NPPL re-val by experience.....

[Fake Sealion]

Apologies if this has been well covered before but.....

Does the "one hour with an instructor" within the validity period have to be ONE single flight of (at least) one hour or (as I read somewhere) can it be two or more flights totalling at least one hour?? For example a couple of Club check flights?

Note this is for NPPL SEP not JAR - PPL

Thanks

[BEagle]

If you haven't yet revalidated onto the revised NPPL SSEA Class Rating system, you have only 5 days left to do so. After that you will require a renewal GST.

Under the former 'rolling validity' scheme, part of the requirement was to fly at least one training flight with an instructor of at least 1 hr duration in the previous 12 months prior to the date of flight.

Once you are on the new scheme, you may complete an accumulated 1 hour of training flying within the 24 months of the rating validity period. How and when is up to you.

I repeat, if you haven't already revalidated onto the revised scheme, the transition period in which you may do so expires at the end of 30 June 2009.

[Fake Sealion]

OK Beagle thanks for that.
I re-validated by experience back in Dec 08 for 24 months and have already had a check flight of 0.7 hour - and have another due next month - hence my question.

[will5023]

Ok here goes, in plain English....the old 13 month NPPL SSEA validation by experience will no longer apply by 29th June 2009. You need to have in your LICENCE a revalidation page(fcl150) which will have a VALID TOO column. Provided you have the required hours an Examiner can sign this page for the new 24 month period, after which you will have to do a Bi-annual check flight. IF you do not have the hours, you will have to do a BFR check, before the 29th JUNE 2009 to revalidate your licence.I have copied below from the LAA web site.

ATTENTION NPPL HOLDERS.

(Nothing in this announcement is meant to contradict relevant sections of the Air Navigation Order or the AIC issued on the topic, which of course, take
precedence.)

From July 1st 2009, to be legal as pilot in command using an NPPL, the relevant rating in your NPPL needs to have a specific future expiry date associated with it, with the entry in your licence signed by an examiner or the CAA.

This should not be a problem for microlight or SLMG pilots who have been on such a scheme of a 'fixed future expiry date' from the start but it could be a real legality issue after the end of this month for 'SSEA' rated pilots unless they check and take appropriate action if necessary. Some will not need to, having already complied with the requirement, but many will need to take action before the end of this month.

Most pilots with NPPL SSEA ratings have in the past been subject to a self-certifying 'rolling validity' scheme and until recently have not been forced to see an examiner to have a specific future 'expiry date' for the SSEA rating written in their licences.This situation has now changed. The issue is further complicated by early NPPLs being issued with 'SEP' ratings before an AIC, issued in 2004, admitted that these should have been called 'SSEA' and should be treated as such.

Every NPPL holder is advised to check their NPPL's rating page. If you find you have either an SSEA rating, or an SEP rating, and it does NOT have a specific future date mentioned in the EXPIRY column, then you need to take immediate action BEFORE the end of this month or you will not have the legal right to fly as pilot in command until you undergo a flight test to regain the rating concerned. Until the end of this month, current pilots without a specific future expiry date written against the rating have the opportunity to resolve this and avoid a flight test with a mere paperwork exercise.

If you find your licence has either an SSEA or SEP rating without a definite future date in the expiry column, you need to see an examiner (all LAA coaches are 'R' examiners for example) before the end of June 2009, and, providing you are current under the old scheme of validity, you will be given an expiry date of 2 years hence.

Hope this helps.


Once you have ratings with definite future expiry dates, you can start counting your flying hours towards a future revalidation based on the new rules detailed in AIC 30/2008 http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/white/EG_Circ_2008_W_030_en.pdf (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/white/EG_Circ_2008_W_030_en.pdf)

[will5023]

Sub note.
JAR PPL SEP/SLMG/TMG 24 month validation

UK NPPL SSEA/SEP/SLMG 24 month validation

PPL A(pre 1996) can still be 13 month validation for SLMG, SEP is 24 month validation.
The bi-annual flight check can cover both SEP/TMG i.e one flight check, but not SLMG which is a seperate rating.

[BEagle]

will5023, please do not post such inaccurate statements!

