FIs signing Revalidation

[fireflybob]

Recently FIs can sign a Licence Revalidation (assuming 12 hours completed with one hour under instruction in the year before expiry) although the FI licence has to be endorsed to do so.

There seems to be a rumour on the ground that the FI can only sign the licence if they have also done the one hour dual also - is this correct?

Thanks for any help.

[Thatsthewaytodoit]

IN - 2015/034 Promulgated this on 17th April 2015 s follows:

‘FCL.945 Obligations for instructors
Upon completion of the training flight for the revalidation of an
SEP or TMG class rating in accordance with FCL.740.A(b)(1)31
Regulation (EC) No. 1178/2011, amendment Regulations (EC) No.2015/445.
and only in the event of fulfilment of all the other revalidation
criteria required by FCL.740.A (b)(1) the instructor shall endorse the applicant’s licence with the new expiry date of the rating or certificate, if specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant’s licence'

Seems to me that the "word on the ground" is correct!

Hope this helps

TTWTDI

[fireflybob]

TTWTDI, many thanks - not got round to reading that IN yet!

[S-Works]

Correct, the FI may only sign the licence immediately after conducting the flight if all the other requirements have been met. They may not sign the revalidation of licence holders whom they have not conducted the flight for nor may they sign the licence at a later date.

That is still designated to examiners only according to the CAA.

[Duchess_Driver]

if specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant’s licence'

And that's what a lot of people I have spoke too seem to be missing as well. £53 for the privilege.

[dobbin1]

Upon completion of the training flight is a bit vague. That wording would appear to allow a revalidation by the instructor at any time after the training flight is completed but before the rating expiry. It doesn't say that it has to happen on the same day.

Where did the "immediately" bit come from?

[BigEndBob]

Since when was the one hour dual with instructor a 'training flight'?
OK it might have been done towards some rating, but it just as well be a jolly, if not a missed opportunity to do a few things the recipient hasn't done for a while.
Also told at seminar that the hour doesn't have to be done in one flight.

[S-Works]

Where did the "immediately" bit come from?

From policy and standards after a query asking for explicit guidance as to what I was to allow my staff to do in terms of signing licences.

Apparently they intend to clarify the IN in due course.

This approval does not make an FI an Examiner, it is just meant to smooth the paperwork process.

[Captain Jock]

This all seems to be a right "guddle". In the introduction to IN 2015/034 it says that the amendment to the Aircrew Regulation has introduced a means to allow instructors to be specifically authorised to extend the validity of Single Engine Piston (SEP) and Touring Motor Glider (TMG) ratings when the holder complies with the requirements for "revalidation by experience".

Given that the "training flight" can take place at any time within the last 12 months prior to the expiry of the rating, and before the 12 hours flying are completed, the right of instructors to extend the validity of the rating, if the views being put forward about it only being authorised immediately after the "training flight" are indeed correct, is virtually worthless. Will the CAA refund my £53?

It will not be any easier for most pilots to have the validity of their rating extended because they are still going to have to find an Examiner to complete the paperwork rather than a much more readily available instructor. For everyone's sake the CAA must clarify the position quickly.

[BEagle]

The position is perfectly clear under FCL.945:

FCL.945 Obligations for instructors

Upon completion of the training flight for the revalidation of an SEP or TMG class rating in accordance with FCL.740.A (b)(1) and only in the event of fulfilment of all the other revalidation criteria required by FCL.740.A (b)(1) the instructor shall endorse the applicant's licence with the new expiry date of the rating or certificate, if specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant's licence.

:rolleyes:

[S-Works]

the right of instructors to extend the validity of the rating, if the views being put forward about it only being authorised immediately after the "training flight" are indeed correct, is virtually worthless. Will the CAA refund my £53?


It's not a right, it's a privilege......

[Captain Jock]

I acknowledge my poor choice of words; I was aware it was a privilege and not a right. Perhaps I should have read the IN more carefully and saved my money.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The position is perfectly clear under FCL.945:



:rolleyes:

Not disputing your citation or interpretation, but is there any good reason for this? It just reads to me like a restriction for the sake of having one.

