Restricting instructor revalidation to individuals that you have actually flown the training flight with makes some sense. At least the instructor knows for sure that the training flight was legitimate. I have no idea how examiners varify the identity and qualification of an instructor that they do not personally know, and who could be based anywhere in EASA land. I personally would not want this responsibility.

Restricting instructor revalidation to immediately after the training flight makes it almost useless. The vast majority of revalidation candidates that I fly with try to get the training flight over with early in the 12 month period and do not yet have their 12 hours logged. I flew with someone this weekend who still needed an hour of P1 time before he can revalidate. He was planning to complete it this week, but now he will have to seek out an Examiner (who may not know me from Adam) to sign him off because apparently I cannot be trusted to have a record of my own flights or recognise my own signature in someone's log book.

Do we really want to encourage people to leave the instructional flight right to the end of their SEP rating validity?

What happens if the training flight was actually three flights?

If the purpose of this was to take some of the pressure off examiners, then it has missed the mark. I already have this "obligation" on my licence, but I suspect it will be rarely used and I wish now I had not bothered with it.

You need to re read the regulation. ALL of the revalidation requirements need to be met before the licence can be signed. That means if it's split over more than one flight it is signed after the final flight that completes the requirements.......

Now I refer you back to my comment about the differences between examiners and authorising an Instructor to do a limited Licencing action on behalf of the authority......

I have read the regulations. The point I was making about the three flights is that two of these could have been 11 months ago. Apparently I can be trusted to recognise my own signature on these flights, but not if it was a single 1 hour flight yesterday. Where is the logic there?

I have re-read your comments about the differences between examiners and instructors, but I'm afraid I don't see anything there that explains how it is better for an examiner to verify the qualifications of a potentially unknown FI than for the FI himself to recognise his own log book entry and signature on a past flight.

I don't understand why people are getting so steamed up about this.

If a pilot has met all other requirements and just needs to finish off the training flying, then he/she won't need to find an examiner for a signature, provided that the instructor has the FCL.945 endorsement in his/her certificate.

EASA is proposing to ease the training flying, so that it will no longer be '3 flights with the same instructor' - it will simply require a total of not less than 1 hour of refresher training accumulated with as many instructors and in as many flights as the pilot wishes.

That should make compliance even simpler - provided instructors actually understand the scope of their privileges. Which clearly many don't, even today.....:rolleyes:

then why would you not have signed the flight off on completion of the requirements yesterday....

People really are making a meal of this......

Joe Bloggs did a training flight with me yesterday. At the end of that flight he still needed one hour of PIC time to meet the requirements. He flies that hour today, but I now cannot revalidate his rating so he has to go on the usual examiner hunt before his rating expires.

It's a silly restriction that severely limits the utility of the "obligation". What's the point of introducing something intended to reduce the bureaucracy of the revalidation process only to trammel it with a restriction that makes it unlikely to be used?

When I applied for it, I did not interpret "upon completion of the training flight" as meaning "immediately following the completion of the training flight". Had I done so, I would have realised that the "obligation" would be almost useless and I would have saved the £53. My mistake.

IMHO it's a much deeper problem than Beagle and nick14 have mentioned.
There are a large number of instructors floating about who have somehow gained the privilege without gaining anywhere near the required knowledge, skill or the correct attitude. Or perhaps they had it once but have not bothered to maintain it. My worry is that some of these will fill in the form, pay £53 (no training required) and then revalidate pilots incorrectly.

Its been happening since 1999 the only difference is the £53! In most cases they signed the rating and no paperwork was completed or it would have been noticed.

An Examiner can extend the validity of an SEP providing all the requirements for revalidation by experience are met. The introduction to IN 2015/034 says its purpose is to allow authorised instructors to do the same. If that is indeed the purpose why was FCL 945 not written to make that clear? If it was clear,this thread would never have started.

I agree - IF this is correct interpretation of the requirements.

Has anybody yet seen the explanatory card which CAA are apparently going to send us with re-issued licence? That may explain much.

G

There was nothing in with my new licence when I received it a few days ago.

It was nothing to do with Examiners, it was to aid pilots who have difficulty in locating an Examiner in a timely manner (there being more Instructors than Examiners). It is still a 'relaxation' of the rules - even if this new, additional, method of Revalidation does not go as far as you would like.

The wording is not the best so I am not saying you should have understood it; I agree with Mr Average that it is completely bonkers for the CAA to give someone an additional privilege (or obligation) without some evidence that they understand the privilege and how to apply it.

For those Instructors who will gain it "automatically" upon Issue or Revalidation - they should not unless there is some evidence that this has been discussed (at a Seminar or with an FIE). For those wanting it badly enough that they will pay £53 for the benefit the same should apply.

Guess it is all too late now !

That's me - and I shall certainly read any instructions carefully and discuss it with my friendly neighbourhood examiner before I use it.


Clear written procedures would certainly do however - we all do many things as pilots which weren't explicitly taught, relying upon good documentation.

G

I was taught this as part of my CRI course and I believe it should be the norm on all instructor courses not only for your own privileges but to advise students and other pilots about their own administration.

Quote:

That's me - and I shall certainly read any instructions carefully and discuss it with my friendly neighbourhood examiner before I use it.


Genghis
Hypothetical question.


A person buys a share in your Condor Group but has not a tail wheel sign off.
Person requires a revalidation for SEP A and having flown a C152 for more than 12hrs in the last, etc, requires your obligation as a CRI to sign the licence.
You complete a 1hr training exercise in the Condor in which you demonstrate both the take off and landing.
Would you sign that person's licence in able to fly the C152 booked tomorrow ?

If I may be so bold to answer in Genghis' absence:

In the example you have quoted, the requirements have been met, so there's no reason not to sign the Licence for the revalidation of the SEP Class rating.

It matters not what that person is going to fly tomorrow, so long as it's included in the class rating you have revalidated.


MJ:ok:

This was introduced as a result of much work behind the scenes by the LAA to re-introduce authorisation for CAA Revalidation Examiners to sign EASA licences following withdrawal of these privileges at the introduction of EASA in September 2012. The LAA pursued this primarily to assist those pilots who might have difficulty locating an EASA Flight Examiner following completion of their training flight. A number of routes were explored with the CAA, where this was found to be the most satisfactory solution.

CAP 804 now includes some details of FCL.945 privileges under Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 6. It is clear that the guidance provided to those who have been issued with FCL.945 privileges is inadequate.

ifitaint...

FIs signing Revalidation
 

TREs used to be able to sign a revalidation by experience. I believe that privilege disappeared with EASA. Have any of the recent relaxations restored it?

I wrote to the CAA to inform them that Standards Document 24(A) was incorrect when the latest version was published; the FEH was also incorrect at that time. The FEH has been amended following a number of e-mails :) and now contains the correct statement which allows ANY UK examiner with an EASA Part-FCL Examiner certificate (including TRE) to sign for revalidation by experience in a UK licence.

See 'Who can certify' in Table 4C in the FEH, where the date of this publication is after the date of issue of SD24. PM me if needed for a copy of the e-mail from CAA policy (which was agreed as OK for distribution) confirming this.

ifitaint...

1 hour instruction, it's not a test and for the purposes of SEP revalidation no minimum standard of flying needs to be demonstrated - so yes.

However, he's still not yet signed off for tailwheel, and he'll certainly need rather more time before I authorise him to fly PiC in the syndicate jet.

G