SEP revalidation and training flight question [Archive]

S-Works

22nd Jun 2008, 11:21

Sorry Gerturde, but you are wrong plain and simple.

ANY flight of 1hr or greater in the qualifying period will count as the flight required for revalidation by experience. A pilot can ask to fly around in circles for an hour, do aeros or just fly in a straight line. As long as the flight is logged as PUT it is job done. Show me an Instructor (according to the endless arguments on these forums) who is not going to log the time as Instructional and the pilot as PUT.

Once the hour is logged they may then have the licence signed by an examiner and that's it for the next 2 years.

When I do the 2 year flight and licence sign off I give the pilot the option of what they would like to do. If they have no idea I make suggestions which usually include general handling but if all they want to do is fly around in circles then I will respect the request. There used to be guidelines issued by the CAA but these were withdrawn.

I am not saying it is not sensible to make the most of the time by doing general handling but I respect the individuals right to free choice and don't support the pencil pushing nanny state. Perhaps some have spent to much time around government bureaucracy to recognize that individuals have free will and don't need decisions making for them......

Gertrude the Wombat

22nd Jun 2008, 12:16

Sorry Gerturde, but you are wrong plain and simple.
Nope, I'm right, you're wrong.

A private enterprise can, in the absense of laws dictating otherwise, which we all agree there aren't any of in this case, choose for itself which services it does and doesn't wish to offer for sale.

If one of my customers wants me to do something that I don't feel like doing I can say no. If I want to buy a flight from a club which they don't offer they can say no. Simple as that.

flybymike

22nd Jun 2008, 13:42

I suspect that in purely commercial terms Gertrude is correct, in that the club can decide on what terms they wish to conduct their business , just as I do in my own business.

However, I am completely behind Bose's philosophy on this one. GA is already grossly overburdened by unnecessary regulation which is strangling the life out of the industry,and shortly it appears to be made even worse by compulsory six yearly tests, with no perecived safety benefit from all of this regulation whatsoever.

The recent CAA review of safety statistics following the introduction of the new JAA requirements for biennial instructor flights, 90 day rules etc clearly showed no benefit whatsoever from the increased regulation, just more cost and disincentive for those who have already been through the exam and test mill.

I am lucky enough to have an instructor /examiner who is happy to let me bore holes in the sky in my own aircraft once every two years with no requirement for anything else, and long may that continue to be the case until my own choice and not bureaucracy states otherwise.:ugh:

S-Works

22nd Jun 2008, 13:50

If one of my customers wants me to do something that I don't feel like doing I can say no. If I want to buy a flight from a club which they don't offer they can say no. Simple as that.

Yep absolutely right. But you are making up rules as to them being able to dictate what goes in the revalidation flight, which they can't.

You can count ANY flight of 1hr or more as the required flight. You show me a school that will refuse a 1hr training flight where the pilot just wishes to fly in a straight line for 30 minutes out and a straight line back as PUT. The signing of the licence is a separate issue and it is not down to the examiner signing the licence to investigate the flight, they just ensure the regs have been met. Pure and simple.

flybymike

22nd Jun 2008, 17:29

The problem is Bose, that once you tell them it is a revalidation flight , then they want to insist on all sorts of stuff, that as you rightly say, they have no right to insist upon.

Maybe best just to say that you want to do a one hour flight with an instructor for no particular purpose without "letting on " the actual purpose of the flight? The problem then of course, is that when you ask for a signature in the log book at the end of the flight, the instructor invokes their right to refuse ( the real reason being because they didnt know that what they really really really needed to do was to "test" you!)

Ever since this JAA instructor flight was introduced it has become ( with the exception a few liberated instructor /examiners like yourself) a back door means of introducing a biennial flight test.:rolleyes:

BEagle

22nd Jun 2008, 19:50

Most Clubs probably require an annual Club check.

Make sure it's at least 60 min and it will also satisfy the training flight requirement for revalidating by experience.

It really isn't worth flapping your handbags over...

flybymike, you asked:

It is completely beyond my understanding why they do not undo this obvious cock up, such that all of the paperwork can be dealt with as a single exercise just as soon as the experience requirements and the instructor flight have been completed within the second year. This was certainly the case until the inadvertent rewrite of the rules. Are they just too proud to admit to a stupid mistake?

To which the answer is, basically, 'YES'. If they kept having to admit they'd porked up some piece of €urocracy or other, then it would seemingly not reflect well on the 'competent authority' the CAA are supposed to represent.

It took nigh on 5 years to sort out their NPPL cock-ups, for example....:hmm:

TheOddOne

22nd Jun 2008, 20:27

Ever since this JAA instructor flight was introduced it has become ( with the exception a few liberated instructor /examiners like yourself) a back door means of introducing a biennial flight test.

flybymike,

I'd like to see chapter and verse where someone actually admits to having been made to to stick to a particular profile for a revalidation flight, instead of the 3rd party story handed over a pint in the pub. I don't know of ANYONE who has been coerced into a particular flight by a CRI/FI.

However, many people very sensibly combine it with a club/school 6-month check, which at our place has a written list of minimum requirements, including stalling and PFLs. Now, if a customer came to me and said 'I've done a 6-month check but now I want to do my revalidation flight and I want to do an hour of circuits/cross-country/land away somewhere/go and have a look at Felixtowe docks (yes, really!) then of course I'd oblige, happily.

NO-ONE is forced to do a 6-month check. It's just that if you want to hire from us, it's one of the rules, just like minimum hours if you take it away for a weekend, no unlicenced aerodromes without prior approval etc. To people who find all this a bit restrictive, I recommend joining one of the groups on our noticeboard. And before you ask, no we don't mind advertising them. The loss of hire business is compensated for by the friends that they bring with them who then learn to fly with us.

r44flyer

22nd Jun 2008, 22:27

I get the impression that from the way LASORS is worded there is a large element of discretion attached to the 'requirements' for the training flight, anyway. Unless there actually is a syllabus written down by the CAA which FIs must follow for revalidation flights, in which case there are FIs breaking rules all over the place...? Can anyone clarify that?

I would think it professional for an instructor to perhaps suggest some exercises to carry out during the hour, and it might be prudent for the pilot to accept the advice, IF they agree it's necessary. After all, surely it's the responsibility of the pilot to ensure he is flying safely and is in good practice. There's a big difference between the revalidation flight and a school check flight, which has implications for insurance etc.

I did some unplanned diversions for my hour.

englishal

22nd Jun 2008, 23:32

There is no set format for this flight as Bose says quite rightly (he should know ;)).....However, in practice this is not strictly true for the reasons GTW says.

I got bitten by this this year and it p*ssed me off. I phone up for an hour of tailwheel, as something different to pass off the 1 hr. Good experience for me, hopefully improve my general handling etc....

So I arrange everything and drive to the airfield 1.5 hrs (too crappy to get my plane out). I get there, we chat for a while and then when I mention it must be an hours flight "Ah, I'm not happy to let this flight count for a revalidation"......We have a discussion about it and he claims he'd be "helping me too much which goes against the idea of the training flight". The weather is too crappy for the usual stalls / steep turns etc., but the only difference with tailwheel is T/O and L/D. So as I've just driven 1.5 hours and I'm pissed off I did some tailwheel, less than an hour, and didn't get the revalidation flight. I went back the following week with my aeroplane, thinking I'll get it banged out in that, but no there is another problem, I brought the aeroplane docs with me but forgot one apparently and he didn't want to fly in my plane. So I almost told him to p*ss off and was on the edge of letting the JAR licence lapse and just using my FAA one but thought that AS I was there, and AS I'd just had my JAR medical which is now valid until 2012 I think, I may as well do it. So I had to rent one of their aeroplanes. It was good revision I suppose but nothing new.

