EASA PPL Skills Test - Examiners who have conducted training.

[fireflybob]

Talking EASA PPL, it used to be the case that if a student had done one training flight with an examiner then that examiner could not conduct that student's skill test.

This was changed to the student may do 25% of the training hours with the examiner who conducts the test.

What is the case for students who started training before the change to 25% was introduced.

Thanks for any help.

[Whopity]

The examiner may have conducted up to 25% of the training when they conduct the test. That's it! Its irrelevant when that training was done, so long as it wasn't JAR training, as that is no longer valid whoever gave it.

[fireflybob]

Whopity, many thanks and understood on the JAR training

[BillieBob]

Be aware that there are different interpretations within Europe regarding this change to the Regulation. In some states, "25% of the required flight instruction" is taken to refer only to the instruction required by the Regulation irrespective of how much is actually flown. For example, in the case of the PPL, the examiner may have given only 25% of the 25 hours of dual flight instruction required in FCL.210.A (a)(1) (i.e. only 6.25 hours)

[Whopity]

Alternatively, you could say that if instruction is not required by the regulation then any amount of unprescribed training could have been conducted by the Examiner.
I believe that the UK CAA take 25% of the total training given for that licence however; that then poses a further question, is it the total hours flown or just the dual hours flown?

All as clear as mud!

[LastStandards]

The UK’s position seems to vary with time. A former Head of Policy was very clear that it was 25% of the required flight training, and flight training meant dual training, ie for a PPL 25% of 25 hours. A more recent reply to an industry colleague indicated 25% of 45 hours, taking the total course to be training irrespective of dual/solo component. Would that we could have consistency!!

[Whopity]

Would that we could have consistency!!

But this is European regulation. So long as you can show that you have fulfilled the requirement, then you have complied. What the CAA must realise is that their interpretation matters not one jot! Unfortunately, they issue the licence.

[LastStandards]

True!! There have been worse times...