JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!

[Romeo Romeo]

The 'Training Flight' that is specified in JAR-FCL 1.245(c) (http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/jar/jar.fcl.1.245.htm) somehow seems to becoming a test! There is nothing in either the ANO or in JAR-FCL that says it can be. It would appear that some instructors try to turn this into an exam by refusing to sign your log book to indicate that the training flight took place, however is there actually a requirement for them to sign it? If you look at the form you send off (here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FORSRG1119Iss6.pdf)) this is what the examiner has to check:-If by Experience the examiner shall ensure that the applicant presents logbook evidence of all flights claimed for a revalidation by Experience.I have loads of flight that are evidence of sufficient training for my night and IMC rating that are not signed off and the other 11 hours required for revalidation will not be signed off either. It is difficult to see how my own log book is sufficient evidence for these flights but not for a one hour training flight. Is there anything wrong with oneself writing in the log book that a training flight took place and putting the instructors name against it - and perhaps signing it yourself (with your own name of course)?

[BEagle]

Just get whoever conducted one of your night/IMC training flights (as long as it was > 1 hr) countersigned in the 'Remarks' column - they DO count for the purpose of re-validation in lieu of the 'dual training flight'.

No you can't put the FIs name in and sign it yourself.

[Flap40]

I suggest that you look at AIC 127/1999 (White 378). It is a training flight but you do have to satisfy the instructor as to your ability.
You would not expect an instructor to send a student solo if he was not up to it. Equally you should not expect to get a signature just for being in the same aircraft as the instructor.

Edit to add that night and IMC "training" will not count. It has to be the test/check (see item 1.3 ii) although it does not say that it has to be a pass:confused:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Flap,

That is incorrect.

The instructor only signs to say that they did an hour's flight.

Nowt more nowt less.

FD

[scubawasp]

I use this flight to do the usual stalling, steep turns, PFL, EFATO, a bit of slow flight, spiral dives, unusal attitudes, possibly an electrical fire in the air drill and back for a couple of circuits.

I then point out any weakness and sign the appropriate areas with '1 hours flight as per JAR-FCL'.

I sign it as them completing the JAR-FCL requirement, not as a level of competence (although a quite word would be said).

[Romeo Romeo]

AIC 127/1999 (White 378) is purely advisory. It's the CAA saying "A bit of advice - if I were you I'd do these things". The law, as enshrined in the Air Navigation Order only states that:-For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall on singleengine piston aeroplanes (land) and/or touring motor gliders satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph 1.245(c)(1) of JAR–FCL 1.and paragraph 1.245(c)(1) of JAR–FCL 1 states1) All single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings (land) and all touring motor glider's ratings - Revalidation. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall on single-engine piston aeroplanes (land) and/or touring motor gliders:

(ii) within 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating :

A) complete 12 hours of [flight time in the class including] 6 hours of pilot-in-command time and 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and

(B) complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor. This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test for a class or type rating. There is nothing in the law that states the training flight has to contain anything specific and certainly there is nothing that says it can be 'failed'. Also note that there is nothing in there about it being 'signed off' in the logbook - it just has to be taken.

Now, I'm not arguing what should and shouldn’t be in the flight - I enjoy going out with an instructor from time to time, practising all the stuff that I don't do that regularly and getting feedback from a much more experienced pilot. However, instructors are instructors; they are not examiners and if this were intended to be an exam the people who made the law would have said so.

[englishal]

Even if you do 50 hrs training with an FAA Instructor, pass an FAA ME CPL IR with an FAA examiner, you still need 1 hr with a JAA Instructor. Yet you can let your JAA licence lapse and still fly on your foreign certificate....mad init?

[Final 3 Greens]

It is a training flight but you do have to satisfy the instructor as to your ability.

Wrong.

[BEagle]

There is no mandatory content for the 'dual training flight'. So yes, a 1 hr IMC training session will suffice - just get the FI to sign it for you.

There is so much nonsense spouted about whether the FI should sign your logbook if he/she isn't happy with your performance. If that was the case, don't be surprised if the FI refuses to sign. Attempt to lean on the FI and you may find that the FI will notify the CAA and suggest that your licence is suspended until you've proved your competence to an Examiner with a LPC.

[Romeo Romeo]

Where in the law i.e. where in the ANO or JAR-FCL is there a requirement that it be signed in your log book? The only requirement that I can see is that the training flight took place.

[FlyingForFun]

I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

If an instructor told me that I wasn't safe, I would listen to what he was saying - regardless of whether I thought he was legally in a position to refuse to sign my paperwork, this guy is concerned for my safety, and I want to know what he's concerned about so I can put it right. Once the problem is sorted out, I'll start worrying about the paperwork.

FFF
---------------

[dublinpilot]

Perhaps the fuss is because he has a significant amount of time with instructors towards both night rating and imc rating, but because he never thought he'd need it, he never asked them for a signiture in his log book. And now, they possibly won't sign it, not because he isn't safe, but because he hasn't done the "check out" which normally preceeds the signiture?

And to be honest I can see his point. No one should have a problem if someone refuses to sign your log book because they don't think you are safe. If you disagree with them, then find another unconnected instructor. If they too won't sign it for you, then you really know you have a problem. But if they won't sign it because you haven't done the quasi skills test, (but have done other training with yo, and think you are safe), then that's something else entirely.

dp

[DFC]

As far as I am aware, all training entered in a log book must be certified by the relevant instructor. My current interpretation of this is that I sign every entry in the log book at the end of each flight.

In older times, on completion fo a course, the CFI signed the log book to certify that the entries were correct.

Thus by one of the above means, in order to obtain an IMC or night qualification, ther must be some signature to certify the training.

When I complete the 1 hour training with a pilot, we have a proper debrief of the flight over a nice cup of tea.

I am very mindfull that the minimum standard I look for is that of a brand new PPL holder regardless of how many thousands of hours the pilot has.

Provided that the operation is safe and the safe outcome of every manoeuvere is never in doubt (even if it is a little sloppy), I have no problem signing the logbook.

However, if the overall performance is so poor that safety is not ensured , I give the pilot the option of my either not signing the entry (we discuss how to improve the flying and book a further flight) or I make a full and frank comment in the logbook of what I considered the displayed standard to be and sign that comment. I don't care which the pilot chooses it is totally up to them.

It is in no way a test.......it is a training flight. However, if we all think back to our training days......when we did not meet the standard for progression, our instructor made a comment in the training notes which made this clear and we did the same exercise again....and again until we demonstrated the minimum standard.......it wasn't a test.......it was training.

Now that we are PPL holders do we consider ourselves above the requirement to train???

If an instructor signs a logbook after an unsafe performance without recording any adverse comments then any posible benifits (to other airspace users) from the flight are lost.

Having seen lots of flying this summer by qualified pilots which were well below the minimum standard for a PPL, perhaps we need the insurance companies in Europe to follow more closely the US system whereby the insurance company makes check flights mandatory and rewards safe competent pilots with lower premiums while those reported for unsafe flying on a regular basis get a reminder in the one place they pay attention to - their bank account.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

Personally I don't think this one hour with an Instructor should be with an Instructor.

There is no set pieces to do. And the whole standard is being rested on FI's who have had no instruction or guidelines formally issued on what is to be expected.

There is already a problem with PE getting enough work testing PPL's to justify the examiner rating. Let them do the flights they know whats allowable and have been trained to do it. Set the cost at 20 quid and standards will be maintained and we won't loose ppl examiners through economic reasons.

MJ

And as an Instructor I have just looked at my logbook and yes you have guessed it no flight signed off as one hour with an Instructor. Lets hope that if i get caught the fact that i had just sat a IR renewal with the examiner who signed my SEP counts.

[Romeo Romeo]

The fuss is about the huge amount of confusion around at the moment - primarily caused by the CAA issuing a very badly worded AIC 127/1999 (White 378).

Clearly it should be well documented what is required to revalidate a Certificate of Experience. The current situation where what is required is decided by individual instructors and Joe Pilot has no way of knowing what that is, is clearly unacceptable.

I can see the benefits of continued instruction however that isn't the point. The point is that is should be well documented and well understood what is required for a Certificate of Experience and currently that is not the case.

[DFC]

Mad Jock,

Instructors are well trained in deciding when a pilot has reached the standard required for the issue of a PPL. That is when they send the student forward to the Examminer for test.

As an instructor, you know that as far as the CAA are concerned, the IR renewal counts.

As for clear information on the requirements. The answer must be to read then direct from JAR-FCL.

Every other country in Europe seems to cope well. How is it that in the UK, people claim to have problems undertanding the requirements when provided with a copy of JAR-FCL, plus an AIC from the CAA explaining the situation, plus a book called LASORS which also explains the requirements.

IMHO, people often simply invent problems when they can't be bothered.

Every current current instructor has made a declaration that they have read and understood the JARs. How come so many calim at a later date not to understand them or misquote them ???

Rant over!

Regards,

DFC

[Whirlybird]

It isn't that straightforward. I personally have encountered or heard of instructors doing the following:-

1) Instructor asks pilot what they should do, and is quite happy to fly to another airfield for lunch - after all, all it says is one hour with an instructor.

2) Pilot told that there are specific things you have to do, virtually a mini-skills test, but that it wasn't a test.

3) Pilot is told by an instructor/examiner that there was no requirement to sign the log book, but then finding out that another examiner wouldn't accept that flight for renewal, since there was no proff of what it was.

4) Pilot told by a very experienced instructor that their particular school had decided not to sign log books if the student wasn't up to scratch - after all, what would the legal position be if they did and the student did something stupid and had an accident...duty of care and all that.

If there's this amount of confusion, then something is not as clear as it should be.

[WestWind1950]

@DFC

Every other country in Europe seems to cope well. How is it that in the UK, people claim to have problems undertanding the requirements when provided with a copy of JAR-FCL, plus an AIC from the CAA explaining the situation, plus a book called LASORS which also explains the requirements.

were do you get that idea?? here in Germany it is chaos!!! the problem is, we don't learn from the mistakes/experiences in the other countries because we don't hear about them or don't bother to check it out. I am sooooo relieved to find out that you all have the same problems as we do. We had the further complication of the regulations having to be translated into German, in part being wrongly translated!! At least you didn't have that problem! ;)

About that training flight:
1) same uncertainties here. We say that an instructor cannot refuse to sign, as the flight took place, no matter how good or bad it was
2) it must signed in the log book... how else can a pilot proove it took place? putting the instructors name in there yourself is no acceptable documentation if being checked; and somewhere in the FCL it's mentioned... don't ask me where... :confused:
3) here, too, there are no definite rules about what that training flight ist to contain... it's all up to the instructor. I like to play "dumb guest" and just observe what the pilot does... then give him advice about what he could do better or what wasn't good... and if I feel it necessary, I show him a thing or two
4) question: can the hour be "interrupted" by a landing at another field? I say, why not! I did one flight where we flew to another field... the first leg was 52 minutes, return was about 45 min... the authority wasn't going to accept it because it wasn't 60 min. on one stretch!! :mad:

Westy

[mad_jock]

The IR renewal dosn't count unless the Instructor/examiner actually signs the log book as per that bit of paper. And as we were in a twin for the renewal I think we were pushing it calling it a SEP test.

And during my FIC there was no mention of what the standard was meant to be. Although I presume I am getting it right with 16 PPL's behind me with 100% pass rate.


But i still think its a crap setup just now with 30% instructors going over board 60% doing it the way I presume the CAA wanted it. And 10% who would sign anything for 1 more hour in thier log book and a pint in the bar.

MJ

[BEagle]

A 'dual training flight' would need signing for; however, your IR renewal (or did you mean re-validation) would have sufficient documentary proof for whichever Examiner re-validates your SEP Class rating. And remember that an 'instructor' cannot revalidate or renew an IR.....

As you're an instructor, you really should get up to speed on such things. Because others will be looking to you for guidance.

[mad_jock]

Can you point me towards ths docu which says that this is the case?

Because although common sense says its that way you describe. The only documentation I have seen says you must have a 1hr + flight anotated as the 1 hour with an instructor.

And yes it was a renewal and I am more than happy with the different grades of examiner required to keep my ratings valid.

MJ

[englishal]

Maybe Examiners should get up to speed as well. The one who signed my last cert of experience royally ballsed it up, requiring letters to the CAA etc etc....

Ah well, wouldn't life be boring without JAR:D

[BEagle]

A point I made to the CAA only last week!