This whold revalidation thing is a joke. Either the CAA should make it a FORMAL BFR or they should scrap the whole idea. They should also get rid of the requirement for an examiner to sign the paperwork. I'd suggest they make a formal flight of 1 hr duration, covering PFLs, Steep turns, etc., with an instructor sign off being good enough for the revalidation. Not being a member of a flying club this whole revalidation thing is far more hassle than if I were with a club, renting their aeroplanes....

flybymike

22nd Jun 2008, 23:43

Looks like the previous post is pretty close to "chapter and verse" for The odd one...;)

pembroke

23rd Jun 2008, 07:50

Surely this flight is,as the LASORS Sect F says, "a training flight to ascertain the skills and knowledge of the applicant". It is not unreasonable to ask about the technical aspects of any aircraft used and also ask for the aircraft docs and a load and balance calculation, particularly if the type is unfamiliar to the instructor.
My normal approach is always to ask if a pilot is in the last year of the two year validity period ,if someone joins our club and needs a checkout. You would be suprised how many pilots still don't understand the JAR system. I conduct several flights for non club members in a whole variety of aircraft, very much as the guest of the owner, albeit as P1.
Re the 1 hour dual flight,I would ask what their flying experience is and what they would find useful during the one hour flight. This is often one of the usual supects such as stall, incipient spin and PFL's etc. A lot of PPL's are reluctant to try these Ex's solo, so this is the only practice they will have in a two year period. The other topic is often "how the avionics work". It is much easier to talk through avionics with an instructor and learn to be confident in their use , than admitting to other pilots that they only know how to switch the box on, and rely on their GPS. (This scenario is often post PPL and moving on to a more advanced aircraft.)
Re the above , the instructor can always decline a flight if he/she thinks an important training item will be missed. Also after the flight the instructor can refuse to sign of any 1hr dual if he/she isn't satisfied with the standard of flying

BackPacker

23rd Jun 2008, 08:23

Also after the flight the instructor can refuse to sign of any 1hr dual if he/she isn't satisfied with the standard of flying

Well, this is the bit that I don't agree with. You've booked a flight lesson, irrespective of its final purpose. You've had the lesson, the instructor was PIC and you were PUT. On what grounds can the instructor refuse to sign? After all, he's instructing, not examining.

And if the instructor refuses to sign, what goes in your logbook?

Mind you, I agree that that one hour training flight is best spent doing a good workout. Stalls, PFLs etc. And if the instructor is not happy, I don't mind a comment in the logbook or somewhere else "further training in XXX recommended". Also, if the flight doubles as a club check, I fully understand that on behalf of the club the instructor tells you that you are not to hire their aircraft until you've had more training in YYY. But for JAA revalidation, all that's required is a one-hour training flight. Nothing more nothing less..

S-Works

23rd Jun 2008, 10:10

I have a problem with rolling over and accepting made up rules to put it simply.

The more that we accept creep like this the greater the levels of unneeded regulation appear. If the CAA felt that we needed a 'test' every 2 years then they would change the regs and require. In just the same way that I renew my MEP and IR by test every year. Instructors who think think they have the right to impose rules where they see fit on contradiction to the regulator just do the industry a disservice and are one of the causes of decline in GA.

I prefer to give people the freedom of choice and what is interesting is that unfailingly we do the general handling stuff that they never practice on their own. But that is the result of freedom of choice not me imposing my rules on them. Believe it or not the vast majority of people are actually capable of making good choices on their own.

Perhaps the attitude of these schools and Instructors insisting on setting the rules and and contents is why I do many hundreds of hours of Instruction and hundreds of licence signings?

Jumbo Driver

23rd Jun 2008, 13:21

LASORS are not in themselves definitive legislation. As I see it, therefore, the requirements for revalidation are as required by JAR-FCL and JAR-FCL 1.245(c) states that:

(1) 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:

(i) ... pass a proficiency check ... ; or

(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating complete 12 hours flight time in a single engine piston aeroplane or touring motor glider including:
(A) 6 hours of pilot-in-command time;
(B) 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test.However, JAR-FCL does not appear to define "training flight" in this context.

It therefore brings into question the origin (and authority) of the paragraph in LASORS which reads:

The Training Flight

The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.If JAR-FCL does not define the "purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", what status can this paragraph in LASORS have?

JD
:)

S-Works

23rd Jun 2008, 14:22

It is well know that LASORS is a mix of regulation and subjective opinion.

Jumbo Driver

23rd Jun 2008, 15:42

It is well know that LASORS is a mix of regulation and subjective opinion.

Indeed, bose-x, and I also very much concur with the sentiments expressed in your previous post, #24 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4198003&postcount=24).

Perhaps the logical conclusion is that we should treat the LASORS paragraph entitled The Training Flight as no more than just editorial wishful thinking ...

JD
:)

Mach Jump

23rd Jun 2008, 22:05

you are quite right Jumbo, the ANO simply requires the Class Rating to be revalidated in acordance with JAR FCL1 and anything more is just CAA elaboration.:=
You dont have to tell the Flight Instructor the purpose of the instruction, and if he does an instructional flight with you, for any purpose, the logbook signature is simply to confirm that the flight took place, and that it was instruction.

MJ

flybymike

23rd Jun 2008, 23:24

Perhaps it would help if the CAA made it clear that in "signing off" a revalidation in the log book, the instructor was not in anyway testifying as to the ability of the pilot, but was simply making a statement to confirm that the actual flight took place. It may well be that instructors are nervous about accepting responsibility for signing off a pilot whom they consider for whatever reason to be unsafe, even though that is thoretically at least irrelevant to the actual purpose of the flight which is simply to impart training.

Bose's philosophy on this whole subject is exactly right, and refreshing to hear from someone who might otherwise have been assumed to be part of the instructor establishment.

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 00:02

What a lot of debate over something quite simple! (apart from the aforementioned CAA cock-up)

The training flight is an easy thing. Most PPL's do the absolute bare minimum of hours to stay legal and it is them this is aimed at. Most "club" flyers turn up for a couple of weeks every couple of years simply because they are going to run out of time.

So an FI is having to do a fair bit of retraining and the 1 hr flight is part of that process of getting them back up to speed.

For a PPL who carries on flying all year round and has a good level of currency, then the flight should be about what is best for the PPL, however I always want to see a certain minimum standard in things like EFATO, PFL etc. If I know the PPL has covered this previously, then I don't mind doing other stuff, from IMC work to tailwheel brush ups. The question is always asked, "what do you want to do?" If it is just flying in a straight line. I always get suspicious, but if it is meticulously planned and flown, then great, but I'll always chuck a couple of curve balls in just as an added test.

BUT and for me this is a big one. If I am unhappy about the standard shown, then I will not sign to say the flight took place and if pushed I'll sign the book, but with a comment that the standard reached wasn't good enough. There then follows a quick call to all the local examiners to ensure that the licence is not signed off until the retraining has been completed.

Before everyone jumps into high horses over this, remember one thing. I'm not signing because that someone is a danger to themselves and others, not because of some powertrip on my part. They need retraining and I will do my best to ensure they realise that.

With some of the hideous egos I've come across (usually allied to very mediocre skills) you almost have to put a gun to someones head to make them realise they aren't safe.

If you aren't prepared to stick up for your beliefs as an FI, then frankly you shouldn't be in the job. Our role is to help keep up standards, most of the time that is easy as the majority of people are very sensible, but there are some real idiots out there who give PPL's a bad name.

jgs43

24th Jun 2008, 05:15

The CAA guidelines are quite clear as to whether or not the instructor should sign of the training flight.
"If the pilot is not up to the expected standard then the log book should not be signed but annotated as "requiring further training". What further training is required has to be agreed between the student and instructor."
Basically the log book can only be signed if the instructor considers the student/pilot to be of a satisfactory standard i.e. safe to continue flying.

S-Works

24th Jun 2008, 07:00

BUT and for me this is a big one. If I am unhappy about the standard shown, then I will not sign to say the flight took place and if pushed I'll sign the book, but with a comment that the standard reached wasn't good enough. There then follows a quick call to all the local examiners to ensure that the licence is not signed off until the retraining has been completed

You were doing great right up to the underlined part above. Who the hell do you think you are? The secret aviation police? I have never been so disgusted and embarrassed to be part of the Instructional fraternity in my entire life. It is a good job you are not in my area as I would have told you exactly what I thought when you called me.....

