New SEP 1hr with an Instructor Forms

[mad_jock]

Been looking at the new examiner forms for SEP revalidation.

They have formalised the content of the flight.

And also suprisingly have included things that wern't in the PPL.

All comes into effect on the 1 st of Jan.

Has anyone actually been giving info on this?
I believe the CAA are refering PPL's questions to the local instructor. And I havn't seen or been sent anything.


MJ

[BEagle]

Oh really?

There's no new AIC on the subject, which form number was the thing you saw?

I shall check things with the Belgrano. If they actually bother to answer an e-mail for once......

[DFC]

MJ,

The CAA sent a letter out to all RTFs and FTOs in July 2002 laying down the system for "external support"

The CAA's idea is that in general they only want to deal with the Head of Training at RTFs and FTOs with the Head of Training answering all questions from local PPls, Students and Instructors.

They request that trainers refrain from automatically refering questions to the CAA and make use of LASORS.

Regards,

DFC

[StrateandLevel]

"Been looking at the new examiner forms for SEP revalidation"

the latest forms SRG1119 and SRG1157 are dated January 2003!
_________________________________________________
"They have formalised the content of the flight"

the content of the proficiency check has always been formalised and is given in Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240!
_________________________________________________
"New SEP 1hr with an Instructor Forms "

There has never been a form, so how can there be a new one?

_________________________________________________
Could you be confused with the changes to the content of the CPL Skill Test from 1 Jan 2004?

[BEagle]

As I suspected! Thanks for the clarification, S&L!

[mad_jock]

There has been no formal manditory content of the 1 hour with an Instructor.

I have a form 1157 dated from Sept 2003 which has manditory exersises and is in the format with a OPC examination form.

To be honest I hope my CFI has his head up his arse and has the wrong end of the stick.

MJ

[BEagle]

He does indeed appear to have the wrong end of the stick! Form SRG\1157 is entitled "SPA, SKILL TEST AND PROFICIENCY CHECK SCHEDULE – EXAMINER’S RECORD". It has absolutely nothing to do with the '1 hour dual training flight' and is a generic form designed to be used for a variety of purposes by a Flight Examiner.

The only item which surprised me was the requirement to test an actual rejected take-off. Definitely not part of the PPL Skill Test and, because the procedure has to be explained to the Air Traffickers in advance to stop them scrambling the aerodrome fire services, not something which can be realistically simulated particularly well.

[StudentInDebt]

Beagle

I've found that telling ATC that you're going to do an "accelerate and stop" covers that aspect for a rejected take-off, but maybe thats a local arrangement with the tower here.

There is/was an AIC with a suggestion for areas to be covered on the instructor flight which from memory looks strikingly similar to a skills test, maybe this is whats caused the confusion?

[BEagle]

Yes, that's what I do as well. But it's a bit pointless as it doesn't come as a surprise to the applicant. The other option is to simulate an engine failure on a touch-and-go, at the same time telling ATC that you've changed your intention. But make sure that you won't screw up somebody else on the approach if you do that!

Current guidance for the Dual Training Flight is contained in AIC 127/1999 (White 378); it also spells out the admin requirements - which are limited solely to log book action.

I say again THERE IS NO FORM NEEDED for the Dual Training Flight!!

[Another_CFI]

I also find it odd that we have to test a rejected take-off when it was not a mandatory part of the original PPL, though the examiner could chose to include it inder section 5d.

My method of ensuring an element of surprise is to telephone the tower prior to taxying and let them know what is going on. Puzzles the candidate occasionally when the tower wont let him/her 'takeoff' with what would normally be adequate spacing.

[mad_jock]

Thanks for that, although I have a feeling its going to be hard work convincing him he is wrong.

MJ

[StrateandLevel]

The rejected take-off has always been in App 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240. It obviously comes from larger aeroplanes and was not transferred to the earlier LST/LPC form. The 1157 simply copies the JAR-FCL table.

Item 4.5 requires that you do a forced landing from 2000 ft above the runway for Single Engine revalidation, how many do that?

[BEagle]

Err, well much as I hate to query a statement from a Belgrano chum like you, Strateandlevel, but I think you'll find that Item 4.5 'Approach and landing with idle power up to 2000' above the runway (single engine aeroplane only)' is an Optional item - whereas Item 5.1 'Rejected take-off (at a reasonable speed)' is a Mandatory item.

What is 'at a reasonable speed', by the way?