SEP and MEP revalidations

[flybymike]

Sorry to bring up this vexed subject again but both my MEP and SEP revalidations are due shortly. I have various queries!
My own aircraft has recently had a major engine rebuild and the bedding in procedure involves initially flying at 75% power settings only. I dont wish to knacker my new turbo charged engine with rapid power changes, stalls, forced landings etc frequently encountered during a typical revalidation flight. As I understand it , I am only required to have a one hour "flight" with an instructor and whilst there is a recommended CAA syllabus for this flight, it is not legally binding, and if I wish I can simply drone around the sky for an hour with an instructor.. The FTO I normally use however has indicated that it is their policy to conduct all revalidations in accordance with the recommended syllabus,and if I decline to do so the instructor will not sign me off. This means that unless I pay to rent another aircraft with which I am unfamiliar, at dual rates, and perform the flight to the satisfaction of the instructor, then my "flight" has become a "Test" and not a flight ! Any one any comments about this?
Secondly after some difficulty in previous years in persuading my examiner that I can revalidate my SEP with my MEP flight all in one operation (without the necessity to have two separate flights,) I have been giving some thought to the matter of whether the MEP revalidation is a "Test" or a "Flight"? My examiner has historically conducted the flight as though it were a test and has charged me an examiner test fee in addition to normal dual twin hire rates. I seldom have the "10 route sectors" on twins but this seems to me to be a complete red herring since a flight with an examiner is required regardless of how many route sectors one has! Should the MEP flight be a "Test"? or merely a "flight or a "route sector" flown with an examiner? Is it possible to "fail" either an SEP or MEP revalidation (I am not talking renewals here ) Other Pilots have also told me that I should be signing a CAA form at the end of a revalidation flight, but I have never been asked or required to do this. The Examiner has simply endorsed my log book and ratings certificate appropriately. Help! is it me or has bureaucracy gone mad here?

[Sliding member]

I can't answer your question, I'm just piggy-backing your message as I require a bit of clarification too! My SEP rating expires in a couple of weeks, I havn't got the req'd hrs in the last 12 months so need to do the dual "revalidation" flight. Question is, does this have to be done before the rating expires?? I only have about 4 free days between now and when its due so I hope I havn't stuffed up.
Thanks for your time. :ok:

[bookworm]

flybymike

The MEP revalidation is a proficicency check, and is a test in the sense that you pass or fail it, though examiners have quite some flexibility in asking you to redo unsatisfactory parts of it on the spot. The route sector part is, as you deduce, a bit of a red herring. You certainly have to sign a CAA form at the end of it.

The good news is that a successful MEP skills check (or another test like an IMC rating or IR renewal) can substitute for the training flight required to revalidate the SEP by experience. There should be no debate about this. Note that you're still required to have the 12 hours in SEPs in the 12 months preceding expiry of the rating -- the MEP proficiency check does not substitute for an SEP proficiency check, only the training flight element if you choose to revalidate by experience.

The debate about whether the training flight can, in effect, be failed by the instructor witholding his or her signature will run and run. The flight need not follow any particular pattern, but you can't force an instructor to fly do a flight with you that they don't want to do, so if they insist on a flight that doesn't follow the AIC recommendation, find a different instructor.

Sliding member

If you don't revalidate by experience before your rating expires, you must take a proficiency check with an examiner to renew. You can do this after the SEP rating expires and the proficiency check for renewal is no different from the check for revalidation.

[Circuit Basher]

A copy of the CAA Form for revalidation is here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FORSRG1119Iss6.pdf). This must be sent off to the Belgrano so that they know your licence is still extant (ie) if you want to go Florida flying and need the CAA to confirm that you have a valid PPL, then you could find yourself embarrassed. The instructor who flies the hour with you (for SEP renewal by experience) need not be an examiner, but AIUI an examiner has to sign the renewal in your licence and the back of the CAA Revalidation Form.

As for MEPs, those are outside my budget!! ;)

[Andrew Sinclair]

Just when I thought it was safe to dip my big toe in the pool of JAR-FCL understanding as soon as I do it gets bitten!

