JAA: Requirements for ratings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, perhaps I did not convey my points clearly - I make a distinction between
1. The licencing standards; and
2. Fair treatment of all pilots
If the JAA decide to change the rules, they apply to everyone. If the JAA decide to do nothing, they should still apply to everyone. Any disparate treatment would be manifestly unfair IMHO.
To answer your question, I guess that places me on the side of equity which overrides any belief that a licence issued in good faith abroad has unilateral applicability (perfectly valid belief, particularly in view of ICAO, but in this case overriden).
I do not have any evidence as to the motives for the JAA legislation, therefore I refrain from speculating on them.
To requote myself, I only argue for the consistency of licencing, not the standard.
However, from what little I have seen, EASA is no saviour.
Heliport
I never made any comment as to whether they were valid hours for your logbook. I asked if CASA would issue a type rating on the basis of them in the absence of any pre-existing type rating.
To answer your question, yes I believe you should be able to log hours in the manner prescribed by your licencing authority when flying in their airspace and in an aircraft of same registration.
Mortennb, if you're strapped for cash save it for your JAA conversion. It will be of more use to you than 10 hours in a B206 if you know you will be returning to Europe. If by the time you return to Europe there is mutual recognition, then put it towards an FI course or take a holiday to Van Nuys, Norfolk or Grand Rapids at that point.
1. The licencing standards; and
2. Fair treatment of all pilots
If the JAA decide to change the rules, they apply to everyone. If the JAA decide to do nothing, they should still apply to everyone. Any disparate treatment would be manifestly unfair IMHO.
To answer your question, I guess that places me on the side of equity which overrides any belief that a licence issued in good faith abroad has unilateral applicability (perfectly valid belief, particularly in view of ICAO, but in this case overriden).
I do not have any evidence as to the motives for the JAA legislation, therefore I refrain from speculating on them.
To requote myself, I only argue for the consistency of licencing, not the standard.
However, from what little I have seen, EASA is no saviour.
Heliport
I never made any comment as to whether they were valid hours for your logbook. I asked if CASA would issue a type rating on the basis of them in the absence of any pre-existing type rating.
To answer your question, yes I believe you should be able to log hours in the manner prescribed by your licencing authority when flying in their airspace and in an aircraft of same registration.
Mortennb, if you're strapped for cash save it for your JAA conversion. It will be of more use to you than 10 hours in a B206 if you know you will be returning to Europe. If by the time you return to Europe there is mutual recognition, then put it towards an FI course or take a holiday to Van Nuys, Norfolk or Grand Rapids at that point.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport,
Fully agree with your ending statement above!!
Good thread, and have seen both sides of the discussions. But I hope EASA does change this licencing situation, and soon. There are a shortage of pilots in the US, especially down in the Gulf. I have heard that certain companies are now thinking of helping with visa's due to the demand for pilots, which may help a few people get on...
Darren
Fully agree with your ending statement above!!
Good thread, and have seen both sides of the discussions. But I hope EASA does change this licencing situation, and soon. There are a shortage of pilots in the US, especially down in the Gulf. I have heard that certain companies are now thinking of helping with visa's due to the demand for pilots, which may help a few people get on...Darren
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Allovertheplace
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mongoose237
Mortennb, if you're strapped for cash save it for your JAA conversion. It will be of more use to you than 10 hours in a B206 if you know you will be returning to Europe. If by the time you return to Europe there is mutual recognition, then put it towards an FI course or take a holiday to Van Nuys, Norfolk or Grand Rapids at that point.
I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam.
As for the visa in the US. I have heard the same thing. But i dont think it will happend right away. But its allowed to hope. I will cross my fingers.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh.... the old JAA v's ICAO again.
Mortennb, forget the JAA system for a type rating. They will bleed you dry with over inflated requirements and your pockets will be left empty.
I am not familiar with the FAA system but another route may be to go to Aus, apply for a "Special licence" (very easy) and this allows you to receive training while in Australia. The Aus regs state for your first turbine endorsement (type rating) you must do 5 hours of DUAL instruction with an instructor or approved person. Any other turbine endorsement after that will only require 3 hours as long as the aircraft is below 2750kg. Let me state that these requirements are for singles. Multi engine machines are a little different.