G

[Level Attitude]

It's not a right, it's a privilege......Unfortunately, the way it is written it is a 'duty' not a 'privilege':FCL.945 Obligations for instructors
Upon completion of the training flight .... the instructor shall endorse the applicant's licence It will not be any easier for most pilots to have the validity of their rating extended because they are still going to have to find an Examiner to complete the paperwork rather than a much more readily available instructor. For everyone's sake the CAA must clarify the position quickly.From what I have read previously on PPRuNe there are plenty of pilots who never want to go anywhere near an Instructor or Examiner and have difficulty finding them when they want to Revalidate 'by Experience'. At least this change means they only have to find an Instructor.

Where did the "immediately" bit come from?I think that is implied in the wording.
Say an aircraft group's rules said:
"After each flight the pilot shall ensure the aircraft is correctly tied down, the control locks are in place, the key is returned to the office and the paperwork is completed"
I don't think the group would be too happy if someone interpreted that as anytime in the next few days after the flight.

Since when was the one hour dual with instructor a 'training flight'?
OK it might have been done towards some rating, but it just as well be a jollySince Always by definition: The Instructor must be PIC and the student must be PUT (Pilot under Training).

Unlike a Test or Proficiency Check Pass, the Training cannot be for any Rating at all as it must take place in an SEP(A). If the content is so minimal that it ends up being a "Jolly" then the PUT has been 'short changed'; the Instructor should ascertain before flight what the student would like to achieve. I understand from previous Threads that EASA is considering suggesting/mandating the content.

Note: Although not a Test, if the Instructor deems the student's flying so poor that they require further Training they can refuse to sign the Log Book and therefore now, presumably, can also refuse to undertake the Revalidation action.

Probably not legalese enough, but my suggested wording would be:
'Provided all other requirements have been met, and the only experience requirement a candidate needs is one hour of dual instruction, then the Instructor who provides the one hour of instruction may also endorse the candidate's Licence provided they do so on the same day that the Instructional flight took place.'

[Mickey Kaye]

Well if this is the case its a shame and makes the regulations yet more complicated and will only result in yet more people flying illegally.

I thought the change would make things a lot better for the smaller out of the way airfields where getting hold of an examiner isn't easy.

I also can't see the logic why they didn't make the privileges exactly the same as that for examiners.

So when a licence holder who has meant the experience requirements and has alreaxy done the one hour dual goes to see a local FI for a signature he is told he can't do it. But if he then goes and does a further hour dual then the FI can sign it.

I think this is yet another regulatory failure.

People don't even know the difference between revaldatiom and renewal and this would now appear to be another layer of regulation that people won't understand.

Make the instructors privledges to revalidate by experience the same as examiners

[TheOddOne]

Make the instructors privledges to revalidate by experience the same as examiners

Quite. I might punt 53 quid on that, what we have now is more or less unusable, unless I tell our Club members to leave their reval flight until they've done 11 hours...

The other nonsense is that I sign the logbook of a LAPL pilot after we've done an hour's flight, as an instructor, no further action required.

TOO

Edited to say

I don't mean it's a nonsense that I sign the logbook, I mean it's a nonsense that I can complete the process for a LAPL holder, but not a PPL with SEP rating...

[nick14]

Some instructors have no clue on revalidation or renewal of their own qualifications let alone someone else's!

EASA are indeed proposing the content in the NPA that is under comment at present. Content will represent the content of the proficiency check from appendix 9 including a discussion on TEM.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well somebody needs to try it out, and I am in three syndicates, only one of whom has a tame examiner to hand. In my experience, about 2/3 of biennials seem to be done towards the end of the year anyhow.

Here's the form if anybody wants a direct link. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1133Issue12.pdf . The form itself is a bit of a headache, and hasn't been fully updated for the purpose as the explanatory notes don't actually tell you which bits of the form you have to fill out for the specific purpose (it does for various other purposes), so I just filled everything out that seemed faintly applicable - I'm sure that the number of my expired Transport Canada will be useful to CAA, despite it being in the last two forms I sent them as well.

I shall report back on whether it all works out, and what it says in the explanatory card that apparently I'll get sent at the same time.

