One hour dual
 

Dear Sirs,
does One hour dual revalidation flight (with FI or CRI) have to be done in ATO/DTO or can be done just by FI/CRI outside any organisation?
Please advise.
Best regards,
Hrelja

There is no longer a requirement for a 1 hour revalidation flight. The Regulation now says refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI).
It can be any number of instructors on any number of flights and does not have to be conducted at an ATO or DTO. The instructor must sign the log book to verify the flight(s) An instructor who has FCL.945 entered in their log book may sign the revalidation provided that they conducted the last of the revalidation flights and you meet the experience requirement.

Whopity
This issue raises its head over and over. I'm always happy to rely on your contributions for this sought of question but can you put a light on why the CAA website is currently stating the following:

"a training flight of at least 1 hour (or a maximum of three totalling 1 hour) with the same flight instructor or class rating instructor."

and

SEP revalidation by experience can be signed in a UK issued licence by an examiner holding a valid UK issued Part-FCL examiner certificate or a Flight Instructor with the privileges of FCL.945.

It would also be reasonable, from the above, for an instructor with FCL 945 to sign the revalidation page even though they may not have flown with the pilot.

The UK sumbitted an ALTMOC which comprised of the maximum of 3 training sessions with the ame instructor, so you can either follow the Regulation or you can follow the ALTMOC which has effectively been superceeded by the change in regulation. FCL.945 requires that to use the privilege the instructor must have flown with the candidate. It did not take into account the relaxation of the hour to more than one flight so it is assumed that to meet the spirit of 945 the instructor would have had to complete the 1 hours training rather than to have initiated it. To sign without flying with the candidate is contrary to FCL.945.

Devil is in the detail
 

Great explanation Whopity as usual, Bravo:D

Surely it can't be acceptable to have two standards left to the choice of a single individual, who may, depending on what side of the bed they got out of that morning, swing one way or another. There is massive confusion throughout the country and no wonder.

What regulation and when? The UK CAA is clearly ignoring it if so. Is this another instance of the CAA being well behind the curve and failing to update its information, information on which we must all rely?

Are you suggesting that NAAs are not able to issue AltMoCs?

No, of course not. If an individual state has filed an alternative means of compliance and EASA has agreed to it then that is the regulation but you can't have both..

You seem to be confusing the "implementing rules" with "means of compliance"

The Agency does not approve alternative means of compliance. That responsibility rests with the competent authorities of the member states. The Agency will make a recommendation to the Commission following a request by a member state for approval of other means of complying with essential requirements than those prescribed by implementing rules but that's an exemption rather than an AltMoC.

AltMoCs developed or approved by UK CAA are published in CAP 1721. An index of AltMoCs notified to the Agency is published here (link). None of these contains the text quoted in post 3 above.

EASA must be satisfied that any alternative means chosen is within the scope of the regulation. Who has claimed that they have to "approve" it, it is certainly not me?

Selfin and Mustapha Cuppa, what are you arguing? Please let us not descend into committee speak and argue over semantics and the processes at the expense of the issue.

The two quotations that I have posted are copied and pasted directly from the current CAA website. Do you agree they are correct or incorrect?

So what do you think is the difference between a rule and an acceptable (or even an alternative) means of compliance?

The Regulation is primary legislation with which everyone must comply. By definition, if one complies with an AMC, which is secondary legislation, one is also complying with the Regulation. There may be more than one acceptable means of complying with any specific implementing rule, in which case one may choose to comply with any of the Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC) that are available. In the case under discussion, the Regulation requires "refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI)" and the UK AltMoC does not conflict with that requirement. However, one may also comply with the implementing without complying with the AltMoC - completing a ten minute flight with each of 6 instructors will comply with the Regulation but not with the UK AltMoC. It is not a matter of choosing between the implementing rule and an acceptable means of compliance but of choosing between alternative means of complying with the rule. Clearly, if there is only one acceptable means of compliance, that is the only means by which one may comply with the rule unless one notifies an alternative acceptable means to the competent authority.

An important fact to bear in mind is that, under EU law, AMCs (or AltMoCs) cannot create additional obligations to the Regulation, so the UK CAA cannot, at present, enforce its limit of 3 flights or one flight instructor as these are additional obligations to those required by primary legislation. After 31 Dec, however, who knows?

Fl1ingfrog, "The two quotations that I have posted are copied and pasted directly from the current CAA website. Do you agree they are correct or incorrect?"

The first one does not form part of any valid AltMoC or direction made or approved by UK CAA. The authority would be acting ultra vires were it to attempt to impose this limit on the implementing rule. Should the authority wish the alter the rule it must do so in accordance with article 71 of the Basic Regulation, ie by way of an exemption. The authority will notify such an exemption in ORS 4.

AltMoCs are notified in CAP 1721. Anyone affected by a implementing rule may propose a corresponding AltMoC by applying to UK CAA using form SRG 1840.

***

Revocation of Alternative Means of Compliance FCL.A(b)(1)(ii), revalidation flight with Flight Instructor - SkyWise

5th July 2018 SW2018/131

Revocation of Alternative Means of Compliance
FCL.A(b)(1)(ii), revalidation flight with Flight Instructor

The CAA has revoked the Alternative Means of Compliance (EASA ref: 2012-00009) published
by the CAA in 2012, against Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 as amended, Annex I,
FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii).

This was also published in CAP 804, Part I, Section 4, Part H, Subpart 1, Acceptable Means of
Compliance and Guidance Material (AMC and GM).

The reason for this revocation is that the current requirements of Commission Regulation (EU)
1178/2011 as amended, Annex I, FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii), provide the appropriate level of flexibility,
and are less onerous than the Alternative Means of Compliance.

The CAA's current website is shambolic, out of date information, links that do not work because nobody is tasked with maintaining it. You can notify them of the errors but they neither respond nor do anything.

What a nightmare, I thank you gentleman for your efforts in keeping abreast of all this on our behalf. I would soon loose the will to live.

I'm still on the journey to fully understand how an aeroplane truly flies. I have no wish to grapple with all this bureaucratic gobbledygook. The original purpose of regulation was safety now sadly long forgotten.

The words of FCL 740 and FCL 945 are written in plain english although hellish to find in the FCL tomb of over 1200 pages. I shall abide with them, now found, until January 1st. God only knows what chaos will ensue after then. The principles of flight will not have changed of course and the earth will still be roundish. Hopefully the CAA will be able to save on EASA fees (I presume they have to pay) and will re-invest that money into employee aviators who know what they are doing.

Don't know if you know it, but try googling "EASA FCL easy access", open the pdf, search "FCL.XXX" in the main index. Works pretty well.