SEP revalidation and training flight question
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Saraksh
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEP revalidation and training flight question
Folks, who can give me advice, please...
it must be 1 hour training flight, but how it comes into logbook: as PIC, PICUS or PUT, if I already have PPL, but fly with instructor as training flight for revalidation purpose?
PS @moderators sorry for second topic, maybe better to remove it from Prof Training topic?
it must be 1 hour training flight, but how it comes into logbook: as PIC, PICUS or PUT, if I already have PPL, but fly with instructor as training flight for revalidation purpose?
PS @moderators sorry for second topic, maybe better to remove it from Prof Training topic?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Saraksh
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sure? because proficiency check and training flight is very different things...
As I understand it, only if there is not enough hours experience in past 12 month exist, in that case proficiency check required, other way only training flight or ...?
As I understand it, only if there is not enough hours experience in past 12 month exist, in that case proficiency check required, other way only training flight or ...?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should be logged as PUT but the content can be anything you want from an hour of stalls and steep turns, to an hour of aerobatics.....Your choice, and don't let any instructor tell you otherwise....
Pu/t
FI is to annotate the 'Remarks' column with his/her licence number and signature 'if the applicant's performance was considered safe'.
The hour's training flight is not a 'revalidation proficiency check'; an SEP revalidation LPC must be conducted by a FE.
If the hour's training flight is conducted by a FI who happens to be a FE, then the applicant's licence may also be signed if all other revalidation by experience requirements have been met - but thanks to a CAA cock-up*, the signature should only be entered in the licence within the last 3 months of the validity period...
* they confused the 'last 3 months LPC' requirement with the revalidation by experience requirement where either is used to revalidate for 2 years from the expiry date....
FI is to annotate the 'Remarks' column with his/her licence number and signature 'if the applicant's performance was considered safe'.
The hour's training flight is not a 'revalidation proficiency check'; an SEP revalidation LPC must be conducted by a FE.
If the hour's training flight is conducted by a FI who happens to be a FE, then the applicant's licence may also be signed if all other revalidation by experience requirements have been met - but thanks to a CAA cock-up*, the signature should only be entered in the licence within the last 3 months of the validity period...
* they confused the 'last 3 months LPC' requirement with the revalidation by experience requirement where either is used to revalidate for 2 years from the expiry date....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is completely beyond my understanding why they do not undo this obvious cock up, such that all of the paperwork can be dealt with as a single exercise just as soon as the experience requirements and the instructor flight have been completed within the second year. This was certainly the case until the inadvertent rewrite of the rules. Are they just too proud to admit to a stupid mistake? 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Redhill
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also PUT!
Just a point re Englishal, the "training flight content as defined in LASORS should include some general handling, at the discretion of the FI. (Previously this was part of the original AIC127/99 but that's now withdrawn.)
Just a point re Englishal, the "training flight content as defined in LASORS should include some general handling, at the discretion of the FI. (Previously this was part of the original AIC127/99 but that's now withdrawn.)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Your choice, and don't let any instructor tell you otherwise....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, a club can have its rules (such as requiring a PFL for example) ... of course if you don't like them you can do the hour with a non-club aircraft and a non-club instructor if you think it's worth the hassle.
Or are you just happy to be walked over all the time?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No they can't.
Or are you just happy to be walked over all the time?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Gerturde, but you are wrong plain and simple.
ANY flight of 1hr or greater in the qualifying period will count as the flight required for revalidation by experience. A pilot can ask to fly around in circles for an hour, do aeros or just fly in a straight line. As long as the flight is logged as PUT it is job done. Show me an Instructor (according to the endless arguments on these forums) who is not going to log the time as Instructional and the pilot as PUT.
Once the hour is logged they may then have the licence signed by an examiner and that's it for the next 2 years.
When I do the 2 year flight and licence sign off I give the pilot the option of what they would like to do. If they have no idea I make suggestions which usually include general handling but if all they want to do is fly around in circles then I will respect the request. There used to be guidelines issued by the CAA but these were withdrawn.
I am not saying it is not sensible to make the most of the time by doing general handling but I respect the individuals right to free choice and don't support the pencil pushing nanny state. Perhaps some have spent to much time around government bureaucracy to recognize that individuals have free will and don't need decisions making for them......
ANY flight of 1hr or greater in the qualifying period will count as the flight required for revalidation by experience. A pilot can ask to fly around in circles for an hour, do aeros or just fly in a straight line. As long as the flight is logged as PUT it is job done. Show me an Instructor (according to the endless arguments on these forums) who is not going to log the time as Instructional and the pilot as PUT.
Once the hour is logged they may then have the licence signed by an examiner and that's it for the next 2 years.
When I do the 2 year flight and licence sign off I give the pilot the option of what they would like to do. If they have no idea I make suggestions which usually include general handling but if all they want to do is fly around in circles then I will respect the request. There used to be guidelines issued by the CAA but these were withdrawn.