Bookworm,

We have a mutual acquaintance who mentioned at dinner the other night that you are excellent at digging out the details so could you explain where I have gone wrong.

You mentioned to Sliding member above that a proficiency check for renewal is no different than a check for revalidation. I was looking at LASORS Section F as I read your post and found the following

F1.4 Revalidation (i.e. The administrative action taken within the validity period of the rating etc etc) may be revalidated by passing a Licensing Proficiency Check (LPC) with an Authorised Flight Examiner (FE(A)) or Class Rating Examiner (CRE(A)).

So if Sliding member completes this before his SEP rating expires, then his rating can be revalidated (he has said he hasn’t been able to complete sufficient flying for the requirements of the experience option)

F1.5 Renewal (i.e. The administrative action taken after the rating has lapsed etc etc etc). Now looking at the < 5 years option it says

i) The CAA will required no mandatory additional training etc etc etc….no problem there, that I understand, but then it says.
ii) Complete the Skills Test in accordance with Appendices 1 & 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240.

So it would appear that you are saying that the LPC is the same as the Skills Test in accordance with Appendices 1 & 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240?

If these two things are the same then my question evaporates, but if not I am sure there is a logical explanation to my difference in understanding, have I missed something?

In summary if I have read it correctly the action required in order to revalidate (i.e. admin action before lapse) if a pilot does not meet the experience requirements is to pass the LPC with an FE(A) or CRE(A) within the three months preceeding the expiry date

The action require in order to renew (i.e. admin action after lapse) is completion of "...the Skills Test in accordance with Appendices 1 & 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240..."

Digging deeper it says that if you are revalidating by flying experience then you must have your Certificate of Revalidation signed within the exisiting expiry period of the rating(s). Failure to do so will result in you having to complete a LPC to renew.

Perhaps that's where the difference is. If Sliding member cannot meet the experience requirements he defaults to the LPC option and if he runs out of time for the LPC option he is into Renewal and a Skills Test defined in Appendices 1 & 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240.

* Experience BUT out of date signature = LPC
* LPC/signature but rating expired = Skills Test requirement

STOP PRESS

Breaking News (well to me anyway!)..….on further digging it rather looks like the Licensing Proficiency Check (LPC) and the Skills Test are the same thing as defined in Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240, so my question is answered perhaps. Might be useful, if this is the case, that in a similar way under LASORS F1.5 states “….Skill Test in accordance with Appendices 1 & 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240….”, LASORS F1.4 could be amended to read “…revalidated by passing a Licensing Proficiency Check (LPC) in accordance with Appendices 1 & 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240…”

[Pielander]

Andrew,

I'm not convinced that the LPC and the skills test are the same thing.

I've just revalidated my license by LPC. All that was involved was a 1 hour flight with an examiner, looking at general handling, much like the old GFT (stalling, steep turns, PFL, other emergency, rejoin, normal circuit, flapless, efato, glide approach). There was no enroute section, and the examiner fee was only £85. (Cost of a/c extra of course). The skills test is more extensive (and more expensive - £135 examiner fee, if I remember correctly) and the general handling and nav are all integral to the test.

So, the message is, even if you haven't done your 12 hours, don't let your license lapse, or it'll cost you 50 - 100% more to get it back.

Pie

[BEagle]

flbymike,

To keep it simple, if you have flown 12 hours SEP (6 as PIC etc) in the 12 months preceding the date of SEP rating expiry, all you need to do is to fly your MEP proficiency check with an Examiner before the expiry date of your SEP rating as it an acceptable substitute for the SEP 'dual training flight' requirement. That will both revalidate your SEP rating 'by experience' and revalidate your MEP Rating if flown before the expiry date of your MEP rating.

Your Examiner should darn well know that!

But if you cannot meet the SEP 'experience' requirements,or if you go past the expiry date of your SEP rating then you will need to fly a revalidation or renewal proficiency check on a SEP aeroplane in addition to the mandatory MEP proficiency check.

