We solved the problem by a simple call with the insurance company. They asked only if the instructor will regularly fly/instruction on the aircraft. As we said „No, only for the check flights every year or every two years together with the named pics.“ , the told us „this is covered“. So no hassle at all.
Damn, what I wrote before dinner got erased when I tried to submit … anyway, as expected our Visicover policy has a clause that specifies that training the named pilots is also covered, so from that perspective, no issues.
Ibra’s linked OnTrack document raised another issue that I did not anticipate: there is a paragraph in Subpart B (which deals with the LAPL, for god’s sake) that specifies AMC for inter alia revalidation: AMC1 FCL.140.A; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) Recency and revalidation requirements, which has as a further condition that “the aircraft that is used for training flights with an instructor is an Annex-I aircraft of type (a), (b), (c), or (d) that is subject to an authorisation specified in points ORA.ATO.135 or DTO.GEN.240.”, which renders the whole question moot if I can do refresher training on my aircraft anyway since it’s a homebuilt Annex I which is not under any ATO’s or DTO’s paperwork. It’s strange that that restriction is not found under the applicable FCL.740.A paragraph.
Regarding the – maybe academic – issue of an instructor necessarily being PIC, I must say that similar to the sister threads those that hold that predicate true just state it as a personal opinion without citing any proof; looking at the quite highly detailed FCL law, one wonders why – if said predicate would be true – the regulator who specifies e.g. a logbook format in detail has missed out on such an issue.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to do my revalidation the “usual” way; the question raised in the morning is of interest to me as such since it looks like an aspect where gut feeling / personal opinions and the legal text are less aligned than expected.
Sebastian_H wrote:
It’s strange that that restriction is not found under the applicable FCL.740.A paragraph.
Well that’s just what that particular AMC says. An AMC is “one” acceptable means of compliance. Not “the only” acceptable means of compliance.
Sebastian_H wrote:
issue of an instructor necessarily being PIC
I believe that’s beside the point. The FCL.740.A revalidation by experience requirement is that a TRAINING flight of at least 1h with an FI/CRI must be conducted. So logically, if you are to receive training, you can’t be PIC, right? Following that, if you are not PIC, then someone else HAS to be PIC, right? So it naturally follows that the instructor will be PIC.
My whole argument would be invalid if somebody proves that one can, indeed, be PIC and also receive training at the same time. If that’s possible (which would surprise me but hey, stranger things happen…), then yes Sebastian, I would say you would be able to be PIC and your FI would simply be a passenger who can provide training.
Alpha_Floor wrote:
I believe that’s beside the point. The FCL.740.A revalidation by experience requirement is that a TRAINING flight of at least 1h with an FI/CRI must be conducted.
I saw that phrase in your earlier post and was wondering if we have the same legal texts? I use the “Easy Access Rules” PDF dated August 2020 and the respective passage there is a bit different since it talks about “refresher training of at least 1 hour of total flight time with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI)”.
Alpha_Floor wrote:
So logically, if you are to receive training, you can’t be PIC, right?
And that’s exactly where I would argue that this statement is not as clearly based on a passage in the law as one might want. Can you point towards a passage that says that? For the rest, I would follow your reasoning of course, if we could find something that renders the above statement true; maybe a way out could work as follows:
In the definitions part, the FCL document says on p. 39 ""Dual instruction time" means flight time or instrument ground time during which a person is receiving flight instruction from a properly authorised instructor." and if we read a definition as an “if and only if” bijective relation, it would of course follow that flight time during which one receives training is dual instruction time for which one logs dual etc. etc. etc. – and problem solved.
I am not 100% sure that this is the correct way to read a definition which in my understanding is not a bijection but a mere injective mapping, i.e. whenever I talk about – in this case – dual instruction time, it can be replaced with the second part of the definition, but not necessarily the other way around. Of course, the last time I read logic was a long while ago at uni, so if my way of treating a definition is bollocks, that would provide a nice way out :)
Alpha_Floor wrote:
My whole argument would be invalid if somebody proves that one can, indeed, be PIC and also receive training at the same time.
