Directly from LASORS 2008 AGAIN......................
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.
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.
An FI could sit there and do nothing, but they shouldn't and would be very derelict in their duties if they did so.
They are being paid for the flight, so should offer some benefit to the person who's footing the bill.
Now some bright spark is going to jump in and say "but LASORS isn't legislation" and my answer to that would be. Yeah, whatever. The CAA don't publish it for fun. Take up any problems in interpreting the ANO, JAR-FCL etc. with them, not others who have far better things to do, such as trying to stop PPL's killing themselves.
What they've put in LASORS is good enough for me. It could be better, but compared to most of the legislation I've waded through in other areas of law, this is clear and concise and for those who are thinking about a legal challenge to a school, utterly defensible. Show a judge that passage and who wrote it and the case would be out of the door faster than you can shout "clear prop."