As for yout FTO's policy concerning the 'dual training fight' content, go somewhere else and discuss with an FI what you wish to refresh.

And pielander, you're not correct. The content of a SEP re-validation proficiency check is identical to a SEP renewal proficiency check. The full PPL Skill Test is NOT required to be flown if the SEP rating lapses, just the SEP renewal proficiency check - so the Examiner's fee should be the same, not '50-100% more'.

[Andrew Sinclair]

I think I am beginning to understand now. There are three different beasts in the discussion here....

a) "1 Hour Flight" with an FI for the purposes of meeting the experience requirements and guidance of the content of the 1 hour flight is outlined in AIC 127/1999.

b) "Skill Test for the issue of a PPL(A)" in accordance with the contents of Appendix 2 to JAR-FCL 1.135

c) "Skill Test/Proficiency Check" for the purposes of rating renewal or rating revalidation where the experience requirements cannot be met in accordance with the content of Appendix 3 of JAR-FCL 1.240

I had a look a both these Appendices and to be honest after first read I cannot see the difference.

BEagle

You words about the full PPL Skill Test not being reqired if a rating lapses. I see this as far as the JAR-FCL is written, i.e. full skills test is defined in Appendix 2 to JAR-FCL 1.135 and and that of rating lapse being defined Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240. Practically, however, they look identical sets of test exercises. You are an examiner and instructor and as such I value your advice and I know I am asking for free information, but I would be obliged if you would explain what the difference(s) is/are?

I remain confused!

AnticiThankspation

P.S. Pielander, Good message by the way - Don't let it lapse!

[BEagle]

The full PPL Skill Test is only ever needed once. It includes an en-route section and various GH exercises.

The re-validation Proficiency Check is flown to revalidate a rating for those who cannot meet the experience requirements. For SEP, there is no en-route section.

Now comes the difficult bit. Originally, it was simple - valid ratings could be revalidated by a Proficiency Check, lapsed needed renewal by Skill Test. But the CAA cocked things up hugely by introducing a Renewal Proficiency Check for lapsed SEP ratings contrary to everything they'd told us in the pre-JAR roadshows. There then followed some rapid weasel-wording in which they announced that 'To renew a lapsed SEP Class Rating, an acceptable demonstration of Skill will be achieved by passing a Proficiency Check'. Don't worry about it - it's exactly the same test as the revalidation Proficiency Check - it just means that if your rating has lapsed you can't fly as Commander until you've passed the Proficiency Check. It won't cost any more than the re-validation Proficiency Check - and you won't need to pay anything to the CAA unless your rating had lapsed by more than 5 years.

The only other variation affects people who have a licence without an SEP rating - such as the odd military ME pilot with an ATPL or a PPL holder who has a TMG rating. If such folk want to fly a SEP aircraft, then they have to fly a SEP Class Rating Skill Test which is not the same as a PPL Skill Test.......

There is NO mandatory content for the '1 hr training flight'; furthermore, it can be replaced by any other check or test for a JAR licence or rating - or an IMC rating test. Hence an IMC revalidation test, an airline OPC in the simulator or a military flight with a military QFI as part of Service duties will do fine - as would your MEP revalidation Proficiency Check.

Confusing? Not really - just cumbersome Eurocracy!

[Andrew Sinclair]

Thanks very much,

Now I understand very clearly, I looked again at the two JAR-FCL Appendices mentioned above and diligently went through them side by side and ticked the exercises off one by one. All exercises seemed to be in both appendices....

Guess my mistake.......yes I didn't read the letter M in the column toward the right hand side of the page.

For those who haven't ventured into JAR-FCL 1, the part I am referring to is the table in Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240. This defines the renewal skill test exercises. All of the initial issue skill test exercises are listed here but NOT all have M for mandatory next to them to say they are mandatory for renewal.

I am obliged for your time BEagle. It can be a little complicated for those of us who don't fly as a profession. Time with which to investigate and dig this type of information out is sometimes limited to leisure time and sometimes even instructors have different interpretations, which is not really surprising.

[BEagle]

No problems. Glad to have been of help!