LASORS are not in themselves definitive legislation. As I see it, therefore, the requirements for revalidation are as required by JAR-FCL and JAR-FCL 1.245(c) states that:
(1) All single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings (land) and all touring motor glider’s ratings – Revalidation.
For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall:
(i) ... pass a proficiency check ... ; or
(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating complete 12 hours flight time in a single engine piston aeroplane or touring motor glider including:
(A) 6 hours of pilot-in-command time;
(B) 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test.
However, JAR-FCL does not appear to define "training flight" in this context.
It therefore brings into question the origin (and authority) of the paragraph in LASORS which reads:
The Training Flight
The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
If JAR-FCL does not define the "purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", what status can this paragraph in LASORS have?
JD
