SEP revalidation....
 

I know its been posted before but here it is again....

I made the mistake of allowing my rating to expire. I diligently flew with instructors as required every two years, kept my flying hours well above the required amount, even took an IMC course and yet my rating expired due to the previous two bi-annuals paperwork not being sent into the CAA.

I am partly to blame for this myself as I should have had the Certificate of Revalidation section of my licence signed by the local examiner, but like many other pilots I know, I just got the instructor to sign my logbook and I carried on for another 2 years.

To cut to the chase, the CAA informed me that I must do another skills test, regardless of my dual flights.

Luckily for me it was within the 5 year period since the last revalidation so I got the bull by the horns and took another test which I am happy to say was successfull.

I will not let that happen again!!!!!!!

Thanks have to go the efficiency of the staff at Highland Flying School for helping me to untangle the mess and accomodate me at short notice, they are first class up there I must say, Cheers Peter:ok:

Biennial not Bi-annual
 

Sorry to be pedantic but bi-annual is twice a year not once ever 2 years:)

Thanks for the grammatical correction, its been a few years and a few stone since my school years:ok:

Two things occur to me about the original post.

The first is that I have been "guilty" of exactly the same scenario several years ago, when the 2 yearly instructor flights were first introduced. This was not because of any known fault on my part, but simply because the FBO concerned did not themselves know the correct paperwork procedure! The second is that I think personally it is a little unfair of the CAA to insist on a retest given the purely technical nature of the fault. ( I certainly didn't do one myself) On the other hand in the early days even the CAA were confused by the whole business and I suppose there is less excuse for ignorance these days.

For those reading along this thread after the event - and following in jxk's pedantry....

I was told by a (then) senior CAA staffer that the signature on your licence page (FCL150) was the required document. The "paperwork to the CAA" is just to keep their records up to date but is not the definitive article (as they have been known to simply throw them away on receipt - without updating the records first).

You must get that page signed by an authorised person before the expiry date of the relevant rating - otherwise it's a test.

I'm also not convinced that you (tuscan) were partly to blame for the expiry of the licence....you were COMPLETELY to blame.

You are responsible for keeping it current, you suggest you knew the rules but chose not to enforce them upon yourself. It's not an examiners job to come to you and ask if your licence needs signing.

It would, however, be a darned good service if a flight school or club kept a database of licences and ratings and offered to remind you of looming expiration dates.

I say again - not an attack on tuscan - just a heads up for future readers of the thread.

In the past I have not had the paperwork sent to the CAA, but have had the certificate signed by the examiner, so all was ok.

And to be blunt revalidating by test is often cheaper and easier than doing so by experience.

I've done it both ways (crap wather and and unserviceble aircraft for the re-test). you will often find on here the re-test route being suggested to keep costs down - which it will.

you will also find a lot of comment about instructors who will treat the re-valiadation flight as a test whether you want one or not!

At the end of the day these requirements have just become another set of hoops to jump through to be allowed to continue flying legally. It would be interesting to see if anyone had any data which even suggested this made PPLs any safer............

You should also note that, even if you flew a hundred hours of 'training flying' with an instructor every year, the boneheaded EASA part-FCL people are proposing that 6-yearly revalidation proficienct checks will become mandatory!!

If you don't like the idea, do as I did and register your comment at the EASA comment website.

revalidation
 

Tuscan relates a regular event. dont want to advertise- but i check pilot's documents at their medicals- wearing my examiner hat- and make sure all the bits of paper are signed and in place. For those of you who need medicals it might be good reminder to thumb your way through your licence to check your validity.

Gasax, far from anyone having any evidence to show that instructor flights make PPLs any safer, the recent CAA safety review of the post JAA new regime of biennial instructor flights, 90 day rule, annual MEP testing etc, show absolutely no measurable improvement in safety whatsoever. The whole malarky is just stifling the lifeblood out of GA by uneccessary regulation and jobs for the boys....:mad:

And as Beagle says, we should all get our comments on the proposed 6 yearly tests onto the EASA website asap (and make sure they are unfavourable!)

