Hello, is it possible to get an EASA IR and CPL in one’s own airplane or do you absolutely have to use planes from the ATO? I found it easier for the FAA CPL/IR since you’re able to train on a very familiar airplane, with and without instructor.
Thank you!
I looked at this approx 2012. The local school would only do training on their own aircraft, which is pretty normal. In theory your plane could be added to the ATO’s books, but in practice most are unwilling to do this.
Some of the requirements should be ok on your own plane (with ATO signoff), e.g. 300nm cross-country, 5 hours ‘complex’ (RG+VP).
If you’re in a position to shop around between schools you may be able to negotiate with them.
It is possible. I did it. The plane needs to be part of the school fleet. You sign a sharing agreement with the school. Plane needs to be in CAMO if it’s used for training.
It is totally possible, within and without ATO. There are various threads here where this has been discussed. I did my IR on my plane, but for different reasons decided not to make the final 10 hours on my plane. (one reason among others was that the ATO required a significant fee to be paid to include my plane in the ATO).
Very possible; the trick is to find an FTO which is willing to add the plane to their fleet. It is easy but still many/most won’t do it. When I was doing my JAA IR in 2011 the local one (gone bust since) refused, but a small local outfit (also gone bust since) did it. Cost me quite a few k all the same, despite flying FAA IR since 2006 all over the place…
The CPL/IR is the same as the IR alone in this respect. The EASA CPL is just some VFR flying with an FI in the RHS 
A side note is that if you use the plane to fly to the FTO (or whatever) to avoid staying in a hotel, you may be too tired to do IR training afterwards! This is why almost everybody who lives some distance from the FTO (which is nearly everybody) stays in a hotel for the IR. This is a major reason for the vastly smaller IR takeup in Europe versus the US.
Interesting you can do it outside an FTO/ATO. You cannot even do a Euro PPL that way… How do you do that?
Yes it is possible, but you might have to ask around a bit. Remember, since it is your plane, the physical location of the flight school matters very little as long as your flight instructor is willing to travel to your airport.
loco wrote:
Plane needs to be in CAMO if it’s used for training.
Not sure if UK rules are different, however in EASA there is no requirement for CAMO if it is only used by owner(s) of the aircraft.
FlawlessFlare wrote:
however in EASA there is no requirement for CAMO if it is only used by owner(s) of the aircraft.
It would be used by the school to provide training. M.A.201(h)
(h)
For aircraft other than complex motor-powered aircraft used for commercial specialised operations or for CAT operations other than those performed by air carriers licensed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, or by commercial ATOs and commercial DTOs referred to in Article 10a of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, the operator shall ensure that:
(1)
no flight takes place unless the conditions set out in point (a) are met;
(2)
the tasks associated with continuing airworthiness are performed by a CAMO approved in accordance with Annex Vc (Part-CAMO) or Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M), or a combined airworthiness organisation (‘CAO’) approved in accordance with Annex Vd (Part-CAO); when the operator is not a CAMO approved in accordance with Annex Vc (Part-CAMO) or Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M), or a CAO approved in accordance with Annex Vd (Part-CAO), it shall conclude a written contract in accordance with Appendix I to this Annex with a CAMO approved in accordance with Annex Vc (Part-CAMO) or Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M), or a CAO approved in accordance with Annex Vd (Part-CAO);
Historically, the UK too prohibited pilot maintenance on a customer-owned plane used for training, in the preceeding 6 months or something like that. So this is a similar thing.
Check out acredon.fr and tell them what you want !
loco wrote:
It would be used by the school to provide training. M.A.201(h)
An typical aircraft used for CPL/IR training would be maintained under part-ML and not part-M, however the requirement is essentially the same.
However. According to GM1 to ML.A.201(e), “Aircraft operated under Part-NCO by its owner together with an ATO or a DTO flight instructor for the purpose of training, when the contract between the owner and the training organisation and the procedures of the training organisation allow it” are not considered to be operated by a commercial ATO or DTO."
Furthermore “The continuing airworthiness of such aircraft remains under the responsibility of the owner, or of the CAMO or CAO contracted by the owner, if the owner has elected to contract a CAMO or CAO in accordance with ML.A.201(f).”
So CAO management of the continued airworthiness is not required in this case even if the ATO is commercial.
