[Europaul383]

so the FI should only be authorising flights for (and therefore before) the issue of a licence.

Up to now, CAA Licensing and Training Standards had (very kindly and pragmatically) been "doing a Nelson" on this mismatch and allowing supervised solo post Skill test.

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but what is the mismatch that the CAA is doing a Nelson on? In the period that we're talking about the student has not been issued a license. He's completed the training and he may have applied for a license. But unless we're talking about the short time while the license is in transit from Gatwick to his sticky mitt then for most of the period we're discussing he hasn't been issued a license. Have I missed the point that you were making...?

It's the point the CAA L&TS Policy wonk (said with affection) was making, not me. But I think that is exactly the (very fine) point. If the "student" has passed a Skill test, said training (supervision) cannot be for the issue of a licence - they have done all the training required, as evidenced by the presence of a Skill Test Pass. Neither can it be for the revalidation or renewal of a licence that does not yet exist - Catch 22. That appears to be what he was saying.

And the "short time" in transit is currently 1 month for turning up at Gatwick; and could be 6 months if a 16 year old, say, passes the Skill test 6 months before their 17th birthday (and therefore licence issue).

In any event, however long or short this time, others have reported not wanting to have post Skill test "students" sitting around not getting consolidation training (and aircraft sitting on the ground under a blue sky.)

P

[GolfHotel]

Is anyone saying anything has changed? Apart from the interpretation of existing law that is.

So where's the court case that changes the interpretation of the existing law that the courts have been happy with for decades (as evidenced by the lack of any contrary decisions, given that everyone has always done it)?

yes that is a part of my question, but I would not limit it to court cases. As far as I am aware there has been no such case. Obviously if there is one that would be very pertinent.

[Europaul383]

Is anyone saying anything has changed? Apart from the interpretation of existing law that is.

So where's the court case that changes the interpretation of the existing law that the courts have been happy with for decades (as evidenced by the lack of any contrary decisions, given that everyone has always done it)?

Nothing in law has changed, just the CAA's interpretation of it.

No court case as I understand, just the (written, I believe) statement* from Shared Services to an ATO or ATOs and/or RTFs, stating that to flying solo, supervised by a flight instructor (FCL.020) cannot be authorised after a Skill Test, because an instructor can only instruct "for the issue of a licence" (FCL.905) and, post Skill test, this cannot be the case.

Many, including L&TS Policy, believe this is flawed, and they (L&TS) are urgently seeking a position statement from Legal (hopefully to be followed by an Exemption).

* Having sight of this statement (perhaps with who from and to redacted) might help understand what exactly is being interpreted and how.

[Europaul383]

.......

Yes, FCL.020 Student pilot allows anyone to fly if "authorised to do so and supervised by a flight instructor."

But FCL.905.FI FI — Privileges and conditions states "The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(a) a PPL..."

so the FI should only be authorising flights for...... the issue of a licence.

....

These flights fail to satisfy the condition "for the issue". These flights are not needed for a licence issue, the application has already been made on the basis that all training and testing is complete.

Is the FI allowed to authorise solo flights for fun, or what ever the purpose?

I think that is exactly the (very fine) point.

FCL.905.FI only states that an FI may conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a licence.

It makes no mention of solo flights for any other purpose (e.g. post skill test consolidation) so does not (according to some at the CAA) allow this.

Luckily, Licensing Policy think this is daft... watch this space.

[FlarePath]

FCL.905.FI only states that an FI may conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a licence.

Devils advocate here. Does that mean CRI,s/FI's cannot claim to have to be P1 when an otherwise current pilot requests an instructor to fly with them for 3 circuits?

[Paul_Sengupta]

I personally don't think that a skills test stops you from training towards the licence. What if the CAA come back and reject the application due to too little solo time? Then the post test solo time will definitely count towards the issue of the licence up on re-application.

In any case it shouldn't be the test that stops the clock, it should be, by the CAA's reasoning, the posting of the application for the licence.

[Europaul383]

FCL.905.FI only states that an FI may conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a licence.

Devils advocate here. Does that mean CRI,s/FI's cannot claim to have to be P1 when an otherwise current pilot requests an instructor to fly with them for 3 circuits?

They are P1 for a different reason.

In a single pilot a/c there is only one P1 - you are either P1 or a passenger. If you can't carry passengers (out of recency) you can't be P1.

If you are still in recency (3 T/Os & Ldgs in 90 days) you don't need an instructor - so agree/fight over who is P1... just like all other pilots do when 2 fly together. But instructors might not get paid by their school if they're not instructing.

[flybymike]

Since FCL.740.A did not (and still does not) have an AMC, the CAA issued a (now redundant) AltMoC to allow "instruction totalling at least 1 hour from the same instructor in the course of a maximum of three flights." as an alternative to "a training flight of at least 1 hour".