For what its worth.....
Mortennb, forget the JAA system for a type rating. They will bleed you dry with over inflated requirements and your pockets will be left empty.
I am not familiar with the FAA system but another route may be to go to Aus, apply for a "Special licence" (very easy) and this allows you to receive training while in Australia. The Aus regs state for your first turbine endorsement (type rating) you must do 5 hours of DUAL instruction with an instructor or approved person. Any other turbine endorsement after that will only require 3 hours as long as the aircraft is below 2750kg. Let me state that these requirements are for singles. Multi engine machines are a little different.
For what its worth.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Allovertheplace
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Oogle
Ahhhh.... the old JAA v's ICAO again.
Mortennb, forget the JAA system for a type rating. They will bleed you dry with over inflated requirements and your pockets will be left empty.
I am not familiar with the FAA system but another route may be to go to Aus, apply for a "Special licence" (very easy) and this allows you to receive training while in Australia. The Aus regs state for your first turbine endorsement (type rating) you must do 5 hours of DUAL instruction with an instructor or approved person. Any other turbine endorsement after that will only require 3 hours as long as the aircraft is below 2750kg. Let me state that these requirements are for singles. Multi engine machines are a little different.
For what its worth.....
Mortennb, forget the JAA system for a type rating. They will bleed you dry with over inflated requirements and your pockets will be left empty.
I am not familiar with the FAA system but another route may be to go to Aus, apply for a "Special licence" (very easy) and this allows you to receive training while in Australia. The Aus regs state for your first turbine endorsement (type rating) you must do 5 hours of DUAL instruction with an instructor or approved person. Any other turbine endorsement after that will only require 3 hours as long as the aircraft is below 2750kg. Let me state that these requirements are for singles. Multi engine machines are a little different.
For what its worth.....
Do you have any links to where i can read more about that.. ?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mortennb
This Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) link will give you all the info you require:
http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/overbr.htm
It also states the requirements to transfer overseas licences.
Good luck
This Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) link will give you all the info you require:
http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/overbr.htm
It also states the requirements to transfer overseas licences.
Good luck
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today is not a good day for me and getting confused, evidently...
CASA requires 5 dual hours for first turbine
JAA requires 5 dual hours for first turbine
CASA requires 3 hours dual for subsequent turbine
JAA requires 3 hours dual for subsequent turbine
CASA require ground training on type
JAA require ground training on type
However JAA does require a short handling test at the end of the 5 / 3 hours
Surely any difference is swallowed up in airfares.
Plus I have converted type ratings to JAA - the reduction was from 5 hours plus test, to 3 hours including test.
Unless you suggest working in Australia as an alternative to JAA in which case I've totally got the wrong end of the stick
CASA requires 5 dual hours for first turbine
JAA requires 5 dual hours for first turbine
CASA requires 3 hours dual for subsequent turbine
JAA requires 3 hours dual for subsequent turbine
CASA require ground training on type
JAA require ground training on type
However JAA does require a short handling test at the end of the 5 / 3 hours
Surely any difference is swallowed up in airfares.
Plus I have converted type ratings to JAA - the reduction was from 5 hours plus test, to 3 hours including test.
Unless you suggest working in Australia as an alternative to JAA in which case I've totally got the wrong end of the stick
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mongoose
The CASA information may be worth nothing but at least the hourly rate for a B206 in Aus would be alot less than in the UK.
As you mentioned, Australia does not need a "test" at the completion of the endorsement. What would you add as a test? 0.6 or 08 hours? It all adds up.
I suppose the big question is if the JAA recognise the type rating done elsewhere.
The CASA information may be worth nothing but at least the hourly rate for a B206 in Aus would be alot less than in the UK.
As you mentioned, Australia does not need a "test" at the completion of the endorsement. What would you add as a test? 0.6 or 08 hours? It all adds up.
