EASA NPA 2020-014 - PPL(H) Revalidation by Experience
Thread Starter
EASA NPA 2020-014 - PPL(H) Revalidation by Experience
This NPA proposes amongst other things a change to PPL(H) revalidation to allow revalidation by experience (flight time plus an instructor session) rather than by proficiency check (flight time plus an examiner checkride)
In theory I'm a supporter because in my experience checkrides were always more revision/teaching than checking.
However this is VERY dependent on instructors taking their responsibilities seriously, and training organisations setting down clear standards that must be achieved. Helicopter emergencies have some rather complex muscle memory sequences that have to be executed in a very short window of opportunity, and that in my opinion puts a greater responsibility on effective revalidation training.
Any FE(H)s or TRE(H)s with a view ? I personally haven't missed my collection of scare rides every year, but then I am retired ! I should imagine current examiners trying to recoup the cost of their ticket might take a different view though, and I can see many of them dropping the authorisation. I wouldn't have thought that there are enough ab-initio PPL(H) tests to go round.
In theory I'm a supporter because in my experience checkrides were always more revision/teaching than checking.
However this is VERY dependent on instructors taking their responsibilities seriously, and training organisations setting down clear standards that must be achieved. Helicopter emergencies have some rather complex muscle memory sequences that have to be executed in a very short window of opportunity, and that in my opinion puts a greater responsibility on effective revalidation training.
Any FE(H)s or TRE(H)s with a view ? I personally haven't missed my collection of scare rides every year, but then I am retired ! I should imagine current examiners trying to recoup the cost of their ticket might take a different view though, and I can see many of them dropping the authorisation. I wouldn't have thought that there are enough ab-initio PPL(H) tests to go round.
That's actually SEP type ratings - revalidation by experience, so it wouldn't only apply to PPL(H), and it wouldn't apply to turbine type ratings. But hey, if it's good enough for fixed wing SEP, why not?
Thread Starter
My suggestion for debate was because the required response to some emergencies in the helicopter are more demanding than in fixed wing. If the FE(H)s, and TRE(H)s out there have a view I'd be interested.
Lever ,half way down ,check RRPM...
I've never renewed anything by experience, but if it's a number of hours plus an hour with an instructor - does the instructor need to know that's the purpose of the flight?
Thread Starter
That's a very good point Rundestuff. I did do fixed wing revalidations by experience and that would often involve just a retrospective paperwork exercise to identify some applicable training rather than going out with the intention of achieving specific currency tasks.
Sycamore, it's not clear to me how mentioning two specific tasks from a complex muscle memory sequence advances any useful argument. A dead stick fixed wing landing is essentially a normal landing with a steeper glideslope, whereas an engine off landing in a helicopter, especially a small light one, is nothing like any normal flying sequence.
Sycamore, it's not clear to me how mentioning two specific tasks from a complex muscle memory sequence advances any useful argument. A dead stick fixed wing landing is essentially a normal landing with a steeper glideslope, whereas an engine off landing in a helicopter, especially a small light one, is nothing like any normal flying sequence.
Last edited by Wide Mouth Frog; 23rd Mar 2021 at 12:57.
I guess this depends on the client. most schools will have their own way of checking /training how proficient someone is before allowing to SFH a machine. Well their Ops manual ( SMS )should !
As an examiner this wouldn't work for owners who all seem to think as they own a machine they have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FLY. Most are sh1t as they take no form of continuation training from year to year
As an examiner this wouldn't work for owners who all seem to think as they own a machine they have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FLY. Most are sh1t as they take no form of continuation training from year to year
