a 150hp C172 to a 235hp C182 with turbo, retractable gear, variable pitch, cowl flaps, oxygen etc. with 1 hour of training and all required logbook sign offs. My insurance company did not require anything on top of that. In the US it would have been a lot more difficult requiring a high performance aircraft sign off and a lot of training / dual time for the insurance.
Often it is a lot easier to move up under EASA regs and the more lenient (less sophisticated?) approach of European aircraft insurers.
Peter wrote:
Of course in Europe it is gold plated and EU based operators …
No (Achim was quicker…). After your PPL just get yourself a class rating in a C340. That will be done in 6 (block) hours flying and a checkride. Thereafter you can fly twins, variable pitch, retractable, pressurised and whatever else there is.
And in my experience the HPA requirement for turbine aircraft is a good thing. The PPL syllabus does not include much about it and the typical class-/typerating courses are type specific with not much time to discuss the basics. In the States that may be different where you can pick your instructor and he flies with you on your plane for as long as it takes, but here people tend to want to complete their CR/TR courses in minimum time and at minimum cost. Therefore one sends them to the HPA first.
what_next wrote:
And in my experience the HPA requirement for turbine aircraft is a good thing.
I did the EASA HPA two years ago. It is just a self study course and then an FTO multiple choice test. I did not find it terribly interesting but I was familiar with all the technical principles before such as turbines. The bulk of it is the human resource stuff with time of useful conscience etc.
HPA is not only for turbines but also for some high performance pistons such as the PA46 and Extra 400.
I found the US endorsement system to be a big PITA. Everybody thinks he has to add some ridiculous requirements, be it the charter outfit or insurance company. After hundreds of hours and mostly short field, one big charter outlet in the US forbade me from landing on runways of less than 3000ft length and of course the first thing I did is land on a shorter runway (2000ft, how difficult!). What followed was the biggest bollocking I ever received as an adult.
I prefer the European system at any time — my insurance agent said “if the FI thinks you can fly it, we think so too. After all, a C182 isn’t that different from a C172”. On top of that, insurance rates are usually cheaper over here.
achimha wrote:
time of useful conscience etc.
(I know you meant consciousness.)
That’s a nice catch :-)
God plated? One of the easiest and cheapest things in my flying was the step up from a light trainer to a HPA. In Europe that’s really no big deal. When I bought the SR22, which is not even a HPA by definition but falls into that category in real life, my insurance wanted … nothing.
The day I picked it up I flew some patterns (with bosco, by the way), and the next day I flew it alone. I later did the official Cirrus Transition Training, but that is voluntary. It’s still a very good idea, because coming from conventional instruments it takes a little while to understand the Avionics well.
Yes I did a twin rating in the required 10 hours, Cirrus conversion with turbo in a couple of flights, glass and diesel in a 42 all with very little hassle so I dont think it is such a big deal (or wasnt in the past). Even for the Cirrus the requirments State side are far more onerous, even if these stem from the insurance market.
