Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

New instructor questions

Dimme wrote:

Not in Sweden, an FCL.945 FI can only revalidate a SEP rating if (s)he has completed the revalidation flight with the SEP holder, and of course, reviewed and verified all documentation.

Sure, but the “completion of the training flight” may be an assessment that the training flight is not required. You have then completed the training flight by determining the training flight need not take place.
It makes logical sense in my head…

Last Edited by Alpha_Floor at 04 May 10:10
United Kingdom

Alpha_Floor wrote:

Sure, but the “completion of the training flight” may be an assessment that the training flight is not required.

True, but the FCL.945 FI does not have the authority to revalidate the rating in that case. The authorities or a PC examiner may do so.

ESME, ESMS, ESOW

Dimme wrote:

True, but the FCL.945 FI does not have the authority to revalidate the rating in that case.

Why not?

United Kingdom

It says so in the reference I provided issued by the Swedish CAA. That is their interpretation of FCL.945’s “Upon completion of the training flight”.

ESME, ESMS, ESOW

Tumbleweed wrote:

Para 3 does not refer to the issue of a class or type nor does it mention revalidation therefore, it applies to all instructional activites related to type and class ratings.

I see what you mean. That needs to be challenged in a court or clarified by EASA (I guess not in UK’s case anymore) because different CAAs have different interpretations.

ESME, ESMS, ESOW

The FI or CRI shall have flown with the pilot in accordance with FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) before any revalidation action can be completed

An FI or CRI who has not flown with the pilot cannot carry out the revalidation action

FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) = refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI)

@alpha_floor the key is that the reference says ‘the instructor’ and not ‘an instructor’ – if you are using another check in lieu of an instructional hour it must be signed by an FE as the FEH makes clear

Posts are personal views only.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

Examiners & Licensing personnels have magical forces to sign SEP rating without even flying with the student in a C172 Hint: passing an MEP skill-test with an examiner or sending that to CAA revalidates your SEP !

FI & CRI, can’t do this, but this point is very moot anyway, I am not sure an FCL945 can sign SEP without flying, the student have to fetch very hard to find one

Last Edited by Ibra at 04 May 11:09
Paris/Essex, United Kingdom

Tumbleweed wrote:

FCL910 is quite clear:

(a) An FI shall have his or her privileges limited to conducting flight instruction under the supervision of an FI for the same category of aircraft nominated by the DTO or the ATO for this purpose, in the following cases:
(1) for the issue of the PPL and LAPL;
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(3) for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, except for single-pilot high-performance complex aeroplanes;

Para 3 does not refer to the issue of a class or type nor does it mention revalidation therefore, it applies to all instructional activites related to type and class ratings.

Equally, (3) only refers to class and type ratings. A LAPL doesn’t include a class or type rating, therefore it stands to reason that the one-hour training flight for a LAPL holder relates to the validity of their licence. It would not be for the issue of a LAPL, so (1) doesn’t apply. The sum of (1) and (3) therefore seems to be that a two-yearly training flight for a LAPL holder falls outside the scope of the restrictions stipulated in FCL.910.

United Kingdom

Just get your supervisor to oversee what you want to do rather than trying to find loopholes that aren’t there; honestly it’s a lot quicker and less stress for all involved!

Posts are personal views only.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

MattL wrote:

Just get your supervisor to oversee what you want to do rather than trying to find loopholes that aren’t there; honestly it’s a lot quicker and less stress for all involved!

I’m not interested in finding loopholes, I’m interested in the rules. Specifically, the CAA’s or my insurance provider’s likely interpretation of the rules as determined by precedent or something otherwise reliable.

It would seem that the answer to the question lies solely in one’s interpretation of FCL.910 FI (a) (3). This is frankly shambolic and I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of it having been made vague deliberately. If this legislative reference is the only one that can be cited with regards to the question of whether or not a restricted FI requires supervision for all instructional activity, then I have gleaned as much as I can from this particular thread.

Thanks to all who have contributed, regardless of whether or not it appears that I agree with your interpretation of the regulation.

United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top