I suppose the big question is if the JAA recognise the type rating done elsewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, between 0.6 and 0.8 is reasonable for completion of the handling portion depending on the examiner. Slightly more if you want the commercial check out for the company too.
The best advertised (ie non discounted) dual rate I've seen in the UK is £460 (AU$ 1083)
Elsewhere in Europe I have seen it as low as AU$ 781
What are you looking at these days in Australia?
The UK CAA has its moments, sometimes it is reasonable, other times it is not:
When I was a relatively fresh CPL I had 5 hours dual on the R44 obtained under the FAA rules so no type rating. This was back when you needed 5 hours including test for all single engine type ratings. I got 2 hours knocked off, which I thought was reasonable.
The same discount was later afforded to me for converting an ICAO type rating.
However, I have seen some ridiculous stubborness on other matters.
What would CASA require to convert an ICAO type rating?
I am not necessarily pro-JAA or any other licencing authority, I am just trying to add a little balance in amongst the universal scaremongering of JAA
The best advertised (ie non discounted) dual rate I've seen in the UK is £460 (AU$ 1083)
Elsewhere in Europe I have seen it as low as AU$ 781
What are you looking at these days in Australia?
The UK CAA has its moments, sometimes it is reasonable, other times it is not:
When I was a relatively fresh CPL I had 5 hours dual on the R44 obtained under the FAA rules so no type rating. This was back when you needed 5 hours including test for all single engine type ratings. I got 2 hours knocked off, which I thought was reasonable.
The same discount was later afforded to me for converting an ICAO type rating.
However, I have seen some ridiculous stubborness on other matters.
What would CASA require to convert an ICAO type rating?
I am not necessarily pro-JAA or any other licencing authority, I am just trying to add a little balance in amongst the universal scaremongering of JAA
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mongoose
All the overseas variance/acceptance information is in the link that I posted a couple of posts ago.
In Aus, there is a clearly defined difference between an endorsement and a rating. A rating requires a flight test at its completion (ie. instrument rating, instructor rating, night rating, etc). An endorsement does not. In Aus, CASA can do flight tests or an Authorised Testing Officer (ATO). ATO's have delegations to conduct certain types of flight tests. Eg. my ATO delegation only allows me to conduct instrument issues & renewals, night VFR tests and aircraft type endorsements. Other ATO's have the delgegation to conduct commercial flight tests, mustering endorsements, etc depending on what powers they have been given.
For the recognition of an overseas endorsement, CASA has to be satisfied that the aircraft type in question is already on the Australian register and that the applicant's level of training received overseas is equivalent to what CASA would require (ie. 5/3 hours dual instruction, etc).
Price of a B206??? I am not in Aus at present so I would be the last person to ask.
All the overseas variance/acceptance information is in the link that I posted a couple of posts ago.
In Aus, there is a clearly defined difference between an endorsement and a rating. A rating requires a flight test at its completion (ie. instrument rating, instructor rating, night rating, etc). An endorsement does not. In Aus, CASA can do flight tests or an Authorised Testing Officer (ATO). ATO's have delegations to conduct certain types of flight tests. Eg. my ATO delegation only allows me to conduct instrument issues & renewals, night VFR tests and aircraft type endorsements. Other ATO's have the delgegation to conduct commercial flight tests, mustering endorsements, etc depending on what powers they have been given.
For the recognition of an overseas endorsement, CASA has to be satisfied that the aircraft type in question is already on the Australian register and that the applicant's level of training received overseas is equivalent to what CASA would require (ie. 5/3 hours dual instruction, etc).
Price of a B206??? I am not in Aus at present so I would be the last person to ask.
"What would CASA require to convert an ICAO type rating?"
$130 Oz dollars.
Recently had a B427 endorsement from Czech put on my CASA licence. Some paperwork and forms, mainly a letter from the Czech CAA, and the cash of course...
$130 Oz dollars.
Recently had a B427 endorsement from Czech put on my CASA licence. Some paperwork and forms, mainly a letter from the Czech CAA, and the cash of course...
