Revalidating PPL

[Okavango]

Hi. My flight test was in Nov 2008. To revalidate, my understanding is that I need:

The 12 hours includes IN ANY ORDER

• 12 landings and takeoffs (touch and goes are okay)
• One hour flight training with an instructor

I will have well over 12hrs this last year and also obtained my NQ in March this year so meet the one hour instruction. Is revalidation just simply a case of filling in a CAA form and getting an instructor to sign it off then send to the CAA sometime over the period Sept-Nov?

[flyingman-of-kent]

From Lasors 2008 (New version due out soon)

See page 259 - Section F (I happened to be looking at this myself the other day)

Revalidation by flying experience
A SEP (Land) and/or TMG class rating can be revalidated by flying experience by producing logbook evidence to an appropriately authorised JAR-FCL Examiner, before the rating expiry date has passed, of the following flying experience completed within the 12 months preceding the rating expiry date.

12 hours of flight time in SEP or TMG aircraft as appropriate to include;
i. 6 hours as pilot-in-command;
ii. 12 take-offs and landings;
iii. a training flight of at least 1 hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A)* who must countersign the appropriate logbook entry (see full details below).

*The instructor must be authorised in accordance with JAR-FCL to instruct for the JAR-FCL TMG or SEP(Land) rating as appropriate. UK QSP only may undertake the instructional flight with a UK Military instructor. This 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.
• If revalidating by flying experience, and providing the examiner signs the Certificate of Revalidation page within the 3 months prior to the rating expiry, the validity of the revalidated rating will be calculated from the date of expiry of the preceding rating.

Important Note: If intending to revalidate by flying experience, the Certificate of Revalidation must be signed before the expiry date of the previous rating has passed, otherwise the SEP/TMG rating renewal requirements of F1.5 will apply.

So, you will probably find that you still need a training flight as this has to be with 3 months of the revalidation. Good luck, hope this helps. (You can download the full Lasors as a PDF for free from the CAA site)

[BackPacker]

So, you will probably find that you still need a training flight as this has to be with 3 months of the revalidation. Good luck, hope this helps. (You can download the full Lasors as a PDF for free from the CAA site)

Nope. The training flight can take place anywhere in the preceding 12 months.

You need an examiner (not an instructor) to sign the paperwork (SRG\1119 comes to mind) before the class rating expires otherwise the process becomes different and a revalidation by experience is no longer possible.

The validity of the SEP class rating is two years from the moment the examiner signs the paperwork (rounded up to the nearest month I believe). But if the examiner signs the paperwork in the three months preceding expiry, the validity is until the original expiry date plus two years.

[Whopity]

The validity of the SEP class rating is two years from the moment the examiner signs the paperwork (rounded up to the nearest month I believe).

From the date of test which might not be the date of signing. It is valid until midnight of the day before the second anniversary of the test. i.e. test date - 1 day. On re-validation it is valid to 2nd anniversary of the expiry date. Dual flight anytime within 12 months of expiry.

[flybymike]

But loads of examiners still deduct a day from revalidations just as though they were initial issues! I have so far lost three days by not noticing this until after the event by which time I either couldn't be bothered to do anything about it or just didn't want to kick up a stink!

[Brooklands]

As Backpacker said it MUST be an examiner who signs the paperwork. There are two bits that need doing the SRG1119 which goes to the CAA, and most important of all the ratings page in your licence - without that signature your licence won't be valid.

Brooklands

[Whopity]

But loads of examiners still deduct a day from revalidations just as though they were initial issues!

I have seen several cases of examiners deducting even more, the worst case being around 3 months. The reason given was that the candidate wanted it signed early and the examiner added a new date 3 months from the date of signing!

[flybymike]

Pardon my French...

Bolleaux.

[markp123]

Apologies if I'm being stupid but I've read various threads on revalidating my SEP rating and am still a little confused.

I understand the ways I can go about it, and I have done over 12 hours P1 and my hour with an FI, who signed and stamped my log book. I was under the impression this was all I needed....

I also need an examiner to sign my licence and a form? SRG1119, is this the only form i require? Do the CAA charge for revalidating my licence ?

Thanks

[XL319]

As far as i understand there is the re-val by experience way (i.e. the one being mentioned) and the pro-efficiency check - which is the same as a mini ppl if you dont have the 12 take off and landings etc etc . If you fall outside the validity you are liable to take al 7 PPL subjects again

[flybymike]

You should have a separate piece of Paper ( the rating ) which is signed and dated by an examiner. Most examiners will then complete the CAA return form and send it off for you. There are no fees payble to the CAA but some (rogue?) examiners have been known to charge for a signature.

[XL319]

Some (Rogue?) examiners suggests that you shop carefully! I've never come across one, but i'm sure there out there

[markp123]

Okie dokie, so an examiner to sign licence and send form etc. off to CAA.

Cheers guys

[flybymike]

I placed a question mark after the word rogue since I personally wouldn't have a problem with paying a nominal fee for their time and trouble, but apparently many pilots would.

