View Full Version : Sending a lapsed SEP solo
hashdef
30th Jan 2004, 23:20
Is it legal for an instructor to send someone with a lapsed SEP rating (and no other valid ratings) solo (after appropriate dual checks) ?
Noggin
31st Jan 2004, 00:40
Provided he has a valid medical certificate; it is no different from sending an ab-initio student solo. Art 21 He is acting under the instructions of a person holding a pilots licencewhich includes an instructors rating valid for instruction on the type of aircraft being flown.
IRRenewal
31st Jan 2004, 00:59
And must be from a licensed airfield of course.
Noggin
1st Feb 2004, 05:38
Why "of course"
A lapsed SEP holder is not being trained for the issue or grant of a licence or for the inclusion of a rating in a licence as stipulated in Art 101 (2)(a)(ii)
training for the revalidation or renewal of an existing licence or rating does NOT have to be conducted from a licensed aerodrome!
IMHO it must be a licensed airfield.
The reason is that the lapsed pilot has the same ratings as a 20 hour solo student (none) and is being sent solo under the exact same requirements as a solo student pilot. i.e. they have a medical, fly from a licensed airfield and are supervised by an instructor.
Remember that some countries require student pilots to hold student licenses. If that was the case here then this lapsed pilot would also have to hold a valid student licence also.
I believe that a lapsed rating is gone and one can not use it for anything including avoiding the requirements for training at a licensed airfield.
I can't see why a pilot in this case would want to fly solo - Dual training as required followed by a flight test would surely be the full requirement.
Regards,
DFC
Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Feb 2004, 01:32
I can't see why a pilot in this case would want to fly solo - Dual training as required followed by a flight test would surely be the full requirement. I can assure you that I wanted to, and the school required it anyway. Mind you, this was with my SEP expired by many years, not just a couple of weeks.
Say again s l o w l y
2nd Feb 2004, 05:14
Definately must be from a licensed field. It IS training for grant of a licence, otherwise it cannot be a training flight and only a current and licensed pilot would be able to take an a/c up.
DFC has it pretty much on the nail in my opinion, but I can understand someone wanting to go solo.
Noggin
2nd Feb 2004, 06:02
OK,
Holder of non expiring UK PPL lets SEP class rating expire. He still holds a licence. If his retraining requires a licensed aerodrome what is the ANO reference for this "legal" requiremrent?
Say again s l o w l y
2nd Feb 2004, 06:32
Hmmm, seem to have made a cock up here. That'll teach me not to read the thread properly. I'm so used to 5 year JAR licences now that the brain went into free fall for a bit.
The licence is still valid, but the rating has lapsed so doesn't come under the scenario of licence issue.
An unlicenced field would be fine for this. Apologies...:oh:
IMHO, if a rating has lapsed then it is no longer included in the licence.
If one does not believe that then one will have big problems explaining why a lapsed IR or lapsed IMC holder can not fly special VFR in less than 10K - ("unless the licence includes an IR or IMC rating").
On the specific case, I still think that the school are wasting this pilot's money by requiring them to fly solo as part of the renewal process. If the pilot wants to fly solo before carrying passengers then they would find that not having to pay for instructor supervision on top of the aircraft hire costs would permit the pilot having passed the GFT to complete more solo training for the same money.
People don't fly solo as part of multi engine courses or as part of IMC or IR training so why do so for revalidation?
If people could fly solo from unlicensed airfields without valid ratings then many pilots would never renew a licence because they only fly single seater aircraft.
Regards,
DFC
bookworm
3rd Feb 2004, 00:01
IMHO, if a rating has lapsed then it is no longer included in the licence.
If one does not believe that then one will have big problems explaining why a lapsed IR or lapsed IMC holder can not fly special VFR in less than 10K - ("unless the licence includes an IR or IMC rating").
It's an interesting point DFC, but I reckon it's covered by Art 25 which requires a certificate of test or revalidation to perform the functions to which the rating relates.
Send Clowns
3rd Feb 2004, 01:52
Ratings lapse by time, and require revalidation or renewal to keep current. Licences lapse over time (different span) but require you to contribute to the CAA bloated-public-service-pension fund to keep valid, or for a CAA one just the continued heartbeat of the holder. in this case the rating is not on the licence as it has lapsed, but the licence is still valid itself. Hence "...or for the inclusion of a rating in a licence..." would probably apply, and a licenced airfield would be needed.
OK, see what you mean - the rating is included in the licence by virtue of schedule 8 but the requirement to have the rating valid is elsewhere.
This I expect could then allow training to be conducted at an unlicensed airfield. However, how many FTOs or RTFs have approval for SEP or MEP flight training at unlicensed airfields?
Following an accident it would be vary hard to stand up and say that it was safe to send a student solo at an unlicensed airfield when the CAA has clearly indicated that they consider such actions to fail in meeting the minimum safety standard requirements. Duty of care may be a factor especially when it is not part of the required training to complete any solo flights.
Regards,
DFC
mad_jock
4th Feb 2004, 19:02
I have had this a few times with people returning to flying after long periods off eg 10 years plus.
The retraining stipulated by the CAA includes solo and also another XCQ.
All to be done under normal student PPL rules.
MJ
Noggin
4th Feb 2004, 21:43
mad_jock
perhaps you should try reading AIC 78/2002 and LASORS F3.4.
"The retraining stipulated by the CAA includes solo and also another XCQ"
was superceded in August 2002.
mad_jock
4th Feb 2004, 22:18
Looking back at my log book it was before the date quoted.
I seem to remember having to fax off a heap of stuff and then someone sending back the requirements. Havn't had anyone since then so never looked that section up.
O well the new rules look more than sensible.
Must admit when there were a heap of people waiting for NPPLs to be issued after they were introduced (all PPL holders with failed class2). I couldn't find any reason not to allow them to fly as solo students and get signed off every flight in the school planes ( so did sign them out on the NPPL medical and documented this in the training records). This was checked by a local examiner who got on his high horse about it, started shouting about MOR's. After talking to Belgrano director of Policy the above old rule was quoted and the subject was dropped.
MJ