25% of training required

[memories of px]

can an examiner only teach a student for 6.25 hours, ie 25% of the 25 hours required, if he is going to do the skilltest, or is it 25% of whatever he needs??

[Whopity]

An interesting question required a definition of "training required" I understand; but have not seen it written anywhere, that the CAA see it as you have interpreted it, rather than the more logical assumption that it is 25% of the total traing required to pass the Skill Test.

[BEagle]

I raised this topic at an EASA meeting nearly 3 years ago at which the participants agreed that the wording was ambiguous:

Outcome: The participants agreed that the 25% rule should be based on the minimum hours established in the ATO course approval. However, this issue should be reviewed by the GA task on simplifying the balloon requirements to further clarify the intent. This task is already considering changing the 25% requirement to 50%.

Post-meeting note: As the RMT.0654 on balloon licencing requirements has been, postponed until further notice, EASA will include this issue in RMT.0596 updating examiner requirements.

But RMT.0596 has now been absorbed into RMT.0194, with no NPA expected until 2020 - and no Decision before 2023....

Unofficially, the CAA advised me to tell people to use the 25% of minimum course requirements figure (i.e. 6.25 for the PPL(A)), but if more was needed than a note of explanation should be included with the application - for example, an FI went sick on the day and the only other person available was the FE who later did the Skill Test.

[memories of px]

Just as i thought, but we have an examiner at our club, hes done at least X hours with the student, done his mock skilltest, recommended him for test, and last time i looked, he put himself down to do the test!!

[Whopity]

done his mock skilltest, recommended him for test, and last time i looked, he put himself down to do the test!!

An Examiner cannot conduct a PPL Skill Test if he has recommended the candidate for test.

[MrAverage]

If he's really that devious he'll know not to put his name in section 3 and no one at the CAA will be any the wiser.....................................

[memories of px]

section 3 of ? its section 9 of the 1105, recomendation for skilltest by ............. and a licence number ............., so it cant be the club dog then!

[MrAverage]

That too. I was referring to SRG2128. Of course, by forging those two docs, he would open the way to possible prosecution

[memories of px]

spot on mr average, someone else signed the 1105, havent seen the 2128, it all seems to hinge around the definition of "required hours", X hours solo and Y dual, but Z of those dual hours with the instructor/examiner, so is 25% of the total hours ok?

[BEagle]

25% does not include student solo time!

25% of 36 hrs dual is 9 hours, so the Examiner has ruled himself out of being able to conduct the Skill Test by a significant margin.

The only solution is that a different FE must conduct the applicant's Skill Test.

[memories of px]

well the skilltest took place as scheduled with the same examiner, and surprise surprise he passed!, that'll be £225 please, i wonder if licencing will pick it up?

[Whopity]

The various signatures in Section 9 of SRG1105 should be interesting. Either they will all be the same, or the Head of Training will be complicit in letting it happen.