Re-validation and renewal requirements need to be as simple as possible; Examiners are usually paid for their work so their customers should expect a reasonable service, not just a signature on a peice of paper.

[Romeo Romeo]

So that's cleared that up, then:rolleyes:

It's not really up to the CAA - it's up to the JAA. They saidcomplete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructorIf they had meant 'complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor to a level that the instructor is satisfied with' then they would have said that! They didn't!

There is a big difference between a 'training flight' and a 'training flight that the instructor thinks is of a high enough standard'. I really enjoy going out for flights with instructors. I like improving my flying technique and getting feedback from more experienced pilots.

However I hate tests!

When I do go flying with an instructor usually it's to push myself. It's to do those things that I think I'm not that good at and to improve them. It's to try and overload myself.

A training flight is a learning experience for me and not an exercise in impressing an instructor.

[mr_flydive]

I'm sorry I find this is all a bit of a saga! :{

One Hours flight instruction is one hours flight instruction....:ooh:

Make it useful ask the Pilot what he is weak on? what does he want to practice? learn? or ask?.

If the flight has occured that is a fact. It is a pain to get it signed but the signature is merely a confirmation of fact, the flight did take place.

In life many things have to be signed for.

What is the problem. ( Forgotten my log book is the most common )

Have fun, practice, learn you are NOT being tested.

Any advice given is meant to be helpful and useful. :ok:

[BEagle]

Quite so.

Did one of these on Saturday; we had fun practising PFLs and then some cross-wind landings. The chap who needed the trip for re-validation chose the items to practise; we also had fun looking at certain local navigation features on the way home. All very laid-back and quite enjoyable; my feeling is those few barrack room lawyers who worry about whether they're allowed to log this as P1 are the sort of people who know their flying is pretty ropey and really need some formal recurrence training.

So:

1. You will fly this trip as P U/T
2. Your performance will need to be adequate.
3. If your performance isn't adequate, don't expect your logbook to be signed. Make a fuss about that and don't be surprised if the FI recommends to the CAA that your licence is suspended until you've flown another Proficiency Check with an Examiner.


It's your choice - good enough or not good enough.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hoi Beagle:

1. You will fly this trip as P U/T Why?

2. Your performance will need to be adequate Of course and if not I take it that you will recommend remedial training.

3. If your performance isn't adequate, don't expect your logbook to be signed. Agree that this would be the sensible thing to do but that is not within your remit according to 'the rules'

The amount of noise generated by those needing to undergo checkrides is usually directly proportional to the need thereof so can agree with the gist of your post in that respect.

However think that 'punters' can expect to get a fair crack of the whip too. That means that you will have to play ball too and stick to the rules. Not just interpret them in a passion suiting your needs.

For some of us here an extra hour here or there is neither there nor here but there are plenty of folks that have to be frugal.

Don't think that they are served by the attitude that it is best to agree with 'The Instructor' or else.

FD

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I'm a bit confused about this.

The content of the hour's instruction isn't specified, right?

So it doesn't have to be anything that looks like a "check ride", no matter how desirable we might think such a thing, right?

So, for example, if one has, just for fun, an hour's training in mountain flying, or in how to land on skis, or instrument approaches, or a more complex aircraft, or night flying, or one of any number of other things that aren't part of the basic PPL syllabus and wouldn't be included in a PPL check ride, then that counts, right, provided the instructor has signed the log book to confirm that the instruction took place?

[Flyin'Dutch']

GtW,

You are not confused, you are correct!

FD

[Gertrude the Wombat]

you are correct

... in which case the instructor doesn't necessarily know at the time the flight is conducted that it even is a PPL revalidation flight, yes? He might think you've just been having an hour's play on a multi-engined plane for fun, and eleven months later you can decide that this was the "hour's flight with an intsructor", yes?

So it certainly seems to be the case that the instructor has no say at all over what should be included in the flight, if s/he doesn't even know at the time that that's what the flight and log book signature are going used for some time next year!!

So, a month before your PPL expires, you look back through your log book for the last eleven months, and if you've done an hour's training at any point on pretty well anything to do with an aeroplane then that's done. Otherwise rent something different, exotic, whatever, for a hour and get someone to show you how to fly it.

I don't see what people are getting worked up about. I'm quite happy to do something like that once every two years and book the time as Pu/t.

[DFC]

Mad Jock,

As BEagle said, the IR renewal will be recorded in your licence.

JAR-FCL 1. 245 is where the requirements are.

Basically, it must be a flight (singular) completed in the last 12 months, the duration must be at least 1 hour and the flight may be replaced by any proficiency check or skill test.

The contents are indeed up to the instructor however, JAR-FCL and the CAA's AIC make suggestions as to suitable topics.

If the flight took place then indeed the instructor must sign the logbook. However, if the instructor considers it appropriate, the standard displayed during the flight should also be recorded in the log book even if it is something like "further training required".

Personally, I say to the pilot...."you need some brush-up training. I can put a record in your logbook of your current standard or I can leave that blank and sign the entry where you demonstrate a safe standard."

Of course the Instructor is P1......how else can he a) Tell the pilot to demonstrate x, y or z or more importantly, b) take control without any argument if the standard displayed is dangerous. If it isn't "dual" then it isn't a training flight.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

GtW - it would be very unwise for anyone to fly any trip without knowing the objective.

Any 'punter' flying a dual training flight with me will do it as P U/T. Don't like that? Find someone else. But if I'm asked to sign your re-validation form 'by experience', I'll require evidence of a real 'dual training flight' with a FI. Not a trip with you having claimed 'P1' and no clue as to the content. So, present me with that and you'll probably have to fly a re-validation LPC....

[Flyin'Dutch']

Beagle,

That is a bit against general accepted practice isn't it?

I have done many checks over the years with many different instructors and it is normal practice that if I am the 'sole manipulator of the controls' I log that time as P1.

I don't understand where you are coming from.

FD

[robin]

True - when having a check ride I always book it as P1 myself

But as far as the 1 hour training flight goes, I was told I had to book it as P2 or PU/T.

Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is with that, except if you are a bit tight with hours - in any event, it counts towards the 12 hours during the year.

Do other pilots feel ashamed these days of putting hours in the P2 column?? and why?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Uhhhhhh.....

Well unless you fly something which requires 2 crew operations, you actually are wrong to log P2.

I don't care 2 hoots what people book it as, but equally would like to understand why some instructors are so keen to log this as P1, which they are not when it is a flight as per the rules.

FD

[Gertrude the Wombat]

GtW - it would be very unwise for anyone to fly any trip without knowing the objective.

Any 'punter' flying a dual training flight with me will do it as P U/T. Don't like that? Find someone else. But if I'm asked to sign your re-validation form 'by experience', I'll require evidence of a real 'dual training flight' with a FI. Not a trip with you having claimed 'P1' and no clue as to the content. So, present me with that and you'll probably have to fly a re-validation LPC....Sorry, I maybe didn't get this across too well.

What I meant was, supposing that in the normal course of one's flying one happens to have had a flying lesson, which one has booked as Pu/t, being, say, learning how to fly a new type of aircraft (a flight with a known objective - learning a new type). Or, say, a holiday flight (where you're on holiday somewhere interesting, book a four seater and an instructor, put a couple of your kids in the back and go for a joy ride - that's a perfectly legal flying lesson) (a flight with a known objective - looking at the scenery).

Towards the end of the second year one then looks back over one's log book, finds this flight, and decides, perfectly legally, that this counts as the "flight with the instructor" for revalidation.

As far as I can see there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and an examiner refusing to sign the revalidation form just because at the time of the training flight neither party knew that the flight was going to be the revalidation "flight with an instructor" is wrong.

I think your remark about "no clue as to the content" is wrong - you don't need a clue, all you need is an instructor's signature in the log book (well, OK, plus his magic instructor's number, but they all put that in anyway if you ask them to sign a log book).

[BEagle]

No need to put an 'Instructor's number' (whatever that is) for a routine dual trip - that's some Spam habit. But the 'dual training flight' must be annotated 'satisfactory' to count.

[DFC]

Gertrude,

I agree totally.

BEagle,

I always put in the instructor number so that there is no doubt regarding the qualifications of the instructor. As far as I am aware, it must be a JAA instructor. i.e. an FAA instructor doesn't count.

However, IMHO, there is no requirement for the word "satisfactory" to be entered. Provided that there is no mention of unsatisfactory performance then I would not have a problem. As I said previously, I note any unsatisfactory performance where the pilot insists on a signature.


As to the P1 or Dual issue, I commented above. However, in relation to the "Sole manipulator of the controls", one must remember that there is no legal requirement for the "sole manipulator of the controls" to hold any qualification.

A simple example of this is...........You are not an instructor but your child has a talent for flying and you encourage the development of the talent by bringing them along on as many flights as possible. Despite being only 15, they have over the past two years improved to the point where they can complete all the flight without you having to assist and you both look forward to the child's 16th birthday when weather permitting, they will complete the first SOLO.

The child completes all the flying on a flight from A to B. They are the sole manipulator of the controls. They have no qualification and it is not an instructional flight.

You, the parent are Pilot in command (P1)....you are responsible for the safety of the flight

The child can not log any of the time......they are not under instruction.

You can not count the take-off or landing towards the 90 day rule because you did not complete them.....your child did!!!


Just an example to show that "sole manipulator of the controls" simply means the person that pushed and pulled the stick without any help.

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

DFC,

Can you enlighten me on how you log any time that 'George' is at the controls?

FD

[IO540]

If on autopilot, you are still in charge of the aircraft. You need to be in fact; autopilots do fail (mine had failed several times in 12 months, in a pretty drastic fashion).

[Flyin'Dutch']

Just to clarify a thing or two on the original thread.

Have a read here:CAA Guidance (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_14_v2.pdf)

1. FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear from the outset and if this flight is part of training for some other training the FI must include items of general handling to fulfill the purpose of the training flight.

2. Where the aim of the training flight has been achieved the CRI/FI will sign the logbook, append his licence number and identify the entry by adding 'training flight'

3. Where the applicant clearly displays a weakness such that he cannot be considered 'solo safe' and this weakness can not be successfully resolved during the training flight, the FI shall not sign the logbook.

FD

IO540 You and I understand that but it seems that DFC has trouble with understanding the concept of sole manipulator of the controls, hence the question.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Errr DFC, I don't think you are supposed to let unqualified people use the controls if you do not hold an instructors rating.

As per usual BEagle has it just right. There is really no such thing as P1/s unless with an examiner. All flights with me (instructor) should be P/UT, especially the biennial check. It IS a checkout, in the same way that a new club member needs to be checked upon joining.
I treat it as a test and there is a definate pass and fail with me. If you are unsafe then I will NOT sign that the flight was a success. If anyone wishes to complain, then I will meet them outside with sleeves rolled up.
People seem to forget that instructors have PPL's best interests at heart. We don't actually want to see you smeared across the countryside, so if a bit of ego bashing is required so be it.

Why is it that there is this argy-bargy all the time. Surely PPL's should know what they have to do to revalidate in the same way I have to? Or is that me just being naive?

[Flyin'Dutch']

SASlowly and Beagle,

Can you show me anywhere the information which makes it clear for once and for all what the correct procedure is for these flights.

I am under the impression that as long as I have all the tickets required for the flight and it is just a checkout on a new type or club required refresher, I can log P1.

I may be mistaken but if so many instructors and examiners, some of them quite eminent, have been too over the years.

Every opportunity that arises to fly with an instructor is taken by me as I like to learn, none have insisted on logging flights as described and discussed here, as P1 for them and PUT for me.

FD

[dublinpilot]

Will, I think fd's post really clarifies the whole thing. The link he gave quite clearly explains the CAA's position, regardless of what the JAA documents say.

Say again Slowly,

I don't see what the problem with letting someone else handle the controls is? I've never heard that you have to be an instructor to let someone handle the controls! Remember that a PPL is a licence to operate as pilot in command, not to act as operater of the controls.

dp

[mr_flydive]

The one hours flight is one hour of instruction. As before with me it tends to be according to the Pilots preferences. Luckly I have never had to refuse to sign a log book because the pilot is unsafe.
:)
Am I unusual in actually enjoying these flights?

If I really felt the pilot was unsafe and required further training a comment as somebody else suggested next to the signature would be sensible.
:(
It would take a brave man to fly and explain to the insurance company why he ignored the written suggestion further training was required.

