Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

Solo supervision Lapsed SEP

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Solo supervision Lapsed SEP

Old 4th Feb 2014, 21:27
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If supervised solo is not permitted for licence holders, how would you interpret FCL.140.A as quoted by ifitaintboeing at post #10?
bookworm is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 21:00
  #102 (permalink)  
 
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which is no longer valid.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 07:14
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So you are adamant that

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:
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you're claiming that the LAPL is "no longer valid".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.
bookworm is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 11:13
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
BillieBob is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2014, 23:50
  #105 (permalink)  
 
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
Not only to LAPL: A PPL holder with a valid MEP Rating but a lapsed SEP
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.
Understand your point but an LAPL only contains one, specific, Licence privilege. If that
one privilege cannot be exercised then "de facto" the licence is not valid.

We did this to death before Christmas
Very true, but Whopity decided to revive a "Rating" debate using a "Licensing" argument
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;
The argument still arises for a PPL holder with a lapsed SEP.
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.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 10:57
  #106 (permalink)  
 
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?
much2much is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 20:52
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
is solo practice legal, could it be done under the guise of practice for the issue of ssea?
If the aircraft is a Non EASA aircraft then according to Article 52(2) (f) it is legal. If the pilot holds a JAA/EASA licence then a NPPL medical declaration is not valid for use with that licence.

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.
Whopity is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2016, 21:54
  #108 (permalink)  
 
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.
Even though the CAA choose not to issue Licences (and therefore initial Ratings) unless a valid medical is held - That is not correct (see FEH 2.3.2): Not holding a valid Medical is not a bar to undergoing any Test or Check, nor to Examiners completing the Administrative Process for Renewals or Revalidations.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 07:08
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Since when did a National guidance document overide the AMC?
Whopity is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 09:01
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Whopity
Since when did a National guidance document overide the AMC?
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?
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 09:42
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Its actually in the Regulation not the AMC:
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;
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.
Whopity is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2016, 13:13
  #112 (permalink)  
 
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)???
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2016, 19:47
  #113 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With a LAPL solo practice under supervision is legal to regain privilege.
172510 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 07:01
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Devon
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But what about LAPL..??

Originally Posted by Level Attitude
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".
The currency requirements for a LAPL (on a rolling 24 month basis) can be met by flying solo under the supervision of an FI. So logic would say that the Sam would be true for SEP on a PPL. But then again, we re talking EASA not LOGIC!
mykul10 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.