G

[Level Attitude]

I don't mean it's a nonsense that I sign the logbook, I mean it's a nonsense that I can complete the process for a LAPL holder, but not a PPL with SEP rating... There is no "process" for an LAPL Holder.
Carrying out an Instructional Flight with either an LAPL Holder or a PPL SEP Holder is old hat. They are the same - they are both Instructional Flights. So an Instructor may (should?) sign the Holder's Logbook.

Carrying out a Licensing Administrative Action - That is new for Instructors.

make the privileges exactly the same as that for examiners.But Instructors are mere mortals, whereas Examiners have Magical Powers that enable them to ascertain immediately if a Dual Flight logged six months ago was indeed flown with the holder of a valid EASA Instructor Rating.:rolleyes:

[S-Works]

But Instructors are mere mortals, whereas Examiners have Magical Powers that enable them to ascertain immediately if a Dual Flight logged six months ago was indeed flown with the holder of a valid EASA Instructor Rating.

Not really, it's just that we have demonstrated an understanding of our own privileges and Licencing regulations to a standardised level and the satisfaction of the authority. They trust us to show good judgement and integrity on their behalf.

[dobbin1]

Restricting instructor revalidation to individuals that you have actually flown the training flight with makes some sense. At least the instructor knows for sure that the training flight was legitimate. I have no idea how examiners varify the identity and qualification of an instructor that they do not personally know, and who could be based anywhere in EASA land. I personally would not want this responsibility.

Restricting instructor revalidation to immediately after the training flight makes it almost useless. The vast majority of revalidation candidates that I fly with try to get the training flight over with early in the 12 month period and do not yet have their 12 hours logged. I flew with someone this weekend who still needed an hour of P1 time before he can revalidate. He was planning to complete it this week, but now he will have to seek out an Examiner (who may not know me from Adam) to sign him off because apparently I cannot be trusted to have a record of my own flights or recognise my own signature in someone's log book.

Do we really want to encourage people to leave the instructional flight right to the end of their SEP rating validity?

What happens if the training flight was actually three flights?

If the purpose of this was to take some of the pressure off examiners, then it has missed the mark. I already have this "obligation" on my licence, but I suspect it will be rarely used and I wish now I had not bothered with it.

[S-Works]

What happens if the training flight was actually three flights

You need to re read the regulation. ALL of the revalidation requirements need to be met before the licence can be signed. That means if it's split over more than one flight it is signed after the final flight that completes the requirements.......

Now I refer you back to my comment about the differences between examiners and authorising an Instructor to do a limited Licencing action on behalf of the authority......

[dobbin1]

What happens if the training flight was actually three flights
You need to re read the regulation. ALL of the revalidation requirements need to be met before the licence can be signed. That means if it's split over more than one flight it is signed after the final flight that completes the requirements.......

Now I refer you back to my comment about the differences between examiners and authorising an Instructor to do a limited Licencing action on behalf of the authority......

I have read the regulations. The point I was making about the three flights is that two of these could have been 11 months ago. Apparently I can be trusted to recognise my own signature on these flights, but not if it was a single 1 hour flight yesterday. Where is the logic there?

I have re-read your comments about the differences between examiners and instructors, but I'm afraid I don't see anything there that explains how it is better for an examiner to verify the qualifications of a potentially unknown FI than for the FI himself to recognise his own log book entry and signature on a past flight.

[BEagle]

I don't understand why people are getting so steamed up about this.

If a pilot has met all other requirements and just needs to finish off the training flying, then he/she won't need to find an examiner for a signature, provided that the instructor has the FCL.945 endorsement in his/her certificate.

EASA is proposing to ease the training flying, so that it will no longer be '3 flights with the same instructor' - it will simply require a total of not less than 1 hour of refresher training accumulated with as many instructors and in as many flights as the pilot wishes.

That should make compliance even simpler - provided instructors actually understand the scope of their privileges. Which clearly many don't, even today.....:rolleyes:

[S-Works]

Apparently I can be trusted to recognise my own signature on these flights, but not if it was a single 1 hour flight yesterday. Where is the logic there?

then why would you not have signed the flight off on completion of the requirements yesterday....

People really are making a meal of this......