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure it's five hours plus exam; the same as if you didn't have a rating at all. I had a similar query with a South African Jet Ranger rating and was told by the CAA I would need something like 500 hours in that particular aircraft type to "convert" the licence.
However, I don't know anything about 15 hours for instruction - I would have thought if you have 20 hours already, you should be able to do the rating in minimum time and that if you had the rating, you could instruct in it - provided your instructor's rating is similarly valid.
Cheers
Whirls
However, I don't know anything about 15 hours for instruction - I would have thought if you have 20 hours already, you should be able to do the rating in minimum time and that if you had the rating, you could instruct in it - provided your instructor's rating is similarly valid.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirly is correct: if it is your first piston type rating it is 5 hours plus test, if you already have JAA piston type ratings it is 3 hours plus test.
The situation only changes when you have 500 hours on type, as Whirly correctly pointed out.
However, that is not to say the CAA won't consider a reduction in training on the recommendation of the Head of Training of the school that does your "conversion".
Some time ago there was a requirement of minimum hours on type to teach, but that is no longer the case.
Edit - Actually, you better check in JAR FCL2 that what I've said isn't because of a UK long-term exemption, in which case Holland may be different
The situation only changes when you have 500 hours on type, as Whirly correctly pointed out.
However, that is not to say the CAA won't consider a reduction in training on the recommendation of the Head of Training of the school that does your "conversion".
Some time ago there was a requirement of minimum hours on type to teach, but that is no longer the case.
Edit - Actually, you better check in JAR FCL2 that what I've said isn't because of a UK long-term exemption, in which case Holland may be different
Last edited by mongoose237; 14th Mar 2006 at 16:50.
Originally Posted by mongoose237
Some time ago there was a requirement of minimum hours on type to teach, but that is no longer the case.
H1.7 FLIGHT AND THEORETICAL REQUIREMENTS TO EXTEND PRIVILEGES OR REMOVE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR RESTRICTIONS
Addition of other single pilot, single engine helicopter type to FI(H) providing that the FI(H) has completed not less than 15 flight hours on that specific type in the preceding 12 months.
Page H.6, LASORS 2006.
HTH,
B73
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: inside
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........isn't this all about shortcuts and personal economy? My basic view on the FAA system goes with this story : Drunk student brought a dice to roll when in doubt for the CPL computerbased exam(basically given up prior due to intoxication)........passed with 72 %. I'm not making this up 
Savant genious or crappy testsystem? I'm no expert, but geeez, that just ain't right.
The US has a more straightforward approach, where faults get hammered on the practical exam. Europe want's you to be a thinking pilot prior to having bad experiences, so you have a fair chance.
So mortennb, with remarks like "I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam"...you should really ponder the question......would you like the mechanic, who just happened to do one (1) exam for his A & P from the Univerity of Laserprinter to fix the helicopter your flying ?
Savant genious or crappy testsystem? I'm no expert, but geeez, that just ain't right.
The US has a more straightforward approach, where faults get hammered on the practical exam. Europe want's you to be a thinking pilot prior to having bad experiences, so you have a fair chance.
So mortennb, with remarks like "I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam"...you should really ponder the question......would you like the mechanic, who just happened to do one (1) exam for his A & P from the Univerity of Laserprinter to fix the helicopter your flying ?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It definitely right you don't know much of the FAA system. The written exam is very easy for people who did study. There are a lot of people who still fail the first time.
The oral exam is very, very rigourous. This can take up to 4-5 hours (CPL and higher levels). If you don't have the required knowledge you will fail.
I come across JAA CPL's as well as FAA CPL's who make me wonder.
Personally I think the type-rating system is very good, at least you don't have people getting in different types without proper training. But then again in the USA you're not insurable if you haven't got 50 hours on type for most insurance companies. Let alone fly a turbine with less than 500 hours. So that part is just commercialy regulated.
The oral exam is very, very rigourous. This can take up to 4-5 hours (CPL and higher levels). If you don't have the required knowledge you will fail.
