Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Mountain ratings, Altiports, Altisurfaces, and the Ratings

Seems like that want to avoid people taking the training in a C172 and then crash a PA46 there.

This will completely demolish the reasonably lucrative business of rebuilding PA46s that people have wrecked at Courchevel.

LFMD, France

I just add a look at the new text.
It says same class or same type, C172 and PA46 are the same class (SEP).

LFPT Pontoise, LFPB

The aerovfr article says:

Cette autorisation est limitée à l’avion de la classe ou du type présentant des performances
similaires à l’avion sur lequel a été effectuée et sanctionné la formation ou le complément
de formation.

That‘s what I was referring to.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Thank you for posting. It is the usual mess, the actual idea was good but the text is unclear and causes issues:

The definition of what a similar aircraft might be is completely unclear. For a 747 captain a C172 and the PA46 piston are the same. Both tiny SEP things while for others they are not. I think it would be better to have hard criteria like for example Vref ranges.

For many types of aircraft no qualified instructors will be available making it impossible to obtain the required training. As we did discuss the PA46 there seems to exist no P46T qualified instructors.

They do not write how all the old site qualifications are supposed to be carried over. The old site authorizations do not even mention the aircraft type used for training. In the past everybody did the training in C172 or similar but then many have been flying all kinds of planes for years. What happens in those case?

Everything seems to relate to the site qualification only. The actual mountain rating seems to remain unchanged and valid for all types of aircraft.
34 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top