It IS NOT your job to call around everyone you know like some secret fraternity. Show me in the ANO where you are permitted to do so, show me anywhere under law or even the subjective LASORS where it is recomended. Utterly, utterly, disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Have you ever thought that it might have been your personality or teaching style that caused the candidate to perform poorly, or even just your subjective opinion. Of course not, you are an Instructor and therfore a Sky god....... :ugh::ugh:

Jumbo Driver

24th Jun 2008, 08:08

youngskywalker

24th Jun 2008, 09:57

Forgive my intrusion here as I'm not an instructor:

Surely as an instructor you have a moral obligation and a duty of care to ensure that the person you are signing off is up to standard, how can you tell if they just fly in a straight line for mile on end? When I pay for the professional services of an instructor I want to get my moneys worth (I am Scottish after all!), I would want to demonstrate at the least an EFATO, PFL, stalls in various config's and one or two circuits.

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 10:06

bose me old fella. You haven't seen some of the standards I have. I haven't actually done this and it would take someone of extreme dangernosity to make me do it, but if you saw someone who was clearly a total menace and likely to cause an accident killing themselves and possibly others around them and you DIDN't do everything you could, then you my friend would be the embarrasment to the instructors fraternity.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't give two hoot about what the law said in this case. If someone is dangerous, then I will do something about it.

Judging "danger" in this case is far more than watching handling skills, it also encompasses how someone thinks about flying and all the associated knowledge.

In the 10 years I've been instructing, I've only met 2 people who have caused me to think like this. One I worked for weeks with to try and bring his attitude round. He was the sky god in this case, not me. Flying his own machine that was out of check, on an expired permit, no insurance, his licence had expired years before and he'd clearly never flown with anyone after passing his test years before. His handling skills were horrifying as well.

We had many a meeting about him between us all at the club. I was a relatively inexperienced FI at the time and all of us were in agreement in what we were doing. In fact it was the extremely experienced CFI who decided that "shopping him" would be the next step as all our other efforts were failing to get him to realise what he was doing was simply dangerous.

Eventually I seemed to get through to him and managed to bring him up to standard where we were all happy.

I treat this as a success as he was probably the most difficult student I've ever flown with, even though he'd had a licence for years.

The other refused to fly with any of us at the club after I'd told him I wouldn't sign his logbook. So he went off, got himself signed off by an FI at another club and then a few weeks later went off in awful conditions with his son on board and killed them both.

That has haunted me ever since. Could I have done more? If I'd have rung round and spoken to the other club with my fears, could the accident have been avoided?

So Bose, off the high horse please. It is an extreme move that I am prepared to make, but have never done it. If you had been put in a similar situation and you didn't do everything you could. How would you feel. Or do you not take your responsibilities as seriously as I do?

Jumbo Driver

24th Jun 2008, 10:07

Surely as an instructor you have a moral obligation and a duty of care to ensure that the person you are signing off is up to standard ...

But the instructor is not "signing off" anybody, it is not a test ...

The legislation for revalidation simply requires a "Training Flight", there is no assessment required ...

JD
:)

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 10:19

But morally it is.

I hated it when it first came out as I felt as an FI we were expected to act as examiners, when we weren't trained or paid to do so, but having seen the gradual increase in standards because of having a pseudo test every couple of years, then I'm now for it, but I'd prefer a system of an LPC every couple of years such as you get with every other rating in flying.

If you fly an R22, then you need an LPC every year, if you fly 737 you need an LPC every year and an OPC every 6 months. MEP, every year. Why the difference with SEP? You can kill yourself just as easily in an SEP as in anything else.

BackPacker

24th Jun 2008, 10:32

Looks like a case of under-regulation here...

On the one hand the law only requires two things:
- A one-hour training flight which can be straight line with no actual training being done. Signed by the instructor only for "I did this training flight", not for "student has reached the required standard". May be annotated with "has not reached required standard" but this has no legal meaning whatsoever.
- The examiners signature which only verifies that the experience and training requirements have been met, based on logbook content. (And note: if your local examiner refuses to sign, you can always send the lot to the CAA who will then sign for a small fee.)
- Oh, and there's a "suggestion" in LASORS as to the content of the training flight but it's not law.

On the other hand, instructors and examiners have a "duty of care" or whatever you call it. In case of an owner-pilot, the instructor he flies with is perhaps the only person ever to see that the pilot is a danger to himself, his passengers and people on the ground, but has no legal means to do anything about it. Other than trying to convince the pilot of this.

In this respect the FAA BFR system seems to make more sense. You actually have to reach a certain standard before the instructor will sign you off. But this actually puts the instructor into a sort of examiners role, for which he might not be trained, and which might negatively influence the training aspect of the flight - student being afraid of trying out something and getting it wrong, thus failing the BFR, for instance.

And in any case both the FAA and JAA system doesn't stop an owner-pilot to go flying with an expired CofA/PTF and an expired or non-current license.

Personally, I would not mind seeing the FAA BFR system being copied here in JAA land, especially if that also removes some of the bureaucratic burden that we have now (five-year license renewal + fees for instance).

S-Works

24th Jun 2008, 10:39

You miss the point entirely SAS...... :ugh:

You have appointed yourself judge jury and executioner. I suppose you consider yourself a benevolent dictator....

I have seen some shocking standards over time but gentle guidance and common sense works much better than the jack boot. You may never say it to the student but the fact that you have thought it and written it in public will be carried in your demeanour towards your students.

It is not OUR job to make up rules it is not even our job to enforce rules. Instructors are not aviation police.

You may think that you can blend morality into making up your own rules as some sort of validation for your methods.

The fact is that as Instructors we have the responsibility to teach and advise. If an individual chooses to ignore that advice that is the end of it. It is called free will. Once we start on the slippery road of taking away the free will of others where does democracy go?

Ringing around examiners and telling them not to sign is just despicable and an attempt at removing others freedom just because you don't like it.

Like I said before often the poor performance of a student can be down to the approach of the Instructor and someone who performs badly for you may perform perfectly for me and vice versa. If you don't like what you see, you tell them and let THEM choose. Most people that I have come across value the input you give them and will make their own arrangements to improve. They do not need you dictating to them.

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 10:56

Since when has a flying club been a democracy?

Don't try and equate society with a flying school, it just isn't the same.

If you don't want to enforce standards in your club, then that's up to you, but if you are happy with shoddy flying and dangerous pilots. Go ahead.

Whilst I don't like the police analogy, if FI's and examiners don't work together to "police" things, then who will?

Someone has to set the acceptable standard. Who better to do it than the people who's job it is to train and examine?

So if someone you trained or "signed off" went and killed themselves. You wouldn't feel the slightest bit of responsibility?

Jumbo Driver

24th Jun 2008, 11:35

If you fly an R22, then you need an LPC every year, if you fly 737 you need an LPC every year and an OPC every 6 months. MEP, every year. Why the difference with SEP? You can kill yourself just as easily in an SEP as in anything else.

I understand some of what you are saying, Say again s l o w l y.

I have been used to being trained, converted, assessed, tested on a regular basis for over 30 years as an ATPL/IR - indeed I have also done some of the training, assessing and testing of colleagues during that time - and there is some logic in what you are saying.

However, the legislation for PPL revalidation under JAR-FCL does not require a test or an assessment - it requires a "Training Flight". As there is no assessment required, therefore there can be no PASS / FAIL. Clearly, as an instructor, you may wish to mention certain aspects of a licence holder's flying which are either excellent and beyond reproach or, alternatively, suggest some practice or improvement, but the legislation does not require you to do so.

If a PPL holder wants to practice or demonstrate a PFL, EFATO, stall, steep turn or whatever to the instructor on the "Training Flight", then of course he/she can do so and a good instructor will be happy to provide feedback - all pilots can benefit from this from time to time - nevertheless this is not a legal revalidation requirement.

It probably should be argued that there is a gap in the legislation here, in that JAR-FCL does not make clear the intention or purpose of the "Training Flight" in PPL revalidation. However, until or unless it does, I would suggest that you need to be very careful about your attitude as an instructor to this "Training Flight" requirement. There is obviously a Duty of Care upon a FI to seek to ensure that satisfactory standards are achieved wherever possible. However there is a fine line between competent professional guidance and seeking to impose penalties or restrictions that are beyond your responsibilities.

As a FI, you are not there to "police" and you should not try to "enforce". You, like everyone else, remain both responsible to and subservient to the legislation and not independent of it.

JD
:)

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 12:02

Whenever there is wooly legislation, you will get a myriad of interpretations. Pilots will usually argue to the death that they are right in their personal versions.

