PPL Night Ratings / Night Qualifications

[EGKA]

With all this euro speak I think I've lost the plot as far at PPL night ratings are concerned !!

When an Instructor teaches for a night rating is it a CAA or JAR night rating ? Does this depend on the licence the student holds?

Also the requirement for the dual instrument training, is it 5hrs or 7hrs ? and how much counts from the original 4hrs during the basic PPL training ?

Does anyone know of any relevant documentation I can look up, AIC / ANO / or JAR FCL.

Many Thanks....

[DB6]

It's now called a night qualification and is a JAR thing. Doesn't depend on the licence you have. Not sure about what you mean regarding the dual instrument training; there is none stipulated for the night qualification, the course consists of 5 hours of which 3 must be dual (including at least 1 hr nav), 5 solo takeoffs and landings, one of which must leave the circuit and the balance can be dual or solo.
Unlike the night rating the qualification does not have to be renewed and is valid as long as your licence, the only thing is that if you want to carry passengers at night you have to have made one t/o and landing at night out of the 3 in the previous 90 days. Don't have documentation references at the moment, sorry. You could try www.jaa.nl (http://www.jaa.nl)
Cheers DB6

[Bear Cub]

I am rather hoping to see a posting from Rolling Circle or Watford on this one.

Looking at the application forms and syllabus for the night rating it gives two impressions - depending on how you approach the course.

Hope somebody will agree or correct me.

If you already hold a PPL - or have already sat the PPL Skill Test - and do not have a night rating...according to the only application form I have ever seen....you need to log 20 hours of flight since the date that your application hit the desk at FCL in Gatwick.

THEN you can START doing the five hours of night training mentioned above. With regard to the instrument training that you mention, if you go this route you will need a minimum of five hours of instrument training before you apply for the night rating - which, rather strangely, means that in theory you could do the instrument training AFTER the five hours night training....even though that kinda defeats the object.

If you did any instrument training during your PPL course you can count a maximum of three hours of it towards the five hours needed.

Now - if you haven't yet finished training for the PPL, you are (by definition) on the JAA syllabus...which requires that you make up your mind as to whether you would like to fly in the dark or not...and add the extra five hours of night training to the course - so instead of a minimum of forty five hours for your daylight only PPL you would need a minimum of fifty hours for your day and night PPL.

If you go the second route - all instrument requirements (for night) are forgotten.

Now - I say again - I sincerely hope that Watford or Rolling Circle will respond with the correct answers....'cause I've wanted to know for some time.

It would be helpful if somebody could update the application forms.

<Edited for typos...now that the beer has worn off (human factors, lesson 1)>

------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

[This message has been edited by Bear Cub (edited 10 February 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

Beg to differ Bear Cub, to use the second route, the 45 hours day training has to have included 5 hours IFR.

G

[GT]

For what it's worth, this is how I understand it. There is nothing called the night rating now, it is called the night qualification. There are no pre-course requirements for it, in fact it can be done as part of the PPL course.

I have been filling in my students' night qualification application on the old night rating form and just writing "Not Applicable" across the boxes for all the requirement bits. The CAA have been issuing the bit of paper to them, within a few days as well.

Regards, GT.

[DB6]

Bear Cub, the application form is an old one (although the CAA are still sending them out) and like GT I have been crossing out the bits that do not apply. There is no IF requirement whichever way you do it and it can be done as part of your PPL and within the 45 hours (not additional to as it was until recently), the reason being that the PPL requires 25 hours dual and 10 hours solo, the remaining 10 hours, dual or solo, can include training for the night qualification. This is recent information from a CAA representative at an instructor's seminar so I hope Watford agrees.
Cheers DB6
And yes it would help if they updated the application forms. And reduced the fee if applied for at the same time as the PPL (Hmmm, can't see that one happening somehow). And just out of interest it is possible to take the skill test after the 25 hours dual and 10 hours solo i.e. 35 hours although the remaining 10 hours have to be flown before licence issue.

[DB6]

Eureka ! EGKA and others, look at www.srg.caa.co.uk (http://www.srg.caa.co.uk) then 'personnel licensing & medical' then 'flight crew licensing' then 'FAQ' and it's the first 'ratings and endorsements' FAQ. And why am I doing this on a Friday night ?

[Bear Cub]

Now I'm totally confused!!!!

I'm using "THE EUROPEAN JAR-FCL PRIVATE PILOT LICENCE COURSE" (red book) issued by AOPA with a copyright date of March 1998.

