Solo supervision Lapsed SEP
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" If supervised solo is not permitted for licence holders, how would you interpret
FCL.140.A as quoted by ifitaintboeing at post #10?"
Very easily: An LAPL does not contain a Rating, it is the Licence itself
which is no longer valid.
FCL.140.A as quoted by ifitaintboeing at post #10?"
Very easily: An LAPL does not contain a Rating, it is the Licence itself
which is no longer valid.
So you are adamant that
yet if the holder of a LAPL does not meet the recency requirements of FCL.140.A, phrased,
FCL.140.A LAPL(A) — Recency requirements
(a) Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only exercise the privileges of their licence when they have completed, in the last 24 months, as pilots of aeroplanes or TMG:
you're claiming that the LAPL is "no longer valid". That's not consistent.
Rightly or wrongly EASA is very specific, a Licence does not cease to be valid just
because no valid medical is held, nor valid rating attached:
because no valid medical is held, nor valid rating attached:
FCL.140.A LAPL(A) — Recency requirements
(a) Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only exercise the privileges of their licence when they have completed, in the last 24 months, as pilots of aeroplanes or TMG:
you're claiming that the LAPL is "no longer valid". That's not consistent.
JAR-FCL 1.025 used to say, "The validity of the licence is determined by the validity of the ratings contained therein and the medical certificate". The EU Regulation does not include this statement and no mention is made of the validity of licences. Instead, FCL.040 states,"The exercise of the privileges granted by a licence shall be dependent upon the validity of the ratings contained therein, if applicable, and of the medical certificate". The logical conclusion, therefore, is that an EASA licence remains 'valid' unless suspended or revoked by the competent authority but the exercise of its privileges is limited.
It is also significant that FCL.040 refers to "....the ratings contained therein, if applicable....". This is clearly in reference to the LAPL, which does not contain any aircraft ratings. Consequently, an LAPL remains valid even though it does not contain a rating but the right to exercise of its privileges is constrained by the recency requirements of FCL.140.
It is also significant that FCL.040 refers to "....the ratings contained therein, if applicable....". This is clearly in reference to the LAPL, which does not contain any aircraft ratings. Consequently, an LAPL remains valid even though it does not contain a rating but the right to exercise of its privileges is constrained by the recency requirements of FCL.140.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....the ratings contained therein, if applicable....". This is clearly in reference to the LAPL
Rating (for example) may exercise his Licence privileges in an MEP but
not an SEP - validity of ratings contained therein is totally applicable.
you're claiming that the LAPL is "no longer valid". That's not consistent.
one privilege cannot be exercised then "de facto" the licence is not valid.
We did this to death before Christmas
which I believe is spurious.
One new thing I have just noticed:
FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges
(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot
on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.
FCL.305 CPL — Privileges and conditions
(a) Privileges. The privileges of the holder of a CPL are, within the appropriate aircraft category, to:
(1) exercise all the privileges of the holder of an LAPL and a PPL;
(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot
on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.
FCL.305 CPL — Privileges and conditions
(a) Privileges. The privileges of the holder of a CPL are, within the appropriate aircraft category, to:
(1) exercise all the privileges of the holder of an LAPL and a PPL;
However, it seems, a CPL holder has LAPL privileges which means if they
are within the LAPL currency requirements they can self authorise solo
flight and, if they are not, then an FI could send them solo under FCL.040.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England that central part of Britian between Ecosse and Occupied France
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ssea ,sep renewal
the local fi, has suggested ,solo practice, to a student/pilot in his laa aircraft,the student?has a lapsed ppl sep and current microlight rating,but no medical except a declaration,
is solo practice legal, could it be done under the guise of practice for the issue of ssea?
is solo practice legal, could it be done under the guise of practice for the issue of ssea?
is solo practice legal, could it be done under the guise of practice for the issue of ssea?
It would seem to me that this pilot should revalidate his SEP which requires a Course Completion Certificate issued by an RF or ATO and a Proficiency Check, what value has solo practice to meet this aim? Hopefully, any FI would fly with a candidate before sending them solo, if the pilot is up to standard all he needs is a test wheras if he is not up to standard, further training is required.