[dobbin1]

Joe Bloggs did a training flight with me yesterday. At the end of that flight he still needed one hour of PIC time to meet the requirements. He flies that hour today, but I now cannot revalidate his rating so he has to go on the usual examiner hunt before his rating expires.

It's a silly restriction that severely limits the utility of the "obligation". What's the point of introducing something intended to reduce the bureaucracy of the revalidation process only to trammel it with a restriction that makes it unlikely to be used?

When I applied for it, I did not interpret "upon completion of the training flight" as meaning "immediately following the completion of the training flight". Had I done so, I would have realised that the "obligation" would be almost useless and I would have saved the £53. My mistake.

[MrAverage]

IMHO it's a much deeper problem than Beagle and nick14 have mentioned.
There are a large number of instructors floating about who have somehow gained the privilege without gaining anywhere near the required knowledge, skill or the correct attitude. Or perhaps they had it once but have not bothered to maintain it. My worry is that some of these will fill in the form, pay £53 (no training required) and then revalidate pilots incorrectly.

[Whopity]

My worry is that some of these will fill in the form, pay £53 (no training required) and then revalidate pilots incorrectly. Its been happening since 1999 the only difference is the £53! In most cases they signed the rating and no paperwork was completed or it would have been noticed.

[Captain Jock]

An Examiner can extend the validity of an SEP providing all the requirements for revalidation by experience are met. The introduction to IN 2015/034 says its purpose is to allow authorised instructors to do the same. If that is indeed the purpose why was FCL 945 not written to make that clear? If it was clear,this thread would never have started.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Joe Bloggs did a training flight with me yesterday. At the end of that flight he still needed one hour of PIC time to meet the requirements. He flies that hour today, but I now cannot revalidate his rating so he has to go on the usual examiner hunt before his rating expires.

It's a silly restriction that severely limits the utility of the "obligation". What's the point of introducing something intended to reduce the bureaucracy of the revalidation process only to trammel it with a restriction that makes it unlikely to be used?

When I applied for it, I did not interpret "upon completion of the training flight" as meaning "immediately following the completion of the training flight". Had I done so, I would have realised that the "obligation" would be almost useless and I would have saved the £53. My mistake.

I agree - IF this is correct interpretation of the requirements.

Has anybody yet seen the explanatory card which CAA are apparently going to send us with re-issued licence? That may explain much.

G

[dobbin1]

Has anybody yet seen the explanatory card which CAA are apparently going to send us with re-issued licence? That may explain much.

There was nothing in with my new licence when I received it a few days ago.

[Level Attitude]

If the purpose of this was to take some of the pressure off examiners, then it has missed the markIt was nothing to do with Examiners, it was to aid pilots who have difficulty in locating an Examiner in a timely manner (there being more Instructors than Examiners). It is still a 'relaxation' of the rules - even if this new, additional, method of Revalidation does not go as far as you would like.

When I applied for it, I did not interpret "upon completion of the training flight" as meaning "immediately following the completion of the training flight". Had I done so, I would have realised that the "obligation" would be almost useless and I would have saved the £53. My mistake. The wording is not the best so I am not saying you should have understood it; I agree with Mr Average that it is completely bonkers for the CAA to give someone an additional privilege (or obligation) without some evidence that they understand the privilege and how to apply it.

For those Instructors who will gain it "automatically" upon Issue or Revalidation - they should not unless there is some evidence that this has been discussed (at a Seminar or with an FIE). For those wanting it badly enough that they will pay £53 for the benefit the same should apply.

Guess it is all too late now !

[Genghis the Engineer]

For those wanting it badly enough that they will pay £53 for the benefit the same should apply.

That's me - and I shall certainly read any instructions carefully and discuss it with my friendly neighbourhood examiner before I use it.


Clear written procedures would certainly do however - we all do many things as pilots which weren't explicitly taught, relying upon good documentation.

G

[nick14]

I was taught this as part of my CRI course and I believe it should be the norm on all instructor courses not only for your own privileges but to advise students and other pilots about their own administration.

[Oldbiggincfi]

Quote:

That's me - and I shall certainly read any instructions carefully and discuss it with my friendly neighbourhood examiner before I use it.