I come across JAA CPL's as well as FAA CPL's who make me wonder.
Personally I think the type-rating system is very good, at least you don't have people getting in different types without proper training. But then again in the USA you're not insurable if you haven't got 50 hours on type for most insurance companies. Let alone fly a turbine with less than 500 hours. So that part is just commercialy regulated.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Allovertheplace
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrwellington
........isn't this all about shortcuts and personal economy? My basic view on the FAA system goes with this story : Drunk student brought a dice to roll when in doubt for the CPL computerbased exam(basically given up prior due to intoxication)........passed with 72 %. I'm not making this up
So mortennb, with remarks like "I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam"...you should really ponder the question......would you like the mechanic, who just happened to do one (1) exam for his A & P from the Univerity of Laserprinter to fix the helicopter your flying ?
So mortennb, with remarks like "I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam"...you should really ponder the question......would you like the mechanic, who just happened to do one (1) exam for his A & P from the Univerity of Laserprinter to fix the helicopter your flying ?
90% of new pilots in the US work as a CFI for 1 year getting theyr first 1000 hours. Gaining experience and getting a better understanding of the whole education. Do they do the same thing in JAA nations?
How long does the 14 exams make you a better pilot?
Also find the story you tell hard to beleive. First of all, where did he take he's exam? Who lets a drunk student into a testing center. Second, smart move by the student to show he's true side before he's even done with he's education.
And if its true, yes it might be right.. But you will also show the possible employer that your a slacker when you show your results. As well as the reputasion he already received after doing that stunt. And the FAA has a min of 70% to pass, while JAA has 75%. Cant see the big difference, since you can see the examples of JAA questions at JAA.nl. Almost the same.
Only difference is that the FAA gives you the test prep.
And also another thing, how many helicopters does the US have compared to ALL JAA countries.. And look at the accidents???
But I guess we are the bad mechanic, while your the pro with 14 exams....
Last edited by mortennb; 15th Mar 2006 at 02:36.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo 73 That is interesting, and I don't have an old copy of LASORS to check back with to see if the CAA has changed the wording. This is how I understood the situation, but the section you quote does raise a doubt or two (although to my mind it reads like an incomplete paragraph - perhaps an bad edit job?)
Mortennb
Should the comparison not be 9 exams instead of 1 (CPL to CPL), or 14 exams instead of 2 (ATPL & IR to ATPL & IR)?
Many of the JAA exams have a heavy fixed-wing persuasion, however that does not mean the entire subject is of no relevance to helicopter pilots - that would be very narrow minded.
Meteorology, IFR Communications, VFR Communications, Flight Planning, General Navigation, Instrumentation, Radio Navigation, Air Law, Human Performance, Mass and Balance and Operational Procedures have universal elements in varying degrees.
Principles of Flight and Aircraft Systems are now rotary specific.
The system may well have changed, but helicopter pilots were exempt from the Performance paper altogether
Now that is going to open a whole new argument!
In this industry there is forever this petty "my system is better than yours" going on between pilots from different licensing authorities and lets face it, none are perfect. The FAA written exam is far too little, the JAA exams are too much. The FAA oral exam is an excellent idea, the lack of one in the JAA system is sorely missed. You go to America you will have the chance to build hours quicker and cheaper than in Europe, however when you return to Europe you may well be at a disadvantage to those trained in Europe and you will have to pay for a conversion. Its all swings and roundabouts and most of these sorts of arguments are futile.
The reason I am posting this information is not to carry on an argument, it is because many potential pilots come on these forums to look for information. Yes, they come on here for opinion, but they also need to understand the facts behind the prejudices so they can make up there own minds.
I have spoken to so many people that were unaware of the whole story when they were sold on the idea of training abroad and now realise its going to cost a considerable amount of money to come home again and are very bitter towards the JAA system, whereas in actual fact nothing had changed whilst they were gone. It was simply the result of bad or incomplete information at the decision making stage. And similarly I have actively encouraged other students to go abroad when on discussion it suited their individual situation.
