Quickie - QXC?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quickie - QXC?
UK JAA requirement.
Where does it state the validity of the QXC flight?
Nowt in JAR FCL 1.125.
LASORS doesn't say.
I know the answer, just need to be able to prove it and can't find the reference.
TIA
DD
Where does it state the validity of the QXC flight?
Nowt in JAR FCL 1.125.
LASORS doesn't say.
I know the answer, just need to be able to prove it and can't find the reference.
TIA
DD
Firstly QXC is an old outdated term. When it was a "Qualifier" for the UK PPL it had a validity of 9 months. (CAP53). The 9 months appears to be tied in with the NFT which had a 9 month validity and the QXC could only be completed after passing the NFT. So if you had to retake the NFT, you also had to repeat the QXC. In July 1999 it was replaced by a X-Cty Experience Requirement (ICAO Annex 1) with no validity limitation so it is valid for life.
You will not find a reference as there is no limitation. ICAO Annex 1 says:
You will not find a reference as there is no limitation. ICAO Annex 1 says:
2.3.1.3.2 The applicant shall have completed in aeroplanes
not less than 10 hours of solo flight time under the supervision
of an authorized flight instructor, including 5 hours of solo
cross-country flight time with at least one cross-country flight
totalling not less than 270 km (150 NM) in the course of which
full-stop landings at two different aerodromes shall be made.
not less than 10 hours of solo flight time under the supervision
of an authorized flight instructor, including 5 hours of solo
cross-country flight time with at least one cross-country flight
totalling not less than 270 km (150 NM) in the course of which
full-stop landings at two different aerodromes shall be made.
Last edited by Whopity; 24th Jan 2012 at 10:17.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the QXC itself has a specific valid period, but under the skill test requirements listed in LASORS, the skills test must be taken within 6 months of course completetion. So if the QXC was the end of the course, the test should be within 6 months.
Indeed. We still have "FI limitations" that have not existed for 12 years and the CAA website still gives the Licensing Standards address as PLD which ceased to exist over 2 years ago!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all... I knew it didn't "expire" as such - was looking for a specific reference to indicate such before the pedants started to shout at me.
I suppose that having gained the experience then you have met the requirements as such - even though the relevance of such 'experience' may no longer be as it intended.
As a point of interest - what is the longest time between "QXC" and issue that you are all aware of?
DD
I suppose that having gained the experience then you have met the requirements as such - even though the relevance of such 'experience' may no longer be as it intended.
As a point of interest - what is the longest time between "QXC" and issue that you are all aware of?
DD
I've seen 10 years in the case of an Ex military pilot. The interesting point is that the CAA still ask for a QXC Certificate, another hangover from the past. There is no JAA requirement for one and logbook evidence should suffice. I recently came across a case of someone converting an ICAO licence and being asked for a Certificate. They had never heard of such a thing.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently had a case of a customer converting from NPPL-SSEA to JAA-PPL-SEP(L). Their QXC (if I can still use that term) met the NPPL requirements but wasn't quite the 150nm needed for a JAA-PPL. Since getting the NPPL, they had met the 150nm, two intermediate landings in a day as PIC while exercising the privileges of their NPPL. The CAA wouldn't accept logbook or flying school auth. sheet & tech. log evidence of that, but insisted it was all done again to produce the said SRG2105.
Last edited by mrmum; 24th Jan 2012 at 18:49. Reason: spelling
The original purpose of the SRG2105 was to get rid of the old out of date AOPA form that contained spaces for comments on airmanship and the quality of the landing, by people who were probably not qualified to judge. The CAA had occasionally refused to issue licences due to adverse comments. The Certificate was originally an AOPA document which the CAA has now mandated. Its function is to certify that a flight contained in the aircraft Tech logs is genuine. Surely a signature in the pilots log book fulfils the same requirement? Quite odd that they are prepared to accept those documents for a CPL X-Cty but not a PPL!
