FCL.740.A
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCL.740.A
Before the wording was "a training flight of at least 1 hour "
Now the wording is "a refresher training of at least 1 hour "
The French DGAC has made a great deal about it, the ANPI says that the FI/CRI has now a HUGE responsibility and so on. They advise FI/CRI's to have forms signed by the student (and implicitly to hire a lawyer in advance just in case).
I have never heard about that in the UK.
What about you?
Now the wording is "a refresher training of at least 1 hour "
The French DGAC has made a great deal about it, the ANPI says that the FI/CRI has now a HUGE responsibility and so on. They advise FI/CRI's to have forms signed by the student (and implicitly to hire a lawyer in advance just in case).
I have never heard about that in the UK.
What about you?
The UK issued an AMC stating:
That's it.
The requirements for a training flight with an FI or CRI, referred to in FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii), may be satisfied by receiving instruction totalling at least 1 hour from the same instructor in the course of a maximum of three flights.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK AMC existed before the new wording.
My question is why the new wording? I could not find any document explaining why they replaced "training flight" by "refresher training".
Does it mean that you don't have to fly anymore? That a ground training could be enough?
My question is why the new wording? I could not find any document explaining why they replaced "training flight" by "refresher training".
Does it mean that you don't have to fly anymore? That a ground training could be enough?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is already in force
CE regulation 2015/445
EUR-Lex - 32015R0445 - EN - EUR-Lex
(8) In FCL.740.A, point (b) is replaced by the following:
‘(b)
Revalidation of single-pilot single-engine class ratings.
(1)
Single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings and TMG ratings. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings or TMG class ratings the applicant shall:
(i)
within the 3 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or
(ii)
within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including:
—
6 hours as PIC,
—
12 take-offs and 12 landings, and
—
refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher training if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check, skill test or assessment of competence in any other class or type of aeroplane.
CE regulation 2015/445
EUR-Lex - 32015R0445 - EN - EUR-Lex
(8) In FCL.740.A, point (b) is replaced by the following:
‘(b)
Revalidation of single-pilot single-engine class ratings.
(1)
Single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings and TMG ratings. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings or TMG class ratings the applicant shall:
(i)
within the 3 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or
(ii)
within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including:
—
6 hours as PIC,
—
12 take-offs and 12 landings, and
—
refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher training if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check, skill test or assessment of competence in any other class or type of aeroplane.
The NPA 2014-29(A) wording is also nonsense - as it implies that an LPC for an A380 would count in lieu of SEP refresher training, whereas a revalidation proficiency check for an IR in the same class would not!
Hence IAOPA (Europe) has proposed an amendment, which includes the wording 'Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher training if they have passed a proficiency check, skill test or assessment of competence for the same category of aircraft.'
ANPI seem to be taking rather a silly view on this...
Hence IAOPA (Europe) has proposed an amendment, which includes the wording 'Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher training if they have passed a proficiency check, skill test or assessment of competence for the same category of aircraft.'
ANPI seem to be taking rather a silly view on this...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172510 is absolutely correct and I offer my apologies.
In mitigation, I made the error of looking at the recently released Consolidated Aircrew Regulation purportedly containing 2015/445. Unfortunately, in this case, the wording of the regulation has not, in fact, been updated.
It was always made clear that the consolidated version was not to be treated as authoritative, and I now realise why. Lesson learnt!
In mitigation, I made the error of looking at the recently released Consolidated Aircrew Regulation purportedly containing 2015/445. Unfortunately, in this case, the wording of the regulation has not, in fact, been updated.
It was always made clear that the consolidated version was not to be treated as authoritative, and I now realise why. Lesson learnt!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is something new though:
Before it was a one hour flight. Now it's at least one hour.
Does this mean that it's the responsibility of the instructor to taylor the length of training to get the pilot up to the proficiency check standard?
Before it was a one hour flight. Now it's at least one hour.
Does this mean that it's the responsibility of the instructor to taylor the length of training to get the pilot up to the proficiency check standard?
He/She can't log it as a dual flight, unless you sign it.
It is not, nor has it ever been a Test, however much the CAA tried to 'gold plate' it into one.
You are simply signing to confirm that the flight took place, and that the indicated training was carried out.
No level of competence, or achievement is implied, unless so stated.
What does concern me here, is the use of the term 'refresher training' which clearly implies revisiting training already carried out previously.
This would suggest that, for instance, 'Differences Training', aerobatics, and instrument training may not count.
MJ
It is not, nor has it ever been a Test, however much the CAA tried to 'gold plate' it into one.
You are simply signing to confirm that the flight took place, and that the indicated training was carried out.
No level of competence, or achievement is implied, unless so stated.
What does concern me here, is the use of the term 'refresher training' which clearly implies revisiting training already carried out previously.
This would suggest that, for instance, 'Differences Training', aerobatics, and instrument training may not count.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 18th Jun 2015 at 20:19. Reason: Deleted last line
Not happened to me yet but at an Instructor Seminar one suggestion was if the one hour with the instructor was of such a poor performance that it was unsafe and the pilot refused the suggestion of more training to advise him/her you would be informing his insurance company that he/she was not, in your opinion, safe to fly.
But I agree with MJ the one hour is not pass/fail therefore you can sign the logbook whatever.
But I agree with MJ the one hour is not pass/fail therefore you can sign the logbook whatever.
Getting back to the OP for a moment:
There is no doubt that this is true.
Signing for an hour of flight training is one thing, but ensuring that the Candidate has completed the various and confusing requirements for Revalidation, then signing a Licence is a very different thing!
MJ
...FI/CRI has now a HUGE responsibility...
Signing for an hour of flight training is one thing, but ensuring that the Candidate has completed the various and confusing requirements for Revalidation, then signing a Licence is a very different thing!
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 18th Jun 2015 at 21:04. Reason: Punctuation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the student agrees for an additional training session, you sign the 1 hour flight in the logbook, and then you never see him again?
After a revalidation flight, I'd prepare a report stating what was done in flight, and if I think any additional training is required, I would mention it in the report, and then email it to the student, and sign the logbook. I shall not sign the licence if I think additional training is required, which does not prevent the student to have his licence signed by a FE.
After a revalidation flight, I'd prepare a report stating what was done in flight, and if I think any additional training is required, I would mention it in the report, and then email it to the student, and sign the logbook. I shall not sign the licence if I think additional training is required, which does not prevent the student to have his licence signed by a FE.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it is not a test but if I feel that the student needs more training I would happily give it or entrust them to another instructor with their agreement. I would never however sign a logbook for a pilot who I felt was unsafe.
There is a change coming which will align the SEP revalidation refresher with the items required for prof check anyway so it is advisable to go down that route. It's something I recommend to people who fly with me anyway.
There is a change coming which will align the SEP revalidation refresher with the items required for prof check anyway so it is advisable to go down that route. It's something I recommend to people who fly with me anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In signing the logbook you acknowledge that you trained the student, not that you trained the student enough to reach the FCL740 requirements. Unless you write so before you sign.
It's only when you sign the licence as an instructor that you acknowledge that the FCL740 requirements were met, and that's the point because no one knows precisely what the refresher training requirements are.
It's only when you sign the licence as an instructor that you acknowledge that the FCL740 requirements were met, and that's the point because no one knows precisely what the refresher training requirements are.