[BEagle]

As far as i understand there is the re-val by experience way (i.e. the one being mentioned) and the pro-efficiency check - which is the same as a mini ppl if you dont have the 12 take off and landings etc etc . If you fall outside the validity you are liable to take al 7 PPL subjects again

No.

1. You may revalidate either by experience, or by licensing proficiency check (LPC). If the LPC is flown in the last 3 months of the validity period, your next validity date will be 2 years from the expiry of the old one (minus one day, it seems...).

2. The proficiency check takes roughly an hour and is simpler than the PPL Skill Test.

3. If you don't revalidate before the expiry date of your rating, you will need to renew by flying a renewal licensing skill test (LST). The content of which is identical to the LPC, but the conduct is more formal.

4. An examiner completes form SRG1119 which you should provide when revalidating, he/she will also need to see your personal flying logbook. He/she will make the appropriate entry in your licence 'Certificate of Revalidation'. Due to a CAA error, the licence has to be signed within the last 3 months of the validity period (no matter when you gained the appropriate revalidation experience) in order that your next validity date remains 2 years (minus a day) from the old expiry date - if signed earlier the next validity date will be 2 years (minus a day) from the date of signature....

5. If you approach the Examiner with everything correctly prepared and ready for signature, he/she would be greedy in the extreme to expect payment. But if you turn up with a logbook which hasn't been maintained correctly, a licence which you forgot to sign and without having downloaded and filled out your SRG1119, it is entirely plausible that the Examiner will charge for the time needed to wade through your scruffy paperwork. There is no fee to pay to the CAA if revalidating or renewing unless the renewal is 5 years or more after the rating exiry date.

6. Download the SRG1119 at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1119.pdf . It is your responsibility, not the Examiner's, to send the completed form to the CAA.

7. Once you've passed your PPL, you never need to take the PPL written exams ever again, no matter how 'expired' your licence or rating might become.

8. If it's 5 years or more since you last held a valid class rating, you will be required to answer oral questions from the Examiner when flying the renewal LST. Your SRG1119, licence and logbook will have to be sent to the CAA and there will be a fee to pay.

[flybymike]

Nice post Beagle, However I'm sure the CAA will miss the cynical reference to their 3 month error (thus far they studiously refuse to acknowlege it) and most examiners will probably not see the irony in the "minus a day" remark and think you are actually being serious

[BackPacker]

2. The proficiency check takes roughly an hour and is simpler than the PPL Skill Test.

What I understand is that there's no legal minimum duration for the LPC. At my club the thinking is therefore that if you are very current (flown well over 12 hours in the last year) it's actually cheaper to book an examiner for an LPC than to book an instructor for the one-hour instruction flight, and then find an examiner to sign the paperwork.

Since the LPC doesn't include an actual nav section (but you've got to prepare a x-country on paper anyway, which will be checked), just upper air work (stalls, steep turns, PFL etc) and some landings (short field, flapless etc) the actual flying time can be as little as 20 minutes for the examiner to be satisfied.

5. If you approach the Examiner with everything correctly prepared and ready for signature, he/she would be greedy in the extreme to expect payment.

At my club they charge a nominal fee of 10 euros for the examiner to go through your paperwork. This is added to the normal instruction fee if the flight is an exam flight and not an instruction flight, and is charged as a separate fee for going through the paperwork and getting a signature in case of a reval by experience. As far as I'm concerned it's entirely reasonable given the time it takes an examiner to handle the paperwork, and given the time and monetary investment somebody has to undertake to become an examiner in the first place.

[BEagle]

Since the LPC doesn't include an actual nav section

It does in the UK - but the content is at the Examiner's discretion. So if a pilot is being checked who hasn't flown a navigation trip for a while, it'll be about 20 min. If the pilot is reasonably current, it'll probably be quicker.

20 min is a ridiculously short flight time for a properly conducted LPC.

[BackPacker]

20 min is a ridiculously short flight time for a properly conducted LPC.

Maybe, maybe not. I think that in a lot of cases your first impression, the one you had in the first five minutes after starting the engine, turned out to be right. So what's the rest of the 20- or 50-minute LPC going to accomplish then?

For example. Somebody comes to you for an exam. Hands over a wad of paperwork, such as a proper wind-corrected plog complete with calculated take-off and landing distances, annotated weather and NOTAMs, and the SRG\1119 form already filled in as far as possible. Flight plan has been submitted, he knows how much fuel is in the aircraft and whether that's sufficient. Pre-flight has been done and all you need to do as an examiner is get in. Candidate straps in next to you, confidently starts working down the checklist, starts up, taxies out, performs engine run-up, takes off. Good liason with ATC and good situational awareness. Navigation to the practice area, including maintaining course and altitude, plus keeping a lookout, is also spot on. During all this, the candidate is clearly at ease and has spare mental capacity to deal with an occasional question or remark from your side.

How often does it really happen that somebody like that makes such a hash out of the subsequent part of the LPC (stalls, steep turns, PFL, landings) that he/she fails anyway?