In April 2015, FCL.740.A was revised to state "at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor" so there is no longer a need for the AltMoC, but many readers still see it in writing and conclude they must obey the "maximum of three flights" condition.

Slight thread drift.
On my last revalidation (2017) the examiner was not even aware that up to three flights were allowed, let alone any number.

[Flyingfemme]

FFS! How many applications are rejected by the CAA anyway? Is there a good reason why they cannot trust the people they authorise to do the tests to issue a temporary licence to be used until they get their act together and process the application?
As has already been pointed out - good people are losing currency due to their inability to do their job in a sensible timeframe and businesses need customers to keep them afloat. No pilots, no businesses - far fewer jobs at the CAA in short order!
Why can this not all be done online at the point of test? Input data, print licence...........

[David Wood]

FFS! How many applications are rejected by the CAA anyway?

The only rejections I can recall have been exclusively because of some, usually minor, mistake in the paperwork. Although recently I had one sent back because the photocopy of the passport wasn't in colour...

[QSD]

FCL.905.FI only states that an FI may conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a licence.

Devils advocate here. Does that mean CRI,s/FI's cannot claim to have to be P1 when an otherwise current pilot requests an instructor to fly with them for 3 circuits?

They are P1 for a different reason.

In a single pilot a/c there is only one P1 - you are either P1 or a passenger. If you can't carry passengers (out of recency) you can't be P1.

If you are still in recency (3 T/Os & Ldgs in 90 days) you don't need an instructor - so agree/fight over who is P1... just like all other pilots do when 2 fly together. But instructors might not get paid by their school if they're not instructing.

The FCL 905 privileges seem to preclude acting as an instructor to someone doing their three circuits when they are outside of their 90 day recency but still have a valid rating, since this is not training for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a licence or rating. With an EASA licence this effectively means the three circuits would have to be done solo.

I can't believe this is the intended position, so the FCL905 wording needs to be ammended to cover all training situations.

[TopCat]

The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of: (long list of stuff)

If we're going to argue that a FI can't authorise a flight post-skills test because it's not 'flight instruction for the issue etc of a licence', then does it not also follow from this same statement of the privileges, that a FI can't do flight instruction at all unless it's for a licence.

So as a current pilot, I can't ask a FI to give me some training? Because it's not for a licence, and hence not within his privileges?

I can't believe that this was the intent of the legislation.

[cockney steve]

As an unqualified "outsider" I look at this farrago and shake my head.....There is a very clear and massive loophole here, as I see it....(Albeit , not every instructor will qualify)

To Qualify for a CPL, a pilot has to do a certain number of hours, considerably in exess of the requirement for issue of a PPL. Therefore, anyone who has completed the required hours for issue of a PPL , can continue flying , under authority of a CPL instructor in order to qualify for the issue of a Commercial licence. once the licence hits the doormat, the "student" is at liberty to discontinue their further training. Likewise, the instructor may assess the student not suitable for further tuition.

Where's the problem? pragmatic, simple and cost-free,

[treborsnave]

Having gone through this very recently (received the paperwork on tuesday) it took over 2 months from start to finish - there was an initial rejection due to an error on a date for one exam which had to be rectified by the flying club. I guess they put the query to the back of the queue as it was then another 24 working days until delivery - which is fair enough. I've chased via email a couple of times during the process and they've responded reasonably quickly and very politely.
It was only after booking a CRI for a currency flight that I found out the complications surrounding what I could and couldn't do in this "limbo" state.

[kanga]

...There is a very clear and massive loophole here, ..

To Qualify for a CPL, a pilot has to do a certain number of hours, considerably in exess of the requirement for issue of a PPL. Therefore, anyone who has completed the required hours for issue of a PPL , can continue flying , under authority of a CPL instructor ..

Something like this was routinely used as a 'tax dodge' in Canada while I was there ('80s). I don't know if it has been closed by Revenue Canada.

Under the then Federal and Ontario tax regimes, 'education and training' expenses were tax-deductible if towards a formal academic or 'professional' qualification. New Canadian PPLs would routinely work towards their CPL (and, often, ME/IR) qualifications at once, because once they had the CPL, all their flying training expenses from the beginning of their PPL, including equipment and groundschool fees, were then retrospectively tax-deductible against their other earnings, even if they never used their CPL commercially. A Transport Canada Examiner whom I knew told me that Revenue Canada knew well that this was a 'dodge', but Transport Canada encouraged them not to prosecute a test case against an individual, not only because they might lose, but also because the effect was that more new PPLs rapidly became better and safer pilots because of it. In the non-aviation world, obviously many more people, it was also 'good for society' because it meant that aspirant plumbers, electricians, car mechanics etc had an incentive to get properly qualified, which also probably contributed to public safety.