Genghis
Hypothetical question.


A person buys a share in your Condor Group but has not a tail wheel sign off.
Person requires a revalidation for SEP A and having flown a C152 for more than 12hrs in the last, etc, requires your obligation as a CRI to sign the licence.
You complete a 1hr training exercise in the Condor in which you demonstrate both the take off and landing.
Would you sign that person's licence in able to fly the C152 booked tomorrow ?

[Mach Jump]

Would you sign that person's licence in able to fly the C152 booked tomorrow ?

If I may be so bold to answer in Genghis' absence:

In the example you have quoted, the requirements have been met, so there's no reason not to sign the Licence for the revalidation of the SEP Class rating.

It matters not what that person is going to fly tomorrow, so long as it's included in the class rating you have revalidated.


MJ:ok:

[ifitaintboeing]

If the purpose of this was to take some of the pressure off examiners, then it has missed the mark

It was nothing to do with Examiners, it was to aid pilots who have difficulty in locating an Examiner in a timely manner (there being more Instructors than Examiners). It is still a 'relaxation' of the rules - even if this new, additional, method of Revalidation does not go as far as you would like.


This was introduced as a result of much work behind the scenes by the LAA to re-introduce authorisation for CAA Revalidation Examiners to sign EASA licences following withdrawal of these privileges at the introduction of EASA in September 2012. The LAA pursued this primarily to assist those pilots who might have difficulty locating an EASA Flight Examiner following completion of their training flight. A number of routes were explored with the CAA, where this was found to be the most satisfactory solution.

CAP 804 now includes some details of FCL.945 privileges under Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 6. It is clear that the guidance provided to those who have been issued with FCL.945 privileges is inadequate.

ifitaint...

[ASRAAM]

TREs used to be able to sign a revalidation by experience. I believe that privilege disappeared with EASA. Have any of the recent relaxations restored it?

[ifitaintboeing]

I wrote to the CAA to inform them that Standards Document 24(A) was incorrect when the latest version was published; the FEH was also incorrect at that time. The FEH has been amended following a number of e-mails :) and now contains the correct statement which allows ANY UK examiner with an EASA Part-FCL Examiner certificate (including TRE) to sign for revalidation by experience in a UK licence.

See 'Who can certify' in Table 4C in the FEH, where the date of this publication is after the date of issue of SD24. PM me if needed for a copy of the e-mail from CAA policy (which was agreed as OK for distribution) confirming this.

ifitaint...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Quote:

That's me - and I shall certainly read any instructions carefully and discuss it with my friendly neighbourhood examiner before I use it.


Genghis
Hypothetical question.


A person buys a share in your Condor Group but has not a tail wheel sign off.
Person requires a revalidation for SEP A and having flown a C152 for more than 12hrs in the last, etc, requires your obligation as a CRI to sign the licence.
You complete a 1hr training exercise in the Condor in which you demonstrate both the take off and landing.
Would you sign that person's licence in able to fly the C152 booked tomorrow ?

1 hour instruction, it's not a test and for the purposes of SEP revalidation no minimum standard of flying needs to be demonstrated - so yes.

However, he's still not yet signed off for tailwheel, and he'll certainly need rather more time before I authorise him to fly PiC in the syndicate jet.

G

[Mickey Kaye]

This was introduced as a result of much work behind the scenes by the LAA to re-introduce authorisation for CAA Revalidation Examiners to sign EASA licences following withdrawal of these privileges at the introduction of EASA in September 2012.

And I think its great that this has come into effect. I and I think many others think iot would have been even better and easier if they had been given the same priviledges at examiners

[Captain Stravaigin]

So does this mean that a Revalidation Examiner regains his/her privileges?

[Yakovlevs]

Out of interest, do any of the examiners reading this charge for signing a re-validation?

Thanks

[MrAverage]

Those who struggle to make the equivalent of a minimum weekly wage are forced to make a small charge, if only to fund the four figure cost of the three yearly Examiner assessment of competence.

[mrmum]

I don't, but I've often had some payment from the person being revalidated, perhaps for the flight with the instructor, or I've taught them in the past. Having said that, I have done them for nothing for people who've just contacted me out of the blue.

