Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
No, not at all - it's simply that if something is to go in the table then we need to be sure it has been verified from the regulatory sources.

Otherwise the table is unreliable, which makes it useless - the entire point of it is to give people confidence that it represents what they want to know.
JAFO liked this
patowalker wrote:Yes and yes.

Dave W wrote:Thank you, but I need chapter and verse to underpin that - if you could.

Sorry. That will have to wait.

nickwilcock wrote:AMC/GM associated with the Aircrew Regulation amendment are anticipated to be included in the next revision of 'Easy Access Rules for Aircrew'.
User72 wrote:With regard to the 'Final Action', what happens if form is not sent to CAA? Pilot's licence is signed and therefore is valid for another 2 years. Is this just a data collection step?

Under jaa it was write-only storage as over the many JAA years I got 2 requests for copies as 2 pilots had physically lost their licences and the CAA wanted to know about sep expiry dates in each case as they had no easy way if finding it - hopefully things have moved on.
David Wood wrote:Very useful one-pager, Irv. Thank you.

If I make one small politely suggested amendment it would be to the line in the Transponder section that suggests that someone wearing a listening squawk should not expect to be contacted by ATC unless they infringe.
I dion't think that that's correct.

I do! It was worded on advice from controllers, and the reason why Manchester first trialled the scheme after I persuaded them at an internal N.I.G. meeting in Swanwick (with all other units opposed.) They were introduced to speed up contact after Infringement. Pleased to say it spread fast after a few weeks and has now reached Eire and Germany.
A few infringers have complained after infringing that they were not warned and they expected to be! This contrasts with the precious ones who felt so insulted when Farnborough had that spell of warnings to pilots looking like they were going into Gatwick or Farnborough.
If a controller is v busy at with some traffic at one end of a cta, is he/she really going to be able to predict the infringement at the other end until CAIT goes off especially with the pilots flying 100' -200' below the cta ? If they have Cait of course...
I myself have been called quite a few times when wearing listening squawks, and it's always been for matters other any potential or actual infringement.
It's mostly been about other traffic...

Then they were not busy! But do you now EXPECT to be called every time on those matters? Many would, and might be disappointed the hard way....
This is beginning to parallel the move to UK basic, traffic, deconf, etc from FIS, radar info, radar advisory in the early noughties. The initial meeting at the CAA for invited reps across the range, run by Sqn Ldr Lou (forget surname), was told many pilots were clearly expecting a full radar service when they had only asked for FIS not Radar. One given was students learning in (say) Lincs where trainee controllers were practising on them, then as qualified pilots, fly in a different part of the country with a FIS and complain bitterly when not warned of some non event traffic a mile away. This "problem" eventually led to the services we have today, so if you don't like them, you can choose who to blame... the clubs not teaching the services properly, the pilots assuming what they got from some controllers was ubiquitous, or controllers not upgrading them to radar info when practising, or perm 2 or all 3.
To hop back to the draft Reval by Experience table at Draft Issue 1.6 for a moment:

Nobody has said that there are any fundamental errors or lack of clarity in the proposed changes. I plan to replace "Zero" with "None" in the P1 column, as identified as an improvement earlier (Thanks).

I'd feel more comfortable publishing if I first had a positive independent endorsement from here that the changes (in the red box) correctly and unambiguously reflect the revised regulations.

Any takers? @Irv Lee?
@Dave W Well it looks good to me. Unless I missed it, would it be worth mentioning somewhere (once, maybe at bottom) that a prof check will revalidate ratings for 2 years, or provide lapl validity for two years without need for any hours or to&l?.
For ratings, the rating date is extended 2 years if prof check is in final 3 months of rating validity, otherwise the end of the month of the prof check itself is used and two years added to that.

Obviously if we ever get official written confirmation of p1 microlight hours, it can change again.
One thing I haven't really thought through before (because I don't meet many tmg pilots) is whether 6 in tmg and 6 in sep make the 12 if the lapl has both privileges. Now I would assume until proved otherwise that they do as I do not recall the phrase "under the same privilege" related to the 12 hours, 12 t/o and landings etc.
Thanks, Irv. I shall update and publish when I get a moment. Previously I hadn't included any other Reval methods other than explicitly R by E detail, because the table was unwieldy enough anyway, but I see the point of a Note as you suggest so will try and squeeze it in.

Regarding LAPL and SEP+TMG, I do recall this coming up previously and that it is as for PPL. That is, SEP and TMG hours are interchangeable for Experience purposes. I'll try and double check.
For ratings, the rating date is extended 2 years if prof check is in final 3 months of rating validity,

The above phrase is somewhat clearer than the CAA phrase used on the latest CAA advice to training professionals, which for revalidation says:

Revalidation of class and type ratings must normally take place within 3 months of expiry for the new validity period to start from the current expiry date.

Suggesting that revalidation may take place up to three months after expiry.

Usual impeccable CAA drafting. ... 3_corr.pdf