In my eyes, the rules say one thing, but mean something else, therefore they are poorly written.

A club can set any rules it likes via the flying order book and when a member reads and signs it, they are agreeing to follow them. They are always as strict or stricter than anything laid down by the CAA. It's the same as an airline having it's own procedures.

I have always taken the duty of care element very seriously as an FI and as a CFI and in our club we FI's are the "police" to use a horrid analogy.

If you spot something dangerous happening, then I would expect it to be brought up and something done about it.

I don't know any flying club/school where this isn't the case.

Private owners are a different matter, but when the original AIC came out, there was an onus on there being an assessment and there was a suggested content to the flight, which I for one thought was a good idea.

What there needs to be is clarification about exactly what is expected, but any club that has any sort of decent standards will expect people to pass regular assesments. It is only sensible that these are combined with a flight for rating renewal as this then cuts the costs down for the PPL.

If someone isn't competent enough to pass a "mini LPC", then they shouldn't be flying without further training. End of story.

How else do we keep the skill level up without regular checks and assessments?

If it wasn't necessary, then why is it a requirement for airline pilots who fly far more regularily than any PPL? Or for Helicopter PPL's?

Jumbo Driver

24th Jun 2008, 12:44

Of course Flying Clubs have their own separate requirements - it is more often than not consequent upon insurance requirements than anything else I would suggest.

However, let's get back to the subject - this thread is about the SEP revalidation "Training Flight" requirement. It is not about whether the legislation should be different. It is certainly not about any individual's interpretation of what was intended (rather than what is actually required) and their personal need to "police" that hypothetical expectation.

I believe the JAR-FCL "Training Flight" should be logged as P u/t and the instructor should endorse (sign) the entry, simply to confirm that the flight took place. This fulfils the legal requirememt and I have seen nothing that requires anything more than this.

JD
:)

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 12:47

Absolutely correct. The flight MUST be logged as P/UT and it has to be endorsed by an FI.

P1CUS is only for use when on a successful flight test with an examiner, something that the "training flight" isn't.

enq

24th Jun 2008, 13:27

Personally, I always use the training flight for the usual emergency drill practice and to try out new techniques, tips etc (pretty much the same as any flight I take with an FI).

I would have thought, however, that in terms of consumer law in the UK an FI would be on very dodgy ground if they undertake a 1 hour training flight for the purpose of revalidation but then refuse to sign off the flight (an inextricable part of the training service provision) while insisting that the flight cost be borne by the trainee.

In which case I guess the FI has discretion in not signing off the flight as long as the club (or whichever body is providing the service) is prepared to foot the bill for the flight.

The other effect that I notice with my own flying is that, when I am with an instructor I have a psychological tendency (which I have to conciously fight) to take less responsibility and care in certain phases of the flight on the basis that the instructor will pick me up on them anyway - this can inevitably lead to a level of performance comparatively below what I achieve when flying by myself or with passengers.

From the FI point of view this was often a demonstration of my worst standard of flying rather than my normal standard, thus a judgment of my overall skill level on the basis of a 1 hour flight could be very wide of the mark.

These days I actually believe I have control rather than just saying it.

Regards all, enq.

Mach Jump

24th Jun 2008, 13:55

SAS I applaud your efforts to set, and maintain, high standards at your club. I wish all clubs were like yours. I have been an instructor for 30 years, and , believe me I have seen pretty much all there is to see in the training world.As CFI you have the right to make whatever sensible rules you think fit, and make sure people abide by them, but if someone in your club asks 'what am I LEGALLY required to do to revalidate my JAA ppl?' what do you tell them?

MJ

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 14:18

I've always just grabbed a copy of LASORS and shown them how to find the relevant section.

That also hopefully gives them a hint to read the book rather than automatically asking someone else who may or may not give them up to date information.

Owing to a small medical issue I'm out of the instructing game whilst the Doc's do their work, but I'm very happy to note that the standards at the clubs I was involved in have continued to stay high and to even get better.

enq, it would be very interesting to see a legal case where someone refused to sign off a flight where someone was quite blatantly below par. I have a feeling that commonsense would prevail, especially as the legislation is so open to interpretation.

Jumbo Driver

24th Jun 2008, 14:34

I've always just grabbed a copy of LASORS and shown them how to find the relevant section.

I hope you are objective enough to tell them to disregard the section on "The Training Flight", as it has no basis in legislation ...

JD
;)

enq

24th Jun 2008, 14:43

SAS, I think the case would be something along the lines of:

What service did you purchase?

A training flight for the purpose of revalidation, which includes an entry in my logbook, signed by an instructor together with the instructors licence number to show that the training had been undertaken.

Did you receive the service you paid for?

No, I received the training but the instructor then refused to sign my log book.

Why did the instructor refuse to sign the log book?

I don't know, I mean I flew into controlled airspace without permission, had a bit of a near miss with a hill & nearly managed to land on the A127 but it was certainly all good training from my point of view. Anyway, as the purpose of the flight was training and that was what I received I can't see why the instructor can't sign off my logbook.

Were you told that there were restrictions on the standard of your flying when you made the contract for the training flight?

No.

Were there any legal restrictions that prevented the instructor signing your log book.

Not to my knowledge, the relevant CAA reference documents merely mention a training flight, they do not define it.

The point of law is whether it was made clear before the flight that a certain standard had to be attained before the training flight was signed off. This standard would of course have to be objectively measurable (such as no barrel rolls below 500ft etc).

Regards, enq.

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 14:50

Ha ha! Yes, that is a point isn't it!

No, I've always mentioned that it is just a recommendation not a requirement. Despite what it looks like. I don't always do a "mini LPC". I only do it if when I ask what they would like to do, the comment "I dunno, you choose" comes back at me. It is especially rare if I know them well and am aware of their capabilities.

For most members this sort of flight is irrelevant as you see them on a regular basis and know exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are, especially as you've normally had a hand in their training anyway.

It's when people wander in cold and start dictating to you, whilst being evasive about things such as logbooks and licences and currency. That's when the alarm bells start ringing. There's nothing you can put your finger on, but you can usually tell as soon as someone walks through the door what the standards demonstrated will be.

enq, as a student of the law. I'd love to have a case like that drop onto my lap. Especially if you ended up calling the CAA to clarify things. It wouldn't go anything like the way you've mentioned.

Gertrude the Wombat

24th Jun 2008, 14:51

This standard would of course have to be objectively measurable
Wot, like it is for examiners conducting flight tests?

"If this guy's next flight were with my kid as passenger, would I be happy? Yes - pass. No - decide what he's failed on."

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 14:56

Basically, Gertrude has it nailed. Mine is, would I be happy letting someone go flying with my Gran as a passenger?

No. Then no signature and then the immortal phrase "sue me".;)

enq

24th Jun 2008, 15:07

The problem is of course that the amounts of money involved would put this into the small claims court.

Consumer law is fairly clear on the fact that if the consumer doesn't get what they paid for & it is not their fault then they don't pay.

It really revolves around the definition of a training flight (remember that the law tends to weigh on the side of the consumer rather than the profit making organisation) & whether any restrictions (such as standards attained) were communicated to and accepted by the consumer prior to delivery of the service.

This isn't really about flying - I agree that the flying community needs to do all it can to keep safety standards high - this is purely about whether you got what you thought you were paying for.

This could of course all be catered for by amending the booking T's & C's to allow FI discretion on sign off.

Alternatively, ending the flight before the hour is up is possible (as you say SAS, you know pretty early on whether you're with a pilot or future Darwin award nominee).

Regards, enq.

enq

24th Jun 2008, 15:20

If this guy's next flight were with my kid as passenger, would I be happy? Yes - pass. No - decide what he's failed on

Can you refuse to sign a log book just because someone has the ginger hair gene? :E

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 16:22

Only if you are from Glasgow and support Rangers................................:ugh:

Wrong Stuff

24th Jun 2008, 18:01

Say again slowly - given that the actual, written legal requirements aren't quite good enough for you, how far do you think it's right for people to make up their own rules? If it's acceptable for people to gold-plate the legal and CAA requirements to their own standards, where do you draw the line.

As an example, let's look at an analogy.

