Lapsed SEP going solo

[18greens]

Hi, Heres a conundrum.

Can someone with a lapsed SEP (but current medical) go solo under an instructors signoff in the same way a student can be sent solo?

[BEagle]

For what purpose?

[timzsta]

I was going to pose a similar question. Let's say club approached by someone who got PPL 15 years ago but has not flown for last 8 years. Class rating and license have expired. They want to get back into flying.

They need medical and they need to pass a skill test to be able to fly as P1 again.

But as part of the process of getting them back up to speed provided they have got a medical can Instructor get out and send them off for some solo time?

[BEagle]

In the latter case, I would consider it entirely reasonable.

But for someone who has let their rating lapse through not having bothered to complete the normal revalidation requirements and now wants to go flying solo a week or so later - no. Do some training, then take a renewal LST.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Yes of course. How do you think you get back flying from those circumstances? - you need whatever training you need, part of which can, if the instructor so decides, be solo.

That's what I did after 13 years of not flying. Essentially I repeated the PPL course at about twice the speed, including solo flying.

[FlyingForFun]

Ok, so to expand on the question slightly....

How about a student undergoing tail-dragger differences training. Can he go solo before he has his differences training signed off. (For example, instructor happy to send him solo to practice 3-pointers with 10kt wind down the runway, but he hasn't yet been taught wheel-landings?)

And if yes, what happens if we're talking about ratings other than SEP? Can an instructor send an MEP student solo? How about an IR student being sent solo in IMC???

My understanding on all these questions is No, and that includes 18greens' original question. I always considered that a pilot needs to either hold an appropriate qualification for the flight if he is captain, or else needs to be undergoing a course which has a solo element. But I've never put this to the test...

FFF
----------------

[DFC]

Any person who holds an appropriate medical in the UK can be authorised to fly solo by an appropriately qualified instructor.

There is nothing more to it than that.

However, it is impossible to send a student solo in a multi class or in something that requires a type rating.........not cause the law says you can't but because the documents you have to abide by as an authorised FTO or TRTO will prevent it from happening.

IFR can only happen during dual training, a test or when qualified.

Only want to ever fly solo in the UK then simply find yourself an instructor to authorise all your flying and you will never need to bother with any exams or tests. Restricted to licensed aerodromes unless one flies a microlight where there becomes absolutely no restriction though.

When as mentioned before, one wishes to send someone solo to practice some taildragger flying before giving the logbook sign-off then one must remember (for the time being) that the solo has to happen at a licensed aerodrome. The dual can take place at a farm strip provided that the student holds an appropriate licence and class rating and this is only differences training.

Regards,

DFC

[Keygrip]

I didn't do it, but during my own (then) Group B rating, my instructor authorised me to fly the aircraft solo from Liverpool to Blackpool to pick him up during my training course. Three hours total time on Group B.

[TurboJ]

And this one....student passes his PPL skill test and is waiting six weeks for his licence to come from the CAA. He can't fly as P1 but can he fly if signed off as a solo flight by an instructor?

I think he can.....it will also come with the limitiations imposed on student pilots, even though he has passed his skill test.

[18greens]

The particular example is a PPL doing a tailwheel conversion course.

He/she is ready for solo in the a/c but has let the sep lapse(test planned for next week). The weather, moon phases and student readiness were all there but the conumdrum of the lapsed sep put us off. Had the chap had far less experience (200 hours less and no ppl) , been a student with 10 hours , a medical and readiness I would have sent him - which feels wrong.

Any views.

[DFC]

TurboJ,

The student can indeed fly as P1 but they are still a student and must be authorised and it must be solo and it must be to and from licensed airfields unless a microlight.

What you talk about is common at most schools I know. In the majority of cases they do not charge for the solo supervision and the "student" gets the aircraft at the ppl hire rate. Prevents them going rusty while awaiting the paperwork.

---------------

18Greens,

Provided that it is a licensed airfield then there is no reason why you can not send the student solo if you are happy.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Quite right, DFC. Must be at a licensed or government aerodrome.

But I'm not sure whether, as technically a non-licence holder, the 'student' would need to be supervised by a FI, rather than a CRI(SPA) such as a PFA coach?

[3 Point]

Why the requirement for a licenced (or government) aerodrome? My understanding is that this is only required for training flights for the issue or renewal of a licence or rating.

Difference training is neither of these, neither is a student flying solo after his skill test but before licence issue; as long as he does not claim the hours towards licence issue! Also, a lapsed licence flying solo before taking his skill test would only require a licenced aerodrome if the solo hours were a required part of his training. In most cases the training requirements are determined by the CFI so one could use judgement as to whether solo was required and therefore whether a licenced aerodrome was nessecary.

That's my tuppenceworth; be glad to hear your thoughts ... ...