That puts the ball in the Pilots court, but I have never been there.
:uhoh:
It has to be remembered that that there is,

a) The signature in the log-book
b) The bi-annual form that now needs to be sent in

Also I suspect it would be a brave examiner to sign the form after seeing any comments in a logbook unless further training had been undertaken.

[DFC]

FlyinDutch,

I don't know how friendly you and your friend George are or how you turn George on but if you are the only person in the aircraft with George and he gets turned on I can safely say that you did all the manipulation.

:D :D :D

Clubcheckouts are not required for licensing requirments they are required to satisfy the insurance and club rules requirements.

With a PPL and SEP rating you can fly any SEP for private use. A flying club may require you to have 100 hours P1 before doing a checkout in an Arrow. If you want to fly that arrow, you must comply with the club rules. Same goes for the checkout.....there must be a reason. Perhaps the club rules should also clearly show the fact that on such a flight the instructor is P1. No arguments then.

If it is a club, then as a member you have the ability to influence change if you think it is required.


SAS,

One can allow anyone fly the aircraft on a private flight. One can even let go of the controls for hours on end. However, the pilot in command is responsible for the consequences.

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

DFC,

I see what you are saying but so far not a reference to a CAA/JAA document which states that for the purpose of the flights discussed here you can only log that as PUT rather than P1.

FD

PS: Probably my lack of humour but thought your reference to 'George' was only moderately funny. My 2 1/2 year old daughter tells better jokes!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Being responsible for the consequences is one thing, but how likely is it that an insurance company would pay out if an unqualified person was at the controls... As it wouldn't be a training flight I would find it highly questionable.

I have had too many people do unexpected and scary things to me in aircraft to think that somebody not trained or experienced in watching for this would be able to react and rectify a problem before the sh*t hit the fan. (I am not talking about cruising along, but t/o and landing) Since I've been instructing, the people who have come closest to scaring me have not been students, but generally people with licences. You do expect some level of competancy with a ticket, but time and time again I seem to be proved wrong.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very good pilots in the PPL world, but there are also some absolute shockers. The ones who fall into this category are usually the people who bitch and moan about topics such as this one.

I'll get clarification about who's allowed to handle the controls if no instructor is present and if someone can post a link about I'd be grateful. I'm pretty certain about it tho' especially as I once had my backside handed to me after admitting that I had done this.(mind you it was in a heli so it could be different.) I'm sure I should be able to quote chapter and verse on this, so I am remiss having to resort to the books.

Whether it is legal or not, it still isn't a particularily sensible idea, how many know how to give a good pre-flight brief on effects of controls? Mind you saying that I kow a few instructors who fall into that category!:rolleyes:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Come on SASlowly, where is the chapter and verse on the P1/PUT issue.

On letting people 'have a go' I think nobody on here meant that they were letting non pilots fly take-offs or landings.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

The chapter and verse came from our last CAA inspection, it was mentioned that a lot (most)of people are not using the logging system correctly, myself included I hasten to add.

Most rules such as the one we are discussing are usually fairly black and white. At what point do you make the judgement that it is now unsafe for a non qualified person to be at the controls?
"Having a go" is not something I particularily approve of myself, but I don't really see the harm if under controlled circumstances. FD, I understand that the vast majority of people are very sensible and of course would not let someone have a play at any critical juncture, but rules are often not written for the majority of normal people to whom they are a matter of common sense. I am talking about the few idiots that actually try to teach others without the benefit of knowing what they themselves are doing.
How many of us have heard in a club house the 20hour students trying to wind up the new ones with tales of derring-do? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.......

I do seem to be on a soapbox here, but I am paranoid about not having anyone under my supervision injuring themselves or others (or worse). I have been to too many funerals of people who have died doing stupid things in aircraft and if my comments make somebody think a bit, then that's all I really care about.

I'm at the flying school tomorrow, so I'll get the books out. (I can't stand doing it on the internerd.)

[DFC]

FD,

There is no CAA or JAA document that prevents you from being pilot in command of an aircraft for which you hold the appropriate qualification.

However, on the "dual flight", the instructor must be the pilot in command in order for the instructional flight to take place.

We all agree that there can only be 1 pilot in command of a flight.

JAR-FCL 1.080 (c) Logging of time;

"iii) The holder of an instructor rating may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane."

So the instructor bags the P1 time.

If they did not then the flight would not count as an instructional flight.

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

SASlowly wrote:

I'm at the flying school tomorrow, so I'll get the books out.
Goodo, look forward to the outcome.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

FD no need to be sarcastic!

ANO Article 29: Instruction in flying.

(1) A person shall not give any instruction in flying to which this article applies unless:
(a) he holds a licence, granted or rendered valid under this Order or a JAA licence, entitling him to act as pilot in command of the aircraft for the purpose and in the circumstances under which the instruction is to be given; and
(b) his licence includes an instructor's rating entitling the holder to give the instruction.

Fairly black and white I think.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Sorry SASlowly, I did not raise the issue on whether or not you could instruct people without having an instructors ticket.

I just wanted to know where you and Beagle find, in the regulations, that for the flights we were discussing here that the pilot logs PUT and the instructor P1.

So back to you.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

DFC has it in his earlier post,

Unless under examination, there can't be 2 captains on a flight. As instructors are invariably in command, then the student (PPL or otherwise) is always P/UT, not under supervision.
I have been getting this wrong for yonks and my old CFI (in all senses of the word!) sat all the FI's down and explained that we need to change our understanding. P1/s is reserved for tests all other times you are P/UT, including recency checks.

To be honest, unless you need the hours for a professional reason, who cares what they are logged as.

[Flyin'Dutch']

SASlowly,

I understand were you are coming from but that is not the way a lot of folks that I and others have flown with over the years have seen it or logged.

I wholeheartedly agree that in the end it does not matter 2 hoots who logs what.

Would just be nice to see somewhere which would lay this matter to rest and can be used as a reference.

I could not find it when looking on the CAA/JAA site and hoped you knew where to find it.

Not sure whether an instructor is always the pilot in command or has to be.

FD

[Whirlybird]

I have always understood that either the instructor logs P1 and the student P U/T, or the student logs P1 and the instructor doesn't log it (except in the rare and specific instances that P1S is allowed). I have loads of flights - club checkouts, dual flights that were club requirements (eg first time on the London heli-routes), and similar, where the instructor told me to log P1. The general understanding seems to be that if you have a PPL, and need to fly with an instructor just as a check, but you do all the flying and the instructor doesn't touch the controls, then it's P1. Now, I have no idea if this is right. But if it isn't, then numerous instructors in numerous different schools are getting it wrong. In which case, maybe there's just a teeny weeny bit of confusion around, don't you think?

[Say again s l o w l y]

www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf[/URL]

Recording of flight time P.37 LASORs.

However it does state:

PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision):
Provided that the method of supervision is
acceptable to the Authority, a co-pilot may log
as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all of
the duties and functions of PIC on that flight
were carried out, such that the intervention of
the PIC in the interest of safety was not
required.

Though I am not sure that I understand what method of supervision is acceptable to the CAA. I may be shooting my self in the foot here, but a quick straw poll earlier showed all other instructors agreed with the interpretation shown earlier.

I agree with Whirly that there is alot of confusion on this issue, but the instructor is always in command and as such should always log the P1 time. I am going to e-mail Cash And Aggro to get a clarification on what method of supervision is acceptable to the CAA. This does take time though so I don't expect an answer this week... But I want to clear this up once and for all as I'm starting to doubt my own take on this.

[FlyingForFun]

SASlowly,

As I understand it, you can not be a "co-pilot" on a single-pilot aircraft. Therefore the rule that you quote is not relevant to GA.

Whirly said:The general understanding seems to be that if you have a PPL, and need to fly with an instructor just as a check, but you do all the flying and the instructor doesn't touch the controls, then it's P1(Not picking specifically on Whirly here - others have said the same thing too.)

Let me give you the following hypothetical situation. Pilot A is flying with instructor B on a check-out. Half way through the flight, A does something dangerous, without any prior warning. B immediately says "I have control", takes over, and recovers safely.

Who logs P1? In this case, I think most people would agree that it was the instructor, B.

Now, the same scenario, except that the flight ends before A made whatever mistake it was that he made. Who logs P1 now? I would argue that it must be the instructor. The instructor was monitoring the progress of the flight, was able to take control if necessary, and (as we saw from the first scenario, although it didn't actually happen in the second scenario) was prepared to actually go ahead and take control should the need have arisen. It is quite clear that B is in charge, even if he never actually touches the controls.

This is, in my experience, the way most checkouts go - the instructor doesn't touch the controls, but is ready and prepared to do so if necessary.

Now, compare this to a flight where A decides to go and visit airport X for lunch. He phones up his instructor-friend B, and says "I'm going to X, do you want to come with?" In this case, B is not checking out A. I'm pretty sure that B would mention something if A was doing anything dangerous, but only in the same way that I expect all of us would mention something if we were flying right-hand-seat with a pilot friend and didn't like something we saw. B is not acting as an instructor, so in this case, A logs P1. But this scenario, although not unheard of, is quite rare.

This is my interpretation of the rules as they are currently written in LASORS. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a definitive and clear guide anywhere, and I'd be surprised if anyone is able to get a clear answer, in writing, out of the CAA.

FFF
-------------

[dublinpilot]

But in any case, if you are required to have a 1 hour training flight with an instructor for the purpose of revalidating your rating, then surely it follows that you are "under instruction", and therefore must log Pu/t?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Whirly,

I agree with you and that is the interpretation that many years has prevailed in many quarters.

SASlowly you say that all the instructors you have spoken to agree with that, but on this forum only BEagle has.

FYI Whirly is an instructor too.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

You can actually be a co-pilot as a PPL, but it must be logged as P2. (Ref. Guide to Log book annotation LASOR's P.40)


"Flight time as PIC US, apart from as specifically provided for
under Case J above, will only be allowable for the holder of a
PPL subject to the terms of a prior agreement with the CAA."

Case J being on a test with an authorised examiner where a pass means P1/S and a fail goes down as P/UT.

Right that's it settled. I'm fed up with looking in books instead of flying!;)

[FlyingForFun]

SASlowly, I agree. But only on a multi-pilot aircraft. (So I wasn't technically correct in saying that it's not relevant to GA - but I don't think it's relevant to the type of GA we're generally discussing.)

FFF
-----------

[Say again s l o w l y]

FFF, Yep you are absolutely correct.
See my edited reply above.

[DFC]

FD,

In response to your repeated requests regarding whre in the regulations it says that Instructors log the time as P1, I once again refer you to JAR-FCL 1.080 (c) Logging of time.

Whirlybird,

Your London Heli routes example was perfectly legal and very good for the pocket. After all having an instructor friendly enough to accompany you as a passenger and thus permit you to hire the aircraft at the cheaper rate while still being in a position to benifit from his advice is great.

You are the Pilot in command and the instructor is a passenger.

If for any reason, the passenger suddenly takes control, you must make a report because;

a) It is a case of hijack; or

b) Something so dangerous was about to happen that the passenger (who happens to be an instructor) had to hijack the aircraft in order to ensure the safety of the aircraft.

Both clear cases for an MOR.

Passengers are not entitled to say "I have control" and grab the controls. !! Thankfully.

Extreme I know but, the pilot in command it quite entitled to hit any hijacker over the head with the fire extinguisher!! :ouch:

Oh, and if the instructor got paid for being a passenger then someone paid for a passenger to be carried....you!!


FFF,

Co-pilots are required if the aircraft or the rules under which the flight is operated require one.

Single Pilot IFR is limited to minimum 800m RVR. Get yourself a co-pilot and then you can use the appropriate procedure minima (550m for many CAT 1 ILSs). Even if it is a PA34. However, you will never come across P1/S in this situation.


Getting back to the crux of the argument, the flight is a dual flight. If the PPL is P1 then the instructor is a passenger.

To think of it another way, as a passenger, the instructor will not log the flight. However, JAR-FCL and the CAA regulations require instructors to log such flights so guess who will want to be P1 from the start?

Regards,

DFC

[Flyin'Dutch']

DFC,

I have to ask repeatedly as you don't seem to understand that the bit you quote is applicable to two crew operations.

You then explain to Whirly et al., that a pilot can indeed log a flight with an instructor (for training as per this discussion or checkout) as P1.

This is contrary to what you, SASlowly and BEagle were stating before.