I had a minor medical problem myself a while back. I'm wondering what my reaction would have been if I'd gone back to my AME and he informed me of the happy news that I now met the CAA medical standards in full, but he wasn't going to sign the medical because he and the partners in his practice liked to apply their own, higher standards and he didn't think I was quite up to them? They want me to go down the gym every week and knock off the alcohol for a month, then they'll reconsider. Just in the name of safety, of course. He once signed off someone who met the CAA standards, but they had were taken unwell at the controls a few weeks later, so they now take it upon themselves to be a bit more stringent. There are no, actual, written guidelines as such, it's just up to him. Funnily enough, he can often tell when someone first comes in the room and he sees from their appearance how they look after themselves that the alarm bells first start ringing. Oh, and by the way, don't bother asking another doctor for a second opinion as they've called around all the local AMEs and warned them about my case.

Do you think it would be right for the AME to gold-plate the legal requirements to increase the safety of my passengers like this, or should he just follow the CAA rules? If he's allowed to make up his own rules, how far should he be allowed to go? If he shouldn't make up his own rules, why should you?

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 19:16

A totally different situation and a very flawed analogy. Medical rules are well laid down and if the AME didn't think you were fit enough to meet the standards, then they would be right to refuse you and refer you elsewhere to be reassessed formally.
They would be using their professional discretion. An FI refusing to sign your logbook because you are a blatant danger to yourself and others is doing the same thing.

As the rules are so open to interpretation, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing what I see as "best practise." If the law was written properly and said exactly what it meant, then I would follow it, but as it isn't, we have to muddle by the best way we can and do our utmost to keep our customers safe. If that means going beyond the letter of the law. So be it. You as a member sign the flying order book and if you don't accept it, then join another club.

If you don't measure up, then you have to be pretty shonky and why would you want to share airspace with people who are quite frankly a menace?

I don't and this is a very, very rare occurance fortunately as most people are either pretty good, or realise what their limitations are and are open to doing things properly.

Wrong Stuff

24th Jun 2008, 20:07

Thanks Say Again Slowly.

What would you recommend if the AME mistakenly thinks clearly stated rules are fuzzy and insists on mis-applying his or her own interpretation in the belief that it's best practice?

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 21:42

Again, it is a flawed analogy. From what I understand the medical rules are very specific. You either fit into it or not.

So in that case there is no "fuzziness".

There is no mistaken belief here, the rules aren't clear. There are recommendations for the content of the 1 hour flight and some could easily argue that a "recommendation" from the regulator is tantamount to an instruction.

gasax

24th Jun 2008, 22:07

The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear
at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s
knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve
on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some
other training then the FI must select suitable items of
general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL
requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for
the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants
logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the
‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.

This is the extract from LASORS 2008 and does not really justify the 'test' or proficiency aspects in any way. When this requirement was introduced there was an element of 'test' which was quickly removed. Not quickly enough perhaps? There is a huge amount of information on timescales etc but only this on 'instructional flight' - largely because the CAA wanted an element of test - but there was no justification in the requirements and hence this fudge.

Most people will have no difficulty with proficiency training. But when you pay for a revalidation and someone refuses to give in - without any justification within the rules - then the issues begin

Wrong Stuff

24th Jun 2008, 22:30

So, Say Again Slowly, if the original very clear rules for our AME were confused by some unclear statement within a CAA document intended for a general readership, you'd expect the AME no longer to follow the clear rules contained within the legislation to which he is supposed to work, but to try to somehow incorporate this fuzzy statement into his medical assessment as he sees fit?

Say again s l o w l y

24th Jun 2008, 23:36

You seem to want to continue with the AME analogy, despite it having utterly no relevance to a discussion about a PPL training flight.

His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills
So if you ascertain that the person you are flying with is utterly incapable. You just leave it at that? Aye right. Only an utter moron would think that an acceptable situation.

and interject if necessary to improve on these.

Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook
So if the aim of the flight is to ascertain the level of knowledge and skill and improve them, but you find these to be woeful and don't show improvement, then the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved.
Therefore, no sign off.

flybymike

24th Jun 2008, 23:47

Where in the regulations does it state that "the function of the FI is to ascertain the applicants knowledge and skills?"

The FI is perfectly and legally at liberty to sit alongside the applicant for the whole flight like a lump of lard without ascertaining anything at all if he doesn't feel like it....

This is NOT A TEST!

(Incidentally, I think the medical analogy is perfectly valid.)

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 00:31

Directly from LASORS 2008 AGAIN......................

The Training Flight
The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear
at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s
knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve
on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL
requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for
the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants
logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the
‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.

An FI could sit there and do nothing, but they shouldn't and would be very derelict in their duties if they did so.

They are being paid for the flight, so should offer some benefit to the person who's footing the bill.

Now some bright spark is going to jump in and say "but LASORS isn't legislation" and my answer to that would be. Yeah, whatever. The CAA don't publish it for fun. Take up any problems in interpreting the ANO, JAR-FCL etc. with them, not others who have far better things to do, such as trying to stop PPL's killing themselves.

What they've put in LASORS is good enough for me. It could be better, but compared to most of the legislation I've waded through in other areas of law, this is clear and concise and for those who are thinking about a legal challenge to a school, utterly defensible. Show a judge that passage and who wrote it and the case would be out of the door faster than you can shout "clear prop."

englishal

25th Jun 2008, 02:13

So, SAS, can I or can I not in your opinion opt for an hour of tailwheel or an hour of aerobatics to improve my skills for this 1 hr flight?

I appreciate flying clubs can do whatever they want, but I am not flying a flying club aeroplane or not a member of a flying club and don't want to fly their aeroplanes.

The way I see it is that it is worded so that I can do anything I like as long as I fly with a JAA FI once in the last 12 months for at least one hour, and if the FI tries to impose their rules then they are simply playing examiner when they shouldn't be.

BEagle

25th Jun 2008, 05:38

The CAA's Flight Examiner Handbook clearly states that the FI who conducted the training flight must sign the logbook of the applicant and include his licence number if the flight was satisfactory.

An hour of aerobatics and tailwheel flying? Nothing wrong with that. But if the FI has to take control to stop you endangering the aeroplane or yourself, and if the instructor has to correct your poor RT or stop you infringing controlled airspace?

To be honest, there is no real issue. The only time I wouldn't sign would be if you were so utterly awful or overconfident that I had concerns about your ability to fly passnegers without risk to them. Is that very likely? Frankly, I doubt it. I've never heard of anyone ever having a 'training flight' NOT signed off.

And you most certainly would pay - unless, of course, the flight was in a Permit aeroplane whose Permit did not include use for flight instruction. The flight would then be entirely private. I've only done that once - but the applicant did pay for my fuel to drive to his aerodrome.

S-Works

25th Jun 2008, 07:40

And you most certainly would pay - unless, of course, the flight was in a Permit aeroplane whose Permit did not include use for flight instruction. The flight would then be entirely private. I've only done that once - but the applicant did pay for my fuel to drive to his aerodrome.

As I am certain you have more than 1,500hrs join us as an LAA coach and be paid within the CAA approved scheme for your expenses on permit aircraft.

Wrong Stuff

25th Jun 2008, 08:10

You seem to want to continue with the AME analogy, despite it having utterly no relevance to a discussion about a PPL training flight.
In many ways they're very similar. Both the revalidation requirements and the medical requirements have been considered at length by committees of experts, who have consulted and debated the pros and cons of different measures and come up with clear requirements which have been written into law.

If the CAA decided to put in LASORS something like "The function of the medical examiner is to ascertain the applicant’s physical and mental health and fitness, and interject if necessary to improve on these." it would clearly be inappropriate for medical examiners to use this general statement as an excuse to start making up their own fitness or psychological tests and use them as a basis for passing or failure, even if they did think it helped them ascertain the physical and mental health of the applicant and weed out people they didn't think measured up.

For whatever reason, the regulators decided that a flight test was unnecessary, but a training flight was required for revalidation. That was what they specified in the legislation. As with the AME analogy, it is clearly inappropriate for flying instructors to override the decisions of the regulators in requiring some pseudo flight test with their own made-up pass/fail requirements, rather than carrying out the training flight specified in the regulations.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 08:31

englishal, of course you can do aero's and tailwheel training. I've done it on many occasions for people doing their 1 hour flight. IMC as well. As long as I can get an idea of the competence of the person I'm sitting alongside, then frankly anything goes.