Ok here goes, in plain English....the old 13 month NPPL SSEA validation by experience will no longer apply by 29th June 2009. You need to have in your LICENCE a revalidation page(fcl150) which will have a VALID TOO column. Provided you have the required hours an Examiner can sign this page for the new 24 month period, after which you will have to do a Bi-annual check flight. IF you do not have the hours, you will have to do a BFR check, before the 29th JUNE 2009 to revalidate your licence.I have copied below from the LAA web site.

There was never a '13 month SSEA revalidation by experience' - the original SSEA revalidation was a 'rolling validity' requirement. This ceases after 30 Jun 2009.

Provided you have the required hours an Examiner can sign this page for the new 24 month period, after which you will have to do a Bi-annual check flight.

No. You need to revalidate onto the new system before the end of 30 Jun 2009. There is no such thing as a 'bi-annual check flight'. Revalidation under the new system is either by experience or by GST with an Examiner.

IF you do not have the hours, you will have to do a BFR check, before the 29th JUNE 2009 to revalidate your licence.

Again, there is no such thing as a 'BFR check'. If you cannot revalidate by experience, you must revalidate by GST with an Examiner or, if you cannot achieve this by the end of 30 Jun 2009, you must renew your SSEA Class Rating by flying a renewal GST with an Examiner.

All this is no secret - it was announced in an AIC over a year ago. If you haven't checked AICs for over 12 months, you shouldn't expect much sympathy.

PPL A(pre 1996) can still be 13 month validation for SLMG, SEP is 24 month validation.
The bi-annual flight check can cover both SEP/TMG i.e one flight check, but not SLMG which is a seperate rating.

Only old-style UK PPL (SLMG) or UK PPL (Microlight) holders may elect to remain under 13 month revalidation criteria. SEP Class Rating requirements are in accordance with JAR-FCL and there is no change. The same applies to TMG Class Ratings. Consolidated revalidation criteria for pilots who hold both JAR-FCL SEP and TMG Class Ratings remains as before. Again, there is no 'bi-annual flight check' under JAR-FCL, there is a requirement for an hour of training flying with an authorised instructor.

Pilots who hold SEP Class Ratings and who have completed differences training for SLMG and/or Microlights may maintain privileges on such classes provided that they maintain the validity of their SEP Class Ratings. However, if someone really wants a standalone SLMG Class Rating on a UK-issued non-NPPL, then they would need to maintain the validity of that Rating....

In summary, whilst your post might have seemed helpful, it is riddled with inaccuracy and will only serve to spread confusion.

All NPPL holders should ensure that they have read and understood AIC 30/2008 (Whire 146). It's only been in existence since 24 April 2008...

[Crash one]

BEagle. Thanks for that, I have recently had 1 hr with an instructor who duly signed my licence as "valid until 7/6/2011" Please clarify "Examiner / Instructor" Does the "Examiner" have to be an Examiner or just a bog standard FI? Cos I only have 5 days to put it right.

[BEagle]

Certificates of Revalidation may only be signed by Examiners. So yes, the FI's error needs to be corrected before the end of 30 Jun 2009.

Why on earth did an FI who is not an Examiner think he was empowered to sign Rating revlidations in pilot licences?

You should not be expected to pay for an Examiner to sign your Certificate of Revalidation - name and shame if you are!

[Crash one]

Some confusion at my local club I think, Thanks for the clear up I now need to panic a bit.
With the 1 hr "instructor" in the log book is this just a paper job or do I have to fly with an Examiner?
Licence was first issued July 07.

[BEagle]

It's merely a paperwork exercise if your SSEA Class Rating is currently valid - you do NOT need to fly with an Examiner, just get him/her to sign the Certificate of Revalidation in your licence. Which should be free of any charge.

The Examiner does NOT need to send any paperwork to the CAA after signing your Certificate of Revalidation.

[Crash one]

Thank you BEagle, This will be attended to.
As a point of interest, in case this still remains tits up, the instructor hour was in my a/c with a tailwheel, the instructor has not flown a tailwheel a/c. Problem??

[BEagle]

How on earth could the FI conduct a training flight in an aeroplane he was unqualified to fly?

[Crash one]

Apparently as long as the exercises requested by the pilot did not involve anything to do with tailwheel differences ie: landing/takeoff procedures.

