[Dave W]

You don't need those for a flight in the UK, though.

[PeteM]

Regardless of all this the essential point missed (perhaps deliberately by some instructors / examiners?), is that this complex process of 'revalidation' achieved absolutely nothing in terms of reducing the accident rate.

Some of the people contributing to this thread have in the past suggested turning the revalidation into a test. Well given that the compulsory revalidation flight with an instructor achieved no noticeable improvement in safety, they may be reducing their own livelihoods by simply forcing more people out of flying!

The only proven piece of data shows that the more a pilot flies (within reason) the better they generally are. Virtually all of the regulatory measures in the last 20 years have had the effect, probably unintended, of making things more complicated and more expensive. Until that changes no amount of fiddling and ever changing rules are going to achieve what is supposed to the end result of safer flying - apart from making it impossibly expense or difficult!

EASA seem wedded to the revalidation approach - inspite of the evidence it does not work. The instructors seem to see it as an income stream and so are not going to push for it being dropped. Personally I find it a nuisance but not much more, so I really could not care. What I really want is some steadiness and clarity in what the rules actually are. Without a doubt the CAA are pretty negligent in communicating any of this stuff. Recently I've been able to argue with a couple of instructors and prove the point, because of stuff I've found here and on Pprune - how on earth should that be possible?

As for expired JAA licences - the CAA issued them, there is nothing to stop them writing to every pilot who holds one 6 months before it expires. But they don't . How many people have not kept their brown poo current? It is my fallback at the moment but of course still has the revalidation requirement.

Frankly there is no need for things to be as complicated as they are. There are now so many variants of licence that it is hardly surprising things do not work. Between two friends and myself we have 5 different types of licences with differing revalidations - absolute nonsense, especially for a measure which was shown not to work..........

[Irv Lee]

The thing is, even if you have date reminders tattooed on your body parts, the date isn't always the complication. FI or CRI not bothering to get easa ppl yet, but waiting until nearer the 2018 date, (if they bother at all if permit specialists) cannot do any training, not even give biennial hours, in an easa aircraft now, and haven't been able to for some time. Not sure how many feral ones are in that situation and know that. (I do know it isn't zero from looking at a log book this year.... ).

[gfry]

?), is that this complex process of 'revalidation'

I cannot understand what is so complex about the revalidation.

The JAR 5 year renewal is almost moot now so lets ignore that one. Even so that wasn't rocket science either was it?

Class rating, 12 hours every two years of which 1 hour must be with an instructor. The date the reval is due by is written on the ratings page in your license folder. Its not exactly complex is it?

[FlarePath]

I have not found the current requirement on re validation complex, just OTT rubbish, where is the evidence that doing this rather than logging 5hrs/yrs and getting a stamp in your log book has changed "safety" for people on the ground or in the air?

[peter272]

There is no real excuse in my opinion.

Changes are banded about enough on forums, club house chats, snail mail from the CAA on major changes and even more importantly from FI's and examiners when we are getting are 2 year reval signed off.
I have had a license for 11 years now, and in that 11 years it has always been a reval of rating every 2 years and renewal of license every 5 years (until EASA).

So really there is no excuse, the only change coming/here is the lack of requirement to renew the license every 5 years.

Throw the book at offenders as they clearly have made no effort for at least 11 years to learn what they need to know to stay legal.

Not sure that is true.

We have a lot of pilots who operate out of our airfield who never go to the club/school, never see the forums or notice-boards and haven't a clue what their situation is.

They grab an instructor or LAA Coach for an hour, (cheeky) fly for a bit, but I would doubt much paperwork and AirLaw stuff gets passed across

[gfry]

Well the 1 hour with an instructor every 2 years is true. Is part of the problem that instructors and examiners are not checking with pilots that they understand current legislation and requirements?

NOTE: I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO BASH INSTRUCTORS OR EXAMINERS.

[FlarePath]

Well the 1 hour with an instructor every 2 years is true. Is part of the problem that instructors and examiners are not checking with pilots that they understand current legislation and requirements?

the requirement is a 1 hour flying lesson of which you as the customer can choose what that is, no mention of your knowledge of current legislation being tested and nor should it be, how much more hand holding do you need?

