UK PPL Revalidation Check Ride
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: london
Age: 60
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't confuse mandatory, with the examiner looking for evidence that you are reasonably diligent and well across your preflight planning to a safe standard. That isn't to say that he is about to ask you about that particular graph, just that it is something that one ought to use when doing a diligent fuel plan. If your fuel plan says something like 10 litres start and taxi, 20 litres climb and 32 litres per hour thereafter then he will see hat you have considered it properly (and know how to use the poh). That kind of thing sets a good impression before you leave the ground. And for extra points replot the Cof G for either zero fuel or expected landing weight to make sure it is still acceptable. All of that stuff you can do the week before the flight if you ask the guy for his weight.
The 1157 is a checklist / tickbox form to ensure the reasonable conduct of the assessment, its not 100% prescripitive. Nitpicking, it does say, "preflight Including documentation... ", the use of Including, means, all items of preflight including but not limited to docs etc. And the mandatory marking is a reminder to the examiner, not an instruction to you. If you look in the instrument section, you will see an instrument approach to 200ft is marked mandatory but you won't be doing one ! and you might have to do a few minutes under the hood so you may be using the instrument flight section.
Leaving all that detail aside, you are unlikely to struggle with a re-validation if it is only a few years and your original training was good. The flying itself is less likely to be a problem than procedures/documentation/memory items etc.
General good habits for any checkride include; printing at least some of the weather off, a written w&b, a flight log with fuel plan, having a briefing ready for the examiner in the aircraft and on departure, looking over the local area chart and a read of the POH. Also, of course checking that the mandatory parts are done, eg Notams, Medical etc. Cleaning the windscreen is always a good way of scoring early points. Knowing the current fuel state of the aircraft beforehand and having a max fuel level in mind if you are likely to be close to max weight is of course good.
One might expect an inflight emergency requiring a bit of fault finding/commonsense. eg smoke from the radio stack or ALT master tripping.
Hope that helps ...
The 1157 is a checklist / tickbox form to ensure the reasonable conduct of the assessment, its not 100% prescripitive. Nitpicking, it does say, "preflight Including documentation... ", the use of Including, means, all items of preflight including but not limited to docs etc. And the mandatory marking is a reminder to the examiner, not an instruction to you. If you look in the instrument section, you will see an instrument approach to 200ft is marked mandatory but you won't be doing one ! and you might have to do a few minutes under the hood so you may be using the instrument flight section.
Leaving all that detail aside, you are unlikely to struggle with a re-validation if it is only a few years and your original training was good. The flying itself is less likely to be a problem than procedures/documentation/memory items etc.
General good habits for any checkride include; printing at least some of the weather off, a written w&b, a flight log with fuel plan, having a briefing ready for the examiner in the aircraft and on departure, looking over the local area chart and a read of the POH. Also, of course checking that the mandatory parts are done, eg Notams, Medical etc. Cleaning the windscreen is always a good way of scoring early points. Knowing the current fuel state of the aircraft beforehand and having a max fuel level in mind if you are likely to be close to max weight is of course good.
One might expect an inflight emergency requiring a bit of fault finding/commonsense. eg smoke from the radio stack or ALT master tripping.
Hope that helps ...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't confuse mandatory, with the examiner looking for evidence that you are reasonably diligent and well across your preflight planning to a safe standard.
When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.
If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required.
If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly this.
When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.
If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required. ( i will finalize once I have the actual temperature on the day)
If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.
When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.
If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required. ( i will finalize once I have the actual temperature on the day)
If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.
My question was about the FREDA check which is done in flight, every 10/15 minutes or so. Doing mental math using 30 L is a lot easier to extrapolate (10 min = 5 litres) than using 32. Because this is meant to be an estimate rather than a POH figure, I would have thought that for a 1 leg NAV, it should be acceptable? The reality of things is that I'm going on a 1h20 fight will full tanks so apart from switching fuel tanks from time to time, actual endurance is non factor (though I wouldn't say that to the examiner, I understand he wants to see that I can get a sense of how much fuel i've used and subsequently that I'm comfortable with the remaining endurance to complete the NAV).
