Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
By PaulB
#1647575
.... do they have to sign immediately after refresher training, or can the pilot return to the FI (who initially performed the refresher training) for the signature when the rest of the requirements have been met.

As an example, say someone hasn’t flown for a while but need their 12 hours. Can they do the refresher training to restore their “competence” and then do the rest of the 12 hours, then on completion of that, return to the same instructor for the signature, now that the revalidation requirements have been met?
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1647587
nickwilcock wrote:Mr Lee, perhaps I should have written "I was at yet another tedious EASA meeting when this came up".

That was my point, i bet the meeting wasn't at a hobby GA airfield was it?
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1647590
No, unfortunately it was in the old glass tower in which EASA lived at the time in Köln - on behalf of our 23000 pilot members of over 30 affiliates across Europe.

Quite what relevance the actual meeting venue has in your mind, I do not know. It is more important that the concerns of our members are represented fully at the relevant meetings. But other meetings have certainly been held at GA aerodromes.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1647667
nickwilcock wrote:'TrainingCom' does not override the 'hard law' of Part-FCL, which is whence my quote came.

I was at EASA when this first came up and the discussion was quite clear - FCL.945 instructors may only sign after completion of refresher training if all other requirements have previously been met. Otherwise an Examiner is required.


I don't think that is "quite clear". How long after?

Also, whilst training com cannot override Part.FCL (which I maintain is not explicit on this point), it is unrealistic to expect people to go to Part.FCL if they have otherwise got an answer from an official (i.e. CAA) published source.

It is not too much to expect the Regulator to be consistent.

In any case, what does it matter? In both cases the FCL.945 holder must check that all criteria have been met before signature. In practice it makes no difference to safety or legality of the pilot what order they met those criteria. Demanding an Examiner* needs to be found is nauseous process for nauseous process' sake - it doesn't add a jot to pilot safety or competence.



*Again, it is not clear from the wording in Part.FCL "Guidance to Instructors", even if it might have been at the meeting. It is what is in the docs that counts, not what is in meeting minutes or memories. This:

nickwilcock wrote:However, if the pilot hasn't completed the experience requirements before the refresher flying, then he/she will subsequently need to ask an Examiner to sign the Certificate of Revalidation once all requirements have been met. An FCL.945 Instructor may not do so in such circumstances.


...is not explicitly what is said by this:

FCL.945 Obligations for Instructors  wrote::
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.


There is nothing in the latter that says the requirements must be met before the training flight**, and there's nothing that explicitly says the FCL.945 instructor must immediately sign.


**I won't get on my hobby horse again about whether or not the body of Part.FCL requires a pilot to nominate in advance a specific flight to be used to meet the Revalidation by Experience criteria.

(It doesn't).
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1647693
In general, if the regs are not crystal clear and can have more than one interpretation, we should be considering who would be on our backs if our actions were challenged. Usually on GA matters, the Caa would be on our backs.
Now, would i prefer to defend my actions with
(a) my own reasoning
(b) the caa's specific guidance which gives maximum "easement" to the pilots and 945 instructors in our GA world (and should be congratulated for it by pilots and our organisations)
or
(c) someone else's interpretation which is worst case for the people involved?
Do we need a Drum Roll and pause or can people guess?
kanga, Dave W liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1647730
Dave W wrote:In practice it makes no difference to safety or legality of the pilot what order they met those criteria. Demanding an Examiner* needs to be found is nauseous process for nauseous process' sake - it doesn't add a jot to pilot safety or competence.


Having to get the signature in before the expiry of the rating also doesn't add a jot to pilot safety or competence either.

Thinking about it, the signature doesn't add anything... :D
Dave W, Bathman liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1647893
Dave W wrote:
FCL.945 Obligations for Instructors  wrote::
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.


There is nothing in the latter that says the requirements must be met before the training flight


I'm not an instructor but I think it does say just that. It says that upon completion of the flight, if everything else is done, you shall endorse the licence.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1647895
Immediately on completion? Or some time after the flight has completed?

It doesn't explicitly say the former. If the latter, how much time after?

That is the question I asked (rhetorically) in my earlier response to Nick.

It isn't clear, and as it isn't logical to interpret it as immediately (because it doesn't make any difference to safety or pilot competence) a reasonable interpretation would surely be the pragmatic one.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1647945
I suppose that the answer would lie in the interpretation of "upon completion", I would think that it might be reasonable to have a wee, a smoke or a coffee before you got round to it but not a fortnight in the Balearics or a month's sabbatical.