Minor rant now..


90 day rule, UK PPL take mate along with ppl if out of 90 day, if EASA must be instructor, 1000 hrs in 1st year doesn't count, 11hrs59m second year oh dear, grounded, self declared medicals, HGV medicals, Class II medicals, EASA aicraft , non-EASA aircraft. etc etc ad-infinitum, and so the whole bluddy circus roll's along, I pity any poor sod who is starting now having to absorb more bull **** about flying than the floor of a stockyard.

[jerry_atrick]

In response to the OP, maybe its not the revalidation requirements that need to change, because they seem simple enough - but possibly the attitude of the pilots in question that need to change? As an example, I don't think I have read a new regulation since doing my air law exam, yet I know most of the developments that apply to the PPL by finding other reliable (not necessarily authorative) sources - instructors/examiners, magazines, reputable web sites and forums (even if they are sometimes inaccurate, someone usually corrects them). Wilful ignorance cannot be defended regardless of the complexity of the regulations, especially when we know our hobby is highly regulated compared to most others.

I don't know aviation life without some form of biennial review. In a previous form, if you weren't up to scratch, one could be grounded pending further training and possibly another BFR. Personally, I don't mind a BFR or similar, as it forces me to be reviewed and any developing bad habits get nipped in the bud before they develop into something far more dangerous. Should it be mandatory? No idea...

[ClipOnMullet]

I just did my first re-val a couple of weeks ago.

I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about? Its a simple, uncomplicated rule and I found it beneficial.

Someone flying illegally for X amount of years and pleading ignorance doesn't wash. Its our responsibility to know and understand the rules, no matter how much we might disagree with them. If in doubt, pick the phone up and call someone!

Keeping my car legal is much more of a faff than my PPL.

[Shoestring Flyer]

I rather suspect it is an older generation of pilots who get confused about revalidation etc and remember a time pre-JAR when their wasn't any revalidation at all.
As long as you did 5hours in 13months you were legal!

[FlarePath]

I rather suspect it is an older generation of pilots who get confused

Of course it was all those old old crusty's' along with all the other old, stupid, ignorant people who voted "BREXIT"

[Dangerman]

I cannot understand what is so complex about the revalidation.

Class rating, 12 hours every two years of which 1 hour must be with an instructor. The date the reval is due by is written on the ratings page in your license folder. Its not exactly complex is it?

But that's not quite right is it? I thought all 12 hours had to be in the SECOND year?

Also a quick question if anyone can help please, which a quick Google hasn't given me an answer to. Is there any restriction of how soon before the end of the second year can I get the revalidation signed off, if I have already done an hour with an instructor (duly signed in logbook) and another 11 hours within say a couple of months of the start of the second year?

[Shoestring Flyer]

I rather suspect it is an older generation of pilots who get confused

Of course it was all those old old crusty's' along with all the other old, stupid, ignorant people who voted "BREXIT"

Absolutely!... and it was the right the right decision too.

[PeteM]

I find it hilarious that some of the people stating how simple it is have got it wrong, or at least incomplete

The definitive source is http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1178&from=EN. Neatly entitled COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011, of 3 November 2011, laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

the relevant section states;
(b) Revalidation of single-pilot single-engine class ratings.
(1) Single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings and TMG ratings. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings or TMG class ratings the applicant shall:
(i) within the 3 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or
(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including:
— 6 hours as PIC,
— 12 take-offs and 12 landings, and
— a training flight of at least 1 hour with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this flight if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check or skill test in any other class or type of aeroplane.
(2) When applicants hold both a single-engine piston aeroplane-land class rating and a TMG rating, they may complete the requirements of (1) in either class, and achieve revalidation of both ratings.

It is section FCL.740.A Revalidation of class and type ratings — aeroplanes, page 38 of 193!

So yes really straight forward - but I come back to the central point - it has not improved safety and so is completely pointless!