I will usually chuck in an emergency or two, but I'll generally do that on any flight.

As BEagle mentions, this is all a storm in a tea cup, there have been so few occasions where I haven't signed someones log book after the 1 hour flight that I can count them on the fingers of my hand. Apart from the two examples I've already mentioned, I've never had to refuse to sign anything as the PPL themself has realised they fall well below par and has asked for more training off their own back and acknowledged their own shortcomings.

The medical analogy is flawed because 1) there isn't a passage in LASORS saying the phrase "The function of the medical examiner is to ascertain the applicant’s physical and mental health and fitness, and interject if necessary to improve on these"
And 2) The medical examination requirements are laid down. More like a proper flight test with an examiner, where there is guidance about tolerances etc given to the examiner. Fall outside these tolerances and you can be failed, though most examiners use discretion and minor infractions are usually ignorned if the rest of the flight is of a sufficient standard.

The 1 hour training flight has no guidance other than the single statement in LASORS, a very different thing from anything an AME will do.

Jumbo Driver

25th Jun 2008, 09:09

Such arrogance ...

As long as I can get an idea of the competence of the person I'm sitting alongside, then frankly anything goes.

You are not required to assess competence on a revalidation "Training Flight" - IT IS NOT A TEST! :ugh:

I will usually chuck in an emergency or two, but I'll generally do that on any flight.

If you did that to me without briefing or my agreement on my "Training Flight", I'd land and offload you ... and without any payment!

The 1 hour training flight has no guidance other than the single statement in LASORS, a very different thing from anything an AME will do.

LASORS is not authoritative - we have already established that.

JD
:)

PS Incidentally, I think the AME analogy is absolutely valid ...

S-Works

25th Jun 2008, 09:20

Such arrogance ...

Indeed JD

As BEagle mentions, this is all a storm in a tea cup, there have been so few occasions where I haven't signed someones log book after the 1 hour flight that I can count them on the fingers of my hand. Apart from the two examples I've already mentioned, I've never had to refuse to sign anything as the PPL themself has realised they fall well below par and has asked for more training off their own back and acknowledged their own shortcomings.

So why be so dogmatic with your continuing arguments? To massage your own ego about how you have power of life and death over 'mere' PPL's as you are an all powerful Instructor?

Quote:
I will usually chuck in an emergency or two, but I'll generally do that on any flight.
If you did that to me without briefing or my agreement on my "Training Flight", I'd land and offload you ... and without any payment!

Likewise, as would I and I would expect any student of mine to do the same.

Quote:
The 1 hour training flight has no guidance other than the single statement in LASORS, a very different thing from anything an AME will do.

And again LASORS is not the law or regulations or even guidance from the CAA, it is a single persons subjective opinion.

I am sorry SAS but you have set your self up as the law and woebetitde anyone who does not meet your standards. I am afraid the AME analogy that you are arguing against is actually quite correct and no matter how much wriggling you do to try and get out of it you are quite simply wrong.

As Instructors we have a responsibility to follow the rules as set so that we set a good example to those that we teach. If we start to make up our own rules and interpretations of rules how do we set that good example? We have to practice what we preach. In persisting in this line of argument you have merely become a shining example of how to ignore the rules and regulations as written. So perhaps if you brought your licence to me for revalidation I might have to consider not signing as you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for ignoring the regulations. This would make me ask what else you are modifying to suit yourself. The training curriculum, weight and balance, performance?

Oh hang on, I can't do that as my examiner role for revalidation is merely to check that the paperwork is in order........

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 09:46

So LASORS isn't authorative? So let's just ignore it as a publication then. What rot.

What part of His function is to ascertain the applicant’s
knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve
on these. do you not understand? Simple commonsense gives us the hint that whilst it isn't called a test, that is what the CAA really want, but if they called it a test, then it would have to be done by an examiner not an FI.

You'd land and offload me. Really, how childish. So with the benefit of an instructor next to you, you get a chance to practise an manouvre you may not have performed for a while and pick up hints and tips. Do you think the aircraft will tell you in advance that it's about to have a failure of some description? Of course not. And you accuse me of arrogance. Oh how sweet is irony!

I also can't remember saying that I wouldn't brief the flight properly and mention the likelyhood of practice emergencies occuring at some point in the flight, or is your flying of such a low standard that you need to know exactly what will happen and when so that you can prepare yourself in advance?
Wouldn't it be better to be upto speed on everything, so when a real problem occurs, you have an idea of how to deal with it?

As the flight is about training, I like to introduce things that someone might not have seen before or thought of, so whilst they might not know what to do there and then, when we debrief we can have a discussion and they go away having learnt something new.

I will agree that the flight is not just a test, but there has to be some element of a test involved, such as a minimum standard or put even more simplly an ability for the person doing the flight to be able to perform certain tasks. It isn't black and white, but if you fly with someone who has no awareness, poor skills, ie are unable to fly at an assigned alt or heading, and can't perform basic manouvres such as a PFL or EFATO then you think I should just shut my mouth and sign the flight off?

If you think that is alright, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land and I'd be very suspicous about your own capabilities if you were that anti being asked to perform to a minimum standard. We're not talking about everyone being Ace Rimmer, just of a decent, safe level where they are unlikely to smear themselves across the countryside. Most of it comes down to the attitude of the pilot anyway and that you can tell from just having a chat before hand, the flight generally just confirms your inital thoughts.

To me it's clear what is sensible and what is written in LASORS. Again if you don't like it, then contact the CAA to change the guidance. FI's have enough to think about and do and really don't need hours of static from people about something that is so simple.

Why the big fuss anyway? If the rules were changed and you were asked to do an LPC every 12 months like every other class would it change much? Apart from putting even more people off flying all it would do is increase the standards not drop them.

The current system is flawed, but when you look at the thinking behind it, you can understand why it has been left wooly. For me, the CAA want a test, but know all it will do is put people off flying, so their revenues drop, so they fudge this where they want FI's to take on the burden of checking and testing, even though we aren't really trained to do so. This then puts you in conflict with the bolshier of PPL's who don't want to sit a "test". The vast majority of brown licence holders, couldn't give a monkeys, it's only a very vocal minority who whinge and they are whinging at the wrong people. FI's just do what they think is best for PPL and for the industry.
If you have a real issue with this, take it up with the regulator or with the CFI at the club, generally you'll simply be told to bog off and stop wasting time.

You may find a freelance FI like Bose who'll be happy to sit there and do nothing and get paid for it. You'll both be happy. He got his £30, you got a sign off for another 2 years, but doesn't that make an utter mockery of the system. Who has benefitted from that flight? No-one.

Once you have a licence you are still on a continual learning curve, why not use the opportunity every couple of years to find out where you are weak or strong and where you need to work on to become a better pilot? You can't do that if the FI beside you is just along for the ride and to fulfil a legal requirement.

Jumbo Driver

25th Jun 2008, 09:55

Such arrogance ...
Sorry SAS, I'll withdraw this.

I should have said "Such aggressive, barefaced, narrow-minded arrogance ..." :ugh:

After that outburst, I now seriously doubt your suitability to hold the FI rating - if indeed you do ...

JD
:)

S-Works

25th Jun 2008, 10:16

You may find a freelance FI like Bose who'll be happy to sit there and do nothing and get paid for it. You'll both be happy. He got his £30, you got a sign off for another 2 years, but doesn't that make an utter mockery of the system. Who has benefitted from that flight? No-one

breathtaking arrogance.

And this is really going to sting you..... I generally provide my services for free as I enjoy what I do. I also firmly believe the role of the Instructor is to guide and mentor not attempt to flatter our own egos about how clever and great aviators we are.

I don't disagree with your core sentiment that we are there to guide and improve. But there are many ways to skin a cat but setting yourself up as an authority figure with the power of life and death is not one of them.

There are many people on these forums who have flown the hour with me and had their licence revalidated. I challenge you to find one of them who will tell you I just sit there and do nothing. The difference between you and me I suspect is that I ASK what they want to do, follow the spirit of the regulation and view the flight as an opportunity to improve and not as a test that they can fail. The very nature if the flight is for them to have the opportunity to cock up and have gentle guidance to correct and improve things.

