FI(R) Solo Nav Ex

[Jaydee27]

Just a quick question - can I, as an FI(R), approve qualifying cross country flights?

My current school thinks not- but I can't find anything to confirm this.

Thanks.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Yes you can, it's only the first solo navex you can't authorise as an FI(R).

[mad_jock]

What the CAA says can be different to your Pilot order book. The most restrictive wins.

Read the pilot order book and see what it says. As SaS says you can from the CAA's point of view.

Remember as well you can log 3 solo send offs for 1 QXC.

MJ

[BEagle]

Yes, you can. They are 3 separate flights from chocks-to-chocks, so I consider that to be 3 solo sorties. Doubtless the CAA might not agree though.

But you may only approve the Q X-C under the supervision of an FI. As a CFI, I would be very keen to have you supervise Q X-Cs and to demonstrate what you're checking for. Good luck!!

Your school would appear to have some odd ideas?

[mad_jock]

A wee question Beagle on the First solo Nav ex.

Does the auth FI have to physically have flown with the student to auth.

Or does the FI only have to monitor the brief and sign them out?

MJ

[BEagle]

There's nothing laid down - so it's down to the Club's internal policy.

It would be nice if the authorising FI had flown a dual nav with the student; however, not many clubs could manage that! Schools perhaps - if they have a stable FI staff. But Clubs relying on volunteer part-time FIs would have to rely more on good right ups and standardisation amongst the FIs.

[Say again s l o w l y]

And as we all know, that is never going to happen!!

[StrateandLevel]

MJ

You can only claim one solo supervised flight for the 150 mile X Ctry: you only brief and authorise the student once unless you follow him arround the route.

[BEagle]

Thus spake strateandlevel of the SRG!!

But a 'flight' is chocks-to-chocks. Brief the student for the first leg, then get him to ring you at his first landing aerodrome for authorisation for his second leg. Then the same from his second landing aerodrome...

That way you can check that he has had his certificate signed, has updated himself on the weather and has correctly completed his weight and balance calcs. In short, he has completed all normal solo pe-flight preparatory actions. So you will certainly be authorising a second and third flight.

It's a totally stupid requirement in any case.....

Now tell me that I'm wrong, S&L - and why.

[Sydu]

Regardless of whether you believe the rule is daft or not, the CAA will only accept a solo qualifying cross country as one flight for signing off purposes. One of our FI (R)'s included a solo QXC as three flights on his restriction removal form which FCL rejected.

[BEagle]

And for what reason was the certificate rejected?

Just ensure that each flight was independently briefed and authorised....

It isn't hard to achieve the silly 25 student solo sign-offs. Brief for 3 circuits, taxy in, shut down, come in. Then do it again. Then again.... Do that several times per week and it won't take long to achieve 25 solo sign-offs.

Far, far better that a proper flight check is used to upgrade from FI(R) to FI - as used to be the case.

[Sydu]

Simply because therefore he only had 23 solo sign offs on his form once the QXC entry was taken into account. He had to resubmit including two more other sign off's he had subsequently done.

The upgrade by test as you suggest seems emminently sensible to me - probably why JAR rules / CAA wont go for it :O

[Send Clowns]

BEagle - the CAA specifically say that for authorisation purposes the QXC is considered to be a single flight.

[mad_jock]

Well I had 3 QXC's on my form so that was 9 solo sign offs out of the 25. Another 10 were circuit send offs and the rest nav ex's.
Basically all done and dusted in the two weeks of instructing.

I really don't know what the solo send offs are meant to prove anyway. They can hold a instructor up if he/she has a crap boss and they are so so easy to get if the CFI wants you to.

The method used with me was that i had to put forward 3 students who I thought were good enough for solo and after that the CFI said they were good enough and sent them solo he signed the form. All the other requirments didn't really prove a thing. 5 weeks instructing and unrestricted, looking back, the whole proccess proved nothing.

MJ

[LFS]

Not sure of the exact thinking behind it, but I do know the CAA will only accept the QXC as one solo send of for lifting your restriction.

[Snigs]

The latest LASORS (2004) now has it in plain English. The QXC is considered as one solo sign off only. See Section H1.4 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS.PDF)

[mad_jock]

:D must have been added after last years debate on the subject.

Went to have a look at instructor form 2 to see if they had changed the format of the log. Unfortuantly the PDF file seems knackard.

Never mind. Plenty of other blags to get the numbers up on a particularly pointless exercise which in no way proves anthing about the ability to supervise students or for that matter the assesment of first solo suitability. Which we know is completely dependent on several factors. And some of the most important include if you have missed lunch and how full your bladder is.

MJ

[DFC]

MJ,

The requiremernts are to have;

1. A minimum amount of instructional hours

2. A minimum number of supervised solo flights

3. A recomendation from a supervising FI

The only things I have seen wrong with that system in the UK are;

1. The trial lesson flights can push the "instructional hours" up without any gain in experience unless the training organisation ensures that the FI(R) was completed a good range of exercises to the satisfaction of the supervising FI before making a recomendation.

2. Provided that the FI(R) is properly supervised by the FI...i.e. the FI oversees the solo authorisations of various flight profiles, 25 is a reasonable number. To require any more would be placing an unnecessary requirement for repetition on instructors during their training.

3. FIs or CFIs are too quick to send off the recomendation so that they can make money with a little hassle as possible i.e. they don't want the hassle of having to supervise FI(R)s.

Provided that FIs and CFIs remember that in effect, the FI(R) is simply a pilot undergoing on-the job training then they would hopefully ensure that before signing the recomendation, that the prospective instructor is capable of walking out the door and starting an RTF in the back end of nowhere without any wory of safety or lack of experience.

In many other places, the CFI will be an FI with possibly a Deputy CFI being an FI also but all the others are FI(R)s. Very good system that ensures that the CFI has no choice but to perform progress checks at a minimum of at First solo and First solo crosscountry.

Unfortunately the UK has been established in a system where a student typically had one instructor/examminer from ab-initio until PPL licence issue. This has done nothing for standards.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

You have summed it up quite nicely DFC.

The supervision aspect is what the key is. Unfortunatly as you have said its very variable depending on the CFI and FI's.

And as you say the CFI unless you get payed more as a FI usually wants to push you through as quickly as possible so they don't have to bother if they want some holiday.

The thing that has suffered is standards. And as more FI's go through the system the lower the standards drop because they will supervise the FI(R)'s the same way they were supervised or not.

MJ

[Capt_Toms]

It is clearly stated that a xc qualifier is to be counted as one solo trip for the Instructor.
As we all know CFI's may sign instructors (R) off for their own reasons & bend the rules.
I also know of ones of appear to do the opposite.

I ask myself why the CAA don't check up on these things?:confused: