Requirements for PPL SEP renewal (EASA)
 

FCL.740.A
Summarised in first two coloured lines of this table:

http://i65.tinypic.com/vr7g43.jpg

With only a short time to go, your best option is to do a Prof Check.

Hm, thanks, you might be right. Is a prof check any different from a PPL check ride? So this check prof check has to be done before the end of the date of validity? Or can it be done after it has expired? Thanks!

"Why is it that are so many people are reluctant to fly a PC?"
A friend, with many years and hours flying, let his hours get low in the second year, and chose the PC.
He was given a PFL, and positioned for a microlight strip, down to very short final. He was failed for not flying a circuit, and had to take instruction in circuits from a simulated engine failure.
Instructors can be unpredictable.
(I've been renting occasionally over the last year, and all the checkouts were excellent.)

That's an interesting example, if he positioned for a safe landing I would say that he passed that hurdle. Yes, circuits are trained during PFLs as they can provide you with several clues that (can) assist you in getting to that short final position at the right speed and altitude. In the end, what counts is if you can save yourself from the situation of an engine failure. Getting the aircraft to short final for a suitable bit of land, having done the troubleshooting, preparation for the landing and letting people know about it should be a pass in my book.

Just my two cents of course.

I can understand that people will be more reluctant to do what is effectively a skills check with an examiner, but remember that you've already provided proof that you can fly during your original exam. Any profcheck is just a confirmation of that, nothing more. It can't take away your license, worst case is that you'll have to do a bit of training if you really mess something up.

The " you didn't do the PFL correctly" is quiet a common point with a lot of partial flight checks even up to CPL license test.

Its a no win situation if you don't know the examiner preference. Or some less ethical examiners can just take the opposite opinion to give a partial.

Personally I did my CPL in twin so I didn't have to do the PFL stuff with its exposure to second by second decision making and mother nature giving you a bum card. Never flown a single engine aircraft simple or complex pax transport so my presumption at the time that it was nothing missed proved correct.

I too on my last SEP PC got the job done into a perfect field with side slip to low key and then constant aspect oval to 50ft. He signed me off but there was an hour of listening to him harp on about doing the full monty. I suspect half of it was that he didn't realise that the field I went for was there and not the field he was intending me to go for which I knew had wires in it which you wouldn't see until committed. He really didn't approve of sideslip in a tommy or for that matter going below 500ft, apparently I should have known to go around at 500ft and he shouldn't have needed to say anything and no need to brief anything about it. He tried to claim it was a bust of rule 5 but it wasn't. There was also something about doing constant aspect and selecting flap without the wings level that he didn't like but by that point I had given up listening.

But if the PFL was successful and all the tick box items done is that grounds for failure?

The examiners personal feelings on the subject shouldn't come into it. Its a one off snap shot test if they successfully do the item its not a reason for failure that they examiner thinks they were lucky.

BTW I am not having a go at you foxmouth I do understand the reasons behind why some do it.


But it does explain why some people are reluctant to do a PC instead of avoiding it. 6 hours solo hire is about 1000 pounds these days?

aircraft hire for PC 250
examiner fee 100

If you fail or partial couple of hours dual 360 quid

Retest same as before or half it for a partial. Your up to the same cost.

And that doesn't include 2-4 trips to the airport landing fees and 2-4 days out your life.

That is indeed the examiner's decision, and as I'm only a FI my opinion doesn't count for much. I have trained many students for PFLs though and have flown several training flights, recurrent training flights and checkouts during which the PFL was an exercise. I have also discussed the subject with several examiners to get a feel for what they're looking for during a skills test. My understanding is that it is the (distinct possibility of a successfull) outcome that counts the most, with bonus points for a nice procedure that will assist the pilot in question during his travels to the short final position before the field of his or her choosing.

Now that's how it should be in my view. In practice there's absolutely no guarantee of course.
That's an interesting aspect actually. Yes, as a (wannabee)pilot you should be aware of the regs and comply with them but during a PFL exercise I feel that it is the job of the instructor or examiner to make sure that a go around is initiated before busting the altitude limits as at that point the person flying should be fully focused on carrying out that PFL. But it can get interesting sometimes, and in my view should have been covered in a briefing. It would also allow for the possibility of the examiner extending the exercise a bit if he would need to see a bit more to come to a decision on signing off on it.

I have had something like this happen to me during training. I got an engine failure on downwind during a circuit lesson (we had been going around for a while already) and were 'cleared for the option' as we were the only ones using the North runway. I did the required steps, flew the aircraft to a touchdown on the first bit of the runway and as we were rolling, reset the flaps and carb heat and applied power to continue with a touch and go for the next circuit. The instructor then berated me for continuing and not rolling to a stop on the runway or a taxiway. I felt a bit cheated, as we were doing circuits and I knew that it was a training session and we were not at our own airfield, I somehow automatically assumed that the exercise ended at touchdown while the instructor had a different idea. It taught me to always be clear in my briefings about items like this and include something about where the exercise would end. A sentence like "when I give you a simulated emergency to handle, please continue as if the emergency is still present until I say otherwise" would suffice.

I am an ATPL holder and in the UK rule 5 did not include a hard deck of 500' agl unless landing or taking off, only a sphere around the aircraft which the pilot can not intentionally fly near any person, vessel, vehicle or structure, at the time ( I say intentionally because there was a court case where some bird spotters who were camo'd up tried to get a pilot done and the judge ruled against them saying if the pilot couldn't see them how could they be expected to avoid them to comply with rule 5). It may have changed now. NO rules of the air were busted during my PFL. BTW I have 1000 hours PPL instructing before I went on to fly airliners. I always taught down to ground rush height knocking it off at 500ft misses a good 50% of the experience value, pointless doing a lovely approach and then entering unknown and unexperienced territory in the last 500ft. That's my view but I am sure other will disagree. BTW 2 of my ppl's have done a forced landing, both cases the plane was flown out the field afterwards after fixing the problem. Only managed to speak to one of them who said it was just like when I was with you apart from the last second when the wheels touched down which I must admit gave me no small amount of job satisfaction.

The PFL procedure expected by an examiner should not be the same for a student who has always landed at an airfield, with grass or hard runways, and an experienced pilot accustomed to farm strips.