It has the title of "JAR-FCL AOPA PPL Syllabus" on the front, too.

Page 1 (which is the third page in the book) states...

SUMMARY OF MINIMUM TRAINING HOURS

DUAL SOLO TOTAL
Private Pilot Licence 25 10 45
Night Qualification 3 5 flights 5
(The night flying hours are additional to the 45 hour PPL requirement).

Are you guys telling me that this is no longer the case!!!!!!!???????????

Does everybody agree that the skill test can be flown at the 35 hours stage??????

(This actually makes sense if taken literally...but I have to admit fear for the students who are paying for the course - so forgive me for asking for confirmation).

And...Genghis...the same book quoted above says that the only instrument training required is "sufficient to make a level 180° turn under instrument conditions"...not five hours.

Can you give me a reference or are we both the victims of out of date information.



------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't give you the reference, it was what I was told by a PPL examiner. I did have the AOPA book (gave it away to a deserving cause) but I did find several discrepancies between what that said and what the CAA told me at various points. I think that your statement is correct about instrument training if you aren't doing the night rating at the same time as the PPL, but 5 hrs in the hood is required if you are doing the night at the same time.

However, what I can do is tell you what is says in the license which is in front of me...

IX Validity: This license is to be re-issued not later than...

The privileges of this license ... medical certificate.

(blah blah) any member state (blah blah)

Night.


So it's listed in validity, not ratings (which is the next page and says SE Piston (Land)) or national only ratings (which is the following page and presumably would show my IMC rating, if I had one - for some reason they included "microlights" on that page, despite my having a separate license for them things and in any case don't need it according to my understanding of the rules).

G

[DB6]

Bear Cub, a lot has changed since 1998 as you may imagine, it IS no longer the case. Genghis, there is NO IF requirement at all for the night qualification whichever way you do it, the link in my last post should take you to the CAA website which gives the current state of play, as of Feb 2001.
Cheers DB6 Try this one: [URL=http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/pld/fcl/fcl_faq_detail.asp?ID=463]
Yep, that one should work.

[This message has been edited by DB6 (edited 10 February 2001).]

[rolling circle]

Well done DB6 - I knew that if I left it long enough, someone would eventually look at the CAA website. All of the information you need about licensing is either there or on the JAA website.

Bear Cub, if you believe what AOPA tell you it's no wonder you're confused. I have yet to meet anyone from AOPA who has the foggiest idea what is going on with JAR-FCL. I was told, categorically, by AOPA not four months ago that JAR-FCL 1 had not been amended - despite the fact that I had in front of me an amended version dated June 2000!

[Bear Cub]

You have absolutely no idea how bloody furious I am with the CAA having read the posting above.

Don't give us such s*** as to say "Read the website"...are we meant to read it every day??

The CAA lords itself over all the struugling students who are trying to gain licences...constantly moving the goal posts and then keeping the movements to themselves.

What bloody good would it have done to the foreign I/R holders if they had wanted to convert their ratings and read the site on January 29th????

I hate to even contemplate how many students have been ripped off for god knows how many hours of training that were not required - how many skill tests could have been completed when the weather was good enough...but maybe not quite enough to release someone on a qualifying cross country.

The Authority holds itself in such high regard as to criticise flying schools who are depserately trying to do things right, yet keep little secrets from the people that need to know it. They then have the temerity to talk about "duty of care to students". What crap.

They have the mailing address of every instructor and examiner in the entire training and testing system - yet vital information such as this is left to the merits of a "rumour network".

A couple of weeks ago I heard a statement suggesting that any instructor with over a thousand hours of instructional experience is a loser...if they were any good, they would have gone to an airline.

Tell me, what is the point of anyone trying to be a "student friendly, experienced instructor" if they are treated in such a way.

Especially aggravating as you now make them become airline quality - never mind air taxi - material before they may spend a few more thousand pounds on getting an instructor rating for the help of the students...it won't do them any good, will it?

Really, somebody tell me, what is the point....I'm seriously considering throwing away the whole JAA thing and going to find a commercial job in the USA.

Yours, p****d off
Bear Cub

[rolling circle]

Bear Cub - Your mindless rant would carry more credibility were it not for the fact that this thread is not about the IR but about the night qualification. The information on the night qualification has been available on the CAA website for at least two months and is, in any case, only a clarification of the requirements of JAR-FCL 1.125 which was published in 1996.

