UK PPL Revalidation Check Ride

[Boeing100]

Good morning everyone

After several years of being unable to fly, i'm now back in the game and have been training to revalidate my PPL.

I'm in the process of booking my check ride and wanted some advice on preparation. My understanding of what will be tested based on what my FI told is :

* Navigation: do 1 leg as normal, then on second leg perform diversion and position fix
*general handling: different types of stalls including clean, base turn to final, full flaps, and go around stalls
*Practice Forced Landing
*Potentially a couple circuits including glide approach

Anything that I've missed? Anything that I should make sure i've prep'd?

Thanks!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I would also expect and thus be prepared for a flapless approach and an EFATO. If I got asked obscure questions about fire or electrical failure drills I'd probably fail that bit.

[sycamore]

B100, the list goes nom-nom-nom...including; WX,NOTAMS,weight /c of g,documents,yours and aircraft,fuel-consumption/available,checklist-kneepad as quick reference.Aircraft inspection,carb air checks ..Briefing for the examiner before flight,ie in event of...I will do `blah,blah,etc;if I screw up, I`d like to repeat,,etc.(and do it better!),including t/o emergencies/x-winds etc.LOOKOUT all the time before turning,climbing descending,etc.Accuracy in speed,alt,hdg,trimming,balance,smoothness of handling,LOOKOUT..
Accurate circuit flying,extend upwind for spacing if several aircraft in circuit,R/T DISCIPLINE,10-15 seconds from abeam threshold before commencing base turn,carb heat,flaps/sideslip to adjust final approach,stable ,trimmed,LOOKOUT,RUNWAY PICTURE, and nom-nom-nom...
on chart,put winddirection arrow with estimated max drift,for diversion...Enjoy....

[Talkdownman]

UK PPL Revalidation Check Ride
What is a 'UK PPL Revalidation Check Ride' when it's at home...

[hoodie]

A Class Rating Renewal.

Many people confuse "Renewal" and "Revalidation".

Almost as many as confuse "Class Rating" and "Licence".

:}

[Duchess_Driver]

Firstly, you need to make sure that you're doing the right thing...

As has been stated already, this would be a class rating renewal - but the bigger question is for what licence and what are you flying?

If its an old UK CAA PPL issued prior to JAR then the licence is still valid - but wont serve much purpose without a valid class rating on it. If its a JAR licence then by now that too will have expired and require 'trading in' for an EASA one.

If you're looking to renew your rating and attach it to an EASA licence so that you can continue to fly what is termed an EASA aircraft in the future then the process is a little more complicated than just 'booking a check ride'.

For all renewals you need training through an ATO - you cant just rock up to any old instructor and fly. Your ATO has to determine your training needs and depending on how long 'several years' is will determine what and how much training should be undertaken. FCL.740.A states the guidelines that the ATO SHOULD work to.
Once that training is complete, the ATO will issue a course completion certificate and it is then that you can approach an examiner to book a proficiency check.

The examiner, I'm sure will be aware, has to apply to the CAA for authority to undertake the flight in advance and normally wont do that without seeing a copy of the completion certificate.

IIRC the UK CAA require a valid medical and valid rating before they will renew / reissue a licence so make sure all of the appropriate paperwork is in place....including an ELP if that isn't already on your licence.

HTH

DD

[Boeing100]

thanks all for your feedback so far.

To address some of the questions raised so far:

* I had a JAR PPL that I acquired in France about 10 years ago, haven't flown since due to multiple reasons.
*I have contacted the French aviation authority (DGAC) and they have converted my license into EASA standards.
*I have passed my Class 2 medical in the UK and now have a CAA ref number.
* I have completed my training prior to this check ride"at an approved FTO. I flew with two different instructors who are both comfortable that I am now ready to take the check ride.

once I pass, I will send the CAA the appropriate forms to transfer my french EASA license over to the CAA.

Now in terms of the renewal itself, my understanding is that my PPL never expires however my SEP rating does, hence this would be a rating revalidation check rather than a PPL revalidation (apologies for the confusion)

Thanks

[rarelyathome]

Look at Page 2 of this http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG2128Issue04enabled.pdf. You should be able to perform that lot to a satisfactory standard.

[PA28181]

I flew with two different instructors who are both comfortable that I am now ready to take the check ride.

This is surely a "Skills Test" after all that lay off, not just a "check" ride?

[RTN11]

The length of the nav section will depend on the examiner, the guidance is that a short leg of 15 mins or so to the handling area is sufficient, and no specific need for a diversion, but some examiners may want to see this anyway.

At least two stalls, more likely three or four.

Steep turns and spiral dive recovery (not to be confused with spinning)

PFL and EFATO.

