Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Revalidation (FCL.740.A) - CRI necessarily PIC?

I was planning a flight together with my former tailwheel instructor, and since my SEP class rating revalidation comes up in September anyway, we thought to use the time for the revalidation purposes according to FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii); since our insurance policy allows as PIC the named owner-pilots only, I am curious if my following understanding of the FCL is correct.

I could not find a passage in the FCL that specifies that an instructor is necessarily PIC, the closest is FCL.050(b)(1)(i) and (ii): “the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft”, so an instructor may of course be PIC (I assume that logging PIC implies being PIC …), but does not need to be. Since the refresher flight includes no flight manoeuvers that would be illegal for me to carry out as long as I hold a valid PPL and SEP class rating (contrary to gaining an initial PPL or extending my privileges to a diffferent class or type), there is also no necessity for my CRI to be PIC.

In my specific case, I would conclude that if we both agree on it, I would be PIC for the refresher flight, and my CRI would log the time as instructor and would sign the extension of my class rating according to FCL.945.

Edit: I found and read the similar thread but that does not shed more light on the situation.

Last Edited by Sebastian_H at 09 Apr 06:01
EHRD / Rotterdam

My insurance policy is for named pilots only as well, being myself. But it also says that I’m insured while receiving instruction. So my assumption is that I’m covered.

Son Alberti LEJF, Mallorca, Spain

I understand all instruction flights: student is PUT and FI/CRI is PIC
For tests with examiners, student is PIC and FE is PIC

The insurance can cover “training”, that means instructor flying with owner, it’s universal
The insurance will not cover the instructor flying solo, he has to be named

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

I understand all instruction flights: student is PUT and FI/CRI is PIC

I know that that is the “gut feeling”, but similarly to the statements in the sister thread, is there a legal source for that?

aart wrote:

My insurance policy is for named pilots only as well, being myself. But it also says that I’m insured while receiving instruction. So my assumption is that I’m covered.

Ibra wrote:

The insurance can cover “training”, that means instructor flying with owner, it’s universal

I will check if that’s the case, standard Visicover policy so might be covered.

EHRD / Rotterdam

For FE, UK CAA Flight Examiners’ Handbook allows it although it’s contradictory under EASA
For FI/CRI/PPL, you can’t have two PIC in a single pilot aircraft under EASA

Nothing prevents an instructor from logging PAX during a refresher flight but it’s an odd situation and you have to convince him

Last Edited by Ibra at 09 Apr 06:44
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

A few previous threads e.g. here and here and here etc. If you search for e.g.

instructor AND pic

(uppercase AND)

then you find them.

It’s controversial and there are no clear answers, especially on instructor liability.

My take on this is that the instructor (where FI or CRI etc) is PIC if the “student” cannot legally be (e.g. a flight under overt IFR, with an expired IR, or any flight with an expired medical). So on my EASA IR revalidation/renewal the FE is not PIC (and I log it as PIC) because I have a valid FAA CPL/IR at all times.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

For FI/CRI/PPL, you can’t have two PIC in a single pilot aircraft under EASA

That’s a given :) But as long as instruction does not necessarily require PIC status, there would be only one PIC (the PPL holder on his refresher flight) and one passenger that is providing instruction.

Ibra wrote:

Nothing prevents an instructor from logging PAX during a refresher flight but it’s an odd situation and you have to convince him

Actually that was the suggestion of my CRI when I did the transition training into the RV-7. I flew and logged the time as PIC which I was legally entitled to, and he was there to advise me and provide instruction (in the substantial meaning, not the EASA FCL one).

In the end, I find the EASA FCL formulation for the refresher flight also slightly useless as it does not prescribe anything (“Training flight items should be based on the exercise items of the proficiency check”, not shall as used everywhere else for requirements), the instructor has no pass/fail authority, and is explicitly required to extend the validity of the class rating (“[…] the instructor shall endorse the applicant’s licence with the new expiry date of the rating […]”, FCL.945). So why not do away with it, let the class rating holder sign off the extended validity in case the conditions of FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) are met, aligning it with the rolling currency of the LAPL?

EHRD / Rotterdam

Peter wrote:

My take on this is that the instructor (where FI or CRI etc) is PIC if the “student” cannot legally be (e.g. a flight under overt IFR, with an expired IR, or any flight with an expired medical). So on my EASA IR revalidation/renewal the FE is not PIC (and I log it as PIC) because I have a valid FAA CPL/IR at all times.

Thanks Peter also for the links to the further threads! That’s my general understanding as well, i.e. as long as there is more than one potential PIC, one has to first designate the actual PIC, and the passenger can maybe log instruction as well.

It might come down to the particular instruction and instructor; let’s say I have an EASA aerobatics rating but not used it in a decade and wish to refresh it, an instructor would be prudent to insist on being PIC; on the other hand, doing a SEP class refresher training, it’s IMHO useless to insist on being PIC since there’s nothing in it that hasn’t been ticked off before first solo flight.

EHRD / Rotterdam

I doubt it has to do with ability to legally act as PIC, two FIs or two FEs flying together with valid ratings on the same flight: one is PIC the other is PUT or PAX but you can’t have both PIC

Yes an FI/CRI can give tips while not logging anything and just sitting as pax, a friend scratched his tail on landing and he paid for it, I was sleeping at RHS and surely was not looking to interfere with PIC, before takeoff we agreed it was his aircraft, he will be flying it and me giving few RT tips, but it’s by no mean dual instruction !

Obviously, for skill-test there are national variations, I did one skill test last year in France, examiner was in PAX backseat, me LHS and “safety instructor” on RHS, I logged the flight as PUT even if it’s successful test and no idea who logged PIC between the two or if both of them logged PIC…

Last Edited by Ibra at 09 Apr 07:25
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I don’t have any specific reference, but my logic is the following one: To renew your SEP you need to have a flight with an instructor, which to me means not only flying together with a person that happens to be an instructor, but actually flying with an instructor acting as an instructor. Otherwise the pilot would only log PIC time and the instructor would not sign on it because he only was a passenger (even if he gives you tips and what not).
In short, if you want to fly with an instructor because you need to learn/refresh your skills, know the plane… the instructor could, if he agrees, be just a passenger. But if you have a requirement to fly with an instructor (SEP refresher, difference training …) then I would think that the instructor should log as PIC (eg., instructing). Does that make sense?

ENVA, Norway
49 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top