If I were you, I'd take more water with it. Perhaps, when you sober up, an apology may be in order.

[Noggin]

Bear Cub

You really are showing your ignorance. Precisely what goal posts have changed? The Night Qualification is exactly as it was proposed in 1997. Any rip off in training is surely due to training providers who do not either have a copy of JAR-FCL or who do bother to read it or associated AICs. Most of the items listed on the CAA Web Site are there to clarify missconceptions, not to signify changes in requirements.

All of the JAR-FCL PPL material was proposed by AOPA, hence the close adherence to the AOPA syllabus. The Night Qualification was also originally proposed by AOPA to be 5 hours in addition to the 45 hour PPL Course. When the JAR-FCL1 document was published in 1996 it stated:
45 hours experience in aeroplanes including
25 hours dual instruction;
10 hours supervised solo;
leaving 10 hours that can be any flying including experience on gliders helicopters etc. The night qualification (JAR-FCL 1.125c) is an additional 5 hours, but JAR-FCL1 fails to say what it is additional to. Therefore, there is nothing in JAR-FCL1 to prohibit the night qualification from forming part of the 10 hours of unspecified or "other" flying. Only 35 hours of mandatory training is specified. JAR-FCL1 states that all training shall be completed prior to taking the Skill Test. Again, there is nothing to prohibit the test being conducted on completion of the specified minimum training (35 hours). A total of 45 hours experience is required for licence issue.

The removal of the 4 hours IF requirement for UK PPL issue was notified in AIC 82/98 White 319 issued on 14 July 1998 para 3.2.

There have been no changes to these requirements since 1998. The recent policy statement issued by the JAA with regard to the conversion of foreign IR's is an initial statement of policy on licence conversion, prior to that, there was no common JAA policy, just a lot of assumptions. It is not a change made by the CAA as you claim.

As an aside, AOPA held a meeting with Industry to discuss the NPPL on Friday 9 Feb. Only Corporate Members were invited. Another wonderful piece of industry involvement in a very topical subject.


[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 11 February 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

DB6 - it would appear that the school at which I did my night rating was misinformed. However, since the 5 hours of Instrument Training they insisted I did has subsequently got me out of what could otherwise have been very hot water on at least one occasion, I think I shall resist the temptation to take it up with them.

Agree re: AOPA, I've never yet seen them do anything genuinely useful in the UK - I've never joined them and consider PFA and BMAA membership (which added together are cheaper than UK AOPA membership) much more useful. Reliable rumour tells me that PFA & BMAA are getting quite p^&*^*d off with AOPA about their playing their cards too close to their chests regarding the NPPL.

G

N.B. To be fair to Bear Cub (and I am not known to be a great fan of he and his rants) getting a consistent message out of CAA-FCL or even getting them to work to their own published rulebooks can be a bit of a challenge.

[DB6]

I have to side with Bear Cub a bit here. I'm sure the CAA are doing their best in the present JAR chaos (which should have **** all to do with GA anyway) but a) not everyone has internet access and b) it doesn't help when they send out 2 or 3 year old, out of date, application forms for the 'night rating' which is generally all the student sees. No wonder people are confused.
And before anyone thinks I'm having a stab at the CAA I'm not - they've always been very helpful when I've dealt with them (when I can get through anyway). JAR on the other hand......

[EGKA]

Errrr......

Thanks Chaps, seems I've touched a raw nerve somewhere along the line.

Dispite all that the information has proved useful, quick recap: -

AOPA syllabus useless
CAA application forms out of date
Rules changing every month

No wonder I had problems.....

Cheers

[rolling circle]

EGKA - Two out of three's not bad! Not only have the rules concerning the night qualification not changed every month, they haven't changed since JAR-FCL 1 was first published in 1997.

[Bear Cub]

Circle - you may be right...an apology is due...so...

EGKA, I apologise to you for having diverted your thread about night ratings, and having abused it to vent my frustration at the incompetence of the CAA - the very people that we all employ (through the payment of our numerous fees) to administer the workings of the aviation industry within the United Kingdom...as agreed, many many years ago, when ICAO was formed and each country accepted a common set of standards, rules and procedures.

Circle - I'm assuming that's what you meant when you suggested an apology???

Surely you don't think that YOU deserve a personal apology, do you? That would suggest that YOU feel that YOU were under attack - and that was most definately not the case...indeed, if you refer to my first message (which you must have read whilst you were sitting back waiting [by your own admission] for somebody else to say "read the website"...instead of helping EGKA with his question) you will see that I was hoping that either you, or your close friend, Watford would come in and advise us of the correct answer.

