BIENNIAL 'TRAINING FLIGHT'

[BEagle]

Currently it is unacceptable for the 1 hour training flight (required as one element of the 'revalidation by experience' option for JAR/FCL) to be split into 2 or more flights adding up to 1 hour.

But wouldn't it be reasonable to allow such a flight to count if it took the form of no more than 2 consecutive flights with the same FI/CRI adding up to not less than 1 hour? Surely there's nothing wrong with doing half of it from A to B, landing for a bacon buttie and a chat, then doing the other half back from B to A? I've just had to fly an hour with a pilot who'd flown far more than 12 hours in the last year, but had done his 'biennial training' as a 40 min training flight with another FI culminating in a landing at a different aerodrome where they'd landed, had a cuppa whilst they'd been briefed on local short-field and noise abatement requirements, then did a short field departure before completing the other 20 min on the way home. I reckon that's pretty sound 'training' - but it doesn't meet the current requirements. Fortunately he was entirely happy to do another training trip - just the very day before his SEP Class rating would otherwise have expired.

Does anyone else have any other comments on the conduct of the 'biennial training flight'?

[Squealing Pig]

Could someone tell me where to find the requirements in the JAR Bible ??

[Tinstaafl]

Log it as a single event eg EGxx - EGyy - EGzz & use the total time from departure to final arrival.

It's the same a/c, same crew etc. In Oz that may be counted as a single loggable event.

I've always logged this way & my log books have survived Oz, USA & UK CAA surveilance without any untoward comments.

[Another CFI]

BEagle,

I fully agree with your comments about allowing the biennial flight to be flown as two flights however at present we are stuck with the requirement for it to be a single flight.

Since you are an FE(PPL) another solution would be to conduct an LPC rather than a "training flight", since with a competent pilot the LPC can be completed in well under an hour.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Its utter madness. My tactic would be to log the first 40mins as an LPC and argue my case at the subsequent board of enquiry.

Logging the 2 flights as 1 would be a clear breach of the ANO.

WWW

[A and C]

I,m with beagle on this one short X-C sector a talk about it then some practice emergencys on the way back all sounds like common sense to me , the trouble is that the reflective windows of the crystal palace at gatwick seem only to reflect most of the common sense back at us !

[BEagle]

OK chaps - I will write to that nice Captain Hills and suggest that "The biennial training flight may include one intermediate stop providing that both sections of the flight are flown consecutively on the same day with the same instructor and the total flight time is not less than 1 hour".

All those in favour, please say "Aye"!

(Sorry if that screws up the server capacity, Danny!)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Aye

WWW

[Noggin]

Trouble is its got nothing to do with anyone in the Belgrano. Its down to the JAA. Write to them, put it forward as an NPA and wait a long time for it to be thrown out by the French.

As the man said there is no 1 hour requirement for an LPC.

[CaptAirProx]

BEagle........Aye!

[BEagle]

Yes, noggin - but it's all a matter of interpretation. Such as the 'recommendation' for an observed flight test for FE re-authorisation being mis-interpreted as being mandatory by you chaps at the CAA!

It doesn't specify in JAR-FCL 1.245 that the 'flight of at least an hour's duration' has to be made as a single continuous flight; I consider that a flight including an intermediate landing as I've suggested is an entirely reasonable and acceptable means of compliance. Incidentally, it says that the flight must be made with a flight instructor - does that mean Flight Instructor or flight instructor (including a CRI, for example)?

[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[CaptAirProx]

BEagle, this is the first I have heard that it has to be in one whole flight. I have always believed and signed guys up who had flown two sorties etc, provided it was the same instructor that signed the log at the end. You also say that it does not say in words at JAR FCL .... So what is the official? I ain't got access to JAR Jungle today so cannot find out. I will browse the informative examiner hand book and el, instead. But would like to know where you found this little gem. I agree with you entirely. Let us know what Hills says. Why can't Elizabeth C....Hayes un-retire and be in charge of all this. Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place!

[Another CFI]

JAR 1.245 effectively states that it must be a single flight, though I would have thought that BEagle's idea of two flights makes total sense. In JAR 1.245 it states "complete a training flight of at least one hours duration".

[A and C]

Aye !.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Aye.
Can't see why it would make a blind bit of difference, especially as it is supposed to be training flight. It would give you more time to talk about any problems
It's a daft system anyway, since it is not laid down properly as to what we are supposed to do, you could just do an hour of taxiing. That would count! Utterly useless and absurdley unprofessional, but it would fulfil the requirements!!! What a great system.......

[BEagle]

Actually an hour's taxying wouldn't count unless it preceded a take-off. But to taxy out, get airborne, land and keep taxying until the hour was up technically would.....

So far there have been no votes against - I'll elicit opinion elsewhere tomorrow.

[Yogi-Bear]

Definitely, Aye.