However, as it becomes more expensive to be an examiner, maybe have to reconsider that?

[Broadlands]

From club members I expect a tea, for non club members the fee is £25 and I invoice the club £10.

[Yakovlevs]

Thanks for the feedback. We probably do circa 100 of them per year and don't charge. However, when they arrive without any of the paperwork and we have to use our paper and printer ink to do it for them it does irk somewhat. I'm considering whether we start to charge for the service and just wondered what an acceptable fee would be. By the sound of it £10 wouldn't be unreasonable.

[S-Works]

CAA guidance is that there is no charge for doing this administrative action on their behalf. Somewhat a bit of a cheek considering what they charge for their administrative action!!

I have historically abided by this but it as others experience it very frequent for the candidate to turn up and expect me to provide the paperwork and even post it for them!!

So I am also considering charging for it in the future.

[BusinessJet]

Hello, I have a question regarding the SEP Revalidation By Experience. Once you have completed the 12 hour requirement in the second year of the ratings validity, can you perform the 1 hour training flight with an instructor in your own aircraft? Your help is kindly appreciated! Many thanks.

[Mach Jump]

can you perform the 1 hour training flight with an instructor in your own aircraft?

Yes. (Assuming the aircraft is suitable for dual flight.)


MJ:ok:

[BusinessJet]

Thanks for that fast response. Yes, it's a regular C172!

[Level Attitude]

Let me add another couple of caveats to MJ's response:

1) Your aircraft does have to be in the SEP class
As you have now said that it is a C-172 that is covered.

2) An instructor ihas to be willing to be PIC in your aircraft.
Insurance (or lack of) is a common reason for refusal.
ie Aircraft not insured for training, or only insured for the owner to be PIC.

[MrAverage]

To further illustrate Level's second point, I was recently asked to fly with an owner in an Arrow III. The insurance contained a statement that only instructors who were current on type in the last 90 days would be covered.....

[OpenCirrus619]

Your aircraft does have to be in the SEP class
...or TMG (unless I'm missing something).

OC619

[TheOddOne]

ie Aircraft not insured for training, or only insured for the owner to be PIC.

I think all the policies for SEP a/c I've ever seen have a clause covering an instructor, as well as maintenance personnel, can't see what benefit financially there'd be in excluding instructional flight.

The problem comes when owners ask an instructor to ferry their a/c for them, this is NOT covered as above as when solo, one is not an instructor. I've been an additional named pilot on several a/c so that I can assist the owners. There has never been any difficulty or additional premium for this and it washes away any 'grey areas'.

TOO

[Mach Jump]

I think all the policies for SEP a/c I've ever seen have a clause covering an instructor

All policies used to include '...and any Flight Instructor' in the pilots covered.

Very few Policies include Instructors as a matter of course anymore.

When they do, the wording is usually as follows:

'...and any Flight Instructor, whilst giving instruction to any of the above named pilots.'

This means, as TOO says, that the Instructor is insured whilst actually giving instruction to one of the named pilots, but not whilst flying solo.

The mystery is that, although it may be thought that cost would be the reason for removing this clause from the standard wording of all but a few policies, most companies will re-insert it for you at no extra charge!

This begs the question; 'Why remove it in the first place?':confused:

Maybe someone with Insurance connections can explain?


MJ:ok:

[Level Attitude]

Originally Posted by Level Attitude Your aircraft does have to be in the SEP class...or TMG (unless I'm missing something).

OC619 I think you are:
To Renew an SEP rating 'by Experience' requires all 12 hours to have been in an SEP unless the pilot holds both a valid SEP and a valid TMG Rating - in which case the 12 hours could have been in either Class.

BusinessJet makes no mention of holding a TMG Rating, only referring to their SEP Rating and their C-172

[Level Attitude]

I think all the policies for SEP a/c I've ever seen have a clause covering an instructorAnd I have seen quite a few which only insure the owner(s).

You are quite right that it is very easy to add an Instructor to a policy; but that does not help an aircraft owner who turns up expecting an hour's flight, as PIC, with (someone who just happens to be) an Instructor rather than a dual, training flight whereby the Instructor, not the owner, must be PIC.