Again, probably just two circuits, precision and flapless, unless the forced landing section makes the examiner specifically want to see you handle a glide.

[Talkdownman]

This is surely a "Skills Test" after all that lay off, not just a "check" ride?
To my knowledge "check ride" is an FAA colloquialism. It has no place in the CAA Flight Crew Licensing glossary.

[hoodie]

If somebody's been off for several years, one of the very many things they won't be up to speed on is the subtlety of current terminology.

I say we all give the guy a break and help him out, as enjoyable as nit-picking can be. :ok:

[airpolice]

I would take some comfort from the confidence of the instructors who have flown with you.

They would not be comfortable to put you forward without having witnessed all of the required procedures having been flown to a suitable standard.

My only pearl of wisdom is that if you need a break, do a FREDA or do a very extensive lookout. That'll get you smartie points as well as some thinking time.

Most of all, good luck & welcome back.

[Boeing100]

If somebody's been off for several years, one of the very many things they won't be up to speed on is the subtlety of current terminology.

I say we all give the guy a break and help him out, as enjoyable as nit-picking can be. :ok:

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Most of all, good luck & welcome back.
Thank you

The length of the nav section will depend on the examiner, the guidance is that a short leg of 15 mins or so to the handling area is sufficient, and no specific need for a diversion, but some examiners may want to see this anyway.

At least two stalls, more likely three or four.

Steep turns and spiral dive recovery (not to be confused with spinning)

PFL and EFATO.

Again, probably just two circuits, precision and flapless, unless the forced landing section makes the examiner specifically want to see you handle a glide.

Thanks for this, may I ask what is your source as you say "the guidance"? I can't find an actual official guidance document for this specific type of skills test, only the full PPL test.

[Broadlands]

Also check SRG1157
It’s the test form I use for the renewal of a class rating by Profiency Check for SEP Class ratings - which is what you need.

Used in conjunction with the standards document 14, you will have a good idea of what is required.

If you needs links please ask.

[RTN11]

As above, SRG 1157 states all the mandatory items, glide approaches and nav diverts aren't mandatory.

Also, the guidance for us examiners is in the examiners handbook, and that clearly states the nav section doesn't need to be too long unless nav competency is in particular doubt.

[Boeing100]

thank you, I've printed this off and it all makes sense. Diversion and position fix aren't in there so I guess that will be at the discretion of the examiner. Navs is something i'm usually very comfortable with especially here in Scotland where there are so many easy to find visual landmarks. So not too worried about that part.

[Boeing100]

quick question on full consumption: for the purpose of "FREDA" type checks, would an examiner find acceptable for me to round total full and fuel consumption figures? I spoke to my FI who told me total fuel is 182L with full tanks and 32L consumption per hour. Would it be acceptable for me to round these up to 180L and 30L per hour ? say if it's been 20 minutes since engine start and i'm doing my FREDA check I will estimate fuel burn at about 10L so 170L remaining giving me 5h40 minutes autonomy. Since it should only be one leg, the impact of rounding on actual figures should be minimal.

[custardpsc]

at the risk of nit-picking:

32 litres to 30 litres/hr is rounding down, not rounding up - something not advisable for a fuel burn and likely to become a talking point with an examiner!

is the 182 litres all usable fuel?

You should expect to do the fuel calculation as part of the planning, and you should know about and be ready to use, the 'time and fuel to climb' chart in the POH, and a taxi allowance. Once in the air, consumption is going to be an estimate as you go, and of course subject to using correct leaning technique. For the FREDA check, making sure you are on the correct tank, the fuel pump is on or off as required, and there is sufficient fuel to get to your intended destination plus 30 minutes (by day VFR ) is the check.

[Boeing100]

at the risk of nit-picking:

32 litres to 30 litres/hr is rounding down, not rounding up - something not advisable for a fuel burn and likely to become a talking point with an examiner!

is the 182 litres all usable fuel?

You should expect to do the fuel calculation as part of the planning, and you should know about and be ready to use, the 'time and fuel to climb' chart in the POH, and a taxi allowance. Once in the air, consumption is going to be an estimate as you go, and of course subject to using correct leaning technique. For the FREDA check, making sure you are on the correct tank, the fuel pump is on or off as required, and there is sufficient fuel to get to your intended destination plus 30 minutes (by day VFR ) is the check.

thanks for your feedback. The SRG1157 only states "Documentation, Mass and Balance, Weather briefing, NOTAM" within Section 1 - Departure - and none of these items are marked as mandatory. What's your source for having to use time and fuel to climb charts for a re-validation skills test?

[sycamore]

B100,think it`s called `common sense` or airmanship..

