Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Is it just UK EASA CPL holders that are just clueless

Bathman wrote:

They are clueless.

Yes we are.

Bathman wrote:

Not one and even heard of straight oil. No idea what D or W ment on the bottle. Not one had a clue which oil types you could put in an O-360 and when or why.

Oil? You mean for French fries?

Bathman wrote:

What does the ATPL TK teach them?

How to complaint on on-line forums.

Last Edited by Dimme at 01 Aug 23:02

@Jujupilote wrote:

CPL doesn’t teach any engine knowledge anyway ?

I have a book that begs to differ.

There is an oxymoron in this thread. The same people complaining about ATPL theory teaching too much useless stuff are now claiming ATPL theory is not teaching pilots enough. I give up…

Last Edited by Dimme at 01 Aug 23:10

Mandatory training and knowledge are not the same thing. Despite the motivation of accredited providers, learning and knowledge have yet to licensed

Last Edited by Silvaire at 02 Aug 01:06

I don’t believe the suggestion is that CPLs should also be mechanics.

The issue for the OP appears to be that in, looking to hire CPLs, they don’t demonstrate sufficient knowledge of reciprocating engines in order to meet the standards he requires in the operation and care thereof.

The issue for me as a PPL student was an instructor talking to me about reciprocating engines as though from a position of authority even though I clearly knew far more about the subject than they did.


Don’t give anyone the idea of adding a new TK exam, license or endorsement to add oil in the engine

Sorry Dimme, I shouldn’t speak about what I don’t know. It was written as a question btw

Last Edited by Jujupilote at 02 Aug 19:10

I hold a CPL (FAA) and frankly it’s not my job to be a mechanic. The specs for the various fluids are in the POH and I wouldn’t expect anyone to know them by heart. I appreciate this to be a different situation for an owner.

As for not learning to fly from A to B. Certainly not the case in the FAA system. There’s plenty about that in the PPL and the entire oral portion of the CPL checkride is about how to plan and execute a commercial x-country flight.

The ability to pilot an aircraft from A to B is a pretty common skill set.

The ability to be a good aircraft operator is totally different and a much rarer skill set. By being a good operator you accept the consequence of your actions. Many people have no downside if they crack a cylinder, pop a tire, hit a wing tip, stone chip a prop etc etc. They can simply walk away, so they have no skin in the game. Straight oil, multigrade oil, H2AD W100 plus…. It might as well be marvel mystery oil you’re talking about. If a person has no accountability for the downside they won’t care.

Buying, Selling, Flying
EIBR, Ireland

172driver wrote:

hold a CPL (FAA) and frankly it’s not my job to be a mechanic.

Fully agree! I would even argue that for CPL-holder such knowledge is much less important than for PPL-holders.

A PPL flies privately and if they own their own plane they need to take care about maintenance (organizing it or doing it by themself) and keep the aircraft flying.
A CPL works in a professional flight operation where other people (pros to these jobs) take care about keeping the aircrafts in the air.

Therefore if we take the CPL for what it is (the training to be a professional pilot) and not for what it is sometimes “abused for” (a training for those private pilots who want to learn more), it would even be right to skip these topics in the CPL at all …


I’ve had 2 (out of 8+) US biennials/checkrides with instructors that would fall into this category. One, an Allegiant pilot, had never heard of several GA manufacturers (harmless). The other was straight out of USAF transports and stalling a C172 said “don’t touch any controls before looking at the checklist” (worrying).

I guess being ex-military means not spending 1,500 hours flying GA before getting an ATP.

EGHP-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Silvaire wrote:

@MedEwok, manufacturer or dealer “mandated” service is illegal in the US, since the applicable consumer rights law passed in 1970. My 2017 car with 50,000 miles to date has never been back to the the dealer and will likely never do so. However, one of the reasons I stopped buying new European cars and motorcycles (of which I have eight currently, the newest of which is a 2001 model with 2300 miles registered, kept in reserve) is that they are now intentionally designed to prevent anybody but the dealer from working on them regardless of the intent of that law, a manipulative strategy that consumer rights law failed to predict and which it has yet to address. This is likely because vehicles from the relevant manufacturers are only a small fraction of the US market, the consumer having acted in his own interest and bought from others to avoid being manipulated.

I guess formally it is a manufacturer recommendation, no “mandate”, so bad choice of words on my part.

Still, not following these recommendations will result in a reduced resale value on the German used-car market.

Last Edited by MedEwok at 04 Aug 07:22
Novice pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top