SEP Re-validation 1hr instructor flight
 

The 1 hr flight with an instructor , does it have to be 1 flight lasting 1 hr or can it be 2 flights lasting 1 hr together [say a flight to another airfield lasting1/2 hr then a flight back lasting 1/2 hr].
Cheers.

MUST be one flight of at least an hour.:=

Must be a single flight of 1 hour. Could do a flighht to another airfield with a touch and go before return, that would be one flight.

3 point

However, watch this space for vastly more sensible and flexible NPPL 'training flight' requirements coming to this theatre soon........ish.

But will it address the anomaly that under a PPL I could do a revalidation flight in either SEP or TMG that covered me for both ratings, whereas under NPPL I have to do an hour in both SEP and SLMG.
Same aircraft, same pilot.

The intention is that you must accumulate a total of not less than 1 hour of training flying, ammassed in whatever you fly. So, if you hold both SLMG and SSEA ratings, 30 min in a SLMG, 30 min in a SSEA would be OK, for example. Or 60 min in a SSEA and nothing in a SLMG - or vice versa. Entirely your choice, it just has to add up to not less than 60 min in a 2 year period.

But if you are a Billy No-mates who only ever wants to fly single seat aircraft (this does not mean a 2-seater flown solo!), you want have to do any training flights.

The intention is also for 'consolidated' revalidation requirements for all 3 NPPL aircraft Class Ratings, so if you hold Microlight, SLMG and SSEA Ratings you will be able to revalidate all 3 by flying a total number of hours, subject to a minimum requirement in each class.

More on all this in a few days time when the formal proposals are released to the constituent organisations represented by the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee.

Beagle,
This all looks like very good news. Many thanks for all your undoubted hard work on this.
To clarify then, those of us who only fly a Pawnee for instance, do not have to have any flight with an instructor, whilst those of us who fly, say a Pawnee and an RF5, need to amass 60 mins over a 2 year period with an instructor?, and does said instructor need to hold a SLMG rating?
Sorry to jump the gun a bit
Explaining this to some of our tug pilots is going to fun

(Subject to approval):

If you only fly a SSEA fitted with a single seat, you will not be required to complete any training flying if you meet the required total flight time requirements.

Training flights on SLMGs will, of course, need to be flown with an instructor entitled to conduct such training on SLMGs......

Thanks Beagle.

I had an interesting experiance this week. I have a partner in one of my aircraft and so did his 1 hr flight in our aircraft usual stuff for the refresher. He took the signed log book to the club that we are actually both members off and the CFI at first refused to sign the renewal saying that it must be completed with an Instructor from the club. He signed it in the end with a lot of grumbling.
For my sanity sake..... What he said is untrue?

Yes.

The FI who conducted the training flight merely needs to sign and state that this was a training flight. If any false statement is made, the usual fine and/or prison sentence is going to be the direct result....

But if the CFI doesn't know the FI from Adam, he has every right to contact him for clarification if he is in any doubt. However, the CFI cannot 'limit' the signature to his Club's FIs.

Get an FI who also works for the CAA to sign it - that'd put a bat up the CFI's kilt!

Thanks I thought that should be the case. He did try to intimate that I was not allowed to conduct the flight. I suspect more of an attempt to revenue protect than anything else.

Just to double check with you guys, since you all seem to be in the know!

I want to revalidate my SEP by experience and I have done all the requirements, including the 1hr dual flight. Problem is that I haven't had it signed off in my logbook and I did all my flying in the US. However I have just passed my IR, and as I read lasors I can use any aeroplane flight test instead of this 1hr dual flight? Is that correct? Thanks.

Provided that the SEP Class Rating is currently valid:

The training flight may be replaced by any other aeroplane proficiency check or skill test for an instrument, class or type rating (as defined by JAR-FCL) with a JAA qualified Examiner, or by a flight test for the issue/revalidation or renewal of a UK IMC rating.

(See LASORS F1.4)

Note that this has to have been a JAR-FCL IR!

Out of interest does an LPC/OPC in a simulator count?

For a JAR-FCL Class or Type Rating, if the relevant revalidation requirements can be met in an appropriate simulator by a LPC, an SEP Class Rating 'training flight' is not required - provided that the 'experience' requirements are also met. Somewhat daft, but there it is.....

But for the National aircraft Class Ratings included in a NPPL, the stipulated requirement will be for a minimum of 1 hour's cumulative flying training.

Please, please don't let them do this time what they did last time for the NPPL - all that work to set it up, and they only released the details (specifically the ANO detail) when it was too late to react when the :mad: -ups were pointed out. :ugh: :ugh:
Learn from the past, publish the proposed amendments in full on the internet (for what seems to be called 'stakeholder review' nowadays) with time to actually do something about any reported problems with the text.

The problem with widespread general circulation is that often so many time-wasting and utterly irrelevant comments are received, that the CAA has to waste a lot of time wading through many of them in order to find those few pertinent comments which might actually have some relevance.

AOPA, BBGA, BGA, BMAA, CAA, GAPAN and PFA NPPL P&SC representatives (or 'stakeholders', if you prefer) have had months of preview assessment and have unanimously agreed the proposals. Their organisations will be responsible for ensuring that their members are made aware of the proposed changes and how to comment upon them.

What will not be accepted, at this stage, are any comments which address NPPL issues other than those in the consultation papers.

No need at all for any 'wading' if 21st century techniques are used - and I don't mean 'email' where only the organisation at the cente sees everything and has the workload, I mean a forum based consultation where everyone sees the final draft can feed off each other - irrelevancies can be dealt with easily. If there are pertinent comments on the final draft they need to be aired - they don't become less pertinent because someone else suggests something irrelevant or something 'not wanted' at this stage like new issues.
The fact that these august organisations you name have been concentrating their energies on the new scheme for a long time is exactly why you need to 'release' the work for fresh eyes for a final review when it appears to the people who have been working hard to be finished. It would be a shame if the real stakeholders (the pilots with NPPLs) couldn't see the detail this time before it's too late if there are any blunders like last time.
How many of these organisations were involved last time? Most/All? How many have demonstrated their consultation processes have changed since 2002? If the detail IS kept under wraps again until corrections are not possible, it does sound like the lessons haven't been learned, and attitudes haven't changed, 5 years on.
The only way to cope with all the new initiatives hitting us from various directions in the timeframe allowed is to 'get clever' with forum technology and tap into the intelligence and energy out there - it doesn't diminish in any way the work already done out by the guys round the table putting a lot of work into getting it to that stage.

The NPPL was set up at the request of industry and the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee consists of representatives from all the organisations stated previously.

All these organisations represent the views and interests of their members. We have had much robust debate in committee to recommend improvements to the NPPL; the difference between last time (when the CAA introduced policies without the committee having had the chance to check them) and this time is that this time we have been working with the CAA to ensure that proposed changes will have been agreed by the whole committee.

We'd hoped to launch the proposals last year, but needed to resolve 2 issues (the ANO wording describing the supervisory requirements for Microlight AFIs and the ANO wording describing the medical declaration requirements). These have now been resolved.

Who do you expect to host, manage and pay for some internet discussion forum? if you want to comment on the ANO amendment proposals, you will need to ask your representative organisation for further details. If you don't belong to an organisation such as AOPA, BBGA, BGA, BMAA, GAPAN or the PFA then perhaps you should consider doing so? Then they can represent your views.