But if the FI has to take control to stop you endangering the aeroplane or yourself, and if the instructor has to correct your poor RT or stop you infringing controlled airspace?

I am Pilot in Command, a responsibility that I take seriously, so there are not going to be any airspace busts, (we all know what happens to Instructors when this happens!). If the RT is poor then it is a learning opportunity and again if the pilot endangers the aircraft then it is a teaching opportunity not a pass or fail test. A good Instructor should leave the student feeling that they have learnt not been 'tested'.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 10:20

I'll leave the insult throwing to you. It's always good to make up your mind on someone based on a single subject typed into an internet bulletin board...............As for me not being an FI. In a way you are right, as the CAA have deemed my medical fitness suspect. Something to do with chemotherapy not being a great boon to flight safety, but 10 years of being an FI and listening to the same old nonsense about things like this tends to get a bit wearing. I've had this very debate on Pprune on a regular basis since 2000.

It is a bit like herding cats. Your ego won't let you back down and nor will mine or the simple fact that I know I'm right! Whatever you write here, won't change anything. I've been doing this for years and I've never had a complaint about how I conduct training or checks and judging by the fact our club grew from one aircraft 4 years ago and now has hundreds of happy members, 2 bases and no-one has croaked it yet, then we must have done something right.

I would suggest that you actually read what I've written rather than just blasting through it ready to make a barb.

Bose, I don't remember ever saying I did have the "power of life or death" or somesuch other melodramatic nonsense. Our role is impart knowledge to students and others who want our services. That's what we get paid for. It just happens that occasionally something we do or say might stop someone doing something stupid.

I've had a few people come up to me and tell me that it was something that I told them that stopped them doing something that could have had dire consequences. If something I've done has helped to keep our members as safe as possible, then great. I want them to know everything I do and I often find myself learning as much from them as they do from me, which then helps the next person.

That is why I enjoy instructing as much as actually flying myself. It isn't arrogance to try and do it to the best of your abilities and if trying to set an acceptable standard and then enforcing it is arrogant, then fine tar me with that brush. However, you'll have to do the same to every FI I've ever met or worked with. Well, any of the decent ones anyway.

Nice to know you are helping to devalue our profession by working for free though. That really helps those who are trying to make a living out of teaching.

enq

25th Jun 2008, 10:24

ie are unable to fly at an assigned alt or heading

Oh B:uhoh:gger, When I revalidated last month I thought it was a suggestion rather than a strict order (240ish at 2500ishft).

I also wonder how you can judge the ultimate effectiveness of a PFL or EFATO without applying the "land & walk away" test.

Similiarly, was the stall poor airmanship or a bit of practice at unusual attitude recovery ?

I also left my revalidation flight until the last minute (I thought if push came to shove I could always do with a bit of IMC training - NO PFL or EFATO) but there are many more factors that could affect a pilot's performance in certain tasks, not least of which is the ubiquitous "bad day" that, without a sign off could potentially force a lot more cost on a PPL or even put them off revalidating (& therefore flying) altogether.

I would still go legal to recover my costs if I was refused a sign off (although obviously I would also address the airmanship issues, if any, that got me into the situation in the first place).

BTW is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Morning all, enq.

Wrong Stuff

25th Jun 2008, 11:15

To me it's clear what is sensible and what is written in LASORS. Again if you don't like it, then contact the CAA to change the guidance.

There's no need, the text in LASORS is quite clear already.

The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these.

So you should make clear to the applicant the function of the instructor is:

i) To ascertain the applicant's knowledge and skills...

The FI looks at what the applicant is doing and forms an opinion on their level of ability.

ii) ...and interject if necessary to improve on these.

If necessary you tell them what they can do to improve their knowledge and skills.

Seems simple and straightforward. You look at what they're doing and tell them if they're doing something wrong. There's nothing about failing them for poor performance. There's nothing about carrying out a pseudo flight test. There's nothing about pretending the training flight didn't take place to force them to do a a bit more training at your discretion. You observe. You comment. You sign the logbook to confirm the flight took place.

Anything else you think it says is purely in your head.

youngskywalker

25th Jun 2008, 11:21

I think after 4 pages we get the picture! Why is it that members of pprune seem so obsessed with arguing over rules and regulations? Is it a Pilot thing or do you all study the highway code with the same enthusiasm?!

I really should try and stop reading these forums, I always end up losing the will to live!:E

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 11:40

enq, it is very easy for an FI to know what is acceptable when it comes to general handling. We do it daily.

Personally, the primary aim in a PFL is of course to walk away and as long as that is achieved, then I couldn't give a fig how it is done, but a few thing I like to see are mayday call when appropriate, pax brief if time, an attempted restart if the failure isn't obvious and turning off of electrics and fuel before touchdown.

For example, what checks the person uses to achieve that, I don't care. I'm not there to change what someone is doing if it is safe and they are comfortable with it. We all have our own ways of doing things and no-one has the monopoly on the "only" way of doing something.

If they miss something, then I'll mention it in the debrief or after the excercise has been completed. ie when appropriate, but if the excercise has been completed to a good standard with only a few comments, then it's just a debrief item. If they make a complete horlicks of it and we'd have ended up buried in a hill or in a totally unsuitable position, then we'll climb back up and do it again.
If it falls to pieces again, then often I'll demonstrate one or talk them through what they are doing as they have another go, explaining all the way what is happening. In exactly the way I would do with a student.

If we have to spend 30 minutes to get it right, then so be it. It isn't a test, it's about getting the person upto standard if they aren't there already. As long as by the end of the flight, we've fixed the problem, that's all that matters.

I won't give up on someone just because they make a mistake or have gap in their knowledge, it's the incredibly rare situation where someone pitches up and flies so appallingly that a simple bit of tinkering won't work. Basically, they need a whole load more than one hour with an FI to bring them to anything like good enough, but these people are fortunately few and far between.

One or two mistakes doesn't make someone a bad pilot. I make them and I don't know anyone who doesn't, but if you fly with someone who is awful, but thinks they are the next Bob Hoover, that's when I get nervous.

It's what happens between the ears that I'm really interested in, not if someone is competent but makes the odd boo boo.

youngskywalker, I think it's a pilot thing. No wonder there are so few women involved in aviation when you have to deal with such spotterish arguments about stuff that really isn't that important. I was thinking about why I rarely post on this bit of Pprune anymore and I think I've got my answer!

enq

25th Jun 2008, 12:55

SAS,

I guess, in the same way that you have experience in judging whether a PPL could be construed as a danger to themselves & others (& so presumably sectionable under the mental health act :ooh:) we lowly PPL's have had ample experience in assessing whether an instructor is performing satisfactorily during the training flight. :p

Personally I am used to being asked what specifically I would like to cover during my reval training flight (I tend to practice the emergency procedures as much as possible anyway so this is never a bone of contention) rather than being told (briefed) on what the flight will cover.

I would be particularly put out if I had to waste 15 mins flying time to demonstrate a PFL that I had been practicing for an hour the previous week (I have to say I would demonstrate the exercise but I wouldn't be happy about it, mainly because I could be spending the time constructively learning & revising other aspects of flying that would be of far more benefit).

Ultimately we will disagree on this subject ad infinitum :ugh: so we will just have to agree to reserve our respective defences (refusal to sign off V civil recovery action)

Still, it's been a stimulating, if somewhat pedantic debate so thank you :).

Regards, enq.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 14:00

There's nothing lowly about being a PPL, just because I have a few thousand hours and an ATPL, it doesn't mean I'm ace of the base myself.

I would be amazed if anyone ever went down the road of trying to recover money if an FI refused a sign off. It's a situation I've only had to deal with once and since I've performed hundreds of these flights it's not something I'm ever likely to lose sleep over!

Arguing over semantics like this on here is really pretty sad, especially as if you read the replies properly, you'll notice a lot of similarities. Making sweeping statements about someone based on a few lines on the internet is also very silly.

Basically, I do exactly what you are used to when it comes to briefing and talking to PPL's before this flight, but as per usual high horses have been climbed upon and in the typical pilot way the whole argument is one of transmitting your own ego instead of actually reading, digesting and understanding the point the other person is trying to put across in a few words of text.