Leaving aside that no-one could prove until now that one could not be PIC and receive instruction, an argumentation skeleton would probably run like such: If I am revalidating, I have a valid licence and class rating, so the flight I am undertaking is legal for me to conduct as PIC. AMC1 FCL.050(b)(1)(i) tells me that I log that time as PIC as well. There is no passage in the FCL that specifies that an instructor is PIC for the purpose of instructing, and item (iii) of the AMC cited above only provides the option for the instructor to log PIC time, not necessitates it.
Again, this would be completely wrong of course, if one needs to read the “dual flight time” definition in a bijective sense as reasoned above.
AFAIK, Annex I authorisation is only applicable to DTO/ATO aircrafts for DTO/ATO courses, SEP revalidation is surely not DTO/ATO scope, SEP renewal maybe in DTO/ATO? I doubt it’s applicable to owner aircraft outside DTO/ATO courses, if you own Concorde (AnnexI 
) you can do refresher training on it, maybe double check with NAA on the Concorde but SEP revalidation on your RV should be fine
UK CAA now has blanket authorisation to allow an-initio training in Annex I for FCL LAPL & PPL
Previously, one could but not worth paperwork unless it’s Spitefire or Harvard 
Sebastian_H wrote:
Of course, the last time I read logic was a long while ago at uni, so if my way of treating a definition is bollocks, that would provide a nice way out :)
The thing here is that you must not only infer a logically correct or possible solution in your view; but also in the respective view of the NAA who’s going to receive and acknowledge your revalidation by experience notification with a training flight conducted with you as PIC. This is the key I believe.
Oh and the above is assuming that you had previously convinced the FI/CRI to sign off your revalidation by experience with you as PIC and him as passenger. I don’t think they’ll be used to doing that, and most likely their first reaction will be “no” even if it is legally possible. :)
The best way of finding out is asking the NAA in question. It’s highly likely they will say something like “you can’t be PIC if you’re receiving training”. It’s possible that they are wrong, but it would then become your job to prove them wrong. It’s also possible they never reply because they don’t know in the first place; the only way of knowing what their position is would be trial and error: submit the application and see what happens. But even if the application goes through and they don’t complain, that doesn’t necessarilly mean they agree with it, it may just mean that the licencing officer didn’t pay enough attention. :)
Sebastian_H wrote:
And that’s exactly where I would argue that this statement is not as clearly based on a passage in the law as one might want.
“One can be PIC and also receive training/instruction at the same time”
Let’s think reductio ad absurdum.
If the above statement were true, then it would open the door to, for instance, all CPL training performed under conditions (aircraft, flight conditions etc.) for which the student could be PIC if the instructor wasn’t there, to be logged as PIC by the student. And not be logged at all by the CPL instructor since he would be a passenger who provides training.
It would also open the door to the situation in which, on a skills test in which the candidate could otherwise be PIC:
I don’t know if the above qualifies as absurd and hence discards the initial statement…
To exercise the privileges of an Instructor rating on your licence you have to be in an operating capacity ie exercising the privileges of your licence. In a single pilot aircraft the instructor will have to be PIC and the student PUT as a passenger cannot be exercising their licence privileges.
On the other hand, an Examiner authorisation and certificate is held separately to the licence which is why an Examiner may exercise their privileges without being PIC. This has happened for many years where examiners can perform tests in military aircraft where the PIC is operating on the basis of their military authority.
So can student be PIC – instruction no, examining yes in some circumstances where the candidate is otherwise qualified.
That was my understanding you have to be rated PIC for the aircraft to instruct on it, that surely means because an instrictor has to log PIC?
For examiners, probably not the case, can someone with valid SEP fly an exam with an IRE who does not hold SEP to get their IRSE?
PS: I have done two skill-tests with examiner sitting as in the backseats, surely as PAX (note that FCL require PIC to have unobstructed access to all aircraft controls)
I think the scenario where this matters most is if there is a crash, the “student” survives but the “instructor” dies.
The student (or his estate, if he died too) now has a big financial incentive to make it clear the instructor was PIC, so they can claim from his insurance or, if he wasn’t insured, raid his estate. And this will happen even if the instructor was just a passenger, if there is no written evidence left behind.