[BEagle]

Thank you everyone - the proposal being forwarded to the CAA is along the lines of:

'The training flight with an instructor may consist of not more than 2 sectors with an intermediate landing, as long as:
1. Both sectors are flown consecutively.
2. Both sectors are flown on the same day with the same instructor.
3. The total flight time for the 2 sectors shall be not less than one hour.'

[CaptAirProx]

BEagle, great work if you can sort it. Not sure about going down the "same day" theory. What if you intend doing a flight with a guy/gal that is shortened due wx. Or more likely the case: last slot of the day, program running late, get all the upper airwork done and finish off the Ccts tomorrow sort of thing. Much more flexible for the club and customer. Can you not leave that suggestion out? Anyone disagree?

[BEagle]

As there is no mandatory content specified for the 'training flight', only a recommended content (which is, in fact, more extensive than the revalidation proficiency check), I can't really accept that the 'half today, half some other time' suggestion would be viwed as reasonable. If there wasn't time and weather to do some form of training for an hour, perhaps it would have been better to have cancelled it? The other problem is when would you do the second half? Next day, next week, next month....??

No - I think that it's probably best to ask just for this minor change to allow a break in the middle of the flight; perhaps other easements can be brought in at a later date?

[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[CaptAirProx]

BEagle, you have a point. I just think we are going to make this hour dual flight so restrictive, we will find people resorting to the Prof. Check, which I agree is a much easier flight to carry out. Both in terms of content and flexibility. Blimey, this means more money for the likes of you and me. Second thoughts I'll keep quite!!!!!! I tend to push guys into the prof. check on the grounds of cost etc. Lots of people don't even realise it exists.

[BEagle]

Rather than doing a proficiency check, I'd sooner people spent their money on another solo trip and then did their training trip with an instructor doing whatever they thought they needed to refresh. Hence the Examiner's fee for a reval. proficiency check is about the same as an hour's flying at our Club...

Remember - if you're an IMC instructor, an IF approach during the dual training flight (if it's 'out of phase' with the IMC revalidation year) will help the pilot to keep the cost of the next IMC rating revalidation flight down if he/she/thing is savvy about the dates.....

[CaptAirProx]

BEagle, I'm intrigued. At the two clubs I work, we charge solo rate plus a exam fee. Think its about £35 per hour for the exam fee. If the prof. check is 40 mins it works out cheaper than the dual flight of 1 hour at standard dual rates. Anyway have you written to Capt. Hills yet?

Ps Good idea about the IMC dual approach in the log book. I will use that one next time. Thanks.

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: CaptAirProx ]

[BEagle]

We charge £65 per hour incl VAT for dual or solo flying in a Warrior - plus nothing more for the dual training flight or any other flight with an instructor so that there's no financial penalty in asking for an FI to come along if the pilot thinks that the weather might be a bit of a problem for his/her/thing's abilities. BUT we Examiners charge an additional flat £65 for a renewal or revalidation proficiency check to encourage people to keep their licences valid by experience/training flight rather than by proficiency check!

'We' are writing to the CAA's Head of General Aviation - not to Cap'n H.

[CaptAirProx]

All from a 'massiff' runway with loads of lights. I'm jealous. Been there once on a night training navex in a C172, of the Middle Wallop Club. Very professional and helpful ground crew. Highly recommended.

[LowNSlow]

Here's another "Aye"

Just revalidated via the proficiency check route. Good to have independant experienced eyes watching your flying every couple of years. It must go some way to correcting bad habits that can develop. Said gentleman let me fly his Tiger Moth afterwards too. Absolutely Magic. :D :D

[Pigs Might Fly]

Although the discussion has moved on slightly, (I'm a bit late in reading the thread) a document that may be more readily available to many of us with all the relevant info on revals. etc. than the JAROPS verbiage, is GID 33. Latest edition is verson 5 issued 9 Nov 2001.

Under part 2 Revalidating an aircraft rating it states in BOLD type that to revalidate a SEP rating on experience there must be a SINGLE flight of at least one hour with a suitably qualified instructor. I have to agree that it does seem ridiculous that officially, the training flight could not be done to another aerodrome for a full stop landing (and refreshment) with all that could be gained from that sorie with an instructor. Much more informative overall than flying around for an hour, I'd have thought.

(The GID's can be downloaded from the CAA SRG web-site.)

[BEagle]

...which is why we've asked for an intermediate landing at another aerodrome to be permitted as part of the 'flight' - so long as the total flight time is still at least 1 hour and the 2 sectors are flown consecutively with the same instructor on the same day.

[Stan Evil]

If it's done as 2 flights how much of the hour in your log book will be airborne time? I guess not much more than half of it at best so we're chipping away at the value of the flight which must come from time in the air.

[Justin Abeaver]

BEagle,

AYE!!

I try not to let JARs get in the way of common sense!! Difficult sometimes, though.

[SteveR]

Beagle:

Did anything come of your approaches to allow 2 flights? (Or is 6 months too quick for a reply?)

Steve R

[BEagle]

I'm still waiting for a reply.........