[Lefty]

I always thought that a non examiner (Eg a .945 FI or CRI), could only sign off an SEP if they had personally completed ALL 60 minutes of the 1 hour instructional flight (up to 3 instructional flights could be added to achieve the 60 minute total).
However if the revalidation was based on multiple flights with more than 1 instructor, then the SEP could only be signed off by an examiner.

Am I wrong ?

I too would be uncomfortable signing off someone who, (for example) had done 4 or more flights with different instructors.
I might be more relaxed if all the instructors were from my base airfield / flying club, and I could confer with the other instructors to understand the reason for multiple instructors.

[scd975]

If there is any doubt in my mind about the revalidation request, I always refer the matter to an examiner.

[T67M]

Certainly the growing number of ambiguities in the regulation and the "obligation" that the instructor "shall" sign the pilot's rating make me increasingly glad that I don't have FCL945 attached to my CRI rating.

[Dave W]

... the "obligation" that the instructor "shall" sign the pilot's rating ...

Is there a link to an EASA statement to this effect? I've only so far seen second hand references to this. (Not that it means much, given the obscureness of comms generally in this area).

As for Examiners, many are great: But several recent experiences demonstrates that some at ATOs are far from infallible.

[T67M]

My bold

Obligations for instructors

Upon completion of the training flight for the revalidation of an SEP or TMG class rating in accordance with FCL.740.A (b)(1) and only in the event of fulfilment of all the other revalidation criteria required by FCL.740.A (b)(1) the instructor shall endorse the applicant's licence with the new expiry date of the rating or certificate, if specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant's licence.

[Dave W]

Thanks, @T67M.

So, anyway: [hobbyhorse] How do we know which training flight is the training flight(s)?

Where does it say (in a numbered clause in the body of Part.FCL, not (e.g.) an annotation to a figure) that this has to be nominated in advance of any flight with an instructor? Or, indeed, nominated prior to the end of the 2 year Reval by Experience period?[/hobbyhorse]

[T67M]

I don't believe that is specified in Part-FCL, but in my experience it is specified by a significant numbers of pilots prior to flying with an instructor.

[Dave W]

I'm sure it is, no doubt because many - including instructors and examiners - think it needs to be.

But there is no Part.FCL clause that says that it does need to be.

[patowalker]

My bold

Obligations for instructors

Upon completion of the training flight for the revalidation of an SEP or TMG class rating in accordance with FCL.740.A (b)(1) and only in the event of fulfilment of all the other revalidation criteria required by FCL.740.A (b)(1) the instructor shall endorse the applicant's licence with the new expiry date of the rating or certificate, if specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant's licence.

Not if it is a LAPL.

[Irv Lee]

@johnm it is not that people have been randomly interpreting it, they have been following CAA published advice on an ambiguous binary point. That advice has suddenly switched, not the ambiguous regulation. What changed it?
I now have to ask why do it at all if it is no longer to try and maintain or improve skills with refresher training and critique. Perhaps forgotten by pilots flying very regularly and easy access to aircraft, lots of rental pilots end up doing a quick circuit check if not flown for x days, logging brakes to brakes. Some do 2 or 3 a year with our weather breaking up flying. So to make up an hour the punter is not going to pay for a session which includes enough time for climbing to a safe altitude to see how stalls or engine failures are recovered from, or other things that might save lives (or stop infringements or airproxes) if improved. if they only need 20 minutes brake to brake or fewer to make up the hour total, they will just ask for a circuit or two, and they are likely to be the ones flying less and needing a good safety session, or the ones who know they are pretty poor pilots outside the circuit and don't want to expose it.
@patowalker you should see the lapls have seen. Take any confusion of lapl holders (collective noun) and it is easy to find one or more with an Sep rating and an expiry date.
(Any edits were to correct auto correct)

[Irv Lee]

I always thought that a non examiner (Eg a .945 FI or CRI), could only sign off an SEP if they had personally completed ALL 60 minutes of the 1 hour instructional flight (up to 3 instructional flights could be added to achieve the 60 minute total).
However if the revalidation was based on multiple flights with more than 1 instructor, then the SEP could only be signed off by an examiner.

Am I wrong ?

If following CAA interpretation of an ambiguous point, then you weren't wrong a week ago, but now you are. And the advice now says the final 945 instructor of the ones that have contributed (if any) does the revalidation.

[Irv Lee]

Certainly the growing number of ambiguities ...

Having watched european politicians for a while, I now suspect this might be deliberate, a means to get it passed at all at the drafting phase and into the swamp where law makers approving it won't know there is an ambiguity in practice.

[T67M]

My bold

Obligations for instructors...

Not if it is a LAPL.

FCL.945 doesn't apply to the LAPL.

[map5623]

No wonder some people think that 'p1$$up in a brewery' is apt.

[flybymike]

I see that the CAA have now revoked the original AMC stating that up to three flights with the same instructor were acceptable.
http://skywise.caa.co.uk/revocation-of- ... nstructor/