And as you say the answers to all the questions can be found in the LASORS but you have to refrain from selective quoting:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf

It is a shame I can not cut and paste it but for completeness I will take the trouble to type it verbatim:

Section A Appendix B Logging of flight time:


1. Pilot in command time:

a. The holder of a licence may log as pilot-in-command timeall of the flight time during which he is the pilot in command.

c The holder of an instructor ratin may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane or supervises SPIC flying.


4. Instruction time: A summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc shall be certified by the appropriately rated and/or authorised instructor from whom it was received.

So the flights we are talking about are not instruction as per these rules.

Therefore if you fly with an instructor for your biannual flight, type check or club checkout there is no reason why you can not log that as P1.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

You can log as P1 only if the instructor doesn't log the flight.
Only a 'club checkout' would really fit this scenario.
In the case of the Biennial check, this has to be P/UT as it is a training flight. If any sort of training occurs, then it must be P/UT.

P1/S as stated before doesn't exist for PPL's unless on a successful test with an examiner.

[Flyin'Dutch']

SASlowly wrote:

You can log as P1 only if the instructor doesn't log the flight.
Agree with that, there can only be one P1 at any one time.

In the case of the Biennial check, this has to be P/UT as it is a training flight
Is not how I read it. A training flight is not an instructional flight as per the regulations. Therefore if you do that as P1 you can log it as such.

I think that we probably have to agree to disagree on this one as there is no point in a circular argument.

FD

[WestWind1950]

hello everyone,

no body answered my question from 2 pages back so I'll repeat it here:

question: can the hour be "interrupted" by a landing at another field? I say, why not! I did one flight where we flew to another field... the first leg was 52 minutes, return was about 45 min... the authority wasn't going to accept it because it wasn't 60 min. on one stretch!!

is it possible to "split" the hour? after all, landing and taking off again is also training.... I personally see no problem with it, but I'd like your opinion about it.

I agree with most of what has been said here about PIC times.... just the past days this has been discussed here again without a definite decision. I think that in the end it's a decision for the insurance companies if something happens during the training flight... :\

Westy

[FlyingForFun]

Hi Westy,

To answer your question, I'd say No - it has to be one flight. I don't have any evidence for this other than an anecdotal conversation from the flying club - but that's more than anyone else has had to offer on the subject so far!

To extend the question slightly, in the UK where it's common to have to pay landing fees and book in, a landing almost always includes a shutdown followed by a restart, and so must be logged as two flights. In the US, however, I've done training flights where I've landed at another airfield, and either done a touch+go or a full stop and taxy back, without stopping the engine, and I've logged these as a single flight. In this case, I'd argue that you could use this as your one hour instructional flight. Again, I don't know of any rules to back this up, it's an addition of my own interpretation to the anecdotal evidence, and therefore completely unreliable!

FFF
-------------

[DFC]

FD,

JAR-FCL 1.080 delas with the logging of flight time. That's all.

In the case of the heli flight Whirly refered to, the two people in the aircraft were a pilot and a passenger. Does that explain it?

SAS,

If the club checkout did not require the instructor to be P1 then why is there a need for a checkout in the first place? Can't be for insurance. legal or club rules purposes.

To summarise;

Under JAR-FCL 1.080, an instructor logs P1 when giving instruction.

In order to renew a SEP class rating, 1 hour instruction is required.


Westwind,

Overall, the UK CAA are sticking to the single flight rule because the requirement does indeed state "flight" (singular).

IMHO, anything less than 1 hour block time would not be very usefull especially if the flight was divided into say 2 flights......10 minutes before 5 minutes after each, air time would be 30 minutes....a few quick circuits!

The original topic was a question if the flight with an instructor was being turned into a test?

Well if some people are so against placing flight time in the dual column then perhaps that is the answer......after all, a proficiency check could work out cheaper than 11 hours flying plus 1 hour with an instructor!!

Yup, lets make the requirements for Multi-engine aircraft apply to SEPs but with a 2 year period. :bored:

Regards,

Splash1

[StrateandLevel]

That was the original JAA proposal and of course is an option so its already there. The "alternative option" of experience was at the UKs insistance, because thats what we did in the past. The JAA then added the dual flight to align with "FARS"

The only reason the FI signs, is so that the examiner can identify that a dual training flight was actually conducted by an instructor. If the examiner is in doubt he can check with the CAA; if the signature were forged, there are allready heavy penalties in place to deter such activity.

Why does this have to be such an issue? its nothing more than a legal requirement for a routine club or group check! IT IS NOT A TEST!

[Say again s l o w l y]

If the interval between flights is less than 30 mins, it can all be put on one line of your logbook. Again from LASOR's.

I'm actually finding it difficult to understand what we are all coming to terms with here, so I shall summarise everything so far.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf is the main doc with all answers Q's on it.

1: ALL training flights, be they Bi-ennial checks or what ever are to be logged by the student/PPL as P/UT. A check ride for club purposes can be P1 IF the instructor does not need to touch the controls and does not log it. Most clubs have recency requirements, 4 weeks between flights etc. FD the biennial check IS an instructional flight in the same way doing your IMC or training for an add on rating would be, you are P/UT.

2: PPL's cannot log P1/S unless on a successful test with an examiner. Unless specifically set out with the CAA first.

3: No person unless they have an instructors rating should allow an unqualified person to 'have a go' as this is the definition of instruction.

Hopefully this clears up any lingering doubt.

[Flyin'Dutch']

DFC,

You are obviously keen to continue your misinterpretation of the regulations so that it fits in with your opinion. That is of course your prerogative and in this matter of no consequence.

It makes having a mature debate impossible and you will furthermore find that in other matters an attitude like that can make you get unstuck.

SASlowly,

How can you put the LASORS link up here and then immediately misquote from it?

The biennial requires a training flight. Not an instructional flight.

Ciao.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

I'm sorry FD, but I fail to see the distinction between the two. I am an instructor not a trainer. Any training flight is by definition an instructional flight, the fact somebody already has a licence is irrelevant. When I did my FI course, that was all P/UT. I'd like to know where you get your definition of the difference between a training flight and an instructional one as I feel that they are one and the same thing.

I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall.

Oh, where have I mis-quoted??

[Flyin'Dutch']

Doh!

The biennial flight is a training flight. If the powers that are would have wanted that to be an instructional flight they would have called it that.

As quoted from LASORs:4. Instruction time: A summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc shall be certified by the appropriately rated and/or authorised instructor from whom it was received.

So that is the answer to your question where the definition of the difference is.

Any training flight is by definition an instructional flight

So if I go and do some post PPL solo circuit training; is that an instructional flight?

If you are unable to understand that the rules distinguish between an instructional and training flight you can indeed not understand the PUT/P1 issue.

Best of luck.

FD

[englishal]

The way I understand it is that if you flew with an instructor he/she is legally obligated to sign your logbook to show the flight took place. If they refuse to sign, then I guess you have the right to refuse to pay as the flight didn't take place :D If the instructor is so scared of your flying skills then the flight should be terminated before the hour is up so that the hour doesn't count. They should still sign your logbook.

I also fail to see how having an instructor ask me to show him I can do a 180 deg turn on instruments is an instructional flight, especially when I am probably more "qualified" than him/her anyway?

I mostly operate under the FARs which have a far more sensible view on logging time. If you are qualified / current on the class of aircraft then you log PIC whether with an instructor or not. If with an instructor you also log Dual received, and the instructor logs As Flight Instructor. Makes sense really, you have proved that you are at a standard to act as PIC and the training you are doing is simply to further you skills.

I would prefer to see a proper BFR in JAA land, whereby you receive an hours ground school (we all forget bits and pieces) followed by a 1 hour instructional flight, then you get an endorsement and you are legal for another two years. If you are not at the required standard, you may have to do a bit of extra training before you get the endorsement. No examiners involved and no "time" requirements,just a simple BFR ever two years, which can also satisfy the flying club requirements at the same time.

EA

[Say again s l o w l y]

No, no and thrice NO!

If you went and did some solo cct's then you are not under the auspices of an instructor are you? If however they went with you and helped you brush up on them, then that is an instructional flight. It isn't called it because it isn't getting you towards a licence or rating, but keeping your licence valid. That is a distinction. But fundamentally they are the same thing.

I don't see an issue about P/UT or P1, you are either in command or not. If I log P1, then you can't. P/UT Pilot Under Training. You can be either (a) training to become a pilot OR (b) a pilot who is doing some training. Where's the issue? This is getting Kafkaesque......

An instructor can refuse to sign that the flight was satisfactory after a biennial if it plainly wasn't. Now if you want to get into the argument that 'normal' FI's are not examiners, then I would agree with you, but we have had this extra responsibilty foisted upon us and try to cope with it as best as we can with little or no real direction from the Belgrano. But if examiners got involved then the cost of this 'test' would increase dramatically. I think there would be even more bitching then.

I would love to have a transparent policy on this 'cos I'm fed up having this argument every week. I am all in favour of it however, since the general standard of PPL's has dramatically increased since the biennial was introduced. In my view any way.

BEagle if you are around a little help might be nice........ I'm starting to lose the will to live!!

[BEagle]

1. On a JAR-FCL biennial training flight, the FI is Commander. The other pilot is under the direction and supervision of the FI.

2. The FI will be P1C.

3. It doesn't matter a rat's what the other pilot logs the flight as, since only P1C time really counts towards the hours requirements for licence issue. So log it a PU/T or PIS - consider yourself either 'under training' or 'under supervision', it matters not. Either PIS or PU/T also counts towards the 12 hour total in any case.

4. If there is any doubt about the quality of the pilot's flying, either the logbook won't be signed, or if the FI feels so inclined, there's nothing to stop him/her writing UNSATISFACTORY in the remarks column if the pilot under supervision really wants something in the logbook.....

5. The FE who signs up the rating page in the licence needs to see either evidence of a non-specific training hour, any LST/LPC/OPC, flight with a QFI in the course of military duties etc etc. So we need to see a note in the remarks column.


Anyway, has anyone ever NOT had a biennial flight for this purpose signed up? This discussion is getting boring; just accept the fact that you WILL fly under the SUPERVISION of the FI; you will NOT be Commander. Try quoting LASORS, JAR-FCL and the rest like some barrack room lawyer, but that's the basic reality.

[Flyin'Dutch']

As you say it is not worth flogging this dead horse anymore.

I give up.

FD

[Julian]

Have to agree with EA on this one, the JAR should follow the FAA lead on this one and log it as such. After all you arent a student anymore, you are meant to be competent at the controls.

Most of the time they dont even touch the controls and have no bearing on the flight except to say "show me...".

[englishal]

Me too...I don't give a rats arse anyway

[Whirlybird]

I agree that this is becoming very silly and very boring. I'm entirely happy to fly with an instructor once every couple of years, hopefully learn something and blow some cobwebs away, and log it whatever they say. All seems eminently sensible to me.

HOWEVER, it seems a little worrying that there are so many different variations of what you do, what you log, whether it should be signed or not, etc etc etc. No-one really seems to know. That's what should get sorted out.

It makes me relieved that I'm a helicopter instructor - PPL(H)s do one flight with an examiner every year per type they're rated on; it's P/UT, and everyone knows that. Why can't they do something sensible like that for PPL(A)s too?

Now I'll probably get flamed for suggesting a flight with an examiner every year. :( :eek: :)

[Final 3 Greens]

I think it shows what a cock up has been made of integrating the regs and the 'advice' from the CAA.

Once again, trying to produce a 'one size fits all' set of rules across 15 or 20 diverse European states ends up in something that is interpreted differently in some locales and therefore loses much of the benefit of uniformity originally intended. The Americans have the advantage here of one set of regulations applying across all 50 states.

Like Englishal, I also fly under both FAA and JAA regs and find the former very well thought out and frankly helpful.

The hour groundschool brush up on the FARs is great and it is made clear by the instructor (as mandated by the FAA) that this is exercise is for the benefit of the pilot. Thus the environment is safe.

Under JAR, we have this load of :mad: regs, along with instructors and examiners who are doing their best, but seem to struggle to give a consistent view.

For example, I entered the last UK training flight I made as P/u.t. and the instructor asked me to Tippex that out and change it to P1CUS before it was taken to the examiner on site for CoE, who then asked me to tippex that out and replace it with P/u.t.

Under the circumstances and given some of the obvious frustration expressed on this thread, isn't it about time that someone in authority grabbed this issue firmly and dealt with it.