Under FCL.1030 (a) (2) The examiner is required to check that the candidate complies with all the qualification, training and experience requirements for rating issue, revalidation or renewal which will include a valid medical.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...the candidate complies with all the qualification, training and experience requirements for rating issue, revalidation or renewal which will include a valid medical.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which AMC are you referring to? The only reference to Medical that I can see is that 'Solo flight will not be permitted unless an appropriate Medical is held'.
A PPL cannot be issued unless the applicant is at least 17 years old. Would you, therefore, not test a candidate eg one week prior to their 17th birthday on grounds of age alone?
A PPL cannot be issued unless the applicant is at least 17 years old. Would you, therefore, not test a candidate eg one week prior to their 17th birthday on grounds of age alone?
Its actually in the Regulation not the AMC:
It hinges on whether the medical is a "qualification"!
MED.A.030 requires applicants for licences to hold a valid medical but makes no reference to renewal or revalidation.
FCL.1030 Conduct of skill tests, proficiency checks and assessments of competence
(a) When conducting skill tests, proficiency checks and assessments of competence, examiners shall:
(2) verify that the applicant complies with all the qualification, training and experience requirements in this Part for the issue, revalidation or renewal of the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test, proficiency check or assessment of competence is taken;
(a) When conducting skill tests, proficiency checks and assessments of competence, examiners shall:
(2) verify that the applicant complies with all the qualification, training and experience requirements in this Part for the issue, revalidation or renewal of the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test, proficiency check or assessment of competence is taken;
MED.A.030 requires applicants for licences to hold a valid medical but makes no reference to renewal or revalidation.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Whopity,
I made one mistake: The CAA are not 'choosing' not to issue Licences without a valid Medical, they are complying with Part-Med (that I had not looked at for a while).
For the rest I think we are in agreement. I (and presumably the CAA) do not see a valid medical as a 'qualification', but rather as a pre-requisite in order to exercise Licence privileges.
Possibly more debatable would be the underage case I mentioned since 'Experience' could mean only 'Flying Experience' (minimum hours) or it could mean all experience, including 'Life Experience' (minimum years)???
I made one mistake: The CAA are not 'choosing' not to issue Licences without a valid Medical, they are complying with Part-Med (that I had not looked at for a while).
For the rest I think we are in agreement. I (and presumably the CAA) do not see a valid medical as a 'qualification', but rather as a pre-requisite in order to exercise Licence privileges.
Possibly more debatable would be the underage case I mentioned since 'Experience' could mean only 'Flying Experience' (minimum hours) or it could mean all experience, including 'Life Experience' (minimum years)???
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Devon
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what about LAPL..??
Rightly or wrongly EASA is very specific, a Licence does not cease to be valid just
because no valid medical is held, nor valid rating attached:
Whopity,
Your quote (from ANO), your Red, my underline
In the case under discussion the person does hold a valid Licence, so this
exception does not apply. Even if it did, as solo flight is not required for
SEP Rating renewal, I cannot see how that could count as "flying training
in accordance with the EASA Aircrew Regulation"
It would have to rely on the ATO and Instructor deciding that any training
they liked was valid for SEP renewal - and, given that authorising solo
flight is only specifically allowed for Licence training, deciding themselves
which Instructor, presumably an FI, was the most "appropriate".
because no valid medical is held, nor valid rating attached:
Whopity,
Your quote (from ANO), your Red, my underline
In the case under discussion the person does hold a valid Licence, so this
exception does not apply. Even if it did, as solo flight is not required for
SEP Rating renewal, I cannot see how that could count as "flying training
in accordance with the EASA Aircrew Regulation"
It would have to rely on the ATO and Instructor deciding that any training
they liked was valid for SEP renewal - and, given that authorising solo
flight is only specifically allowed for Licence training, deciding themselves
which Instructor, presumably an FI, was the most "appropriate".