As light aircraft fuel gauges are notoriously unreliable, I would suggest that using the fuel burn figure from the POH , knowing the fuel on departure and being aware of time flown and time required to reach a suitable airfield if you have to divert and ensuring you have a sensible reserve remaining ( time you can still fly for ) will more than satisfy the examiner.
When I examine for a revalidation prof check, I would expect mass & balance, performance, and fuel plans to be completed. If they are not, you can bet I'll be asking some indepth questions to assess whether it is due to complacency or lack of knowledge these items were not completed.
If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required.
If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.
If you come out with 30 l/hr fuel burn, the first question will be where you got that figure from. If you say "my instructor told me 32 so I just rounded it down" you can bet I'll be saying lets take a look at what the POH says, and get you using the graphs to calculate actual fuel required.
If however the answer is I have looked at the climb graphs, and taken a planned 75% power at 2000', and rounding this up gives a conservative fuel burn of 30 l/r, then I probably wouldn't go to the effort of getting the POH out and trawling through it, as I would know the expected fuel burn myself, and you have demonstrated knowledge and appreciation of the aircraft performance.
, then the moral of the story for any pilot in your area must be FFS revalidate by experience!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that really is what you do on a simple SEP Class Rating revalidation proficiency check , then the moral of the story for any pilot in your area must be FFS revalidate by experience!
Both of the schools I examine at have simple and easy to use mass and balance sheets and performance graphs readily availble, It shouldn't take more than 3-5 minutes to come up with some sensible figures, if pilots are too lazy to complete this simple task then I would certainly question them to assess their level of knowledge and understanding.
Not saying I would fail them, but I'm not about to sign someone off having no demonstration that they understand the performance limitations of the aircraft they fly.
This is factored against both schools being based at airfields with very long runways. It is an unfortunate result of this that pilots become complacent and forget the exact performance capabilities of the aircraft, and then incidents result going to shorter strips.
This is the one opportunity in two years to bring these pilots back up to standard, why would I skip it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I agree that based on different feedback that I've received from different sources on the SEP re-validation test some examiners can be more pernickety in testing knowledge, I would tend to side with RTN11 on this one.
I think safety is paramount above all else and sometimes people forget how incredibly dangerous it can be to fly an airplane and end up being complacent. I would rather over do it and make sure I understand aircraft performance and safety to the fullest. Best case, I score lots of brownie points with my examiner, worse case I'm prepared and I understand how different factors will affect my flight. It's a win-win!
I think safety is paramount above all else and sometimes people forget how incredibly dangerous it can be to fly an airplane and end up being complacent. I would rather over do it and make sure I understand aircraft performance and safety to the fullest. Best case, I score lots of brownie points with my examiner, worse case I'm prepared and I understand how different factors will affect my flight. It's a win-win!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I recently renewed my twin rating + IR on a turbo seneca. As a professional helicopter pilot, I hadn’t flown an aeroplane for 6 years, so I thought that I would nip to Barton and renew my SEP a few days later.
I was told that I would have to do a navigation exercise using drift lines. I last used them on EFTS chipmunks in 1987. I have 7000 hours helicopters and comfortably do the calculations in my head these days. I didn’t bother with the renewal as I would have to learn a new skill that would then never be used again.......
I was told that I would have to do a navigation exercise using drift lines. I last used them on EFTS chipmunks in 1987. I have 7000 hours helicopters and comfortably do the calculations in my head these days. I didn’t bother with the renewal as I would have to learn a new skill that would then never be used again.......
Join Date: May 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a genuine shame - and worth trying somewhere else. The requirement for a SEP renewal is a navigation section with length at the discretion of the Examiner, and we certainly can't insist that you use a particular technique! Generally speaking if someone is current in other classes then I might nominate a point for them to get me to in a straight line so we can start the handling parts, or when the handling is complete indicate your position and ask you to bring us home in a straight line. It's supposed to be a practical demonstration of skill rather than a school set piece!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
* I had a JAR PPL that I acquired in France about 10 years ago, haven't flown since due to multiple reasons.
*I have contacted the French aviation authority (DGAC) and they have converted my license into EASA standards.
*I have passed my Class 2 medical in the UK and now have a CAA ref number.