To have a 6 page thread about this subject illustrates that somethign is seriously wrong.

[DFC]

Very good point. Perhaps if there was a groundschool element, then someone might actually read the JAR-FCL document.

Was at a school the other day and they didn't even have a copy!! What chance does the average student have there?

Until people actually read the document, there is always going to be confusion.

Perhaps we could also move from a training flight that concentrates on a pure demonstration of flying skill over a short period to a longer term assessment made by base instructors with regard to airmanship and other important elements.

Every instructor sees poor airmanship on a regular basis in the UK. Unfortunately, with the current UK outlook, unless that instructor flies an instructional flight with that pilot, they never get the opportunity to provide guidance. Perhaps giving instructors who observe flights year round an input to what areas are in need of improvement could make things a little better.

One good thing about flying in the US is that if one does something that displays poor airmanship, an instructor will very quickly make themselves known to you and offer polite but firm guidance. One often also finds that the local FSDO spends far more time on spot checks and generally keeping an eye on day to day flying standards................Perhaps the CAA could take a leaf out of their book!

Regards,

DFC

[robin]

All of the above is very interesting, but speaking as a flyer of 'odd' types, including single seaters, flying this flight means converting to another type I don't normally fly, and wouldn't touch with a bargepole

In my first 'training flight' I was given an intinery of what was going to be covered, including use of flaps and it was a mini skills test.

However, when we came to the PFL practice I was unhappy with my performance in a plane I'd not been comfortable with, and was advised to do another bit of work to satisfy the instructor before they would sign me off.

So the 1 hour flight became a 2 1/2 hour dual session at premium rates for the club concerned. Flying on a tight budget - this hurt!!

I suppose I should be grateful for the 'fun' of learning a new type, but the cost equated to 5 hours in my own type and I won't be using that club's plane again till the next revalidation in 2 years.

What p**d me off was that I was expected to set foot in a completely different type to my own, without a decent briefing and to fly a mini GFT for this revalidation, or to pay large sums to the club for familiarisation before doing the 'training flight'

Seems odd to me

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why does it seem odd? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that the flight would take as long as required to reach an acceptable standard. However, I don't see how one small problem would lead to another 1 1/2 hours of flying.

The rules are not written for specific cases such as people who fly just single seaters. There are just too few who fit into that category to make exceptions/changes to the system worthwile.

To be brutally honest, the type of a/c shouldn't make an enormous difference and may be taking one up for a quick familiarisation before hand would make sense, if it makes that much of a difference to you. If you budget for it over the two year period the cost is mitigated somewhat.
As stated before, the rules are there written in black and white and the onus is on YOU as pilots to know what you should do to keep yourselves legal. Schools should of course know this without blinking, but if they are primarily a training organisation rather than a club, then their priority is ab-inito students NOT already qualifed chaps/chapesses. So blaming somebody else for your own ignorance is not really acceptable.

I do agree that the current guidance as to what the flight should consist of should be made mandatory, rather than advisory to clear up some of the problems highlighted here.

Personally, I would love a system like the Yanks, they do have a practical view on aviation rather than the confused mess we often have over here sometimes.

[robin]

So let me get this straight SASlowly

A person is being directed to fly a type, with gear they don't normally use, with different avionics, speeds, weight & balance etc and then, you seem to propose, a mandatory skill test - not as shown in the CAA literature for the 'training flight'

I felt that when I did the revalidation flight, and the additional recommended training before being signed off, that the school were using the training flight as an additional and regular income stream.

I am by no means a low time pilot, and have myself converted instructors to 'odd' types. The thought that some of them could refuse to approve my revalidation, to fly planes they have never flown themselves is quite worrying.

I have seen over the years instructors come and build their hours to join the airlines, and never step outside the 'spam cans' nor land on grass fields or 'uncontrolled airfields'.

I have no objection to the principle of revalidation or dual checks - it is a good one, and used extensively in gliding, no matter how experienced one is.

What I do object to is a simplistic approach to flight safety.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Unfortunately yes. I don't see another way around it. How can you be signed off if I can't see how competant you are?

A skills 'test' is about the only fair way of doing it. All airline crews have to have one, so why not PPL's. The old system was alot 'easier', but having seen the standard of some pilots who hadn't flown with an instructor in 20 years..... It was atually pretty scary on occasion. It is alot less so nowadays.

I agree about not having a simplistic view on flight safety, but you must also see that sometimes there is no choice. In this case I haven't got a better answer for you, maybe if your 'odd' types had two seats then just throw an FI in the back, preferably one with experience in similar machines. (Some of us have flown more than a few 'interesting' aircraft!) In a single seater, it is impossible.

Time and time again on this forum I sense alot of 'them and us' feeling from PPL's, often with more experienced types thinking they know best just because they have been doing it a while. (not naming any names) Sometimes it may be the case, but in the vast majority of times it is not true. FI's have all been through extensive (and expensive) training to give them a broad view of aviation, not just SEP's and often they do actually know what they are talking about. To be honest the vast majority of aircraft owners are an absolute nightmare to fly with, because they are not used to having somebody telling them what to do. It almost becomes a 'mines bigger than yours contest' sometimes.
I have actually stopped a flight before take off because of the complete lack of awareness, airmanship and basic skill with somebody who had a fair no. of hours. There was almost a ruck about it as I wouldn't budge until we got the argument about who was actually in command sorted.

I do not try to say that all PPL's are dodgy, but that there are a few who've let their ego get ahead of them and that is something I cannot and will not countenance if I get a chance. Often it is only every couple of years on a flight like this that I do have the ability to make this clear. As I stated in an earlier post, I don't really care about somebody's feelings in this, I am there to try and help people stay safe, not to win popularity contests. If you are good enough you will pass, if not.......

[mad_jock]

SaS which is why I think these flights should be done by an examiner.

If the person you have flown with has there own plane and you have refused to sign the log book there is nothing stopping them walking straight back out and flying again until their SEP runs out in anything up to a year.

If its done by and examiner they can ground them and define the retraining. They also have alot more power in the eyes of the punters. It would be a nightmare for a 18 year old 250 hour instructor trying to refuse to sign someone who is old enough to be there dad and has many times more hours than them.

MJ

[Whirlybird]

robin,
I'm not certain, but I thought the PFA was trying to sort something out for people in your situation. Obviously you can't do the check on a single seater, but I thought they were sorting out having similar aircraft, doing it on your own aircraft if possible, instructors who were familiar with PFA types etc. I might be wrong, but it might be worth checking it out...for next time.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A good point mad_jock.
This has been a bone of contention since the start of the biennial review. If it were with an examiner, the cost would have to increase significantly. I am actually for the the 'test' being done by an examiner, it would cut out most of the issues straight away.

The most frightening moment of my career so far came as 300Hr instructor doing a checkout with a PPL who had more than 200 hrs more than I did. What I didn't check for was the fact that these hours had been done over 35 years, often just doing the bare minimum to keep legal. When asked to do a go-around just above the runway this individual decided to just pull the a/c into the vertical and do nothing else...... At first I couldn't believe what had happened, but luckily reacted fast enough to prevent anything too serious happening. I made the mistake is assuming competance because of hours, NOT experience. if there was ever a case of ILAFT it was then....

BUT most FI's are perfectly able to tell if someone is competant or not, if they weren't how could they send solo students off? So if an FI was very unhappy, there should be a mechanism of forcing somebody to reach the required standard BEFORE they go off on their own again. Again this would not be designed as gentle reminder, but as a flight safety issue without thought to pride and ego.

[robin]

I agree - you cannot know the ability of a pilot just by hours gained over a lifetime, but...you seem to be all upping the ante - no longer a training flight - fundamentally a check-out, and the opportunity to keep long-term P1s up to speed with latest developments and (yes) to ground dangerous ones - but now a full-blooded skills test/GFT - not what the legislation states

As for the PFA option - I understand that it is not possible to do the training flight with an instructor, but you can do a skills test - and that doesn't have to be 1 hour long..........odd, or what

But, again, if you have the 18 year old 250 hr instructor testing the 65 year-old veteran in his own plane, say a Jodel or Auster - one in which the instructor is no more than an informed passenger - how can this be an effective test.

I have flown with instructors into short farm strips (not on skill tests but as passengers) with them screaming out instructions to me and trying to wrench the controls out of my hand.

They are fields I regularly use, but ones they have never visited and so do not know the local rules or conditions.

Yes, I may sound arrogant here, but I am perfectly willing to listen to advice - it was after all why I took the additional PFL training in the spam can. What I do question is the structure of the legislation which gives rise to such confusion

[Say again s l o w l y]

What you say shows the limitation of the rules. There is a set of guidelines for what the 'test' should consist of, but there is no way of getting it all done in 1 hour. It is just a re-run of the GFT.
It is in AIC 127 (white)

I think we all agree that the system isn't perfect (!!), but at the moment most schools and FI's are doing their best without alot of help and getting sniped at when it is not our fault doesn't help relations very much!

[mad_jock]

BUT most FI's are perfectly able to tell if someone is competant or not, if they weren't how could they send solo students off? So if an FI was very unhappy, there should be a mechanism of forcing somebody to reach the required standard BEFORE they go off on their own again. Again this would not be designed as gentle reminder, but as a flight safety issue without thought to pride and ego.

I agree but it still dosn't change the fact that we are on the ****ty end of the stick putting our licenses on the line with no backup at all from the powers that be.

Sign or no sign the punter still gets to go flying all they need to do is go and get a instructor that prefers hours in the book than hassel.

And what a OPC or LPC on a heavy multi crew jet proves about flying a SEP vfr I don't know.

MJ

[Say again s l o w l y]

M_J it not the sort of test that LPC is, it's just the fact there IS at test that is pass/fail. Agree with what you say though...

[mad_jock]

BEagle whats Gatwicks thoughts on this subject?

Are they happy with the way things are?

Can they see the flaws in the system?

Is feedback from instructors being listened to?

MJ

[scottish_ppl]

robin,

I'm curious about your comment about not being able to do your training flight with a PFA coach. My understanding is that it should be no problem, and I would have thought that you are a prime example of the kind of flyer the PFA scheme is organised for.

The following quote is taken from the PFA web site:


About Flight Revalidation

The one hour coaching flight required for revalidation can be completed at any time in the second year of the two year licence validity period. It is not essential to complete the requisite 12 hours total experience required before undertaking the instructional flight but obviously both requirements must be met before licence revalidation.

It is important to note that the only purpose of this flight is to brush up on a pilot's level of confidence and competence and the flight will be conducted in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere with this sole aim.

The Paper Work
On satisfactory completion of the one hour flight, the coach will sign the candidate's log book.
An R Examiner (most instructors and all Full Coaches) will complete a CAA form LPC/SPA when the twelve hours total has been logged and sign another line in the Certificate of Test Check or Experience FCL150cJAR revalidating the licence for a further two years from date of expiry.

Its all very straightforward and you will enjoy it!



So it certainly looks as if it should be OK. Indeed I'm hoping to take advantage of it shortly:ok:

[BEagle]

robin - personally I would say that you were probably shafted by the people at that club. The dual refresher training flight should be precisely as the PFA describe - and that's how I conduct them.

Some ex-CAA FE suggested a whole load of items to be covered in the refresher trip - in fact far more than on a re-validation LPC. But there is NO mandatory comment. If they tried to come up with a compulsory list of items, there would undoubtedly be times when ATC refused another circuit or whatever and the specified list couldn't be completed.

The CAA have enough difficulties trying to sort out their own rules as it is; we certainly do NOT want the content of this flight made mandatory.

PFA 'coaches' are now Class Rating Instructors, so yes, they can conduct the training flight. But be careful that the person completing your licence form and re-validation form is entitled to do so - CRIs may NOT complete this form unless they hold a recgnised JAR-FCL Examiner authority (CRE, GR examiner, FE etc).

[tmmorris]

Do AIC's have the force of law? There's no doubt what the AIC on this wants:


2.3.2 If the instructor is not satisfied with the standard achieved then he should not sign the log book. In this case it is clear that further dual training must be recommended in the debrief.


but then it describes this in the preamble as 'guidance'!

Personally I'm very glad I've timed mine to coincide with my IMC revalidation, as I won't ever need to do this 'test'.

