A fairly quick flight back from Newquay to London. Climbing up to FL110 into one of the world’s busiest TMA’s and hitting over 200mph as we fly back with a flight time almost 1 hour quicker than the morning.
The sunset on this flight home was magical…
You can’t fly TBM or PC12 with SE/IR if it’s CB on it even you have the TR…
Please elaborate and clarify. The way it’s written now is incorrect, as one can absolutely fly a SET with PPL and SE IR obtained via the CB route. SET are class ratings (just a note for correct wording).
Yes you can fly SET IFR with SE/IR done in C172 as long as you have SEP & SET class rating
TBM is HPA, you can’t fly it on SE/IR with CB restriction
Ibra wrote:
TBM is HPA, you can’t fly it on SE/IR with CB restriction
You can’t fly a TBM on just a “traditional” IR either. Regardless of whether you took the traditional IR course or the CB IR course, you also need to take the HPA course.
If you have taken the traditional IR course, then you already have some of the theory that’s necessary for HPA, so the course is a bit shorter. That’s the only difference.
Having a “CB” note the license makes as much sense (or not) as it would to make a note in the license of whether a CPL holder had taken the full ATPL theory or or just the CPL theory. Actually it would make more sense to make a note of that as a CPL holder with ATPL theory does not need any additional theory to upgrade to the ATPL, while both traditional IR and CB IR holders need additional theory for the HPA.
Yes you can fly SET IFR with SE/IR done in C172 as long as you have SEP & SET class rating. TBM is HPA, you can’t fly it on SE/IR with CB restriction
Obviously one needs the class rating, for which one needs the HPA certificate, and IR if one wants to fly it IFR and not only VFR. Wether the IR was attained using an IR or CB IR course is irrelevant.
So saying one cannot fly SET (when having the class rating) in IFR when one did CB IR is wrong.
Yes exactly.
The old JAA/EASA IR (7 exams) route, which almost nobody is doing now, has a credit towards the HPA course, whereas the CBIR route has less (or zero?) credit towards the HPA course.
And a pass in any ICAO ATPL theory (including the FAA ATP single exam) avoids the need for HPA altogether. That may be an interesting option for FAA CPL/IR holders because they can go straight for the ATP exam (has to be in the US, nowadays, unfortunately).
This differs from the US system where there is no HPA etc and you can fly a TBM on a PPL with the high perf signoff… plus any, ahem, insurance requirements.
Having a “CB” note the license makes as much sense (or not) as it would to make a note in the license of whether a CPL holder had taken the full ATPL theory or or just the CPL theory. Actually it would make more sense to make a note of that as a CPL holder with ATPL theory does not need any additional theory to upgrade to the ATPL, while both traditional IR and CB IR holders need additional theory for the HPA.
That makes way more sense a better way would have been to track “ATPL/HP TK info” somewhere else than in the name or restriction of the rating
How does this appear on FI certificate without CPL theory? do they get the “restriction to LAPL” written on the licence?
Ibra wrote:
That makes way more sense a better way would have been to track “ATPL/HP TK info” somewhere else than in the name or restriction of the rating
I’m sure the respective CAA tracks this. And in any case the onus is on the person who wants a higher license/rating, be it ATPL or HPA, to show that (s)he meets all requirements.
How does this appear on FI certificate without CPL theory? do they get the “restriction to LAPL” written on the licence?
Very good question!
Ibra wrote:
How does this appear on FI certificate without CPL theory? do they get the “restriction to LAPL” written on the licence?
Yes it does. When I did the FI course a couple of years ago, two now friends did it with me and they don’t have a CPL. They now have that restriction in their license.
