More than likely there will be an accompanying AMC laying out the broad structure of refresher training, as there is currently for the content of the seminar.
It is interesting that the EC have changed the wording (and effect) of this amendment from the original EASA Opinion. In its Opinion, EASA made clear that the change in wording was simply to align the requirement with other instructor ratings [sic] and that the wording in the associated AMC would indicate that the refresher training should be held as a seminar. There was also a requirement that, should the FI certificate have lapsed by more than 3 years the instructor should undergo training
following a syllabus established by an ATO, implying that this training was distinct from the seminar.
The EC have now removed the link between the training and the seminar and have also removed the 3 year cut-off between the two types of refresher training in the event of renewal, consequently confusing the issue. However, since the declared intention of EASA is that the term 'refresher training' should be synonymous with 'refresher seminar' unless specifically stated otherwise, it would seem logical that the seminar will survive in all cases. The again, when was logic or common sense ever of value in dealing with the EU?
The actual text from Opinion 5/2017 is:
The requirement in (a)(1)(ii) is amended to align the text with all other instructor ratings by replacing ‘refresher seminar’ with ‘refresher training’. To avoid too many changes in the training programmes, the AMC text to this requirement is amended with a wording that indicates that the refresher training for the revalidation and renewal of the FI certificate should be held as a seminar. Regarding ‘renewal’ in (b), the requirement is aligned with the other instructor certificates for text-standardisation reasons. To date, the requirements for the renewal provide regulations for a renewal after any lapsed period of time. These requirements were taken over from JAR-FCL 1 where licences had a validity period of five years. This is no longer the case. Therefore, it seems to be appropriate that in the case the instructor rating has lapsed for more than 3 years, the instructor has to receive instructor refresher training as a flight instructor in an ATO following a training syllabus established by the ATO and pass an assessment of competence. The details to be considered by the ATO are detailed in the amended AMC1 FCL.940.FI and FCL.940.IRI, and were aligned with the AMC for other instructor ratings. The significant difference from other instructor certificates to require more training for the renewal only after the rating has lapsed for more than 3 years was specifically introduced to avoid unnecessary burden on GA. The period of 3 years was chosen because an instructor rating is valid for 3 years.