I have to make it very clear that I place a lot of creedance in what you and Watford say.....although I'm no longer sure (having read your posts) whether JAR-FCL was issued in 1996 or 1997.

I suppose, really, that maybe I should apologise to the CAA too - for they are presumably making some attempt to inform the people that employ them - as to the requirements for this, that and the other. (You will have to insert your own three topics there!!).

It must be particularly frustrating for the Head of SRG to go to work every morning, knowing that he is a failure. He presumably knows that it is part of his job to get this information out to the various interested parties and that, despite his attempts, it just isn't working...as is borne out by this very thread.

It is clear that pilots, instructors and examiners have no idea of the requirements...so, even though it could be argued that it is their individual responsibility to know this information, they are not getting it.....which says, to me, that the CAA are failing in THEIR responsibilities.

Fair play, I have to agree that he (the Head of SRG) has tried - he has used the internet (though I know of not one U.K. flying school that can keep a telephone line and ISP going all day just to look up the information - surely they cannot be expected to use their normal telephone line and risk losing business whilst "surfing"...so they must have another phone line purely for SRG information ..oh, and weather [now that you cannot telephone for a briefing anymore]).

I remember the good old days (long before my time) when information on licences and ratings was to be found in well known, easy to read, books. CAP53 and CAP54. They worked well. I've even seen promises from the CAA that these will be reissued when everything settles down...though I don't know when that will be, as it seems things haven't changed since they were first rewritten in 1996...or was it 1997...and they are still not current.

But then again, neither are the application forms for the night rating....and the multi rating (sorry, "MEP rating") forms suddenly became invalid - though nobody said at the time....not until applications were being rejected for being on the wrong paperwork.

Even the PPL Skill test form seems to be out of date already - it was designed for use on MEP class ratings, too....but that died at the same time as the wrong application form.

I bit the bullet last night and went for a trawl through the web site. Hey, loads of information....no idea as to how much money it will have cost to surf it all...it's a very big site and took a good couple of hours to read all the relevant stuff and print it out - so that at least I can attempt to show people what the requirements are if they ask.

Problem is, you see, that people believe what they are told by their instructors and examiners....as Genghis has clearly stated....they will probably want to see it in writing before accepting the word of some other guy who happens to be passing by with a different opinion.

Biggest snag I can see now is that none of the information on there seems to be validated with a date....and parts of it change without notice or warning...other parts of it (apparently) haven't changed in some four or five years...although THE INTREPRETATION obviously has changed - as shown by the posting from DB6 where he says "not additional to as it was until recently".

I actually learned another little snippet, too - it would appear that you can no longer train for an IMC rating in the USA. I found a message saying that IMC training could continue until December 31st 2000 - and then would only be allowed at organisations who have obtained approval to train for the night qualification. As no organisation has yet been approved for PPL training in the USA, it must be that you can only train for the night qualification at a commercially priced school...which would be PanAm or IFTA.

I must take the opportunity to say that, on the whole, I agree with DB6 in that many people at the CAA are helpful...they usually respond quickly to my e-mails, and they usually give me good answers....though, that alone, reminds me of the time that I was driving a CAA staff examiner to a meeting. The examiner was discussing the changes to rules and regs and showed me copies of two letters...both from the CAA, both to the same person, both in response to the same question - and both giving different answers.

The closing line from that CAA staff examiner was "write to the CAA with a question, if you do not like the answer wait a few days and then write to somebody else - take the best answer and keep the letter, so that you have it in writing".

Again, RC, I hope you did not take my frustration personally - though I have to say that the tone of your message (without emoticons) did come over as somewhat smug and arrogant (which I'm sure was not your intent). It was purely at the failure of the Head of SRG to do his duty.

Indeed, I was somewhat surprised as to how defensive you were to the CAA.

You know yourself how frustrating it can be to not have current information - you criticise AOPA (even though they do try) for not knowing what is going on...but I do get the same feeling from the CAA.....and you, yourself, recently stated in a message that Section 8 of CAP682 was not yet published - even though I have a printed copy of it on my desk....seems very similar to the situation you found yourself in with AOPA about the JAR-FCL amendments (amendments????...has something changed since 1996...I'd better go and have another two hours re-reading the web site in case of any changes - there appears to be no other way to find out, as I found no dates or amendment notification pages...will have to read it all, every day).