Tim

[robin]

BEagle - agreed - I did feel shafted by the club, esp when I found out that if I had taken the skills test route, I wouldn't have needed to have done 1 hour in the plane in any case

The PFA guidance is just what I thought the flight was supposed to be about - good for them . Next time I will use that route

But this has been an interesting thread, showing quite marked differences in interpretation and views as to the content and form of the training flight

Out.....

[mad_jock]

For the instructor is it really worth the 1 hr ?

You don't know the person in the air, you will get payed 10 quid for the honour of putting your license on the line for the next 2 years with this person.

If they cock up and the caa take an interest you will be dragged in and put over the coals on what you did with them in the test (which I might add you have no control over). The pain in the arse factor of getting time off work maybe even a lawyer is huge.

At least with a PPL student the examiner becomes the first point of call after they pass and with the odd exception will do exactly what they are briefed to do on a exercise unless they cock up.


MJ

[S-Works]

MadJock, not sure why you think your licence is on the line for the next 2 years? The "checkout" or whatever else we want to call the 1 hour with an Instructor is only a snapshot of that person on the day. Same as an MOT with a car!

The pilot may be a muppett in real life but during your one hour with him may have behaved perfectly credibly with you being happy to "sign" him off and then off he goes again behaving like a muppett.

If the pilot makes a mistake after he has left your 1 hour then it is his responsibility as a licensed pilot and the authorities will ensure that he makes account of his own actions not expect you to be responsible.

I have come accross this dilemma many times in my world of training instructors and examiners (and yes mine are as equally "life & death".....)

At the end of the day the Instructor is just an Instructor and not responsible for the ills of the world.

[mad_jock]

Maybe lic on the line was a bit drama queenish.

But we the instructors have still been dumped with ill thought out regulations. Which documentation has been produced which suggesteds things to do which are impossible in the time allowed. And also in the regulations it is stated that the student decides what to do. We can't win so we end on being at the blunt end of the customers.

Where as if they did a test with an examiner aka the renewal SEP test the whole lot is done in 45- 1hr. And at my old school cost solo hire plus 30quid for non members and dual hire if its a member. Done dusted no arguments everyone knows exactly where they stand pass or fail.

If the caa set the cost at 30quid its only about 15 pounds more than the usual dual hire for the instructor. All the paper work gets done on the same day. And it helps with the examiners who will get more revenue to pay for thier examiner revalidations, which aint cheap. And may keep some of the good guys out there examining when they would retire because they couldn't afford to keep the rating going.

MJ

[BEagle]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.3.2 If the instructor is not satisfied with the standard achieved then he should not sign the log book. In this case it is clear that further dual training must be recommended in the debrief.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Should' is merely a recommendation, so it may be completely ignored.

'Must be recommended' means that further training is advised only - it is not mandatory.

The only good things to come out of JARs is that the definition of 'shall', 'should', 'will' are now quite specific. So if you get an e-mail from the CAA saying "The contents of this e-mail.....should not be disclosed", then remember that's only their recommendation...:E

[mad_jock]

Thanks BEagle I must admit that last one made me laugh.

whats "shall" and "will" then?

To be honest in Scotland we don't have much problems getting done by the CAA because they have to go through the Proc Fiscal. And as the regs are so loosely written and the intolerance of the courts up here to pish cases when murders and drug dealers are backlogging for court dates. We are proberly safer than our English instructors.

The down side is we have to put up with the pricks in the SNP who have a better lead on the winner at Ayr races than the economy.

MJ

[DFC]

Robin,

I think that you were 75% done over by the club you chose to fly with. Only 75% because as a rated and current pilot on Single Engine Piston aircraft then you are rated to fly any SEP aircraft. Consequently, you can not turn round and say "I can't fly that aircraft" and expect a signature for the SEP flight.

Having said that, I would make an allowance in certain areas for your lack of familiarity with the aircraft. I would not make any allowance for not being able to make basic manoeuvres in a smooth and safe manner. I would also expect a PPL to be able to work out a weight and balance on any SEP aircraft when presented with the appropriate documents.

Mad Jock,

As far as I am aware, you are only acting as a CAA flight examminer when conducting a flight test or other defined task on behalf of the CAA.

Thus unless it is a flight test, you have no more authority than any other instructor when it comes to "grounding" a pilot.

Any instructor's comments should be taken on board by a pilot and also by the CAA if the instructor recomends that appropriate action be taken.

If an instructor can decide when a student will go solo, when a student can fly solo crosscountry, when a student has reached the required standard to pass the GFT, when that qualified pilot is competent to fly a club aircraft, then logic dictates that the FI can complete the 1 hour dual refresher training and make appropriate comments/ recomendations.

However, you do have a very good point........instructors need to have the ba:mad: ls to tell a pilot that they are dangerous and should not fly.............regardless of the occasion.

Bose-x,

Agree totally.....a flight test, a proficiency check or a dual flight are only snap-shots. That is why I recomend that instructors who observe pilot's operating habits all year round should have more of an input.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

I am not disputing the fact that an instructor can tell a crap pilot from a good one.

Its just that in the current frame work we have no set guidlines about what needs to be covered. In fact there is contradictions out there saying we are advised to do xyz and then in another statement it says the student can define whats going to happen in the 1 hr.

If we do refuse to sign a log book, the pilot continues flying and is allowed to move training establishments/ instructors without anyone knowing.

Unless there is some form of manitory grounding after a failure the check is worthless.

MJ

[Final 3 Greens]

This thread is scaring me - reminds me of how we 'interpret' EU directives in the UK, then complain that they are too complicated.

The JAR regs seem pretty straightforward to me:

- a training flight of 1 hr is required with an instructor
- a certificate of experience is signed by an examiner

Anything beyond the above is not in line with the JAR regs and the CAA AIC has no legal standing, meaning that those quoting it as authorization for a pseudo skills check are on very unfirm foundations.

In short, PPLs are suffering from over policing or even profiteering in some cases and this is simply not acceptable.

Does anyone know what has happened to the safety stats for PPL/SEP since this new system was introduced? I would imagine that the numbers will be pretty much the same over the long run.

As other PPLs have said on the thread, we support sensible safety measures, but I fail to see how the present shambles is adding value - rather it is creating conflict between PPLs and instructors by breaking down trust - e.g. Robins experience - and this is a very bad thing.

[GroundBound]

Just to add in my own experience, to confuse the issue a bit more. :)
I did some IMC dual training whilst on holiday in the UK this year, I flew at a UK club with whom I don't normally fly. The instructor was quite happy to sign off one of the hours and specifically annotate it as the "dual flight". The flight did not contain anything related to examination, but was a simply a training flight conducted mostly under IMC for the purposes of gaining some instrument experience.

I have since had other flights with instructors, at my home base, which were club checkouts or instrument training flights. All of them were considered by the instructors as valid for the "dual flight with an instructor". Although they signed my log book, they did not specifically annotate them as being for this purpose, since they considered any dual instructional flight is OK for revalidation.

Having sufficient hours, I chose to revalidate my UK-JAA licence by experience, I asked the local JAA flight examiner to sign my licence. This he would NOT do, as in this country the revalidation is carried out by the State and not by the FE signature. According to the CAA and Lasors, they will accept the signature of any JAA-FE, however, they don't seem to have told him that. He was quite prepared to give me a test flight (as an FE) although I don't know what paper/form he would have signed - he would still have had to sign and send in the CAA form, which he didn't know about and didn't want to do anyway.

So I found another FE, in another JAA country, who being British, did understand Lasors. I flew to his base airfield in Germany, produced my log book, and the ONLY entry he would consider as valid was the one marked as being specifically the "dual flight". The other signed dual flights by other instructors (several, and more than an hour each time), were not acceptable to him. I did get the signature, though, and my licence re-validated.

So whilst my "dual flight with an instructor" was never conducted as an examination, the simple administrative process of getting an FE to sign the re-validation, and what he would accept as a "dual flight" was still far from easy.

I am also probably in the rare situation of trying to apply the JAA rules across several countries rather than inside a single country which adds to the fun. :uhoh: My next attempt will be to renew my medical by an approved AME (not in the UK), and have them produce a medical certificate and notify the CAA-SRG Medical services of what they have done. :hmm:

[kabz]

This all sounds crazy ... why can't the UK instructors just annotate it as fulfilling the requirements of the revalidation flight if it is ok, and, if it is not ok, just log it as a training flight, like we do in the US.

Either way, it sounds like you have to have something noted down that it was satisfactory, right ?

[Final 3 Greens]

Kabz

It is insane. The JARs only require a training flight to be logged, so a 'failure;' in FAA terms would be a success in JAA terms.

Therefore, any training flight of 1 hour or more will meet the requirement, e.g. an IFR lesson.

The British CAA has decided to issue an 'advisory' notice to ask instructors not to sign the logbook unless they are satisfied that the flight was satisfactory. This is not a legal requirement.

So, unlike the FARs and the BFR, which are crystal clear, we have an insanely stupid situation, which is a potential cause of mistrust between instructors and pilots.

The JARs do not require any statement of 'satisfactory' performance, just a training flight of one hour.

So if your instructor refuses to sign your logbook to confirm that the flight has taken place, you could sue him for breach of implied terms and conditions of contract and, if his refusal caused you to have to undergo some further training, you win substantial damages for (a) breach of contract, (b) loss of enjoyment and possibly also libel, certainly slander.

The whole situation is ludicrous :mad: and can only damage relations between PPLs and instructors.

[Romeo Romeo]

It is bobbins, isn't it! When I started this thread I expected that pretty soon a concensous would develop. However it seems that there are those who think that it is a test and others who think it is training.

I think the confusion has been brought about by a mis-understanding about air law. Sadly it seems to be instructors - the people who are supposed to be teaching such things as air law - who are the ones confused.

To get to the answer we need to look at what the law says. Air law is stipulated in the Air Navigation Order - nothing else. Not AICs, not anything the CAA says, only the Air Navigation Order. Part of the Air Navigation Order states that the requirements for revalidation are specified in JAR-FCL 1.245 and that states that if the pilot must complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor. This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test for a class or type rating And that is it. Is makes no mention about the flight being satisfactory or containing any specific content.

No doubt there will be instructors who disagree with this. However, it would be useful it they could quote the part of the law that backs up their viewpoint rather than just saying 'well, that's the way I do it'.

Also note that AIC 127/1999 (White 378) clearly states that it is advisory - not mandatory.

[DFC]

Groundbound,

The answer to your situation is to forget LASORS. FIs and AMEs in other countries are not interested.

What you need to do is telephone the CAA and ask them to post/fax/email the appropriate form with a covering letter confirming that they will accept the signature of any JAA FE from any country.

When doing the medical, simply ensure that your licence number is placed on the certificate and that the CAA are sent a copy of the full report.

If you are a long term resident in Belgium, it may be simpler to move your licence.....same privileges but a lot simpler admin.

Regards,

DFC

[skydriller]

I have followed this thread with interest and have to say that I am with F3G on this issue. As a brit who lives in France and works in several European countries there is nothing like European regulations to bring out the character of a country.

I also feel some here are trying to make regulation or impose testing & officialdom where there is none.

The last time I revalidated my licence it was very easy, I did so by the hours route and a flight with an instructor. Initially I had the same problem as GroundBound, (you are not alone!!) in France the local DGAC office revalidate the licence directly, not an FE. So I initally went to my local DGAC office logbook in hand and was told ‘sorry, but we cant validate your JAA-PPL as we did not issue it, only the CAA can do this as they issued it’. After a little discussion/joking about how stupid so called European harmonisation was, it transpired he knew the CFI at my club personally. ‘but Alain is a JAA certified FE, just get him to sign a CAA form, c’est simple, here, phone the CAA to check its OK…’ and it was….no problem.

Incidentally, I asked my instructor if he wanted to do anything special for the hours flight, he said its up to me. I took the opportunity to do some instrument flying practice, and as the weather was really cr*p, we flew in cloud for half the flight anyway, a first for me, and I learnt a lot from it.

And for my next trick, just like Groundbound I am looking to renew my JAA medical in France next year and get the CAA-SRG to accept it……

Regards, SD..


Edit to add:

Just seen your post DFC, is it possible to change licences within JAA land? If so, how? Are there any real benifits? I am of the oppinion that I should make harmonization work!!!:E :E :p

[mad_jock]

Please don't feel I am trying to get at PPL's.

The way this thread is going if I am tending towards the sign the log book anyway even if I have to take control at some point during the flight.

Its just not worth the hassel and the arguments for 10 quid.

