Marc,
Which FAA type rating do you have that led them to that conclusion?
The reason this whole thing has been problematic is because there is no FAA TR for the PA46.
Patrick
As for maintenance, the manufacturer’s list is the same.
Yes, but it is applied very differently.
Correction on the FAA type rating!
There is no FAA type rating for the PA46 planes necessary nor possible, because of the fact that they are below 12.500 lbs.
Simple and clear.
Marc
I am curious to learn about the advantages of having a PA46 on the Belgian register versus US register. Would be surprised if there weren’t any 
I cannot think of a reason for voluntarily moving from N to a European register.
Begs the question – why does a P-46 have a type rating at all? I’ve never heard such a silly thing in my life. Complex piston airplanes need training, but not type ratings. EASA bullshit. It’s not rocket science.
Why does the MU-2 have mandatory training (similar to a type rating) in the US? There was a bad accident history and EASA chose to require a type rating for the PA46. I think one can live with that.
Achimcha,
You may be too gracious towards our regulators by assuming they do everything for a (good) reason! In this case, there seems to be a willingness to change the outcome at some point, which puts the original result in a somewhat different light.
Marc,
Regarding your training questions, Andrew Dixon at the Pilatus Center in Bournemouth is a great instructor, I learned a lot with him, and I’m revalidating my IR and TR with him in one go.
There is also a chap in Denmark with a great reputation but I don’t have his details.
The FAA requires a TR if any of these apply
Not sure if I missed anything out.
The reason JAA (and now EASA) wanted a TR for the PA46 is that it is pressurised, goes fast, goes high, that kind of stuff. However, a TBM which goes faster and goes higher, doesn’t need a TR but requires a Class Rating instead! Details here. How did that happen? I think Socata had a good “relationship” with the DGAC 
But the reality is that the TBM CR is AFAICS identical to a TR. But even a TBM doesn’t need a TR on N-reg. Anybody with a PPL and a HP signoff can fly one, and anybody with a PPL/IR can fly one practically anywhere. Well, anybody who can get insured.
And now, with an EU based “operator”, EASA FCL appears to dictate that the pilot of an N-reg PA46 or TBM needs a TR. I am not sure if that is actually written, or it is simply a interpretation of EASA FCL which, if read maximally tightly, means the pilot has to get absolutely every piece of paper he would need if the plane was on an EASA reg.
The interesting factor here is that EASA FCL accepts ICAO Type Ratings so that e.g. an FAA CPL/IR with a CJ TR (N-reg but operator EU based, etc) needs to “only” get an EASA CPL/IR. His FAA TR is accepted for EASA FCL directly. So the “every piece of paper” interpretation above is self evidently false.
Complex piston airplanes need training
Everything needs training. A Tiger Moth (not that I could recognise one from a Pitts) needs type specific training too. The problem is that the ICAO pilot licensing system just doesn’t have any way of addressing this. A PPL is a PPL.
In the big-hardware world it is taken care of by the TR course which is thorough enough to land an ex FTO sausage machine CPL/IR newbie in the RHS of a 737 and he/she will have a vague idea of what the knobs do. It is also very type specific (usually – the Cessna jets are one exception, according to one pilot I know) and that is really what is needed with modern GA planes like the SR22 but obviously nobody flying them wants to do that. And obviously that would lead to a TR for everything deemed to be “complex enough” right down to a TB20… so the whole private GA pilot rating system would get perverted. It would be like helicopters where there is a TR for every type (in Europe, anyway – not sure about the USA).
I am certain, having 1.5hrs in a TBM850, that it is a lot easier to fly that than to fly a TB20, on typical IFR mission profiles. I make no claims for myself but you need a lot more care flying a TB20 (or an SR22, etc) in the high altitude IFR system than a deiced turboprop which can go to FL300, climbs at 3000fpm, has radar, etc.
But these more advanced types need a more educated and more intelligent pilot who understands the systems. I know for a fact that a lot of G1000 drivers don’t know what half the knobs do, and as more and more planes with these systems percolate down the food chain, it is going to get worse. The rental business especially is going to get awfully interesting…
In the big-iron world, this issue is taken care of by the fact that somebody who thinks the O-200 on his rented C152 drives the prop through a gearbox is not going to get through the 737 TR. But in the PPL world this doesn’t happen. So the self appointed guardian of European pilot safety and perfection (JAA, EASA) feels they need to make it hard enough to stop “undesirables” from reaching such esteemed heights. That was why they made the IR hard to get and they were quite open about it.
There isn’t a solution, IMHO.
I suppose what might happen is what happened in the USA, where the examiner doing an FAA checkride is entitled to require the demonstration of competence on all installed equipment. This led to US schools with say G1000 fleets to train people on how to use the stuff. This is vigorously resisted in the JAA/EASA world, and even having the GPS database 1 cycle out of date (a popular FTO tactic, I am reliably informed) prevents the CAA examiner asking the candidate demonstrating GPS usage.
Just a bit of a rant
But still. An Aerostar goes as high and even faster, is pressurised and doesn’t need a type rating. The logic is seriously lacking.
