why would the holder of a license, lapsed or not, need to log dual hours? Serves no purpose at all.
OK; forget the logging bit (which as you say is superfluous for a license holder) but take a scenario where the owner of a plane has had his medical suspended (or self-suspended) but needs to fly the plane somewhere, e.g. for maintenance. He would have no way to do it, short of putting another person on the insurance (who may not know how to fly the plane, etc). Whereas if the flight can be done legally with an FI in the RHS, that is not only legal but is automatically covered by the insurance.
Obviously one would not do that flight with two broken legs 
In Part-MED there are hundreds of things which automatically suspend your medical e.g. the commencement of any regular medication until approved by an AME. Basically all of Part-MED is a list of self-grounding conditions.
Peter wrote:
but take a scenario where the owner of a plane has had his medical suspended (or self-suspended) but needs to fly the plane somewhere, e.g. for maintenance. He would have no way to do it, short of putting another person on the insurance (who may not know how to fly the plane, etc). Whereas if the flight can be done legally with an FI in the RHS, that is not only legal but is automatically covered by the insurance.
I don’t think this flight can legally be done with an instructor in the RHS. If the insurance is for the owner alone, he must be pilot in command. He can only be pilot in command if he has a valid medical and license. In this case, the insurance must agree that the instructor is PIC for that flight. Who actually handles the controls is a private thing between the two on board, as long as no one talks…
NorFlyer wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Dual is when you fly with an instructor.
Dual means “flying with an instructor for the purpose of gaining a license or rating”. Someone who already has that license or rating can not log dual time.
EASA definition
“Dual instruction time” means flight time or instrument ground time during which a person is
receiving flight instruction from a properly authorised instructor.
Might be local differences. Here in Norway all flight instruction is logged as DUAL and has been that way for as long as I’ve been flying (15+ years). For the revalidation of SEP. Towards new ratings. General recurrency. Aerobatics training in my case. Etc. Etc.
I happily sign a licence to revalidate or renew a SEP rating by experience or proficiency check. With or without a medical.
I asked this very check at my last examiner seminar and was told I was allowed to
Bathman wrote:
I asked this very check at my last examiner seminar and was told I was allowed to
That’s interesting, because the FTO where we do our simulator training and checkrides is also in the UK with UK instructors and examiners and they express the opposite opinion!
He is to renew his SEP(A) based on experience, within the next 10 days and asked if I could fly the 1 hr DI with him.
Easa calls it a revalidation, not a renewal.
FCL.015 says: (a) An application for the issue, revalidation or renewal of pilot licences and associated ratings and certificates shall be submitted to the competent authority in a form and manner established by this authority. The application shall be accompanied by evidence that the applicant complies with the requirements for the issue, revalidation or renewal of the licence or certificate as well as associated ratings or endorsements, established in this Part and Part-Medical.
It’s about the application process, not about the flight. So I think you may fly with your client (e.g. I took my CPL skill test without a valid medical, and EASA was already there).
The question remains whether you may sign his licence for revalidation or not. An instructor who signs the licence acts on behalf of the CAA, it’s the application process, so I think that according to FCL.015 you may not endorse the licence as long as the medical is not valid. If the medical is renewed after the 24 months period has elapsed, may you still endorse the licence for revalidation if the training flight was done in time? I think not.
And Part-Medical, MED.A.030: (c) Applicants for and holders of a private pilot licence (PPL), a sailplane pilot licence (SPL), or a balloon pilot licence (BPL) shall hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate.
I think that the medical is mandatory only if you want to exercise your PPL privileges.
Piotr_Szut wrote:
I think that the medical is mandatory only if you want to exercise your PPL privileges.
That is what I think too. I have done proficiency checks in France for a number for years now, sent in my paperwork to the Norwegian CAA and nobody has ever once asked me for my medical certificate.
This badly written piece of regulation, which as it stands would require you to hand in your licence the day your medical expires, and as written prevents a CPL holder to exercise PPL privileges while only holding a class 2 medical, is fortunately about to be changed so it only requires the medical at licence issue, and then to exercise the privileges of…., which makes it clear that training and paperwork can happen.
In the meantime, it depends on whether he local CAA follows the letter of the reg, or couldn’t give a toss.
Cobalt wrote:
is fortunately about to be changed
Good to know. The fact that EASA is continually willing to improve on the regs is a huge improvement from JAR imho.
NorFlyer wrote:
The fact that EASA is continually willing to improve on the regs is a huge improvement from JAR imho.
that’ true, and it seems that this is a general move ofr GA (i.e. all aspects of the regulation) according to what is being said during EASA roadshows
