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.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants
logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the
‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.
This is the extract from LASORS 2008 and does not really justify the 'test' or proficiency aspects in any way. When this requirement was introduced there was an element of 'test' which was quickly removed. Not quickly enough perhaps? There is a huge amount of information on timescales etc but only this on 'instructional flight' - largely because the CAA wanted an element of test - but there was no justification in the requirements and hence this fudge.
Most people will have no difficulty with proficiency training. But when you pay for a revalidation and someone refuses to give in - without any justification within the rules - then the issues begin