:)

[DFC]

The SEP CRI (or PFA Coach) who is not an FI could not send a "student" solo as they are not authorised to do ab-initio training i.e. their "client" must already hold a valid licence with medical and they are simply providing dual differences training or refresher training to qualified pilots.
To use an example described previously - IF a PFA coach (a CRI) is training a licence holder towards the tailwheel differences requriement, they can not send them off in the aircraft solo until they have certified completion of the diffrences training in the logbook. THis is because they are only authorised to instruct, they are not authorised to supervise solo flights.
Thus an FI could send the guy solo half way through but a CRI can not.
3 Point,
If the pilot held a valid SEP rating and was merely doing differences training then the training could be done at any field. However, sending the guy off in the taildragger without having completed the differences training (i.e. he is not dual and he is not flying within the privileges of his licence / ratings) makes it a student solo flight and thus must be from a licensed airfield.
Differences dual training, IMC rating training etc can all be done from unlicensed strips but there is no student solo element in that training.
As for the student solo while awaiting licence - must most definitely be under the same requirements at all the training prior to test pass. You can not pick hours in the logbook that you wish to "ignore". To go down that raod would lead to certain organisations authorising solo student flights at unlicensed airfields and simply "not claiming those hours" on the application. Not allowed I am afraid.
Regards,
DFC

[3 Point]

Hi DFC,

Sorry but I disagree! Note however that I am talking here about what is within the rules, not necessarily what is sensible or good practice.

The ANO (Art 101 (2)(a)(ii) and (iii) and (2)(b)(iii) (aa)and (bb)) says that a licensed aerodrome must be used for “instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence” or for flying a test for the same purpose.

A licensed pilot undertaking difference training is not receiving “instruction in flying … for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence”, he is simply doing difference training. Therefore the licensed aerodrome is not required and an FI can send such a person solo from a farmer’s field for solo flying as part of the difference training.

Similarly, a licensed pilot who has let his SEP rating lapse is not training for the grant of a license or rating but for the renewal of his rating so the licensed aerodrome is not required.

The final case of a student who wants to go solo from a non-licensed aerodrome is a bit less clear but even there I think a case can be made that, if the solo hours thus achieved are not part of the 10 hours solo or 45 hours total required for licence issue such a flight would not be “for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence” so could take place from an unlicensed aerodrome. I’d be pretty reluctant to sign up to this in practice as we really are splitting hairs and getting into the letter rather than the spirit of the rules but the first two examples I’d be quite comfortable with.

I wonder what Beagle or FL think about my reading of the rules!!

3 Point

[3 Point]

18 Greens,

"ready for solo in the a/c but has let the sep lapse(test planned for next week). The weather, moon phases and student readiness were all there but the conumdrum of the lapsed sep put us off."

I'd have sent him! A pilot with a lapsed PPL but a curent medical can be sent solo under an FI's supervision just like a student, as you can see from my post above I rekon it can even be done from a non-licensed aerodrome!

Happy landings

3 point

[DFC]

3 Point,

You seem to forget that flying solo can be done in two ways;

1. As a student authorised by and under the supervision of a Flight instructor and meeting all the requirements such as licensed aerodrome etc; or
2. As a qualified pilot exercising the privileges of their licence, medical and ratings they hold

All the examples you give require dual training only. There is no solo training required as part of any differences training or for renewal.

With the differences training, the pilot can not fly as P1 even solo until you sign off the differences training as being fully completed to the required standard. To do otherwise would remove the requiement for differences training before flying a single pilot tailwheel type to be certified would it not?

However, if you are an FI then you could effectively send them solo under the same conditions as a student and one of those conditions are that it is a licensed airfield.

Remeber also that all JAR training must come under an RTF/FTO and they should have clear requirements for the authorisation and supervision of solo flights.

Regards,

DFC

[3 Point]

Hi DFC,

Yes, I agree that solo flying must either be as student or licensed pilot but that’s not the point at issue here.

The content of difference training is not specified in detail but rather is left to the discretion of the instructor administering the training; I might consider that some solo consolidation is a sensible part of the tailwheel training in my organisation and might want to see a pilot complete, say 5 solo circuits before I sign him up and he goes off in a C170 with three passengers for his first solo wheeler! To send him solo as part of the difference training does not remove the requirement for that training. This line of argument is like saying we would never send students solo because “you can’t be a pilot until you are a pilot”! There is a world of difference between a qualified PPL with SEP rating jumping into a taildragger solo with no training or prior experience and him flying a solo flight under my supervision as part of a structured training programme.

Similarly, the “requirement” for training for a lapsed SEP rating is at the CFIs discretion and I might well decide that some solo practice was beneficial.
Pilots flying solo under these conditions are not training for the grant of a licence as I said before so I don’t see the need for a licensed aerodrome!