Mortennb
Are you saying you are a better pilot if you take 14 exams instead of 5? I dont know all of the JAA exams, but I know 1 is about flight planning. Dont you have to plan a flight plan from Japan to the UK or something. At 60.000 feet? Well, I cant see how that makes you a better helicopter pilot. And the rest is for fixed wing except performance??
Many of the JAA exams have a heavy fixed-wing persuasion, however that does not mean the entire subject is of no relevance to helicopter pilots - that would be very narrow minded.
Meteorology, IFR Communications, VFR Communications, Flight Planning, General Navigation, Instrumentation, Radio Navigation, Air Law, Human Performance, Mass and Balance and Operational Procedures have universal elements in varying degrees.
Principles of Flight and Aircraft Systems are now rotary specific.
The system may well have changed, but helicopter pilots were exempt from the Performance paper altogether
And also another thing, how many helicopters does the US have compared to ALL JAA countries.. And look at the accidents??? But I guess we are the bad mechanic, while your the pro with 14 exams....
In this industry there is forever this petty "my system is better than yours" going on between pilots from different licensing authorities and lets face it, none are perfect. The FAA written exam is far too little, the JAA exams are too much. The FAA oral exam is an excellent idea, the lack of one in the JAA system is sorely missed. You go to America you will have the chance to build hours quicker and cheaper than in Europe, however when you return to Europe you may well be at a disadvantage to those trained in Europe and you will have to pay for a conversion. Its all swings and roundabouts and most of these sorts of arguments are futile.
The reason I am posting this information is not to carry on an argument, it is because many potential pilots come on these forums to look for information. Yes, they come on here for opinion, but they also need to understand the facts behind the prejudices so they can make up there own minds.
I have spoken to so many people that were unaware of the whole story when they were sold on the idea of training abroad and now realise its going to cost a considerable amount of money to come home again and are very bitter towards the JAA system, whereas in actual fact nothing had changed whilst they were gone. It was simply the result of bad or incomplete information at the decision making stage. And similarly I have actively encouraged other students to go abroad when on discussion it suited their individual situation.
Originally Posted by mongoose237
Bravo 73 That is interesting, and I don't have an old copy of LASORS to check back with to see if the CAA has changed the wording.
) and the wording is exactly the same. I can email the 2003 section to you if you want it!
Originally Posted by mongoose237
This is how I understood the situation, but the section you quote does raise a doubt or two (although to my mind it reads like an incomplete paragraph - perhaps an bad edit job?)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it certainly has got around a lot since then, as a number of different people have their flight instructors working under that interpretation!
It does create an interesting situation, however remember LASORS is not law, and quoting from section A1:
And the appropriate section in JAR FCL2:
(emphasis added)
Note there is no reference to on type, and JAR FCL 2 take precedence over non-legal guidance material IMHO.
Maybe chalk it up as another LASORS inaccuracy?
It does create an interesting situation, however remember LASORS is not law, and quoting from section A1:
Nothing in this publication is meant to conflict with aviation legislation. Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive.
JAR–FCL 2.330 FI(H) – Privileges and requirements
[Provided that in the preceding 12 months FI(H) has completed not less than 15 hours of flight instruction (which may include skill testing/proficiency checking) on single-pilot helicopters, or passed, as a proficiency check, skill test set out in Appendices 1 & 2 to JAR-FCL 2.330 and 2.345,] the privileges of the holder FI(H) rating (for restrictions see JAR–FCL 2.325) conduct flight instruction for [the issue of]:
[Provided that in the preceding 12 months FI(H) has completed not less than 15 hours of flight instruction (which may include skill testing/proficiency checking) on single-pilot helicopters, or passed, as a proficiency check, skill test set out in Appendices 1 & 2 to JAR-FCL 2.330 and 2.345,] the privileges of the holder FI(H) rating (for restrictions see JAR–FCL 2.325) conduct flight instruction for [the issue of]:
Note there is no reference to on type, and JAR FCL 2 take precedence over non-legal guidance material IMHO.
Maybe chalk it up as another LASORS inaccuracy?