[julian_storey]

Sounds a bit iffy to me! :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

On such a flight, the Instructor is PIC. But he/she cannot be PIC on an aeroplane he/she is unqualified to fly.

[Crash one]

The way I was told is, the pilot/PUT agrees with the instructor what the training flight will consist of ie: PFL, stall practice, general handling/spin recovery/avoidance, zone transit radio procedures, navigation, etc. If the pilot wanted an hour on touch & go practice into a short grass strip in a tailwheel a/c then a suitably qualified instructor would be required.
The main thing here is that the content of the training flight is up to the pilot not the instructor. In this case I opted to let the instructor decide, general handling, PFL, stall etc.

[Crash one]

Having said that I take your point PIC = Captain/qualified to fly that a/c. But this is an instructional flight with an already qualified pilot who (should) not require "training". as opposed to a training flight where the instructor may be required to take control due to the student's incompetence.

[S-Works]

Anytime an Instructor is giving Instruction, he is the Pilot In Command. To be Pilot in Command he must legally be able to be the commander. If he does not have tailwheel differences training then he can't be Pilot in Command.

Regardless of the fact that you were current on type, you were using the flight as an Instructional flight towards the revalidation requirements and as such should have been PUT. BUT as the Instructor was not legally allowed to be commander on the flight you did you were pilot in command and he was the passenger. As such the flight does not count towards your revalidation requirements.

Therefore you need to go and do a legal flight with and Instructor and have your logbook signed and then have an EXAMINER - Revalidation or above sign your licence.

[BEagle]

The whole purpose of the mandatory flight is training. The FI must be qualified to act as Commander; for a tailwheel aeroplane, this requires that the FI has completed tailwheel differences training and has 'TW' annotated in his personal log book upon completing that training. JAR 1.215 Appendix 1.

It sounds to me that your FI needs to look at the books.....

Meanwhile, you will need to fly with another FI who is qualified to fly tailwheel aeroplanes and then find an Examiner to revalidate your SSEA Class Rating onto the new system before the end of 30 Jun 2009.

bose-x....snap! You beat me to it!!

[xrayalpha]

BEagle wrote:

"You should not be expected to pay for an Examiner to sign your Certificate of Revalidation .... it is merely a paperwork exercise."

So are my accounts, yet my accountant charges me plenty!

Perhaps, given the complexity of this - as shown by the range of misunderstandings exhibited here and elsewhere - examiners should charge.

Their expertise - and time spent digesting all the ramifications of this (just think of the single-seat only endorsement on microlights that can be really useful if someone hasn't managed to do their full hour before the two years is up) - is surely worth something.

And, of course, there is a fee to be paid to the CAA to be an examiner. How does an examiner earn that back? Not from the one hour's flying if done with another instructor/s!

[BEagle]

Sadly, many Examiners have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the revised ANO requirements of NPPL revalidations. They should reasonably be expected to keep themselves up to date by reading AICs, at the very least.

If someone wishes to be an Examiner, they should first look at their business case. Fleecing people for a few seconds with a pen is entirely unreasonable - and was actually prohibited in the pre-€urocracy days of BX examiners.

[S-Works]

And, of course, there is a fee to be paid to the CAA to be an examiner. How does an examiner earn that back? Not from the one hour's flying if done with another instructor/s!

I think you need to separate the revalidation from normal class examining. A revalidation examiner does not pay anything for the authorisation. A FE/CRE pays and they recover this through doing skill tests or as is the case for some of us it is use in the normal course of work for crew currency and is covered by the employer.

Guidance from the CAA is that there should be no charge for signing certificate of experiences as it is a paperwork exercise. For the five minutes it takes to check the licence, logbook and sign an SRG1119 this is not an unreasonable position I think.

There is a lot of myth and rubbish around this. I know for example a friend who is in the CI was made to do another 1 hour with the CFI because he was told the hour with the Instructor had to be in the last 90 days even though I had 10 hours of dual with me 6 months earlier and was then charged £28 on top of this to have his licence signed.

[BEagle]

A case for Regulation 6 action, perhaps?

Unless, of course, the local club rules required additional recency requirements.

I think we should start a $hit list of those FEs who charge for 5 minutes of pen time.

