Important SEP revalidation changes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Important SEP revalidation changes
The SEP Revalidation by experience remains the same.
Expired SEP rating, you are now required to pass a LST rather than an LPC. Even if the rating has expired by only one day or 20 years.
No mandatory reval training over 5 years.
No theory exams required over 5 years (Except for Oral as part of LST)
Just the LST and whatever training is required to get you through it.
Wibbly P
Expired SEP rating, you are now required to pass a LST rather than an LPC. Even if the rating has expired by only one day or 20 years.
No mandatory reval training over 5 years.
No theory exams required over 5 years (Except for Oral as part of LST)
Just the LST and whatever training is required to get you through it.
Wibbly P
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change is that if the licence has expired by more than 5 years, renewal will be in accordance with JAR-FCL1.
JAR-FCL 1.245(f)
If a SPA SEP Class rating has expired the candidate shall take skill test in appendices 1 and 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240.
This is the LPC test that is conducted at any time the licence needs renewal whether for 5 days or 5 years.
So the only real difference is that you don't have to resit the exams.
JAR-FCL 1.245(f)
If a SPA SEP Class rating has expired the candidate shall take skill test in appendices 1 and 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240.
This is the LPC test that is conducted at any time the licence needs renewal whether for 5 days or 5 years.
So the only real difference is that you don't have to resit the exams.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Popham
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noggin: I see the ground exams have gone, but the way i understood it, the CAA actually want to do an individual log book assessment if anyone has expired over 5 years (but give clues as to what the minimum req will be).
Is that right (in all cases)? and is there a set assessment fee like there used to be, refundable later against an issue?
Is that right (in all cases)? and is there a set assessment fee like there used to be, refundable later against an issue?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it the CAA do not do assessments any more. The idea is that a Training Provider will assess the student, and train them to a standard where they can pass the flight test and oral exam. Realistically, it should make very little difference to the amount of flying they do but at least they won't have to sit the ground examinations. Some technical refresher will no doubt be required involving a good read of the books.
There is no reason to involve the CAA other than to send in the licence and renewal paperwork when the test is passed.
There is no reason to involve the CAA other than to send in the licence and renewal paperwork when the test is passed.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Popham
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, now you've said that (Noggin) I can see it can be read both ways in GID 33.
GID 33 talks about those expired over 5 years "will be required to meet refresher training requirements as determined by the Authority". It then says what the MINIMUM required by the authority will be... x,y,z.
I interpretted that as 'we the authority will decide, but brace youself for at least x,y and z and maybe we'll decide more...".
Indeed, as you say, it could also be read as 'go ahead and just do the following as a minimum plus whatever else the CFI says'
Although the latter might be preferable, and hopefully it does mean that in pratice, it doesn't fit exactly with the earlier 'the authority will decide'
GID 33 talks about those expired over 5 years "will be required to meet refresher training requirements as determined by the Authority". It then says what the MINIMUM required by the authority will be... x,y,z.
I interpretted that as 'we the authority will decide, but brace youself for at least x,y and z and maybe we'll decide more...".
Indeed, as you say, it could also be read as 'go ahead and just do the following as a minimum plus whatever else the CFI says'
Although the latter might be preferable, and hopefully it does mean that in pratice, it doesn't fit exactly with the earlier 'the authority will decide'
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the GID. An amendment was issued by PLD Requirements last week saying "in accordance with JAR-FCL" and superceeding the GID. Hence the first post in this thread. Someone has got the LSTs and LPCs screwed up. It was originally briefed that LST was only ever used for Rating Issue tests. The forms are being combined anyway but were withdrawn last week pending further amendment (See thread on Instructors Forum)
I beg to differ, Noggin. Originally all initial issues and renewals were to require a Skill Test, revalidations (other than by expereince) required a Proficiency Check. Easy enough to understand - but then someone in the CAA confused everyone by declaring that 'demonstration of skill by flying a Proficiency Check would be acceptable to the Authority for rating renewal purposes' or words to that effect. Immediately all your - oops, I mean their, good work on the roadshows was put into doubt. The LST/LPC forms are a nightmare and require revision, but as for that ridiculous SRG\1119......
The revised form should start with personal details, test/check details and declaration. Then it should be sectioned so that mandatory items common to all are listed, then increasingly specific requirements for such as ME type ratings etc. Then the simple SEP reval could be pp1-2, MEP pp1-3, 747-400 Type Rating pp1-8 or whatever.
Oh - and K.I.S.S!!
The revised form should start with personal details, test/check details and declaration. Then it should be sectioned so that mandatory items common to all are listed, then increasingly specific requirements for such as ME type ratings etc. Then the simple SEP reval could be pp1-2, MEP pp1-3, 747-400 Type Rating pp1-8 or whatever.
Oh - and K.I.S.S!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but the Skill Test was exactly the same as the Proficiency Check, but different to the initial issue Skill Test. Confusing in itself
No doubt caused by the use of "Froglais" in the original JAR-FCL1 draft wording.
No doubt caused by the use of "Froglais" in the original JAR-FCL1 draft wording.