[custardpsc]

Don't confuse mandatory, with the examiner looking for evidence that you are reasonably diligent and well across your preflight planning to a safe standard. That isn't to say that he is about to ask you about that particular graph, just that it is something that one ought to use when doing a diligent fuel plan. If your fuel plan says something like 10 litres start and taxi, 20 litres climb and 32 litres per hour thereafter then he will see hat you have considered it properly (and know how to use the poh). That kind of thing sets a good impression before you leave the ground. And for extra points replot the Cof G for either zero fuel or expected landing weight to make sure it is still acceptable. All of that stuff you can do the week before the flight if you ask the guy for his weight.

The 1157 is a checklist / tickbox form to ensure the reasonable conduct of the assessment, its not 100% prescripitive. Nitpicking, it does say, "preflight Including documentation... ", the use of Including, means, all items of preflight including but not limited to docs etc. And the mandatory marking is a reminder to the examiner, not an instruction to you. If you look in the instrument section, you will see an instrument approach to 200ft is marked mandatory but you won't be doing one ! and you might have to do a few minutes under the hood so you may be using the instrument flight section.

Leaving all that detail aside, you are unlikely to struggle with a re-validation if it is only a few years and your original training was good. The flying itself is less likely to be a problem than procedures/documentation/memory items etc.

General good habits for any checkride include; printing at least some of the weather off, a written w&b, a flight log with fuel plan, having a briefing ready for the examiner in the aircraft and on departure, looking over the local area chart and a read of the POH. Also, of course checking that the mandatory parts are done, eg Notams, Medical etc. Cleaning the windscreen is always a good way of scoring early points. Knowing the current fuel state of the aircraft beforehand and having a max fuel level in mind if you are likely to be close to max weight is of course good.

One might expect an inflight emergency requiring a bit of fault finding/commonsense. eg smoke from the radio stack or ALT master tripping.

Hope that helps ...

[Boeing100]

Hope that helps ...

It does indeed, thank you very much

[RTN11]

Don't confuse mandatory, with the examiner looking for evidence that you are reasonably diligent and well across your preflight planning to a safe standard.

Exactly this.

When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.

If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required.

If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.

[Boeing100]

Exactly this.

When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.

If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required. ( i will finalize once I have the actual temperature on the day)

If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. I'm not intending on using a rounded figure for my fuel planning. I've used the POH and have already prepared charts and figures accordingly which I will supply to the examiner including W&B (departure and landing CG), Takeoff distance (normal and short field), landing distance, and fuel performance.

My question was about the FREDA check which is done in flight, every 10/15 minutes or so. Doing mental math using 30 L is a lot easier to extrapolate (10 min = 5 litres) than using 32. Because this is meant to be an estimate rather than a POH figure, I would have thought that for a 1 leg NAV, it should be acceptable? The reality of things is that I'm going on a 1h20 fight will full tanks so apart from switching fuel tanks from time to time, actual endurance is non factor (though I wouldn't say that to the examiner, I understand he wants to see that I can get a sense of how much fuel i've used and subsequently that I'm comfortable with the remaining endurance to complete the NAV).

[bingofuel]

As light aircraft fuel gauges are notoriously unreliable, I would suggest that using the fuel burn figure from the POH , knowing the fuel on departure and being aware of time flown and time required to reach a suitable airfield if you have to divert and ensuring you have a sensible reserve remaining ( time you can still fly for ) will more than satisfy the examiner.

[BEagle]

When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.

If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required.

If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.

If that really is what you do on a simple SEP Class Rating revalidation proficiency check :rolleyes:, then the moral of the story for any pilot in your area must be FFS revalidate by experience!

[RTN11]

If that really is what you do on a simple SEP Class Rating revalidation proficiency check , then the moral of the story for any pilot in your area must be FFS revalidate by experience!


Why wouldn't you expect proper flight planning for a prof check?

Both of the schools I examine at have simple and easy to use mass and balance sheets and performance graphs readily availble, It shouldn't take more than 3-5 minutes to come up with some sensible figures, if pilots are too lazy to complete this simple task then I would certainly question them to assess their level of knowledge and understanding.

Not saying I would fail them, but I'm not about to sign someone off having no demonstration that they understand the performance limitations of the aircraft they fly.

This is factored against both schools being based at airfields with very long runways. It is an unfortunate result of this that pilots become complacent and forget the exact performance capabilities of the aircraft, and then incidents result going to shorter strips.

This is the one opportunity in two years to bring these pilots back up to standard, why would I skip it?

[Boeing100]

Though I agree that based on different feedback that I've received from different sources on the SEP re-validation test some examiners can be more pernickety in testing knowledge, I would tend to side with RTN11 on this one.