MJ

[Romeo Romeo]

I have no doubt that instructors have the best intentions when it comes to the sign/don't sign question. What should an instructor do if (s)he thinks that a pilot is unsafe and really does need further training?

I, however, look at it from a different angle. I enjoy flying with instructors. I regard my flying a reasonably good but a long way off perfect and any pointers that an instructor can give me to improve are really useful. I voluntarily go with an instructor if I've not been flying for a few weeks or if I want to brush up my skills in a certain area. Certainly if an instructor said I needed to work on an aspect of my flying then I would really work to improve that aspect. After all, it's not a license saying that I know how to fly - it's a license that says I'm good enough to carry on learning by myself and part of that is acknowledging my weaknesses.

The reason I think it shouldn't be a test is because that puts a completely different completion on the flight. It converts the flight from a learning experience for me into an exercise in impressing an instructor and I think that is a great loss. It means that you're tempted to stick to the things you can do well and shy away from the things that you're not good at - the complete opposite to what you really should be doing!

[Final 3 Greens]

Mad Jock

I've tried to put myself in your position (rather than thinking from my own PPL perspective and conclude that you are being placed in an invidous position by regulations that are being implemented in a half baked manner. I have tremendous sympathy for your point of view.

Either you should be operating officially in the way that the FARs prescribe a BFR .... and if you don't like what you see, you don't annotate the logbook with no question of your right to do this or you should be conducting a training flight as required by JAR, signing only to confirm that the flight has occured, with no question that you are in anyway responsible for anything beyond that.

At the moment, if you have to take control, you would create a potentially very difficult situation for yourself, all for that measly ten quid. As much as you can choose to report poor airmanship to the CAA, a barrack room PPL could potentially cause you a lot of damage to your career - I can hear the lawyer now "poor level of instruction on the TRAINING flight caused my client to be judged as unsafe due to the INCOMPETENCE of the instructor, with serious consequences to his reputation and wallet" etc etc. I really don't see how this encourages instructors to tackle flying that concerns them, which by definition should concern all of us.

Equally, if the PPL feels that they are being subject to a regime beyond the regulations, designed to fleece them, they will resent what should be a helpful flight. (I do a FAA BFR every 2 years and find it very useful - in fact I prepare a list of things to look at with the instructor on the ground and in the air.)

However, uncertainty always creates risk (for instructors and the PPL) and also is a great driver of mistrust.

I respect what BEagle says on this thread and he has the experience to speak with authority, as well as a level of airmanship that demands attention. Also his position is one that allows him to be rather more forceful than many younger instructors whose ticket is a passport to their real destination, i.e. an airline position. If BEagle designed the regulations, I have no doubt that they would be appropriately rigorous, fair and would make a positive contribution to improved airmanship and through that safety.

As so often happens, sadly, we have a compromise which results in a lose lose for most involved.

[dublinpilot]

complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor. This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test for a class or type rating


Romeo Romeo,

I happen to think it is just a training flight, not a test. As a professionally qualified accountant, I'm obliged to undertake 21 hours of structured training every year, just to hold my right to practice my profession. This is not a test, no test is sat, and there is no pass or fail. It's just continious training, to make sure my skills don't go out of date. I look at this training flight, to be something similar. Not a test, just something to make sure I try to keep my flying skills up to date.

However, just to play devil's advocate, have a look at that piece of legislation you quoted again. Yes the first sentenance says a training flight. However the second sentenance says it may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test etc. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I think it could be argued that the word other, implies that the previous mentioned training flight is some sort of proficiency test.

Where are you flying lawyer??!!!!

[mad_jock]

And what a usefull article this would make in flyer or pilot.

If the in's and out were explained in detail. And then summerised at the end not only would it allow PPl's some amunition to produce to stop getting fleeced. But also it could maybe get all the instructors in the UK preaching from the same book.

I would much appreciate Flying lawyers input as well. F3G's points sound very well put to someone who has managed to avoid the courts all of his life.

MJ

[FlyingForFun]

I suspect that Flying Lawyer's view would depend whether it was a PPL or an Instructor who was paying his fees ;)

FFF
----------------

[Final 3 Greens]

Dublinpilot

Your devils advocate point is interesting, so I guess the question is how many of those other proficiency checks or ratings can be undertaken with an instructor as opposed to an examiner?

If the answer is that examiners examine and instructors instruct, then your thesis would be disproved.

MJ

FL's opinion would be useful - I have no idea whether a pliot could successfully sue, my point being more based on the potential damage to reputation caused by 'no smoke without fire sentiment.'

[DFC]

Skydriller,

It all depends on what suits you.

As the holder of a JAA licence, you are entitled to exercise the privileges in aircraft registered in any JAA State.

Harmonisation means that you can meet the revalidation requirements in any member State.

However, most States have slightly different admin requirements.

Thus when approaching an examminer outside the UK for a signature on a UK licence, it is best if you have the appropriate form.

If this admin proves to be a pain in the donkey then one way round it is to change the State of Licence Issue to where you are resident. This may cost a few quid but it could save you in the long run.

When changing State of licence issue, JAR-FCL 1.070 applies.

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

God, don't let Flyer or Pilot at this, last time they tried to put it into sense it was totally wrong and we had to spend six months arguing "I know that's what the magazine said, but it is actually incorrect... No, I do know what I'm talking about."

I very much much doubt that somebody could succesfully sue an FI, after all they are pilot in command, it's rather difficult to affect the outcome of a flight if you aren't there. Unfortunately knowing some people like I do, it wouldn't surprise me if it was at least tried out. We have recently changed all our training records, so that there can be no ambiguity that the entire syllabus was taught, rather than the usual slap-dash instructor comments that the vast majority of us are guilty of on occasion (assuming that they are even done!).

I don't feel that many PPLs are suffering from over policing or even profiteering In the vast majority of cases, this is often the only flying people actually do. Figures show that on average a PPL will only complete a further 50 Hrs of flying post licence issue!!:uhoh:
Occasionally it may be the case, but I suspect that is often down to poor planning (the oh sh*t my licence expires in 2 days scenario) than through any conspiracy by dis-honest FI's and schools.
To be honest most instructors would tell you that there probably isn't enough policing of the average PPL/aircraft owner. The average amount of flying the vast majority of PPL's do is not enough to keep current in a Fiesta, let alone an a/c of any type. It's not a crime or even anything to be ashamed of, it is just a fact of life.
The sooner everybody understands that these rules, however vague, are there for the benefit of us all and are making a difference to the overall standard. The posters on this board aren't really representative of the 'average PPL'. Most don't seem to think about flying between one flight and the next, so the 'rules' are to look after them rather than the more 'aviation minded' folks that are here.

I actually hate doing the biennial checks, simply because they are either boring or terrifying. Often I'd rather spend time in the circuit than do a 'test.' And believe me after teaching for a few years (days really!) circuits are stupeyfyingly dull.

I really wish that there weren't any 'advisory' issues, it just allows holes like all the above comments to be aired. My own views on it are already there for everybody to see, and I've never had any complaints or had to refuse to sign a logbook. In fact most of the time the 'testee' has come back having had an enjoyable flight and with alot more confidence in their own ability. Hands up those that can honestly say they regularily practise PFL's, Stalling etc. Most don't feel comfortable doing them without an instructor/safety blanket next to them. Now whether we'd be any more competent ourselves...!!

Dublinpilot, doing a pilots licence renewal is a bit different from CPD. No less serious, but as it is difficult to kill yourself and others whilst doing an audit (Mind you, I suppose if you find dodgy stuff on some companies...) so there needs to be tighter controls. I have to renew my instructors rating every 3 years and I fly fairly regularily! Professional pilots have always had to endure tests for their competance despite flying all day, everyday, why not everybody else then??

[Final 3 Greens]

Say Again

What you have posted seems pretty sensible to me, but you ask:

Professional pilots have always had to endure tests for their competance despite flying all day, everyday, why not everybody else then??

The argument that you have to make and sustain is why change after god knows how many years relying on C of E only.

The only reason the training flight was introduced was because of JAR - so what compelling change in the safety statistics demands a proficiency test now?

Your opinion that the average PPL is an accident waiting to happen may be a universal truth (I am sure that you have more experience than me due to your FI rating), but do the numbers justify a change?

A little like the railways situation which is started to be debated, there is a trade off between safety and price that is reflected in government transport policy and IMHO it's not for me or you or anyone else to try and alter this by back door methods (not that I am suggesting that you are doing so BTW.)

As parliament accepted the JARs, we have to assume that they used a reasonable amount of due diligence in ensuring that they were adequate for purpose.

It is the CAAs tinkering by issuing 'advisories' (looking and feeling like regulations) that causes the problems in my opinion. If they are really concerned, they should lobby the government for a formal change, after all they are in the perfect position to do this and then there would be no doubt.

[Flyin'Dutch']

F3G,

I think that SASlowly's wish for a review with clearer fail/pass criteria is based on the current situation which is clearly open for multiple interpretation, qed, I'd say.

It would be hard to prove that the introduction of the flight reviews has done anything to improve safety. My gut feeling is that there will be those who would have benefitted from such a review have either decided to stop flying or gone the unapproved route i.e. fly without a licence.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

As FD says, I don't know of any research to see whether safety stats have improved. I only know about the standard of people with whom I fly with. I feel there has been a definate improvement overall. When the reg's came out initially and we had to do the first of these 'tests' (for want of a better word) I was pretty shocked by the standard of the vast majority of people who came through the door. Many had quite a few hours, but hadn't flown with an instructor or examiner for a number of years. When asked for basic manouevers such as stalling or PFL's it was invariably a complete shambles since they probably hadn't done these since getting their licence initially.

Nowadays and certainly in places I teach most schools have adopted the test method because that is the only direction we have had. It gives us something to work from and as it is there for all to see, it makes people practise said manouevers through out there flying, not just when they have to.

I will admit to some smoke and mirrors in the fact that we point people at the AIC and sometimes say that this is what MUST be done, but usually only if we don't know the person. If the pilot is well known and are regarded as competent then I would sometimes sign their book off when doing an IMC trip or the such rather than waste their money doing something that I already know that they can do to a good standard.
The law as such, does allow us some lee way, so in a way I'm loath to want it changed, but I also want it to be totally unambiguos to stop argument.

[GroundBound]

DFC

Sorry to be late in replying - you wrote
What you need to do is telephone the CAA and ask them to post/fax/email the appropriate form with a covering letter confirming that they will accept the signature of any JAA FE from any country.

Well, I sent them an e-mail asking precisely that - they replied by saying read Lasors, chapter xyz. That clearly states ANY JAA FE can sign the licence. Trouble is they don't seem to have realised that the FE's of other countries don't know the UK admin procedures.

I wonder, would a UK FE sign the re-validation of a holder of a licence from another JAA country? That would put the cat among the pigeons, I'm sure. :)

[BEagle]

After much discussion, at our Club we'll be standardising the 'who logs what' as follows:

SEP Re-validation LPC or renewal LST: FE is P1C, pilot is P1S. If unsuccessful, pilot is P u/t.

Annual Club check or 1 hr SEP trg flt: FI is P1C, pilot under supervision is P1S as he/she's merely carrying out a series of mutually agreed events within the privileges of his/her licence with the benefit of friendly advice from the FI. The pilot is not 'under training' for anything specific, neither is he/she under test. FI signs pilot's logbook to confirm that this was a satisfactory flight for the purpose of SEP revalidation by experience.

Exceptionally, if the FI is not happy with way the flight went, he/she should not sign the logbook as that's the CFE's guidance. Recommended training should be discussed and proposed (and copied to that miserable old git of a CFI); the pilot will not be allowed to fly as Commander on a Club aircraft until such 'recommended training' has been completed. The flights for recommended training will be flown with Instructor as P1C, pilot under training as PU/T.

In a nutshell, FE or FI is always Commander, other pilot is either acting under supervision (PIS) or under training (P u/t). The idea of the SEP trg flt is to help you stay safe, not to put you under duress. Treat it as a chance to brush up your skills.

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle

This seems eminently sensible for a club. I guess that leaves the 'hot chestnut' of syndicates, where the governance is rather different ;)

Flying Dutch

It would be hard to prove that the introduction of the flight reviews has done anything to improve safety

Quite so - therefore if I wished to play devils advocate, I could argue convincingly that the flight reviews may indeed have raised the standard, but that it was fit for purpose to begin with (thus no significant improvement in safety stats), therefore we have witnessed an expensive exercise for no real gain .... why should a test be introduced when even the training flight did not TANGIBLY improve safety?