[172510]

IN–2015/034
3.2 Therefore, with effect from 8 April 2015, whenever a Part-FCL aeroplane licence is re-issued by the CAA which includes a valid FI(A) or CRI, the instructor entry will be amended to include the FCL.945 privileges. A card explaining the Instructor privileges will also be included.

Mine was re-issued yesterday and I forgot to check before leaving the Paperwork Temple of Gatwick.
All my ratings are there but no card is included, and I could not see anywhere that FCL.945 privileges are granted to me.

[dobbin1]

It should look like this. It is just the FCL .945 entry.
http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff379/rchampion/image.jpg1.jpg

I did not get any guidance material with it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm still waiting for my licence to be re-issued with the privilege, if it has the card when it arrives, I'll scan and post it.

So far however, I don't think that anybody has seen this alleged instruction card.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Postscript.

A licence came back in the post today. Impressive packaging, it was inside an envelope, inside a jiffy bag, inside a courier bag !

My EASA licence has been re-issued and my instructor privileges are shown as "CRI For/SEP(land)/FCL945".

My UK licence, which has my CRI on it, hasn't been re-issued.

There's no explanatory card.


There was a receipt for £59 !

Fortunately, I instruct at a school with a friendly examiner, I'll go and get him to explain the paperwork to me.

G

[dobbin1]

I finally received a reply from the CAA in response to my email request for further guidance on the FCL.945 obligations. This was my enquiry:- I have now received my updated CPL with FCL.945 added to my instructor certificate. I was a little surprised that this arrived with no additional guidance as to how to exercise this privilege. I would therefore like to clarify two things regarding my new “obligation”:-
1. The wording used to describe the FCL.945 obligation is vague. I have interpreted the phrase “Upon completion of the training flight....” to mean at any time after the completion of the training flight and after all the other FCL.740A(b)(1) criteria are met (even if these were not all met at the time of the training flight), but before the expiry date of the SEP rating. Please confirm that this interpretation is correct.

2. Please also confirm that the I (as an FI with the FCL.945 Obligation) should complete and sign section 4 of form SRG1119E for everyone I revalidate.


And this the response:-
Thank you for your email below and please accept my apologies for not responding to your original email in May.

1. Your interpretation is correct.

To assist in the timely revalidation of class ratings we want applicants to be able to take advantage of the full 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating. As such if the applicant does not meet all of the revalidation requirements at the time they complete the training flight or flight(s) with a suitable authorised instruct, then the applicant must return to that instructor once all of the revalidation requirements have been completed prior to the expiry date on the certificate of revalidation and obtain the revalidation of their rating(s).

It is vitally important that any applicant who does not meet the all of the revalidation requirements at the time they complete the training flight or flight(s), is made aware of the need to still obtain the revalidation of their rating and what the implications are if they fail to do this.

2. As the authorised instructor you can sign either SRG 1119E, in section 4 or SRG 1157, in the sections relating to the revalidation by experience, endorsement of the certificate of revalidation and confirmation by examiner. Please remember that you will need to retain a copy, a copy must be given to the applicant and a copy forwarded to the UK CAA. The instructor’s and applicant’s copy may be electronic, but the original must be returned to the CAA. Unfortunately, the CAA will not be updating the forms. Our stated objective is to move to electronic means of application and at present all resources are engaged in this project.

It was also a pity that the guidance card outlined in the Information Notice was delayed in being produced, hopefully this will be ready soon and it will answer many of these questions.

I hope that has clarified the use of the new authorisation.


This seems very clear, and contrary to the advice that Bose received. Perhaps there has been an outbreak of common sense at the CAA.

[S-Works]

Interesting response and totally different to the one I received. We just need a third response now......

[Mach Jump]

I hope that has clarified the use of the new authorisation.

Do you have a name to go with that quote, Dobbin, or was it just signed:

'The Licensing Team' ?


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks Dobbin - very helpful.

My card has just arrived in the post after I chased this - unfortunately however the card which arrived explained something else altogether, so your post is vastly more useful.

G

[dobbin1]

The email was from:-
Justin Willcocks | Licensing Standards Inspector, General Aviation Unit | Civil Aviation Authority