I am not saying it is not sensible to make the most of the time by doing general handling but I respect the individuals right to free choice and don't support the pencil pushing nanny state. Perhaps some have spent to much time around government bureaucracy to recognize that individuals have free will and don't need decisions making for them......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sorry Gerturde, but you are wrong plain and simple.
A private enterprise can, in the absense of laws dictating otherwise, which we all agree there aren't any of in this case, choose for itself which services it does and doesn't wish to offer for sale.
If one of my customers wants me to do something that I don't feel like doing I can say no. If I want to buy a flight from a club which they don't offer they can say no. Simple as that.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that in purely commercial terms Gertrude is correct, in that the club can decide on what terms they wish to conduct their business , just as I do in my own business.
However, I am completely behind Bose's philosophy on this one. GA is already grossly overburdened by unnecessary regulation which is strangling the life out of the industry,and shortly it appears to be made even worse by compulsory six yearly tests, with no perecived safety benefit from all of this regulation whatsoever.
The recent CAA review of safety statistics following the introduction of the new JAA requirements for biennial instructor flights, 90 day rules etc clearly showed no benefit whatsoever from the increased regulation, just more cost and disincentive for those who have already been through the exam and test mill.
I am lucky enough to have an instructor /examiner who is happy to let me bore holes in the sky in my own aircraft once every two years with no requirement for anything else, and long may that continue to be the case until my own choice and not bureaucracy states otherwise.
However, I am completely behind Bose's philosophy on this one. GA is already grossly overburdened by unnecessary regulation which is strangling the life out of the industry,and shortly it appears to be made even worse by compulsory six yearly tests, with no perecived safety benefit from all of this regulation whatsoever.
The recent CAA review of safety statistics following the introduction of the new JAA requirements for biennial instructor flights, 90 day rules etc clearly showed no benefit whatsoever from the increased regulation, just more cost and disincentive for those who have already been through the exam and test mill.
I am lucky enough to have an instructor /examiner who is happy to let me bore holes in the sky in my own aircraft once every two years with no requirement for anything else, and long may that continue to be the case until my own choice and not bureaucracy states otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one of my customers wants me to do something that I don't feel like doing I can say no. If I want to buy a flight from a club which they don't offer they can say no. Simple as that.
You can count ANY flight of 1hr or more as the required flight. You show me a school that will refuse a 1hr training flight where the pilot just wishes to fly in a straight line for 30 minutes out and a straight line back as PUT. The signing of the licence is a separate issue and it is not down to the examiner signing the licence to investigate the flight, they just ensure the regs have been met. Pure and simple.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is Bose, that once you tell them it is a revalidation flight , then they want to insist on all sorts of stuff, that as you rightly say, they have no right to insist upon.
Maybe best just to say that you want to do a one hour flight with an instructor for no particular purpose without "letting on " the actual purpose of the flight? The problem then of course, is that when you ask for a signature in the log book at the end of the flight, the instructor invokes their right to refuse ( the real reason being because they didnt know that what they really really really needed to do was to "test" you!)
Ever since this JAA instructor flight was introduced it has become ( with the exception a few liberated instructor /examiners like yourself) a back door means of introducing a biennial flight test.
Maybe best just to say that you want to do a one hour flight with an instructor for no particular purpose without "letting on " the actual purpose of the flight? The problem then of course, is that when you ask for a signature in the log book at the end of the flight, the instructor invokes their right to refuse ( the real reason being because they didnt know that what they really really really needed to do was to "test" you!)
Ever since this JAA instructor flight was introduced it has become ( with the exception a few liberated instructor /examiners like yourself) a back door means of introducing a biennial flight test.
Most Clubs probably require an annual Club check.
Make sure it's at least 60 min and it will also satisfy the training flight requirement for revalidating by experience.
It really isn't worth flapping your handbags over...
flybymike, you asked:
To which the answer is, basically, 'YES'. If they kept having to admit they'd porked up some piece of €urocracy or other, then it would seemingly not reflect well on the 'competent authority' the CAA are supposed to represent.
It took nigh on 5 years to sort out their NPPL cock-ups, for example....
Make sure it's at least 60 min and it will also satisfy the training flight requirement for revalidating by experience.
It really isn't worth flapping your handbags over...
flybymike, you asked:
It is completely beyond my understanding why they do not undo this obvious cock up, such that all of the paperwork can be dealt with as a single exercise just as soon as the experience requirements and the instructor flight have been completed within the second year. This was certainly the case until the inadvertent rewrite of the rules. Are they just too proud to admit to a stupid mistake?
It took nigh on 5 years to sort out their NPPL cock-ups, for example....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Ever since this JAA instructor flight was introduced it has become ( with the exception a few liberated instructor /examiners like yourself) a back door means of introducing a biennial flight test.
I'd like to see chapter and verse where someone actually admits to having been made to to stick to a particular profile for a revalidation flight, instead of the 3rd party story handed over a pint in the pub. I don't know of ANYONE who has been coerced into a particular flight by a CRI/FI.