[Bear Cub]

Circle...forgot to say that I was actually well aware that the thread was about night "ratings" not the I/R.

If you note, the thread of my message was about the incompetence of the Head of SRG to keep us up to date on changes to either requirements or the interpretation of those requirements - not night ratings or instrument ratings.

[Charley]

Off topic I'm afraid that the CAA website is not the be-all and end-all.

I was looking the other day for the requirements that I would need to satisfy in order to get my IMC Rating. It [the website] says:

"Ratings/Endorsements - IMC Rating: Are there any changes to obtaining an IMC Rating?


No, but the IMC rating will remain as a national rating only. Holders of a night rating (not night qualification) may continue to claim the exemption towards instrument flying instruction, as stipulated in CAP 53, Part 2, chapter 6, Para 6.4. Holders of the night qualification are unable to claim this reduction as there is no instruction in instrument flying on the night qualification course."

I contacted several providers of documentation (Westward Digital, AFE, etc) to ask for a copy of CAP53 so that I could get a handle on the rest of the requirements and was greeted with the same response every time. In AFE's case;

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
"We cannot send you a copy of CAP 53 as we have none in stock. We do not have a date from the CAA as to when we will be resupplied because they say it is no longer a valid document."
</font>

The others all said similar. So CAP 53 is 'not a valid document' anymore. Yet the CAA website continues to dole out advice which is based on and refers to this 'invalid' documentation.....

Also, there is the fact that I obtained a night qualification as part of my PPL after doing the five hours of IF work for it. However I am no longer eligible to get an hours 'discount' off my IMC with it. Again, due to the schools/instructors having the wrong information.

I think Bear Cub can very easily be forgiven for ranting on this one.

[Genghis the Engineer]

We have an office copy of CAP53 (but I'm not in the office this week, sorry). However it is so far out of date wrt current CAA policy that it's not worth the paper anymore.

If you do find the answer, since I'm in the same boat (JAR-FCL PPL(A) inc. 5 hrs "compulsory" IFR + night rating) and wouldn't mind doing an IMC rating, I'd be very interested if you do find an answer.

G

[Bear Cub]

CAP 53, Part 2, chapter 6, Para 6.4. says - on a page dated August 1993 -

An applicant with a PPL, which includes a Night Rating, may be exempt from 3 hours of the flying instruction including not more than 2 hours by sole reference to instruments.



------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

[Noggin]

"It is clear that pilots, instructors and examiners have no idea of the requirements...so, even though it could be argued that it is their individual responsibility to know this information, they are not getting it.....which says, to me, that the CAA are failing in THEIR responsibilities"

Could it be that all those instructors who have completed a declaration to say that they have studied and understand JAR-FCL and JAR-OPS have made a false declaration?

[rolling circle]

OK, Bear Cub, I will try to answer some of your more wild accusations with the facts but, if you are determined to keep that enormous chip on your shoulder, there's not much I or anyone else can do about it.

"Surely you don't think that YOU deserve a personal apology, do you?". Of course not, that was never suggested.

"It must be particularly frustrating for the Head of SRG to go to work every morning, knowing that he is a failure". What a bloody ridiculous thing to say. How do expect to retain credibility if you make statements like that?

"It is clear that pilots, instructors and examiners have no idea of the requirements...so, even though it could be argued that it is their individual responsibility to know this information, they are not getting it.....which says, to me, that the CAA are failing in THEIR responsibilities." Wrong - It is clear that some pilots, instructors and examiners have no idea of the requirements although, as Noggin suggests, to try to blame that on the CAA says rather more about the individuals concerned.

"...(though I know of not one U.K. flying school that can keep a telephone line and ISP going all day just to look up the information..." Not that such a ridiculous statement as that is justified, I know of a number of schools that have either an ASDL,ISDN or leased line and are connected 24 hours a day. Dozens of others have dial up connections. In any case access to the internet is not necessary, you just may get the information a little more quickly. In my experience all policy changes are notified in writing to the Training Providers, if your training provider is not keeping you up to date - take it out on them, not me.

"I remember the good old days (long before my time) when information on licences and ratings was to be found in well known, easy to read, books. CAP53 and CAP54." Yes, I remember them, that was in the days when the CAA ran things! Of course we couldn't go back to that arrangement because the CAA are incompetent - aren't they?

