[172510]

OK I did not get it fully right, nevertheless, unless I've again not understood the rules:

For access to a new class (SEP to TMG or TMG to SEP) a LAPL must fly solo under supervision, a PPL may not.

If you loose your right to fly because you don't fly enough (it would be a SEP expiry for a PPL and a lack of recency for a LAPL, which are very similar things from a practical point of view) then to regain the right to fly you may fly solo under supervision if you have a LAPL, but you may not if you have a PPL.

I think that solo under supervision is a good thing and should be allowed for PPL holders whose SEP has expired.

[Hmmnnn]

For access to a new class (SEP to TMG or TMG to SEP) a LAPL must fly solo under supervision, a PPL may not.

172510, Thank you for that Post as it has caused me to rethink the situation.

I believe everything I have posted previously is correct however, now, I realise it was not complete.
To summarise my current view:

1) A CRI may instruct for Class Ratings but not for Licences.
2) A PPL holder without a valid Rating may not exercise their Licence privileges.
3) A CRI may not Instruct for Licences and cannot, due to 2), therefore authorise solo fight.
4) Solo flight cannot be part of Class Rating Training as CRIs are not entitled to allow it.
5) An FI’s privilege (b) gives the same privileges as a CRI so it does not entitle the FI to authorise solo flight.
6) An FI’s privilege (a) allows for flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a PPL.
7) Instruction for the issue of a PPL includes supervised solo flight.

My previous belief was based on the fact that, as an existing Licence holder, 7) could not apply.

However if one accepts that, although Part-FCL states the privileges only exist “for the issue of”, the privileges actually apply to any instruction within the PPL syllabus irrespective of whether that instruction will (or even could) be used for Licence issue; then FI’s are entitled to authorise solo flight to any unqualified person they wish.

This is ‘solo experience gaining’ and, for all the reasons previously Posted, should not be called Rating training.

[allout]

(if gentle readers can bear with me while catching up)
Hmmnnn,
Please, what is the basis for your assertion:
"If a Licence is held then a valid rating is mandatory to act as PIC."?
Thanks

[Hmmnnn]

(if gentle readers can bear with me while catching up)
Hmmnnn,
Please, what is the basis for your assertion:
"If a Licence is held then a valid rating is mandatory to act as PIC."?
Thanks

Talk about resurrecting an old thread !

But OK then:

FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges
(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC .....

FCL.040 Exercise of the privileges of licences
The exercise of the privileges granted by a licence shall be dependent upon the validity of the ratings contained therein

No Rating = No Privilege to act as PIC

To act as PIC would require permission/authorisation from another person and, I believe, this whole thread has been about who, if anyone, and under what conditions is entitled to grant that permission.

[allout]

Thanks Hummnnn,
Dead right a thread resurrection, profound apologies to those who take offence.

I thought so, you are quoting only part of the regulation.
FCL.040 does not quite say:
"The exercise of the privileges granted by a licence shall be dependent upon the validity of the ratings contained therein"
Rather, it says:
"The exercise of the privileges granted by a licence shall be dependent upon the validity of the ratings contained therein, if applicable, and of the medical certificate.

Missing out the 'if applicable' bit, changes the meaning.
FCL.700(a) details when a class or type rating is not applicable (crucially flight instruction, which includes supervised solo)

Elsewhere, FCL.130.S mandates, for a licence holder, solo under supervision.

I'm afraid it's a struggle to agree with you.

[Hmmnnn]

Missing out the 'if applicable' bit, changes the meaning.
FCL.700(a) details when a class or type rating is not applicable (crucially flight instruction, which includes supervised solo)

?????? "if applicable" was left out for brevity and doesn't change the meaning of what I said.
Did you read the last two lines of my previous post?

Elsewhere, FCL.130.S mandates, for a licence holder, solo under supervision.

Not sure what this has got to do with the price of cheese. An LAPL(S) does not have any Ratings "contained therein".

I'm afraid it's a struggle to agree with you.

Strange, from our last two Posts I thought we did agree.

I would also suggest that, perhaps, this discussion is now moot until April 2015 when we will all have to learn to interpret the new wording of Part-FCL which is due to have been re-issued by then.

As LAPL Privileges are due to be included in PPLs we could have PPL holders with expired SEPs, but with the correct LAPL experience requirements, still able to fly without any Instructor involvement.