[xrayalpha]

OK folks, time to take the tin hats off!

I only "suggested".

Of course, I am an examiner who doesn't get his ratings paid for by an employer!

The famous libel trial between the artist James Whistler and Oscar Wilde also comes to mind.

Whistler was asked how long it took him to 'knock off' The Falling Rocket. He said that it took him two days to paint it . He was then asked whether 200 guineas was not too high a price for only two days work. To this he replied that it was not too much for the 'knowledge of a lifetime'.

Perhaps since examiners don't get paid for signing revals, some don't take it seriously enough to spend a "lifetime" acquiring the knowledge to do it in a few minutes!

That might explain the lack of "professionalism".

As someone who runs his own business, it is amazing how much time and money people who are "employees" - ie don't have to pay their own and others' bills - think can be given at "no cost".

If I "gave away" half a day a week, I would be giving away my entire profit.

ps. I actually don't charge for revals, don't charge for advice when buying aircraft, don't charge for inspecting aircraft clubmembers are thinking of buying, don't charge for advice on where to fly, don't charge for petrol runs (spent more than 1700 on petrol in the last week for Fly-UK people and actually undercharged on 20l by 19p!), don't charge for the 40 phone calls on Sunday because of crap weather around Oban and the airfield there panicking..... etc etc.

Of course, that is don't charge "directly". Still need to pay the bills somehow. So last week a propective student whose instructor has had to leave his field for a few weeks and then will be abroad for a month or two came to see about flying here.

But my hourly training rate - at £20 an hour more than his absent instructor's - was too much.

Perhaps if I charged for all those things that are free, I could charge £20 an hour less.

Or should student pilots subsidise trained pilots who - often - don't read the AICs?

Discuss.

[S-Works]

Dunno, mate but you have gone off at a complete to tangent to the original question!!

The CAA stance on revalidation by experience is that it should not be charged. If an examiner does not like the fact that to be an examiner they have a responsibility to ensure they understand all of the standards then they should give up the authorisation and concentrate on something else. Being a professional and embracing the responsibilities of the role should have nothing to with money.

[DenhamPPL]

I was told I had to pay £20 cash recently to be "signed off" by an examiner after I'd already completed my PPL SEP renewal flight with another instructor at the same club (this wasn't at Denham).

[lurker06]

A further question for BEagle, please:-

I thought I had satisfied the transitional arrangement for revalidation but the exchanges with Crash1 have raised doubts (we are members of the same flying club). The gentleman who signed my Certificate of Revalidation was described as a 'Revalidation Examiner', but how do I verify that he is authorised so to sign? His number is of the form UK/R/nnnnnnC. (there is no problem with type qualification)

I have tried looking at the CAA website to see if I can find a description of the numbering system, but without success. I also tried to look at the NPPL website, but it seems to have disappeared at the moment.

Sorry to labour the point, but time is now short.

Lurker

[xrayalpha]

Bose-X, apologies for thread drift.

Gets my goat when "non-commercially minded" people - and that includes the CAA running the show - fail to understand that nothing's free in this world.

Equally, gets my goat when people - like the CAA, again - have a monopoly and work inefficiently and overchange. Like licence issue fees more than double the fee for a passport or driving licence. They are not operating commercially and competitively, they just charge what they like because they are a monopoly.

Now, good point about "how do you know if your examiner is actually an examiner".

You used to have R, GR and X ratings in microlights, for example. So one might be Xnnnnn or GRnnnnnn.

Now we have just got our licence number as a reference. So with my new FE authority, my number hasn't changed.

[S-Works]

Lurker, to answer your question. An examiner uses their licence number along with the rating they are using in front of it at the time. CAA guidance is that you use the correct reference for the task at that time. So as an example, I am a revalidation examiner and a Class Rating examiner. If I were to sign your licence for revalidation by experience then I would put UK/R/xxxxxxx on the ratings page with no test date just an expiration date.

If we had done an LPC instead then the ratings page would have the test date and I would sign as UK/CRE/xxxxxxx. If a PPL FE had done the LPC then he would have signed UK/FE/xxxxxxx. In practice what a lot of people are in the habit of doing is just signing with the highest authority they hold. In the case of examiner levels above R then those levels have embedded R privileges as standard. It is only in more unusual circumstances where you would have someone hold 2 separate authority's. LAA full coaches are R examiners as part of the role, but many of us have different examiner ratings to go with the day job for example so end up with 2 separate authority's.