However, many people very sensibly combine it with a club/school 6-month check, which at our place has a written list of minimum requirements, including stalling and PFLs. Now, if a customer came to me and said 'I've done a 6-month check but now I want to do my revalidation flight and I want to do an hour of circuits/cross-country/land away somewhere/go and have a look at Felixtowe docks (yes, really!) then of course I'd oblige, happily.
NO-ONE is forced to do a 6-month check. It's just that if you want to hire from us, it's one of the rules, just like minimum hours if you take it away for a weekend, no unlicenced aerodromes without prior approval etc. To people who find all this a bit restrictive, I recommend joining one of the groups on our noticeboard. And before you ask, no we don't mind advertising them. The loss of hire business is compensated for by the friends that they bring with them who then learn to fly with us.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Where you left me.
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression that from the way LASORS is worded there is a large element of discretion attached to the 'requirements' for the training flight, anyway. Unless there actually is a syllabus written down by the CAA which FIs must follow for revalidation flights, in which case there are FIs breaking rules all over the place...? Can anyone clarify that?
I would think it professional for an instructor to perhaps suggest some exercises to carry out during the hour, and it might be prudent for the pilot to accept the advice, IF they agree it's necessary. After all, surely it's the responsibility of the pilot to ensure he is flying safely and is in good practice. There's a big difference between the revalidation flight and a school check flight, which has implications for insurance etc.
I did some unplanned diversions for my hour.
I would think it professional for an instructor to perhaps suggest some exercises to carry out during the hour, and it might be prudent for the pilot to accept the advice, IF they agree it's necessary. After all, surely it's the responsibility of the pilot to ensure he is flying safely and is in good practice. There's a big difference between the revalidation flight and a school check flight, which has implications for insurance etc.
I did some unplanned diversions for my hour.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no set format for this flight as Bose says quite rightly (he should know 
).....However, in practice this is not strictly true for the reasons GTW says.
I got bitten by this this year and it p*ssed me off. I phone up for an hour of tailwheel, as something different to pass off the 1 hr. Good experience for me, hopefully improve my general handling etc....
So I arrange everything and drive to the airfield 1.5 hrs (too crappy to get my plane out). I get there, we chat for a while and then when I mention it must be an hours flight "Ah, I'm not happy to let this flight count for a revalidation"......We have a discussion about it and he claims he'd be "helping me too much which goes against the idea of the training flight". The weather is too crappy for the usual stalls / steep turns etc., but the only difference with tailwheel is T/O and L/D. So as I've just driven 1.5 hours and I'm pissed off I did some tailwheel, less than an hour, and didn't get the revalidation flight. I went back the following week with my aeroplane, thinking I'll get it banged out in that, but no there is another problem, I brought the aeroplane docs with me but forgot one apparently and he didn't want to fly in my plane. So I almost told him to p*ss off and was on the edge of letting the JAR licence lapse and just using my FAA one but thought that AS I was there, and AS I'd just had my JAR medical which is now valid until 2012 I think, I may as well do it. So I had to rent one of their aeroplanes. It was good revision I suppose but nothing new.
This whold revalidation thing is a joke. Either the CAA should make it a FORMAL BFR or they should scrap the whole idea. They should also get rid of the requirement for an examiner to sign the paperwork. I'd suggest they make a formal flight of 1 hr duration, covering PFLs, Steep turns, etc., with an instructor sign off being good enough for the revalidation. Not being a member of a flying club this whole revalidation thing is far more hassle than if I were with a club, renting their aeroplanes....
).....However, in practice this is not strictly true for the reasons GTW says.I got bitten by this this year and it p*ssed me off. I phone up for an hour of tailwheel, as something different to pass off the 1 hr. Good experience for me, hopefully improve my general handling etc....
So I arrange everything and drive to the airfield 1.5 hrs (too crappy to get my plane out). I get there, we chat for a while and then when I mention it must be an hours flight "Ah, I'm not happy to let this flight count for a revalidation"......We have a discussion about it and he claims he'd be "helping me too much which goes against the idea of the training flight". The weather is too crappy for the usual stalls / steep turns etc., but the only difference with tailwheel is T/O and L/D. So as I've just driven 1.5 hours and I'm pissed off I did some tailwheel, less than an hour, and didn't get the revalidation flight. I went back the following week with my aeroplane, thinking I'll get it banged out in that, but no there is another problem, I brought the aeroplane docs with me but forgot one apparently and he didn't want to fly in my plane. So I almost told him to p*ss off and was on the edge of letting the JAR licence lapse and just using my FAA one but thought that AS I was there, and AS I'd just had my JAR medical which is now valid until 2012 I think, I may as well do it. So I had to rent one of their aeroplanes. It was good revision I suppose but nothing new.
This whold revalidation thing is a joke. Either the CAA should make it a FORMAL BFR or they should scrap the whole idea. They should also get rid of the requirement for an examiner to sign the paperwork. I'd suggest they make a formal flight of 1 hr duration, covering PFLs, Steep turns, etc., with an instructor sign off being good enough for the revalidation. Not being a member of a flying club this whole revalidation thing is far more hassle than if I were with a club, renting their aeroplanes....