PA46 - EASA Type Rating

The logic is this:

In Europe, ALL piston twins require differences training while singles do not. In order to avoid getting pilots into trouble stepping from their Tomahawk trainer into a PA46, EA400 or similar “high performance” design they introduced the Type Rating (once upon a time) and currently require at least a HPA course, or ATPL theory, in order to introduce high altitude aerodynamics, oxygen and pressurized cabin as well as speed management issues.

If you want to fly an Aerostar in Europe you will need specific training on the type, and the same goes if you want to fly an Apache or a Tecnam P2006T.

maintenance is quite the same,

Maintenance is same only if you go to a company which refuses to do it correctly (as per Part 91) and which always does the full MM. The difference is a factor of two in the maintenance cost, because under Part 91 you strip out stuff that obviously patently doesn’t need to be done according to a timetable.

The reality is that most EASA CAMOs – those that do the full MM and charge you for it – don’t actually do it all. You just get all the boxes ticked and pay for it I have been around that block with every company that has ever touched my plane. For example a fixed price Annual for a TB20 is say 2.5k and that is the whole MM but the actual work done will never actually be the whole MM. To actually do the whole MM – on a Socata TB – would be an Annual costing about 5-8k.

no Trust and

Not having a trust is certainly a positive thing. That was going to be the attraction of M-reg and the new Channel Islands regs, but they have gradually backtracked on all the sub-5700kg aircraft. I had a meeting with the aviation Director at the IOM last week and they now accept sub-5700kg only if either (a) there is some other benefit to the IOM economy or (b) you live there. Also M-reg operate the full MM schedule (effectively EASA Part M) so the Part 91 option is gone. I think they had to do it because the UK CAA (the DfT actually) have them over a barrel because they are using the UK’s ICAO seat to issue their paperwork. The Channel Islands (who also use UK’s ICAO seat) will have to be doing a similar deal, and they have backtracked massively over older postings on pilot forums from people close to the action.

I could use the investment businesswise.

There is no “investment” issue involved in going to N-reg. The trustee buys the aircraft for $1.

Kirster,

There is no logic. JAR/EASA have effectively abolished class ratings for single engine turbine aircraft by introducing “type specific class ratings”, and have done the same for high-end piston singles with the “high performance non-complex” categorisation.

The requirement for moving between twins is simple differences training, which requires no test, and is tailored to the individual. It also does not require annual revalidation with an examiner for each type. Let’s hope they do not cotton on to this and start classifying some piston twins as “high performance non-complex” aircraft as well…

A very late “congratulations” to Marc.

This thread has become slightly interesting for me as there has been talks (and sights and smells) of a Piper Matrix (PA-46R-350T) around me recently. A Piper Matrix is a Malibu/Mirage without the pressurisation, so it is a little simpler to operate, and has around 150 lbs more payload.

Although th Matrix is simpler, and very likely would not be operated at high altitudes nearly as often as the Malibu/Mirage, according to the EASA type rating list, it still requires a PA46 type rating. I am just curious to know if anyone could confirm that this is actually the case.

Concerning the Matrix I suggest to think twice about it. The weight difference you mention seems to be a myth. According to the Piper website the Matrix is 21kg lighter then the Mirage both having the same MTOW. Most of this is probably due to the weather radar and deicing not beeing standard equipment (but you will need that so the weight will go up).

There was a long discussion on another forum and obviously Piper did not redesign the airframe for the Matrix which would have allowed to make it lighter but you get the same cabin without the valves for the pressurization. Even the turbo charge bleed air seems to be simply dumped overboard and not used to increase high altitude powerplant performance.

Without the pressurization you loose half of the altitude band (using oxygen is no permanent solution for FL200). The PA46 was designed for high alitutude flying and you need the altitude to get good TAS and range. This is what the whole plane was designed for.

I fly the Mirage and I can not image to fly without the pressurization.

Thanks Sebastian for the interesting input. I appreciate your points, however, the market seems more optimistic about the airplane. Apparently there is conflicting information about the redesign. Some sources (not Piper?) claims the Matrix has more cabin width internally due to airframe changes. Regarding weight, it is in the end the empty weight and the equipment of the actual aircraft that matters, but the Matrix may very well have been oversold at some point.

I would still like to have confirmation from a Matrix pilot about the need for a type rating.

I fear nobody knows for sure about the PA46 type rating. Things are changing so fast. Older magazine articles indicated no rating would be needed for the Matrix. In the March 2011 list the Matrix was not mentioned at all.

Then in the March 2014 list the single PA46 rating was introduced and the Matrix is obiously the same as the other piston PA46.

Then in a list from May 2014 the PA46 piston planes are still the same. But the table shows a SEP endorsement and a differences training to transition to the turbine planes which is a contradition in itself.

EASA probably thinks the piston planes are all the same from a licensing point of view. From a practical point of view this is reasonable as the difficult point is managing the piston engine.

As of June 4th, the piston PA46 no longer requires a type rating. See the EASA table.