Generally the ones you see for revalidation are:

R
FE
CRE

Each examiner is given a written authority from the CAA which contains a list of what they are authorised to do, it is a page the same size as a licence page and most people keep them with the licence. If you wish you can ask the examiner to see the authority to check if it is current and appropriate for the level you are asking them to do.

Xrayalpha. I share your sentiment completely.

[BEagle]

lurker06, if he was a R examiner, that's fine.

I was told I had to pay £20 cash recently to be "signed off" by an examiner after I'd already completed my PPL SEP renewal flight with another instructor

If by 'PPL SEP renewal flight' you mean your 1 hr flight with an instructor required as part of your SEP Class Rating revlidation by experience, then £20 cash for an Examiner's pen time is utterly unreasonable. Where was this? Did you get a receipt?

An 'instructor' cannot 'renew' anything. If an SEP Class Rating lapses, it can only be renewed by flying a Licensing Skill Test (not the PPL(A) Skill Test) with an Examiner.

The CAA, rightly or wrongly, is required to make a 6% profit. You can blame Thatcher for that. The staffing levels (at the working level, at least) are much less than they were some years ago. They do not work inefficiently, but if you want a good service rather than an adequate service, you have to pay the going wage rate..........:oh:

[lurker06]

Gentlemen: many thanks for your helpful replies.

Lurker

[Jumbo Driver]

Being a professional ... should have nothing to (do) with money.

bose-x, I think I know what you were thinking - but I'm sure you didn't mean to say it in quite that way ... ;)

JD
:)

[Crash one]

Checked up yesterday & the FI is in fact a Ground/Reval Examiner.
Tailwheel issue also resolved as was. NPPL legally requires differences training & logbook signoff. JAA PPL does not, it's a SEP, the pilot should be intelligent enough to find out where the wheels are.

Lurker 06
Check with CFI but all the instructors are Examiners as above, CFI is the only Flight Examiner (GST etc).
Go & have a word.

[S-Works]

Tailwheel issue also resolved as was. NPPL legally requires differences training & logbook signoff. JAA PPL does not, it's a SEP, the pilot should be intelligent enough to find out where the wheels are.

Er no! Either NPPL or JAA PPL requires differences sign off for all of the 7 required differences training.

Tailwheel
SLPC
EFIS
Retract
Wobbly Prop
Turbo Charging
Pressurisation

Therefore unless your Instructor had differences training in his logbook or could claim currency and grandfather rights then he could not be PIC.

[Crash one]

I'm not about to fight a battle by proxy for a very reputable FTO. Any comeback, I have name & number written down, who cares?

[S-Works]

Any comeback, I have name & number written down, who cares?

The problem is it you that will care. It is your responsibility to ensure that you comply with the law. The information you have been given by me and others is not some inside secret. It is in LASORS and and JAR FCL1. I suggest you take a look at Section F, appendix E for what is required then point your reputable FTO at the rules.

If it goes pear shaped it is your responsibility to have complied, shrugging your shoulders and pleading ignorance is no excuse. But it is your call.

It should be noted that when changing to different types,
or variants of types, that fall within the single-pilot singleengine
piston (SEP) class rating, the Differences Training
is specifically required to encompass particular ‘complex’
features with which the new type or variant may be
equipped. These features are:-
• Variable Pitch (VP) Propellers
• Retractable Undercarriage
• Turbo/Super-charged Engines
• Cabin Pressurisation
• Tail-Wheel

[BEagle]

Tell the 'very reputable FTO' to see Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL1.215.

You need to have complied with the requirements before the end of 30 Jun 2009 or your SSEA Class Rating will no longer be valid.

[Crash one]

BEagle / BoseX.
I searched through all 221 pages of JAA FCL 1 last night & can find no reference to any apendix to 1.215, several to 1.240/260 etc. However there are references to "differences training required" in other parts of the JAA PPL text. This was on the CAA site.
I shall discuss this issue with our CFI & with his "boss".
If I require a GST because it's getting late, then I am going to have to be happy with that.
When one asks these specific questions of well qualified instructors/CFIs & gets an answer that seems perfectly reasonable, I don't think it should be necessary to read the entire ANO from cover to cover to check.
However!!!!!!!
Thank you for your advice, it has been listened to.

