PDA

View Full Version : SEP Renewal LPC


nick14
16th Aug 2013, 18:54
Hello all,

The LPC for SEP renewal requires that section 3 is flown unless I have read the rules wrong. It can be flown by sole reference to instruments if the renewal of an IR is required or by VFR.

An examiner has said it's not required for a renewal if the applicant can demonstrate recent x-country?

Is this correct?

Also I'm assuming an examiner cannot examine in a variant of the SEP class that he hasn't flown?

Manual Reversion
16th Aug 2013, 20:54
Section 3 has to be flown whatever the circumstances. Odd , but that's EASA for you. In the CAA's eyes, SEP is SEP so no previous experience needed to sign the 1157, but common sense may dictate otherwise.

Level Attitude
16th Aug 2013, 21:42
Section 3 has to be flown whatever the circumstances. OddAviate - Navigate - Communicate. Since the other two are tested
on an LPC I see nothing odd in requiring navigation to also be tested.
What is odd is that is is not marked M (mandatory) on the Test Schedule.

Also I'm assuming an examiner cannot examine in a variant of the SEP class that he hasn't flown?
An Examiner must have the privileges to be PIC. As long as the Examiner
has any required differeneces training (eg Glass Cockpit) signed off then
they can test in any SEP aeroplane (provided they have an SEP Rating)

nick14
16th Aug 2013, 22:49
The only reason for not having 3A marked as mandatory is that 3B is and there is a note to say that if 3B is conducted without reference to instruments then it shall be limited to VFR only. I take that to mean regardless section 3 shall be tested, if for an IR then it shall be done under reference to instruments.

Whopity
17th Aug 2013, 07:14
The only reason for not having 3A marked as mandatory is that 3B is and thereNot according to the regulation: Appendix 9 to Reg 1178/2011(d) Section 3A shall be completed to revalidate a type or multi-engine class rating, VFR only, where the required experience of 10 route sectors within the previous 12 months has not been completed. Section 3A is not required if section 3B is completed.

nick14
17th Aug 2013, 07:51
Surely that statement is not applicable for an SEP as it states a thpe or ME class rating as the 10 route sectors isn't applicable to the SEP class.

Whopity
17th Aug 2013, 09:12
The statement is included in requirements for all tests for class and type ratings and the word "only" qualifies that it only applies to MEP Class and Type ratings, not SEP!

The original JAA test schedule stated "if applicable" which had the same meaning however; as that was not written anywhere, the UK CAA decided that it applied to all class and type tests. Part FCL now resolves the issue.

nick14
17th Aug 2013, 12:10
Sorry my brain isn't working as my son kept me awake most of the night.

Does that mean that section 3A is mandatory for VFR class ratings regardless of the experience of the pilot? The 10 route sectors applies to MEP and Type ratings only?

Whopity
17th Aug 2013, 12:29
No, it only applies when a Sector is required with the Examiner i.e. for a MEP Class or Type where 10 sectors have not been completed.

nick14
17th Aug 2013, 13:34
Ah righto that makes more sense although the CAA FEH is wrong in that case, mind you it wouldn't be the first time.

I shall have to have another read of Apendix 9.

Ex Oggie
19th Aug 2013, 13:03
although the CAA FEH is wrong in that case, mind you it wouldn't be the first time.

Very true, but it didn't help that the authors were being fed the wrong information as it was being complied.

XO

Whopity
19th Aug 2013, 13:24
But all the information is in Part FCL and has been for the past 3 years! I understand it was changed after the author had submitted it. The CAA are fast to react to more stringent requirements, but reluctant to comply with Part FCL where it represents an easement of previous procedures and practices.

Level Attitude
19th Aug 2013, 14:32
FCL.740 Validity and renewal of class and type ratings
(2) pass a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part
FCL.740.A Revalidation of class and type ratings aeroplanes
(1) pass a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9
Appendix 9 has six sections so, unless otherwise noted elsewhere, all six
sections are to be tested.

Section 6 is asymetric flight so only required for ME aircraft, which leaves
Sections 1 to 5 for SEP.

(d) Section 3A shall be completed to revalidate a type or multi-engine
class rating, VFR only, where the required experience of 10 route sectors
within the previous 12 months has not been completed. Section 3A is not
required if section 3B is completed.
The above does not apply to SEP

There is one paragraph in Part-FCL specific to SEP proficiency checks:
FCL.740.A Revalidation of class and type ratings aeroplanes
c) Applicants who fail to achieve a pass in all sections of a proficiency check before
the expiry date of a class or type rating shall not exercise the privileges of that rating
until a pass in the proficiency check has been achieved

Given the above it is not unreasonable to assume Section 3 is a test
Section for an SEP proficiency Check (3b if combined with an IR test, 3a
otherwise)

It would be good airmanship to move away from the departure airfield
before testing some parts (eg Stalls) of Section 2 - and the CAA have
noted in the FEH that this is all that is required to be tested.

nick14
19th Aug 2013, 17:08
The above implies that section 3 is not applicable to SEP class rating PCs (without IR).

So for ease a short nav section to the general handling area would suffice I'm guessing.

Nightmare!

Level Attitude
19th Aug 2013, 17:20
The above implies that section 3 is not applicable to SEP class rating PCs
Errr... No
achieve a pass in all sections ...... in accordance with Appendix 9
Where in Part-FCL does it state (or even suggest) that Section 3 should not
be tested for an SEP proficiency check?

nick14
19th Aug 2013, 17:38
In accordance with appendix 9 and appendix 9 states that section 3 shall be tested for MEP class or type VFR only. There are also no Ms denoting that it is mandatory? Seems strange.

Whopity
21st Aug 2013, 07:25
This is classic Euro translation where neither the originators nor the translators had any idea of the meaning of the material they were processing. Now the aviators who understand it, are finding all the anomalies and inconsistency that make it virtually impossible to implement without fudging. Perhaps EASA should be EAFA!