I think safety is paramount above all else and sometimes people forget how incredibly dangerous it can be to fly an airplane and end up being complacent. I would rather over do it and make sure I understand aircraft performance and safety to the fullest. Best case, I score lots of brownie points with my examiner, worse case I'm prepared and I understand how different factors will affect my flight. It's a win-win!

[jayteeto]

I recently renewed my twin rating + IR on a turbo seneca. As a professional helicopter pilot, I hadn’t flown an aeroplane for 6 years, so I thought that I would nip to Barton and renew my SEP a few days later.
I was told that I would have to do a navigation exercise using drift lines. I last used them on EFTS chipmunks in 1987. I have 7000 hours helicopters and comfortably do the calculations in my head these days. I didn’t bother with the renewal as I would have to learn a new skill that would then never be used again.......

[LastStandards]

I was told that I would have to do a navigation exercise using drift lines.

That's a genuine shame - and worth trying somewhere else. The requirement for a SEP renewal is a navigation section with length at the discretion of the Examiner, and we certainly can't insist that you use a particular technique! Generally speaking if someone is current in other classes then I might nominate a point for them to get me to in a straight line so we can start the handling parts, or when the handling is complete indicate your position and ask you to bring us home in a straight line. It's supposed to be a practical demonstration of skill rather than a school set piece!

[Level Attitude]

* I had a JAR PPL that I acquired in France about 10 years ago, haven't flown since due to multiple reasons.
*I have contacted the French aviation authority (DGAC) and they have converted my license into EASA standards.
*I have passed my Class 2 medical in the UK and now have a CAA ref number.
* I have completed my training prior to this check ride"at an approved FTO. I flew with two different instructors who are both comfortable that I am now ready to take the check ride.

once I pass, I will send the CAA the appropriate forms to transfer my french EASA license over to the CAA.

I am not sure what is meant by "the French aviation authority (DGAC) have converted my license into EASA standards"?
You either have an EASA Licence, or you do not.
Do you now have a French issued EASA Licence? Or a French issued JAR Licence that they say they can convert to an EASA Licence.

Both Licence and Medical need to have been issued by the same State. I would, therefore, assume your CAA issued Medical does not render your French issued Licence valid - You would need to wait until you receive your UK issued Licence to exercise the privileges.

As you hold a French issued Licence, your SEP Renewal Proficiency Check would need to be conducted by a French (or French approved) Examiner.

Although there maybe (and, indeed, should be) some commonality, all the good advice you have received re SRG1157, etc is not relevant as this is UK specific.

Please ask your French ATO for advice on what is required to pass a French Proficiency Check.

[Boeing100]

Just a quick post to say that I passed my skills test today! So happy after 10 years of being away from aviation to be a fully certified private pilot again.

A huge thanks to the many of you who have provided me with plenty of advice and guidance on this post and others on PPrune. They have really helped me correctly prepare for this day. The examiner even told me "The pre-flight briefing you gave me was the most comprehensive I've ever seen from a student pilot".

So again, Thanks!

[Boeing100]

I am not sure what is meant by "the French aviation authority (DGAC) have converted my license into EASA standards"?
You either have an EASA Licence, or you do not.
Do you now have a French issued EASA Licence? Or a French issued JAR Licence that they say they can convert to an EASA Licence.

Both Licence and Medical need to have been issued by the same State. I would, therefore, assume your CAA issued Medical does not render your French issued Licence valid - You would need to wait until you receive your UK issued Licence to exercise the privileges.

As you hold a French issued Licence, your SEP Renewal Proficiency Check would need to be conducted by a French (or French approved) Examiner.

Although there maybe (and, indeed, should be) some commonality, all the good advice you have received re SRG1157, etc is not relevant as this is UK specific.

Please ask your French ATO for advice on what is required to pass a French Proficiency Check.

I will give some more color on this in case it can help others in a similar situation.

My license was JAR, the French authority has converted it to EASA standards. I now have a French issued EASA license.

I spoke multiple times to both the CAA and the French Authority. What will happen is that I will send form SRG 1136 which is for the "change of competent authority for issue of pilot's license or associated rating". In the same envelop I will send the examiners report for my skills test, SRG 1199 to show that I have passed english Level 6, and SRG 1119C for the renewal of my SEP rating , and finally my course completion certificate signed by the head of the FTO here in the UK.

The CAA when they receive this will contact the French authority and ask them to transfer over my license to them. Once done they will re-validate the SEP rating under the new CAA license using the documentation I sent them.

This process was confirmed as valid both by the CAA (I spoke to two different people who said the same thing) and the French Authority.