BI-ANNUAL CHECK

[fcornell]

I was recently involved in a situation where a pilot had two hard landings in one day. The resulting damage resulted in an insurance payment of £12000.
It transpired that the "pilot" only flew around 4 hours a year but thought that he was an "ace".

The current rule is that a pilot does not actually have to complete 12 hours in 24 months-12 in last 12 months, but can be checked by an instructor with less than 12 hours. Presumably even one or two.

The instructor said the the pilot was satisfactory on the day--a day with no wind--exellent viz. Iwould have thought that 12 hours in a year is a reasonable minimum for anyone. Surely if someone goes for their bi-annual with less than 12 hours , they should at that point complete the 12 hours.

Interested in other views -is this a flaw in the rules,?

[gasax]

Bi-annual is every 6 months, biennial is every 2 years. There is research by the CAA that the introduction of the biennial check flight had no impact on improving the accident rates for GA. In other words it was an additional administrative and cost burden with no safety benefits.

The smallest amount of research and understanding of these issues really helps in these discussions.

[dublinpilot]

In what way does sending them off by themselves to do 12 hours flying help? That just gives them more opportunity to crash!

Your point might make some sense if you said that they had to make up the 12 hours with dual trainng, but as gasax says, the statistics don't support that.

Are you talking about the USA? In Europe, an instructor can't do this sign off. It needs to be an examiner.

I wasn't aware that there was a 12 hour requirement in the USA.

[flybymike]

Are you talking about the USA? In Europe, an instructor can't do this sign off. It needs to be an examiner.

CAA will now authorise instructors for revalidation sign offs (FCL945)

[Mach Jump]

The current rule is that a pilot does not actually have to complete 12 hours in 24 months-12 in last 12 months, but can be checked by an instructor with less than 12 hours. Presumably even one or two.

In this case, under EASA, The pilot would have to convince the Head of Training of an ATO or RF that he/she was fit to take a Revalidation Flight Test, with an Examiner, and then pass that Test, before his/her SEP Class Rating could be extended.


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Personally I'll hang up the headset if I can't fly at least 30 hours per year, which I think is a reasonable minimum for safety and competence.

However, the rules are the rules - and if you can pass a proficiency check with an examiner, or do the 12 hours including 6 PiC and 1 with an instructor in the second year, you're legal.

G

[Whopity]

There is no such thing as a Bi-Annual or even a Biennial in Europe!but can be checked by an instructor with less than 12 hoursThere is no requirement for a check with an instructor either.
One of the revalidation requirements is 12 hours experience in the last year to include a dual flight with an instructor, this is training not testing!

If a pilot does not have the 12 hour experience requirement then he has to pass a Proficiency Check with an Examiner.

The pilot would have to convince the Head of Training of an ATO or RF that he/she was fit to take a Revalidation Flight Test For a Revalidation Proficiency Check there is no requirement to go anywhere near an ATO; that is for Renewal!

[Mach Jump]

For a Revalidation Proficiency Check there is no requirement to go anywhere near an ATO; that is for Renewal!

Quite right.:O

The Flight Test with an Examiner is required, though.


MJ:ok: