PPL Skills Test

[fireflybob]

CAP 804 says "training" must be complete before PPL Skills Test.

I have my own interpretation but does this mean also that minimum hours must be complete before test? (Eg 45 hours total).

Thanks for any assistance.

[Level Attitude]

Short Answer = Yes
Long Answer = It is not just all training must be completed, but all
requirements for Licence Issue - A successful Test being the last thing
required before sending off all the paperwork.

[Whopity]

It is the examiners responsibility to ensure that all requirements for licence issue have been met and that the candidate has been recomended for test. In addition, the examiner must have permission to test or be notified to the CAA to conduct tests at that ATO/RF.

[fireflybob]

Thanks all

[RTN11]

Pre-EASA I seem to remember having one student go for test with 43:30, the test took him nicely over the 45 total, and he then met the requirements for licence issue.

Under EASA, not so sure, haven't studied those sections too closely yet.

Just wait for someone to come along and tell me that what I did before was illegal, despite the fact that we consulted 3 examiners, all of whom where happy, and the CAA issued the licence no questions asked :ok:

EDIT: Long night shift, so delved into cap 804, Section 1 part F,

An applicant for a Part-FCL licence may not take the Skill Test until all required flying
training has been completed.

would rather suggest that all 45 hours of the course need to be completed. I think you'd have a hard time convincing an examiner or ATO otherwise, unless they haven't read up themselves. I seem to remember it being more open in LASORS, where it said they needed the 45 hours to apply for the licence, but not necessarily pre-test, and as I say we did discuss it with a few examiners separately and they were all of the opinion the test could be done as part of the 45 hours. This was long pre-EASA though, and the CAA certainly didn't see a problem.

[Whopity]

Pre EASA you could take the test at 35 hours, 25 dual and 10 solo. Under EASA you have to comply with FCL.1030FCL.1030 Conduct of skill tests, proficiency checks and assessments of competence
(a) When conducting skill tests, proficiency checks and assessments of competence, examiners shall:

(2) verify that the applicant complies with all the qualification, training and experience requirements in this Part for the issue, revalidation or renewal of the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test, proficiency check or assessment of competence is taken;

[Level Attitude]

Which means the CAA would now likely query any application where
the Log Book shows less than 47 hours total time - 2 hours being
approximately what is needed for a PPL Skill Test.

[Whopity]

Whilst only Guidance, GM1 FCL.1015 Examiner standardisation says:(c) When planning the duration of a test, check or assessment of competence, the following values may be used as guidance:
(1) 45 minutes for a LAPL(B) or BPL and SP class ratings VFR only;
(2) 90 minutes for LAPL(A) or (H), PPL and CPL, including navigation section; So nobody can insist on any more!

[Mach Jump]

So nobody can insist on any more!

A test takes as long as it takes.

The CAA have always underestimated the average duration of a test, especially the nav element. I think they assume that everyone uses a Bulldog or something similar. In my experience a PPl Skill Test in a C150/152 that meets the requirements/recommendations can't be done in less than 2 hours.

MJ

[RTN11]

Got to wonder if all these law changes were intentional, or if the wording just got lost and adjusted Chinese whispers style along the way.

This particular law change does nothing to enhance flight safety, only to add confusion, and likely create arguments in various ATOs.

[Whopity]

A test takes as long as it takes. can't be done in less than 2 hours.
I agree, but don't you think it says a lot about EASA when their guidance says 90 minutes? Clearly, their concept of a test is completely different to ours. The point of my last post is to highlight the lowest common factor that is required by the regulation; the CAA cannot demand more or accept less.

[Mach Jump]

I don't think that EASA are any worse than the CAA were on this. I once questioned the fact that some Examiners were cutting their NFTs much shorter than the required distance to get the time down to that suggested, and was told, quite firmly, that it could be done in 1:30 whilst conforming to the requirements, despite my having demonstrated that it couldnt be done in less than 2:0! :ugh:



......does nothing to enhance flight safety, only to add confusion, and likely create arguments in various ATOs.

No doubt about that!

[Whopity]

and likely create arguments in various ATOs. There should be no confusion; each ATO produces its own manuals that comply with the regulation. What they do then is quite clear because they wrote it in the manuals.

[RTN11]

There should be no confusion

You're right that there shouldn't be, but my bet is that there still will. I've met examiners who still work to pre-JAR rules, and either have to be corrected or they have paperwork sent back from the CAA because something wasn't right.

So these same examiners having been through two or three different rule changes, it can be difficult to keep up when you think you know something is ok, this example being a key point. An old instructor may not have picked up this particular rule change, the examiner could do the same, then find the application rejected as the student didn't have 45 hours pre-test.

Obviously in an ideal world, we're all perfect, and read cap 804 in it's entirety every time a new revision is put out. Unfortunately in the real world, I can see a lot of people having to dig into the rule books to prove people right or wrong, and there will certainly be some confusion at times.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

With only 1.30 or so short of the total requirement who in their right mind would want to try and shortcut the hours for the sake of a couple of hundred quid? Especially since you know that you're up against all kinds of admin grief in the process! Go and fly a couple of extra solo hours instead... for after all, you're doing this for pleasure; right?

[Mach Jump]

There should be no confusion; each ATO produces its own manuals that comply with the regulation. What they do then is quite clear because they wrote it in the manuals.

Let's not go there! :eek: I think that we will be in danger of hijacking this thread completely if we get started on the shambles that the cAA have made of the ATO manuals!

....for after all, you're doing this for pleasure; right?

You are abolutely right! Sometimes easy to loose sight of that these days. :sad:

MJ