Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
I'm sorry if I seem pedantic on this, but I really don't think that it says that. If you are referring to para (b) 4. it says: a summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc., may be logged if certified by the appropriately rated or authorised instructor from whom it was received. In my view that requirement is served by the Head of Training certifying that all training has been completed and that the minimum requirements have been met.
That paragraph does not appear to apply to the log entry made by the holder of a valid rating or license who is doing his one hour with an FI as part of the process of revalidating his rating or license.
If you have a look at page 38 of same document it says in personal logbook instructions for use - remarks - the following entries should always be made - “signature of instructor if flight is part of an SEP or TMG class rating revalidation” ,pretty much every FI seminar Ive done and various CAA guidance docs have also covered this so I’m pretty happy that’s the requirement personally!
OK, well I think that I stand corrected. Thank you.
It says much for the astonishing opacity of these documents (and indeed the lamentable quality of the CAA's communication to us, the FI/FE fraternity) that it takes a debate between FI/FEs to flush out this sort of wording buried deep within what is essentially a foot-note. And there remains a conflict between the requirements on pages 31 and 38 in that the first does not imply that a log-book entry is required for revalidation, but the second does.
It's a bugbear of mine. Not everybody can say at the time that this is the flight that I shall nominate for the 1 hour when I come to fill in the SRG1119E at the end of the year. (Or whenever, for a LAPL).

A requirement to sign the logbook is not only gold-plating, it is impractical gold-plating.

(As well as being ridiculously hidden away as an annotation in an inappropriate part of the document.)
Any instruction I’ve ever had has always been certified as a course or if single events, signed as one offs, in the logbook by the FI. Myself and every FI I know does the same for instruction we deliver. It takes seconds and means as the FI I am assured the flight has been recorded properly as well. I really don’t understand the angst about this?
The "angst" is because if - as many instructors do not always - the logbook is NOT signed, and the pilot then months later gets a particularly anal Examiner who declines to sign the licence and/or fill in the 1119E because "the logbook entry has not been signed by your instructor", then the pilot is faced with a potential unnecessary PUT flight or (worst case) misses the critical date and ends up being put in the position of having to do a Skills Test!

You may say it couldn't happen; I'm here to tell you that some years ago it nearly did, to me.

I challenged the Examiner, and successfully argued my case on that occasion.

The underlying point is that the requirement for a logbook signature is NOT in the main body of Part.FCL, and an annotation in the corner of an obscure diagram is NOT the place for law to be set. And I mean the Law; not what may be common practice in some - but not all - parts of the Instructor community.

It is unclear, it is illogical, it is unnecessary it is gold-plating - and as I point out above it is potentially expensive in both time and cost to the pilot for no reason at all other than a very poorly written part of the document.
I always offer to sign for a dual flight.

Many years ago the regulator claimed I hadn't got enough night hours to get a rating issued. I was able to pull a logbook out from some 14 years previusly where the FI had signed it. I actually didn't want him to but I am glad he insisted as the regulator was forced to accept it. Saved me a few hundred quid.

Hence I will always sign. As you never know.
Many a thread on the "Dark-side" with tales of Parker-pen hours.

A good friend trained at Blackpool. IIRC, about 30 hours, all signed-off and instructor's number recorded...... Life in general, deaths of both parents and starting his own business intervened.....A mutual acquaintance started on the PPL journey and his enthusiasm was re-ignited.....went to Barton, sent logbook to CAA and all those old hours from over 10 years back, were credited.
Takes longer to write out a receipt for the lesson than to jot a line in a logbook......would you make a £100 purchase in a shop, without getting proof you'd paid?
flybymike wrote:.., without the “magic signature” no examiner will ever believe that the instructional flight actually took place,..

My (pre-CAA, liftetime) BoT PPL has a 'Reval' page with lines to be completed by an Examiner (then, every 13 months). The rubric therein says '..the holder has produced his (sic! well, it was a long time ago :? ) personal flying logbook and has satisfied me ..' So Examiner requires 2 things:

a. to see the logbook and
b. be satisfied (with regard to adequate hours flown).

Presumably a. helps (and may be essential for) b., but for some Examiners may not be sufficient for b.; FI signatures may help it be sufficient. It is, presumably, up to each Examiner to decide what suffices on each occasion.

I have in UK always used local Examiners who know me based at my own flying base. I can see why an Examiner might be more scrutinising with a total stranger. While overseas in '80s (2 3-year tours), I ensured local (this was pre-JAR) Instructors signed my logbook after each dual flight (they were used to this), and being based at a Flying Club also got a Club stamp and signature from the CFI attesting that the hours were correct. I then sent logbook and complete PPL back to FCL (secure courier!), and (at no cost to me) quite quickly got a CAA-based Examiner signature and date on the Reval page, returned to me by Registered Post. :thumright:
That's the case* for Rating Revalidation on a PPL (FCL.740) but what about a LAPL?

Edit: The relevant bit for LAPL(A) is FCL.140.A. No mention of multiple flights in that paragraph.

FCL.140.A LAPL(A) — Recency requirements
(a) Holders of an LAPL(A) shall only exercise the privileges of their licence when they have
completed, in the last 24 months, as pilots of aeroplanes or TMG:
(1) at least 12 hours of flight time as PIC, including 12 take-offs and landings; and
(2) refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with an instructor.
(b) Holders of an LAPL(A) who do not comply with the requirements in (a) shall:
(1) undertake a proficiency check with an examiner before they resume the exercise of the
privileges of their licence; or
(2) perform the additional flight time or take-offs and landings, flying dual or solo under the
supervision of an instructor, in order to fulfil the requirements in (a).

The SEP/TMG Rating Revalidation woridng in FCL.740.A is (my bold):

(b) Revalidation of single-pilot single-engine class ratings.
(1) Single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings and TMG ratings. For revalidation of singlepilot
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
— refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI)
or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this refresher
training if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check, skill test or
assessment of competence in any other class or type of aeroplane.

So the SEP/TMG revlidation refers to "total flight time" and the LAPL Recency wording does also. That implies to me that for a LAPL it's the same as for a SEP/TMG Rating. @Irv Lee, what do you reckon?

*I half recall a recent change to the "up to 3 flights" rule. I'll look it up when I have more time. (Further Edit: I recalled correctly; the relevant UK AltMoC was withdrawn last year.
The good thing about the (now defunct) AltMoC was it was clear that the same instructor had to be used. Everyone will argue about the Easa wording in that respect.
@davew I think I will worry about that when I meet a lapl holder who gets that close to understanding validity!
Dave W liked this