I take keygrips point, it is entirely my fault and my responsability but ignorance did play a big part. I honestly did not realise exactly what I had to do, now before anyone chastises me for my ignorance, I made a mistake and now that I have corrected it,will never let it happen again.
When my licence was originally issued no-one told me how to maintain it properly other than the flying requirements. I wonder if this is something students are tought now?
I would also like to add that although it was an inconvenience for me it was a good experience, not only the valuable lessons learned but also the fact that I know that I am still up to the standard for passing a skills test.
A positive thing I believe...

Well said Tuscan.

It is unfortunate that for all the CAA's licencing and processes that getting a licence seems to leave most pilots in a position of ignorance.

I was lucky, I joined a group and found out about the then current stuff fairly easily.

These days miserable places like this actually can be very informative - particularly in temrs of what is coming.

Were it not for the fact that once airborne my face cracks into a smile I like most others, would just give up. The amount of ridiculous mindless beauracy we have to put up with just to fly legally just depress me!

I must admit, if I had not passed the skills test last week I would have given more than just a moments thought to hanging up the headset. There are plenty of other hobbies I have that do not haemorrhage money at an alarming rate.
Im not keen on clubs and the politics involved but can see the benefit of being part of a larger group of people to share knowledge both old and forthcoming and will reconsider joining another club/group.

I might be mistaken, but is this stuff not simply part of the Air Law exam and thus a prerequisite for license issue?

To a point you are correct backpacker. But...

I had been trying to convert my Canadian float rating - between 2007 and 2008 the CAA requirements changed.

No announcement just the relevant 2 pages in LASORS were changed. Of course I didn't know about that (LASORS has only got 684 pages andnaturally I read it before every flight!). To that you could throw in the AIP - no idea how many pages but it is full of thiings which if you do not comply with you commit an offence! And then you might add the current (and very fluid) maintenance arrangements - and trying to bottom those out is foxing even the CAA surveyors.....

Air Law tells you thse things exist, some like the AIP have become much easier to access, some like LASORS is interpretation of the law and not necessarily correct and changes without any real announcement and some - like the maintenance is in the too hard category!

If this place has a real merit it is probably that these sort of changes tend to get flagged

gasax,

I just did a flight on Lake Como a couple of weeks ago and it was great, I loved it. Managed to get in 9 landings on three lakes including a glassy one. The full course is 8hrs for about €2200 all in. I am tempted, on the other hand my sister lives 20 minutes from a seaplane base near Vancouver Island and Im keen to explore options so any details would be great....

I doubt I`ll ever use it over here but that doesn`t matter.

Surely not .... ;)

Try this ...
or this ...
or this ...
or this

:E :ok:

re validation defined
 

I know air law and have read the posts but could someone in the know just clarify what exactly the requirement in very basic clear idiot proof form ?. Especially what forms and what signatures are required for the two different routes ie experience vs test.

I plan to never let my experience go less than 90 days anyway.

I always get a signature and caa no in my log book.

The things I'm unsure on is who, ie cfi / instructor / examiner and who's signature is on what bit of paper. if your going for your recent flying route, will I need a instructors signature (on what) for the flight with an instructor and a sig from ??? on ??? to prove what.

Also is there an actual form to fill in and what needs to go to the caa (logbook, medical, rating, all the licence inc RT)

I'm determined not to get this one wrong lol

Ian

ph-uku,

tempting as it all is, when I looked at the costs of flying floats at home in Scotland the prices were a tad on the high side and hard to justify. Looks fantastic though:D

Ian,

If in doubt go to your local flying school and get the cfi to clarify.
Basically your bi-ennial flight has to be done at any time during the second year and the examiner must sign the revalidation page on your licence within the last three months.
There is also a form to be sent to the CAA for referance only. SRG1119 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG1119.pdf

This has nothing to do with the 90 day rule.

If your rating has expired then a test with an examiner will be necessary and the same form filled in.
Providing it is within the last 5 years then an abbreviated version of the test will be done, if however the 5 year period has been exceeded then the full test will have to be done.

Not true - the LST format is the same! The only difference at the 5 year point is that the CAA has to sign the Ratings - Certificate of Revalidation page.