* I have completed my training prior to this check ride"at an approved FTO. I flew with two different instructors who are both comfortable that I am now ready to take the check ride.
once I pass, I will send the CAA the appropriate forms to transfer my french EASA license over to the CAA.
*I have contacted the French aviation authority (DGAC) and they have converted my license into EASA standards.
*I have passed my Class 2 medical in the UK and now have a CAA ref number.
* I have completed my training prior to this check ride"at an approved FTO. I flew with two different instructors who are both comfortable that I am now ready to take the check ride.
once I pass, I will send the CAA the appropriate forms to transfer my french EASA license over to the CAA.
You either have an EASA Licence, or you do not.
Do you now have a French issued EASA Licence? Or a French issued JAR Licence that they say they can convert to an EASA Licence.
Both Licence and Medical need to have been issued by the same State. I would, therefore, assume your CAA issued Medical does not render your French issued Licence valid - You would need to wait until you receive your UK issued Licence to exercise the privileges.
As you hold a French issued Licence, your SEP Renewal Proficiency Check would need to be conducted by a French (or French approved) Examiner.
Although there maybe (and, indeed, should be) some commonality, all the good advice you have received re SRG1157, etc is not relevant as this is UK specific.
Please ask your French ATO for advice on what is required to pass a French Proficiency Check.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick post to say that I passed my skills test today! So happy after 10 years of being away from aviation to be a fully certified private pilot again.
A huge thanks to the many of you who have provided me with plenty of advice and guidance on this post and others on PPrune. They have really helped me correctly prepare for this day. The examiner even told me "The pre-flight briefing you gave me was the most comprehensive I've ever seen from a student pilot".
So again, Thanks!
A huge thanks to the many of you who have provided me with plenty of advice and guidance on this post and others on PPrune. They have really helped me correctly prepare for this day. The examiner even told me "The pre-flight briefing you gave me was the most comprehensive I've ever seen from a student pilot".
So again, Thanks!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure what is meant by "the French aviation authority (DGAC) have converted my license into EASA standards"?
You either have an EASA Licence, or you do not.
Do you now have a French issued EASA Licence? Or a French issued JAR Licence that they say they can convert to an EASA Licence.
Both Licence and Medical need to have been issued by the same State. I would, therefore, assume your CAA issued Medical does not render your French issued Licence valid - You would need to wait until you receive your UK issued Licence to exercise the privileges.
As you hold a French issued Licence, your SEP Renewal Proficiency Check would need to be conducted by a French (or French approved) Examiner.
Although there maybe (and, indeed, should be) some commonality, all the good advice you have received re SRG1157, etc is not relevant as this is UK specific.
Please ask your French ATO for advice on what is required to pass a French Proficiency Check.
You either have an EASA Licence, or you do not.
Do you now have a French issued EASA Licence? Or a French issued JAR Licence that they say they can convert to an EASA Licence.
Both Licence and Medical need to have been issued by the same State. I would, therefore, assume your CAA issued Medical does not render your French issued Licence valid - You would need to wait until you receive your UK issued Licence to exercise the privileges.
As you hold a French issued Licence, your SEP Renewal Proficiency Check would need to be conducted by a French (or French approved) Examiner.
Although there maybe (and, indeed, should be) some commonality, all the good advice you have received re SRG1157, etc is not relevant as this is UK specific.
Please ask your French ATO for advice on what is required to pass a French Proficiency Check.
My license was JAR, the French authority has converted it to EASA standards. I now have a French issued EASA license.
I spoke multiple times to both the CAA and the French Authority. What will happen is that I will send form SRG 1136 which is for the "change of competent authority for issue of pilot's license or associated rating". In the same envelop I will send the examiners report for my skills test, SRG 1199 to show that I have passed english Level 6, and SRG 1119C for the renewal of my SEP rating , and finally my course completion certificate signed by the head of the FTO here in the UK.
The CAA when they receive this will contact the French authority and ask them to transfer over my license to them. Once done they will re-validate the SEP rating under the new CAA license using the documentation I sent them.
This process was confirmed as valid both by the CAA (I spoke to two different people who said the same thing) and the French Authority.