[BEagle]

I couldn't find the reference in the latest re-arrangment of JAR-FCL 1 either!

Nevertheless, the same table is reproduced in LASORS Section F Appendix B Table 1 (pdf page 285 of 684).

The CFE is away on leave at the moment and will reply to me with the definitive answer after he returns; however, another senior CAA Examiner commented: A 'training flight' implies the instructor acting in his normal capacity and so the flight is dual with the FI as captain. If that's the case then the FI would need to be qualified to act as PIC.

[Crash one]

Quote:
A 'training flight' implies the instructor acting in his normal capacity and so the flight is dual with the FI as captain. If that's the case then the FI would need to be qualified to act as PIC.

Question is: Does the flight have to be the "entire flight" incl take off & landing or can the training start & end at pre-arranged points? Bearing in mind the "student" is still qualified to be PIC at this time <30 June.
It may be a question of "a flight" is considered just that, brakes off to brakes on.
If this is the case then all us taildraggers have to either find a taildragger instructor who are few & far between here, or spend lotsamoney on a flight in an a/c that is no longer current. Pushing forward on the yoke during takeoff might not go down too well!!

[BEagle]

Isn't there a LAA coach somewhere nearby? They must all hold CRI ratings and most have TW privileges, so could conduct the training flight for folk such as yourself.

[Crash one]

BEagle.
Problem solved, did an hour today with a very well qualified tailwheel instructor.
Still like know for sure about whether the other issue is legal on not.

[BEagle]

Glad to hear that you managed to get it all sorted out in time!

I can't see that the idea of 'changing PIC twice during the flight' would be acceptable - how would you prove that you actually flew an hour of flight training?

Anyway, now that you're on the new scheme, you merely need to have accumulated a minimum total of 60 min flight training within the 2 years before the validity expiry date - you can do it at any time and it does NOT need to be completed in a single flight.

[Crash one]

Thanks BEagle.
The "proof" should be in the writings of the instructor in my log book, it's the only proof I have that the flight took place.
Perhaps I should do that 60mins tomorrow!!!:ugh:

[BEagle]

Well, I've had a response from those in the know and the answer is that training flight requires the FI/CRI to be captain. So he must be qualified on type, including having received the relevant differences training or having grandfather rights.

The idea of swapping captaincy in the air is ill advised at the best of times. Taken to the absurd conclusion, this would allow some young C152 FI to conduct the training flying on something with VP, RU and TW as long as the gear was up and the prop set. Then return captaincy before the prop was adjusted and the gear lever moved.

Keep it simple, keep it safe. FI/CRI conducting training flights are PIC throughout and must be qualified on type.

[cockney steve]

So, who was the higher authority who decided whether the first examiner should be qualified.......and from where did they derive their authority? :hmm:









I suspect a load of self-appointed jobsworths intent on building a self-perpetuating ,gravy-train heirarchy.

Remember the appearance of hang-gliders?- unregulated, they taught themselves and established practises empirically.......powered hang-gliders,same thing....powered parachutes?.....yup! authorities caught with their pants down again.

IMHO, the vast majority of new legislation is ill thought out and a knee-jerk reaction to evolution they did not anticipate.

The amount of confusion in the above thread is a prime example.

why no central register of Instructors and Examiners? Sounds like elementary record-keeping to me, to be able to check claimed qualifications and currency easily........a joined-up administration would use it to send out renewal notices to keep the gravy-train rolling,:}

Funny, DVLA manage to remember to jog me for £ 180-odd, and they slap a fine on me if i don't take up their offer and advise accordingly.

[BEagle]

Inevitably, whenever someone invents a new and innovative form of attempted aeronautical suicide, after the first few deaths and serious injuries legislation is applied.

Although there are now some deregulated sub-115kg microlights, their pilots are still required to hold valid pilot licences.

Why no central database of instructors and examiners? Because it would change so often that it would need full-time staff to maintain it. For which there is no funding. The preceived benefits simply do not justify the cost.