SEP reval using a different LPC

[RTN11]

Is it still the case that you can use any LPC on any type to replace the one hour with an instructor to revalidate an SEP?

I cannot find any reference in the latest edition of the examiners handbook.

[hobbit1983]

It's in Part-FCL IIRC?
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Part-FCL.pdf

[selfin]

Part-FCL, rule FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii), the pertinent part of which prescribes that,

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.

For EASA licences granted by UK CAA this rule has been broadened to include proficiency checks for instrument and mountain ratings. CAP 804 para 4.1.2 refers.

[BigEndBob]

Doesn't seem right that someone who's daily job is flying 747's and who does 12 hours sep in last 12 months can skip being with a sep instructor.
Isn't that a missed opportunity to possibly impart so useful knowledge regards sep flying.

[Cirrussy]

No.

Why do we have to dumb everything down? Who is to say that the applicant didn't do 120 take offs and landings in those 12 hours? Who is to say that the applicant didn't do a 15 minute aerobatic routine every week? I would hope that most people flying professionally have the ability to hack a Cessna around the circuit safely, and those flying more complex types have the common sense to keep more than minimum legal currency. What is to be gained from going for a jolly around the local area with an instructor not obliged to train or test anything?

[Whopity]

The requirement was copied from the FAA where the BFR can be replaced with a Check Flight on another aircraft.

The JAA reasoning was that pilots sholud be periodically subject to a controlled environment, those who fly for a living operate in such an environment. The process was to ensure that PPL holders who could go unchecked ad infinitum should be checked every other year. So far it has not generated any issues in the 17 years it has been in place.

[BigEndBob]

To fly a Cessna safely around a circuit will only be discovered if they fly with an instructor. Because they haven't crashed doesn't mean they are safe.
We had a airline pilot as instructor for a day and he landed on the wrong runway, no radar vectors I suppose was to blame.

[Cirrussy]

I suppose you do have a point, and I'm well aware that just because somebody works for the airlines doesn't automatically mean they are any good.

However, many of us with access to our own aircraft fly many more take offs and landings outside of work than we do at work. In my experience, those who maintain any connection with GA once flying professionally tend to enjoy the satisfaction of safe, accurate handling and practice flying throughout the entire flight envelope. Some of us still instruct and coach. I would be surprised if many people revalidate by experience with only 12 hours in their logbook and even then, if the CAA are satisfied, so am I.

I do not want any further bureaucracy or expense to maintain a privilege / standard that any professional pilot should not struggle to safely achieve.

[Cirrussy]

Well said that man!

[BEagle]

selfin wrote: For EASA licences granted by UK CAA this rule has been broadened to include proficiency checks for instrument and mountain ratings. CAP 804 para 4.1.2 refers.

Which, thanks to UK CAA agreeing to AOPA (UK)'s recommendation, also includes the IMCR / IR(R) revalidation proficiency check.