Indeed, I was somewhat surprised as to how defensive you were to the CAA. I have no love of the CAA as a trawl of some of my previous posts will quickly reveal. However, the sooner everyone realises that this whole mess is down to the JAA and AOPA, the better.

"...you criticise AOPA (even though they do try)" Just remember that the PPL was never intended to be a part of JAR-FCL 1, it was only at the insistence of AOPA that it was included. Had it not been for AOPA's inept bungling, nothing to do with PPL training would have changed and we would not have been having this debate.

"If you note, the thread of my message was about the incompetence of the Head of SRG to keep us up to date on changes to either requirements or the interpretation of those requirements - not night ratings or instrument ratings." No it wasn't - the Head of SRG was not once mentioned and, if the post was not about the instrument rating, what did your statement "What bloody good would it have done to the foreign I/R holders if they had wanted to convert their ratings and read the site on January 29th????" mean?

Since you raise the subject of the change in rules for the IR, this was a decision of the JAA, taken with no warning. The UK CAA appear not only to have published it on the website but also to have sent a letter to all training providers (well, we got one and I know other FTO's did) informing them of the change in rules. What would you have preferred? - a personal telephone call to every pilot, instructor and examiner from the Head of SRG?

As to the various changes, or lack of them, in the application forms - all the FE's I have spoken to received the same letter from FCL that I did, detailing the requirements. None of us seem to have any doubt over the correct method of using them.

With regard to the CAA website, it is, contrary to your wilder meanderings, only really necessary to keep an eye on two items, both of which, incidentally, are dated. One is the list of Approved Training Organisations, which is updated monthly, and the other is the Policy Update. Both documents are accessed from the same page and so, if this is bookmarked, it will only take a moment of your valuable on-line time to check the dates and see if either has changed. Incidentally, a glance through the latest Policy Update reveals the following:

Training for JAR-FCL PPL and Associated Ratings outside JAA Member States

The JAA Committee has agreed that training outside JAA Member States for the JAR FCL PPL is permissible, subject to an approval process acceptable to all Member States, being in place. The United Kingdom will approve training for the JAR PPL in non-JAA Member States by organisations which comply with the proposed conditions and with the existing requirements of JAR-FCL. Organisations must obtain the CAA approval before offering training for JAR PPLs to be issued by the CAA. Following the JAA decision, those non-JAA based organisations which have offered training for UK PPLs have been given additional information about how to obtain the requisite JAR approval. They have until 30 June 2001 to obtain approval and, until then, they will be permitted to continue training for CAA issued JAR-FCL licences under the interim arrangements previously notified.

So that clarifies the position on the IMC rating - OK?

If you have any other wild, unsubstantiated allegations to throw my way, perhaps it would be better done by e-mail rather than taking up valuable space here.



[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 12 February 2001).]

[Bear Cub]

SRG Homepage About Us Publications Search Site Map Glossary About This Site
Passenger
Safety General
Aviation Personnel Licensing
and Medical Commercial
Aviation ATC and
Aerodromes Safety
Initiatives International
Services






Ratings/Endorsements - IMC Rating: Can I obtain an IMC Rating in the U.S.A.?


Yes. The JAA Committee has now agreed that training outside of JAA Member States with existing approved training organisations may continue to IMC training until 31 December 2000. After this date, only organisations who have obtained approval to train for the night qualification may continue to do so.


Cut and paste from the website.


&lt;&lt;Edit is to say: Noggin...No. If they had signed to say that they had memorised the entire book - even though it was issued four to five years ago and had numerous forthcoming NPA's (and still doesn't appear to be finalised)...then they would have made a false declaration&gt;&gt;



[This message has been edited by Bear Cub (edited 12 February 2001).]

[Noggin]

No, they did not have to memorise the entire book. AIC 55/98 provided specific subject headings that Instructors and Examiners had to read and understand prior to giving instruction or examine for a JAR-FCL Licence. Rather than hold an examination, they were trusted to read, digest, and sign to say they understand. The subject matter is included in the Instructor Examiner rating revalidation requirements.
There has only been one document amendment(1 June 2000) to JAR-FCL1 since 1997 when it was adopted.

Now if instructors and examiners do not know what is going on I fail to see how you can blame others.

Regarding the IMC credit for a Night Rating, don't assume that that includes a Night Qualification, as the latter does not have any additional Instrument Flying requirements against which a credit may be given.
"You don't get owt for nowt"


[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 15 February 2001).]