FCL.740.A

[172510]

Before the wording was "a training flight of at least 1 hour "
Now the wording is "a refresher training of at least 1 hour "

The French DGAC has made a great deal about it, the ANPI says that the FI/CRI has now a HUGE responsibility and so on. They advise FI/CRI's to have forms signed by the student (and implicitly to hire a lawyer in advance just in case).

I have never heard about that in the UK.

What about you?

[Whopity]

The UK issued an AMC stating:The requirements for a training flight with an FI or CRI, referred to in FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii), may be satisfied by receiving instruction totalling at least 1 hour from the same instructor in the course of a maximum of three flights. That's it.

[Mach Jump]

"a refresher training of at least 1 hour "

Does that mean that training for something new (such as aerobatics, or differences training) doesn't count? :eek:


MJ:ok:

[172510]

The UK AMC existed before the new wording.
My question is why the new wording? I could not find any document explaining why they replaced "training flight" by "refresher training".
Does it mean that you don't have to fly anymore? That a ground training could be enough?

[Pete O'Tewbe]

If, like me, you were struggling to find the wording of the regulation that 172510 was "quoting", he/she appears to be looking NPA 2014-29(A) which is not yet in force.

[172510]

It is already in force
CE regulation 2015/445

EUR-Lex - 32015R0445 - EN - EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_074_R_0001)

(8) In FCL.740.A, point (b) is replaced by the following:
‘(b)
Revalidation of single-pilot single-engine class ratings.
(1)
Single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings and TMG ratings. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings or TMG class ratings the applicant shall:
(i)
within the 3 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or
(ii)
within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including:
—
6 hours as PIC,
—
12 take-offs and 12 landings, and
—
refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher training if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check, skill test or assessment of competence in any other class or type of aeroplane.

[BEagle]

The NPA 2014-29(A) wording is also nonsense - as it implies that an LPC for an A380 would count in lieu of SEP refresher training, whereas a revalidation proficiency check for an IR in the same class would not!

Hence IAOPA (Europe) has proposed an amendment, which includes the wording 'Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher training if they have passed a proficiency check, skill test or assessment of competence for the same category of aircraft.'

ANPI seem to be taking rather a silly view on this...:rolleyes:

[Pete O'Tewbe]

172510 is absolutely correct and I offer my apologies.

In mitigation, I made the error of looking at the recently released Consolidated Aircrew Regulation purportedly containing 2015/445. Unfortunately, in this case, the wording of the regulation has not, in fact, been updated.

It was always made clear that the consolidated version was not to be treated as authoritative, and I now realise why. Lesson learnt!

[BigEndBob]

According to seminar recently attended this one hour could be two half hours or any combination of..is that true?

[BEagle]

Yes.










,,,,,,,,,,,,

[172510]

There is something new though:
Before it was a one hour flight. Now it's at least one hour.
Does this mean that it's the responsibility of the instructor to taylor the length of training to get the pilot up to the proficiency check standard?

[nick14]

Or more appropriately get them up to a competent standard, prof check has nothing to do with it.

[Mach Jump]

It says'...training of at least an hour'

The standard achieved during the flight(s) is irrelevant for the purpose of Revalidation.


MJ:ok:

[nick14]

Not for me, if they are not competent I'm not signing their log book.

[Mach Jump]

He/She can't log it as a dual flight, unless you sign it.

It is not, nor has it ever been a Test, however much the CAA tried to 'gold plate' it into one.

You are simply signing to confirm that the flight took place, and that the indicated training was carried out.

No level of competence, or achievement is implied, unless so stated.

What does concern me here, is the use of the term 'refresher training' which clearly implies revisiting training already carried out previously.

This would suggest that, for instance, 'Differences Training', aerobatics, and instrument training may not count.



MJ:ok:

[fireflybob]

Not happened to me yet but at an Instructor Seminar one suggestion was if the one hour with the instructor was of such a poor performance that it was unsafe and the pilot refused the suggestion of more training to advise him/her you would be informing his insurance company that he/she was not, in your opinion, safe to fly.

But I agree with MJ the one hour is not pass/fail therefore you can sign the logbook whatever.

[Mach Jump]

Getting back to the OP for a moment:

...FI/CRI has now a HUGE responsibility...

There is no doubt that this is true.

Signing for an hour of flight training is one thing, but ensuring that the Candidate has completed the various and confusing requirements for Revalidation, then signing a Licence is a very different thing!


MJ:ok:

[172510]

What if the student agrees for an additional training session, you sign the 1 hour flight in the logbook, and then you never see him again?

After a revalidation flight, I'd prepare a report stating what was done in flight, and if I think any additional training is required, I would mention it in the report, and then email it to the student, and sign the logbook. I shall not sign the licence if I think additional training is required, which does not prevent the student to have his licence signed by a FE.

[nick14]

I agree it is not a test but if I feel that the student needs more training I would happily give it or entrust them to another instructor with their agreement. I would never however sign a logbook for a pilot who I felt was unsafe.

There is a change coming which will align the SEP revalidation refresher with the items required for prof check anyway so it is advisable to go down that route. It's something I recommend to people who fly with me anyway.

[172510]

In signing the logbook you acknowledge that you trained the student, not that you trained the student enough to reach the FCL740 requirements. Unless you write so before you sign.

It's only when you sign the licence as an instructor that you acknowledge that the FCL740 requirements were met, and that's the point because no one knows precisely what the refresher training requirements are.

[Mach Jump]

When you sign a licence for Revalidation, all you are signing for is to confirm that the holder has met the requirements for Revalidation.

There are no specific requirements for the 'Refresher Training', nor any standard of performance to achieve.

In this respect, you are simply signing to confirm that you have seen Logbook evidence of at least an hour of 'Refresher Training', within 12 months of the date of expiry of the SEP Class Rating.


MJ:ok:

[172510]

FCL 740 says that you must train for at least one hour. Who will decide if the adequate training is one hour or more than that? The FI.

If you sign the licence as the FI who has trained the pilot, you implicitly but necessarily endorse the fact that the training was adequate.

If you sign the licence as a FE who has not trained the student, you just check that the logbook shows at least one hour of training etc., there is no other responsibility with you.

[Mach Jump]

If you sign the licence as the FI who has trained the pilot, you implicitly but necessarily endorse the fact that the training was adequate.

No you don't!

It doesn't say anywhere that the 'refresher training' has to achieve any particular standard or goal, other than be an hour, or more in duration. The word 'adequate' is not used.

Any more, and we're doing our own 'gold plating'.


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

but necessarily endorse the fact that the training was adequate.Adequate meaning at least 1 hour, which in the UK may according to the Alt AMC be up to 3 flights with the same instructor with an agregate of at least 1 hour. Nothing Else! The signature in the log book is to comply with AMC.FCL 050.