Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1408017
not further enhance the instructional flight which will only force more pilots out of the game


What if that flight came with no experience requirement?

Ian
#1408039
It would just be like the proficiency check option for revalidation option we have now. I've done a number this year - for example, person not quite made the 12 hours or feels rusty on something, so we do a refresher sortie to land somewhere, have a debrief/brief over coffee and cake, then check flight on way back.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1408043
It would just be like the proficiency check option for revalidation option we have now.


True, except the proficiency check needs an examiner rather than an instructor. I understand there's also a time limit, so if I hadn't flown for say ten years there would be more faff. The FAA example would just be training with an instructor until you are of a standard where he/she is happy to sign off the BFR.



Ian
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1408056
G-BLEW wrote:
It would just be like the proficiency check option for revalidation option we have now.

True,

In my scheme, false.
By dall1234
#1408239
I passed my GST a few years ago, and it was such a highlight and a privilege to be able to fly I took the trouble to spend time learning how to stay current, and while some of the reference material is not the easiest to find (improve this ..!), I understood it, and I regularly check for changes - this for me is part of being a pilot.
Yes the onus is on the pilot to check their currency, but it's nice to be trusted.We are trusted to do pre-flight checks, we are trusted to fill in our own logbooks, if you are fortunate to own your own aircraft we are trusted to be in charge of maintenance schedules.
If people are not responsible, it is very difficult to legislate against them.We do not have many Cessnas with blue lights on top .... (yet).
I also have no issues will rolling recency requirements etc, as I keep a close eye on the hours I fly.
I'm more concerned with tracking types of aircraft. Well planned P1 time should be valid whether I fly my flexwing, or a Warrior, good planning & airmanship is the same from an SSDR to a jet.
Keep the hour with an instructor, possibly a ground refesher as part of this for any changes in air law for example, but no pass/fail stresses, I want to learn, I need to enjoy it.
Hours in either type count for my NPPL experience, but not for LAPL? That's sort of thing we ought to be simplifying...
Sorry if that turned into a ramble !
By Emerald Islander
#1408932
Earlier I posed the question, “what’s the difference between the PPL revalidation “flight training” requirement and the LAPL “refresher training” requirement”? It appears my question was redundant as EC 2015-445 of March 2015 altered section 740(A)(b)1(ii) of 1178/2001 - requirement for PPL revalidation by experience - from “a training flight of at least 1 hour with a flight instructor” to “refresher training of at least 1 hour with a flight instructor”

So while both PPL and LAPL training requirements are now aligned, the question is what is “refresher training”?
The CAA website is oblivious to the change as they still incorrectly state the requirements as
“completing 12 hours of flight time in SEP(land) aircraft including 6 hours as pilot in command, 12 take-off and 12 landings, and up to three training flights totalling of at least 1 hour with a flight instructor or class rating instructor (or passed a class or type rating proficiency check or skills test in any other class or type of aeroplane) in the 12 months before the rating expires.”

CAP 804 changed in April 2015 to include the new “refresher requirement” for the PPL.

CAP 804 also has an Alt MoC1 FCL.740(b)(1) – Validity and renewal of class and type ratings
RENEWAL OF CLASS AND TYPE RATINGS: REFRESHER TRAINING
(a) Paragraph (b)(1) of FCL.740 determines that if a class or type rating has lapsed, the applicant shall take refresher training at an ATO. The objective of the training is to reach the level of proficiency necessary to safely operate the relevant type or class of aircraft. The amount of refresher training needed should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATO.....

Since “renewal refresher training” is now defined as “training to reach the level of proficiency necessary to safely operate the relevant type or class of aircraft” it is only a matter of time before the authorities use this as the definition for the “revalidation refresher training”. The net result will be that revalidation by experience will be similar to the FAA BFR but with the added requirement of the 12 hours and the instructor won't be able to endorse the logbook until sufficient “refreshment” has taken place.

By discretely, some might say covertly and without consultation, by altering one word EASA has drastically altered the PPLs revalidation requirements.
By Emerald Islander
#1409089
Dave W wrote:That overstates things rather. There are no changes to Reval by Experience requirements there.


I apologise if I seem OTT, often the true ramifications of simple changes don’t materialise for many years.

The wording that existed since JAR days was “a training flight of at least 1 hour's duration” and this phrase was incorporated into EASA PART FCL. A proposal to alter the wording so the 1 hour could consist of multiple flights totalling one hour, eg “flight training of at least 1 hour” seems to have morphed into “refresher training of at least 1 hour”

So why did EASA insert the word “refresher”? By doing so they are being deliberately prescriptive. Why?. No one paid much attention when the phrase was used in regards to LAPL but now it has crept in to the PPL.

What is the definition of the word “refresher” in this context if not that already defined in CAP 804 740A?
Could an examiner please clarify the definition
Will the holders of PPL licences issued pre EC 2015-445 get grandfather rights? I think not.
By Emerald Islander
#1409101
Your interpretation is correct Dave, CAP 804 refers to 'refresher' explicitly for Renewal ,

there is however no definition for refresher training for Revalidation (when 'the hour with an instructor' is relevant)..

So what are the requirements for this new word "refresher" as it applies to Revalidation?
User avatar
By flybymike
#1409117
Well since the phrase "refresher training" does not include the word "flight" in it, perhaps a one hour chat with an instructor will suffice.