And that is the attitude that is likely to build in the PPL community unless some common sense is shown (per BEagles last post) or the need for a test is properly established and enshrined into law.

Say Again

I do understand your wish for clarity and say again ;) that I have sympathy with the instructor community for the present circumstances - I believe that ongoing training is important and as I have said in previous posts, do look forward to my FAA BFR - so my objections to the present fog are not base don defensiveness.

[DFC]

BEagle,

Have you obtained CAA authorisation for the proposed use of P1/S?

What you propose for a dual training flight is at odds with both the CAA's local requirements for the logging of flight time and also fails to comply with JAR-FCL requirements.

IMHO, instructors must not be persuaded to operate outside the JAA requirements simply because some pilots have a problem with flying in an aircraft unless they are P1.

Does this "problem" with being under instruction and logging the flight as such not display a poor attitude? If so then perhaps the instructors post flight comments should reflect that.

Is the UK the only country with this "problem"?

Or is this simpy people having a problem with paying for a flight when they are not P1?

What price safety?

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Q: "Have you obtained CAA authorisation for the proposed use of P1/S?"

A: Not needed. A chap in SRG confirmed that."

"What you propose for a dual training flight is at odds with both the CAA's local requirements for the logging of flight time and also fails to comply with JAR-FCL requirements."

A: Wrong! Read JAR-FCL carefully and you'll find NO reference to any 'dual' requirement.

"IMHO, instructors must not be persuaded to operate outside the JAA requirements simply because some pilots have a problem with flying in an aircraft unless they are P1."

A: The FIs are not so persuaded. All the Examiner should be checking is that a 1 hr 'training flight' took place and that the FI conducting it certified accordingly. They're NOT REQUIRED to pass comment on how a pilot logged the flight, as long as it wasn't as 'Commander', because what is logged in a personal log book is personal. Look at the JAR logging table and you'll find that it's only a guide in any case.

Q: "Does this "problem" with being under instruction and logging the flight as such not display a poor attitude? If so then perhaps the instructors post flight comments should reflect that."

A: Not worthy of a response.

Q: "Is the UK the only country with this "problem"? Or is this simpy people having a problem with paying for a flight when they are not P1?"

A: The so-called problem doesn't exist.

Q: "What price safety?"

A: Meaning what? It's the training which matters, not the log book.

Regards,

And to you.

[Say again s l o w l y]

BEagle, I'm interested to know what your chap from the CAA calls a prior agreement. This quote is from LASORS and a previous post. (case J being a succesful test with an examiner.)

"Flight time as PIC US, apart from as specifically provided for
under Case J above, will only be allowable for the holder of a
PPL subject to the terms of a prior agreement with the CAA."

If it is another 'advisory' what on earth was the point of putting it in in the first place. I'm questioning it since our 'man from the ministry' was the one who raised this point in the first place. I had always used P1/S before. Is this a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing?? Or am I running around in circles here...

[BEagle]

It's left hand and right hand in the usual CAA manner! But acceptance by common usage has evidently proved sufficient - and anyway, what if the holder isn't a PPL but an ATPL holder re-validating a SEP Class Rating?

As I said, it's the flight which matters, not how it's logged. The FI merely confirms that the content was satisfactory; the FE signs the re-validation form.

[Say again s l o w l y]

That's good enough for me. I was very surprised when I was told that originally and it has caused all sorts of unnecessary ructions and rows between instructors and PPL's with the different interpretations.

So if the CAA don't particularily care, then I don't think I will either. It's not exactly the most interesting argument in the world!!

I'd never thought about the ATPL revalidating, usually they are done by experience, but I was recently chatting to a 75 jockey who hasn't been near an SEP for over 10 years. Could be interesting!!

[mr_flydive]

I was given an official CAA form the other day with the One hour's flight training broken down in a very structured manner.

I am told that from the 1st Sept I 'shall' complete one of these for it to count as the one hours flight instruction.

Is this true and has anyone else seen it

[mad_jock]

http://chirp-aviation.co.uk/aviation/pdfs/gafb15.pdf

second page.

It seems that the powers that be are going to eventually produce something

Mr_fly i think your school are at it.

If there was a complete change in the rules I would have imagined that it would have been sent out with Septembers GASIL which all flying Instructors get sent.

Do you have the document number of the form you were given?

It should be down at the bottom somewhere.

MJ

[DFC]

BEagle,

I was not commenting on the conduct of the flight with an instructor but how it is to be logged.

CAA policy:

P1/S only used in multi-pilot aircraft and in the case of a flight test which is successful.

JAA Regulation:

P1/S is a copilot acting as P1 under supervision of the Captain....thus multi pilot ops.

JAR-FCL 1.080(c)(5) is the regulation

That is why I said your proposal was at odds with current policy.

However, having spent some time considering the matter, I would propose the following to the CAA;

The flight must be an instructional flight

Thus the rules under which the flight operates require there to be two crew.....the pilot and the instructor.

When the regulations require two crew, one is Pilot in Command and the other is co-pilot. JAR-FCL 1.080

Under JAR-FCL 1.080(c)(5), Provided that the method of supervision is acceptable to the Authority, a co-pilot may log as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all of the duties and functions of PIC on that flight were carried out, such that the intervention of the PIC in the interest of safety was not required.

The only question that remains is;

The method of supervision when PICUS must be acceptable to the Authority. Can it be taken that by definition, an instructor supervising a PPL is approved by the authority?

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

I don't think the CAA really gives a toss who records what as long as only 1 person records PIC. They don't allow you to count any of the PICUS as PIC time anyway for licensing purposes in SPA.

And to most PPL's it is only really pampering there egos. If later on the CAA does take issue with the way that they have logged it there is not alot the PPL can do about it.

If the customer is a wannabie I am sure BEagle will take them to one side and explain the facts of life on how to avoid annoying FCL.

As its BEagle who will more than likely be signing there SEP revalidation its satisfies all concerned, customers do there 1 hr with an instructor and don't feel fleeced. The instructor logs PIC so they are happy. And Beagle knows the score so is willing to sign them off. Jobs a good one.

Now just to get the powers that be to produce a AIC along the lines of BEagles method. Then we can put this crap to bed.
No doudt after the CAA hands control over to the European authority when it becomes active it will all change anyway yet again.

MJ

[mad_jock]

Well today I have been looking at the new form for the SEP revalidation 1 hour with a Instructor flight.

The content of the flight has now been formalised with mandatory exercises. A few of them arn't actually even in the PPL test.

It comes into effect as of the first of Jan.

Looks like I will be getting my SEP revalidated on Dec 31st before the fun begins.

MJ

[BEagle]

Where did you see it - and what is the form number?

[Just Cruisin]

Just wasted over an hour trawling the CAA site for evidence of this "new form", and drew a blank:mad: :{
Come on MJ ..... what's the big secret then?:confused:

[mad_jock]

Sorry just got back.

I will get the docu number next time I am in the CFI's office.

MJ

[Fly Stimulator]

Any advance on this? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109164)

[mad_jock]

Ok its a form issued in Sept 2003 which has anumber 1157.

The back ground is that the local examiner says that he has been sent this form by the CAA and all SEP renewals have to run to this form.

It looks very similar to a OPC check and has manditory items.
title: SPA,skill test and Prof check.

To be honest i hope i am talking complete ballocks and thrugh this thread I can get him not to make us use this form.

MJ

[jgs43]

Mad Jock.
Can you clarify your statements?

Initially you stated that the new form was for revalidation flights. You now say that the form is for renewal/proficiency checks by an examiner.
As the revalidation flight is a training flight by an Instructor and the Renewal/proficiency check has to be carried out by an examiner there are different requirements.
Renewal/proficiency check is required if you fail to meet revalidation by experience requirements or if you wish to revalidate by check with an examiner.
Revalidation flight is as stated above training flight with an instructor.
If the form is for the renewal of ratings then it will not necessarily apply to revalidation training flights.
I have certainly heard nothing about this new form although I am a CRI and undertake revalidation flights with candidates.

(Added later)
Have now checked the form on the CAA web site.
Form 1157 is the examiner's schedule and check list for the Skills test for issue of a Class rating and also applies to renewal/proficiency tests should you wish to revalidate your rating by test rather than by experience. It also applies if you let your rating lapse.
This form does not apply to the SEP revalidation training flight undertaken by an Instructor although both the PFA and BGA use a similar form with certain Mandatory items.
This form has been in existance in previous versions since the inception of the JAR requirements and, to my knowledge, there has been no change to the SEP revalidation flight requirements.
Form 1157 does apply to IFR rating revalidation hence this may be what your examiner was referring to (this has been the situation since the inception of JAR as stated above).
Both this form and the LPC/SPA form were updated at the beginning of 2003 hence 1157 is the current version.:ok:

[BEagle]

There is NO official CAA form for the Dual Training Flight; neither is there any mandatory content for such a flight nor does there need to be. Form SRG\1157 is entitled "SPA, SKILL TEST AND PROFICIENCY CHECK SCHEDULE – EXAMINER’S RECORD" and is only to be used by Flight Examiners to record the items tested for re-validation or renewal purposes. The Applicant sends a Form SRG\1119 "ADDITIONAL AEROPLANE TYPE/CLASS RATING - SINGLE/MULTI PILOT AND REVALIDATION/RENEWAL OF UK/JAA TYPE/CLASS AND OR INSTRUMENT RATING (AEROPLANE ) – APPLICATION" to the CAA when the FE has completed the check, the FE keeps a 1157 purely for his/her own record purposes.

These forms are for use by Flight Examiners only and are not appropriate for recording the ‘Dual Training Flight’. The current AIC recommends the flight content only, but spells out the administrative action required.

Suggest you print off a copy of AIC 127/1999 (White 378) and hand it to your CFI! If you register on www.ais.org.uk , you should be able to download it at http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W378.PDF .

[Say again s l o w l y]

Just going back to the PIC/US v P/UT discussion, I've just recived an e-mail from FCL about this (only took 1 1/2 months, must be a record!)


"Any licence holder flying a single pilot aircraft, or a student undertaking
a course of flying to obtain a PPL can only log PIC/US after a successful
flight test. All other entries should be P1 or PUT. The only other times
PIC/US can be entered is when a commercial pilot is flying a multi pilot
aircraft. The section of LASORS that you refered to in your email relates to
this multi pilot scenario."

Sounds pretty clear to me.

[BEagle]

It isn't clear at all. JARs have no legal standing - hence the use of 'should' rather than 'shall' in the typically useless Belgrano response you received...

'Under supervision' means what it says - you fly under the supervision of the Commander. 'Under Training' means you're under training.

Why do these idiot Eurocrats find such a simple concept so difficult to comprehend?

[Say again s l o w l y]

I don't often disagree with you BEagle, but I take it to read exactly what it says, unfortunately you are correct in that any decent legal person could drive holes through the terminology 'shall', 'must' and 'should' are a bit vague, but it is fairly clear (to me anyway) that the spirit of the rule (often as important in aviation as the wording) is as written. Most of JAR OPS1 is pretty vague and they are still finding big gaps to this day. It doesn't help when we all start bickering over the meaning of one word in an otherwise clear phrase.

Whether I agree that it is a sensible way of doing things is a very different matter.

Personally, I have used this way of logging hours for students and PPL's for a while and I shall continue until I get slapped by someone from the Belgrano. The only reason we use it is because it was mentioned in an inspection and I hate it when we get anything sent back from FCL for an oversight (A very rare occurance I'm glad to say.) especiall;y when it comes to the logging of time. I had enormous fun and games with them at one point due to my aussie logbook being in decimals for a U.K licence issue.

It is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup though isn't it!;)

[mad_jock]

As per thread in FI and examiners.

I am now currently trying to explain to the baldy git that he is wrong using all the arguments you have given me.

But he is not having it. :(

MJ

[BEagle]

They weren't arguments, they were facts!

Perhaps he needs a visit from a SRG inspector if he's so dimwitted that he refuses to face the fact that he's wrong.

Do you need putting in touch with a suitable person who might facilitate that...........??

[flyonby]

Is the baldy git tall skinny & beautiful?



:uhoh:

[mad_jock]

I will leave it for just now.

Made a bet with him so he will be determined to find out to try and get his money.

MJ