3 Point

[DFC]

3 Point,
Guidance on Differences training required is clearly specified in LASORS. Section F Appendix E.

The only pilot training that has any solo element is the PPL or part of the integrated CPL. All other courses of training are dual only.
To make my previous comments as clear as possible, to send a pilot solo in a tailwheel before you have signed off the differences training, you must ignore that they are a licence holder and act as if they are a student without a licence. That is why a licensed airfield is required. It is bending the rules but does work if you feel the need.

If you claim that they can solo anywhere because they are a licence holder etc makes them fall foul of the following;

"In order to fly as pilot-in-command (PIC) of an
aeroplane in the SEP (Land) class you must have an
SEP (Land) Rating endorsed on your licence." - LASORS.

There is also the requirment to have differences training endorced in the logbook.

As for training for lapsed class ratings - well actually the training is at the discretion of the licence holder so that they can pass the test. They can choose to complete no training if they feel they can pass the test.

Remember also that the insurance especially in regard to private aircraft may not allow student solo flying at all i.e. the PIC will always have to be qualified.

Regards,

DFC

[3 Point]

Hi DFC,

As I said before, I am of course talking about what is legal and within the rules, not necessarily what is sensible. Yes, a lapsed SEP less than 5 years has no training requirements so it is up to the pilot himself to decide what preparation he feels is required prepare for the test; for a rating lapsed over 5 years th CFI decides the content of the training package. In either cae solo might be beneficial and wold certainly be legal if supervised by an FI.

I do realise that there may be insurance issues. But, leaving that aside for now; I am familiar with the guidance in LASORS but, it is guidance, not requirements! One might also say that it is pretty thin guidance as it does not in fact specify that any flying is required at all, never mind whether it is dual or solo. It is simply a list of topics to include in difference training; I could legally meet the guidance as published by giving a series of ground briefings!

I’m not saying that a pilot can go solo anywhere because he is a licence holder; I’m saying that anyone (licence holder or not) can go solo as part of a difference training course if I decide it is part of the course that I am administering (it is well within my gift to decide the content of the course I offer). Further, because he is not training for the grant of a license or rating but simply completing difference training, as I said above, ANO Art 101 (licensed aerodrome) does not apply.

I see from previous threads that you have been in discussion on this very same subject some years ago and you obviously have not changed your mind since then. I am heartened to see however that there are others who agree with my point of view. I think we are unlikely to change each other’s minds so I’ll leave it there; thanks for an interesting debate!

Happy landings

3 Point

[lady in red]

3 Point
If you are going to pontificate on the law, then at least make sure that you are using the most up to date version of the ANO. Article 101 became article 126 at least a year ago.......

[3 Point]

Lady in Red

OK, I'm reaching for an up to date ANO as we speak but; I bet it still says that a licensed aerodrome is required for training for the grant of a license! This does not include difference or refresher training. It’s not my intention to pontificate but simply to be precise in my understanding of the rules.

DFC said earlier that “Guidance on Differences training required is clearly specified in LASORS”. I say that the guidance in LASORS is anything but “clearly specified”; It has a simple list of subject areas and no more. It is precisely this lack of detail which allows (quite rightly in my view) instructors to use their judgement and experience in deciding what training is needed in each individual case. This may be solo, dual or ground training; more or less of each as the circumstances dictate.

Have you any comments on the substance of this discussion?

3 Point

[lady in red]

IT may be of interest to those reading this thread that the whole question of training from unlicensed aerodromes is being reviewed by a CAA committee and there will be a letter of consultation coming out shortly before the necessary changes to the ANO are made. The LAASG committee discussions have all been available on the CAA website so you can read where the whole process has got to.

[xrayalpha]

Hey you guys, why not fly a microlight!

There is no requirement for any dual traning in the microlight syllabus - so you can fly solo from your first lesson.

You can even do it in a taildragger.

Or in a twin!

It all goes back to the early 1980s when there were very few two seat microlights. So the requirement is for at least 10 hours solo flight - but no requirement for any dual! In fact, the instructors used to teach from the boot of a Morris Marina with a loudhailer!!

The twin is a Lazair - and since it is a single seater (and the only microlight twin) you can only learn solo on it.

Of course, in practise, very few learn completely solo. But one example might be someone who had flown a lot in the USA on a FAR103 compliant ultralight and now wanted to fly over here. They might not need much training, but would need the full minimum hours because the US has no ultralight licence.

In that sense makes more sense than JAR land where a pal who had 700 plus hours in his light aircraft (on a NPPL SEP) then had to fly a couple of dozen hours with a 300hr instructor - with zero hours on type - to get his JAR SEP.

But those are the rules. Isn't it fun!