I used to wonder why my wife would roll her eyes when I started blathering on to another pilot, especially about GA flying and the PPL world, but having been away from it for a while and then to return to this level of debate. I now realise why she got so bored.

Especially when you've been having the same roundabout argument for 8 years.

Do I really want to return to teaching if this is the sort of nonsense that awaits me again, or shall I just return to flying and getting paid by an airline? :rolleyes:

Jumbo Driver

25th Jun 2008, 14:57

... or shall I just return to flying and getting paid by an airline? :rolleyes:

The MCC Course might be rather a challenge ...

JD
:)

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 15:07

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

What a clever comment. How can I learn to be as funny and perceptive as you?

Judging someone based on an internet bulletin board........Seriously, that is very sad. So imagine what my opinion of someone who thinks chucking insults is a valid form of debate.

BRL, time for a padlock I reckon if this is the level the discussion has reached.

S-Works

25th Jun 2008, 15:15

What a clever comment. How can I learn to be as funny and perceptive as you?

Well, by getting off the soap box and just doing things by the book rather than writing your own? That is of course just my subjective opinion. ;)

Hamish 123

25th Jun 2008, 15:25

Well I thought it was very funny, Jumbo . . .

Anyway, I have to revalidate before the end of next January. What I thought was a simple task of going flying for an hour with an instructor has now taken on significantly greater emphasis than I previously anticipated. Better steel myself to the possibility of the instructor throwing my logbook back in my face, telling me I'm a danger to everyone in the air and on the ground, and calling every instructor in the SE of England about my incompetence.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 15:55

Well if you are bad enough, then yep. Expect the worst. Though it might be better if I rang each and every FI and Examiner in the UK and then also rang the CAA to have your licence revoked.

I might even do the same for every other pilot you've ever met, just to be on the safe side.

That'll cover it. No hang on, why don't I just e-mail the government and get them to ban any non-professional flying. That should keep us all safe.................:rolleyes:

Hamish 123

25th Jun 2008, 15:58

Not actually sure if you're joking or not . . . .

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 16:04

Having earnt my living from flight instruction and GA for the first 5 years of my career what do you think....................

Jumbo Driver

25th Jun 2008, 16:06

Alert ! alert ! megalomaniac sciolist at large ...

JD
:):)

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 16:52

You'd better believe it. As I sit here typing my minions are already tracking you, to ensure that the CAA are aware of your inability to have a polite conversation.

That should ensure at least a months worth of extra CRM courses for you before your next duty.

Or am I just taking the mick as a "pretender to knowledge". Seriously I haven't laughed as much for ages. To be called a fake on a website by someone calling themself "Jumbo Driver". Brilliant!

It really is true though, the level of posting on Pprune really has dropped through the floor in the past few years. No wonder so many people avoid the place like the plague.

Just a small waste of bandwidth going on here don't you think?

flybymike

25th Jun 2008, 17:16

Is it actually possible to earn a living for 5 years as an instructor?

Jumbo Driver

25th Jun 2008, 17:17

Just a small waste of bandwidth going on here don't you think?

You said it ... :ok:

JD
:)

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 17:19

Just Mike, only just...........

pembroke

25th Jun 2008, 18:02

Say again slowly is 100% right on this one, and I'm only coming back to the thread to support him. I raised two issues in the past, RT standards, and one re the UK invasion of LFAT. I was accused of whinging and being pedantic.
I have never had a problem with any of the many "inst dual" flights, or reval/renewal tests I have conducted. My priority is always to help people continue flying or come back to flying, and close to their original PPL standard. Is that unreasonable? As for LASORS, yes it is guidance but what else is there? And it is provided as the main source of CAA info. Can you imagine if during a court case a defence was " I take no notice of LASORS, it's only for guidance and anyway I disagree with the guy who wrote it" !

Jumbo Driver

25th Jun 2008, 19:03

pembroke, you are absolutely right that an instructor should be there to "help people continue flying or come back to flying". Yes, indeed LASORS is there for guidance - but the caveat must be that it is only guidance.

Without wishing to re-open the topic again (which I think has been rather beaten to death here), there are places - and the paragraph on the revalidation "Training Flight" is a prime example - where LASORS actually becomes misinformation, that is to say when it acts as a vehicle for imparting opinions, rather than indexing legislative fact. That is a great shame because it serves to devalue an otherwise sensible reference document.

In your hypothetical Court Case, imagine the prosecution asking "you say it says so in LASORS - I see, and what exactly then is the legal basis for your actions?" You then need to refer to the actual legislation - where would you be then?

I have no wish to re-open the "flood-gates" but I thought your valid point needed a response.

JD
:)

PS Were you a FEEP ?

Mach Jump

25th Jun 2008, 23:14

Oh dear. I think we are getting carried away here and missing the point. The fact is that ANY training flight of at least an hour with a Flight Instructor in the last 12 months of Class Rating validity counts towards revalidation. It doesn't matter if the instructor knew that it was going to be used for that purpose or not. It's routine that instructors sign people's logbooks after training flights or after a series of flights to certify that the entry/entries are correct, and that is all that is required.

MJ

Ps. the answer to the original question is Put. Its not a training flight if you log it as anything else.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Jun 2008, 23:59

As a small point since people keep mentioning hypothetical court cases that have never and will never occur......

All law is subject to review, clarification and interpretation. If it wasn't then most lawyers wouldn't have much to do.

I had dinner with one of the senior partners from my law firm this evening and we discussed this situation. Both of us had the same opinion.(Though to be fair hers is far more valid than mine, seeing as I'm an ex-law student, not an equity partner in a massive law firm!) Whilst the legislation doesn't mention the training flight directly, the fact that there is a publication such as LASORS written by the same organisation who enforce and write the rules we are supposed to follow, then the opinion in LASORS is something that can be taken as more than mere guidance. It is a recommendation of course and can be ignorned if you wish, however if you were to follow it to the letter and with the interpretation that I see, then you would be well within your rights to do so and certainly would not leave yourself open to any legal problems.

You could of course go after the CAA for producing a document that you may feel doesn't accurately reflect what you think it should and may I offer you my best wishes if you wish to do so. However, the individual FI or school choosing to follow the guidance laid down are totally within their rights to do so.

But obviously the barrack room lawyers on here know better. Especially as we've all passed air law. That makes you an expert in legal matters doesn't it..................

FI's also don't routinely sign logbooks, especially since the 1 hour training flight came in in 2001. A CFI will do so at the end of a training course before the book is sent off to the CAA for licence or rating issue to certify that the logbook contains true and accurate figures, but it is not done after every flight by an individual FI. Your records will be annotated with flight times and excercise numbers along with comments about the conduct of the flight and what has or hasn't been completed.

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 00:29

So what's to stop someone doing , for instance, a Night Qualification and then, retrospectively, using one of those flights to qualify for revalidation?

MJ

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jun 2008, 00:46

The log book would be signed or stamped by the CFI to show a completed training course, not an individual flight.

However, there is nothing to stop one of the flights being used as the "training flight." I certainly would have no issue with that, it's just that the logbook would need to be annotated to meet the requirements.

Not something that would be done as a matter of course unless asked for, though I certainly ask people when their SEP rating runs out so if we can meet the requirements as I see them in a "normal" training flight, then that would be sensible rather than wasting a members money and time doing an unnecessary and seperate flight when with just a signature you can fulfil the requirements as long as the student has flown to a decent standard, which would usually be a formality if you've done something like a night rating course with them.

S-Works

26th Jun 2008, 07:30

However, there is nothing to stop one of the flights being used as the "training flight." I certainly would have no issue with that, it's just that the logbook would need to be annotated to meet the requirements.

There you go again, what annotation? What requirements?

ANY flight of 1hr or greater with an Instructor counts as the flight towards the revalidation requirements. When are you going to get it into your head that their is no requirement to write anything in the pilots logbook apart from your signature and CAA reference number to confirm that a dual flight took place.

To answer machJump CORRECTLY, yes any of the DUAL sessions from the night rating as long as they were greater than 1hr would count towards revalidation.

I sign every students log book that carries my name as pilot in command. If you do a flight with an Instructor that is a dual flight make sure you ask that they sign. As an examiner I check the logbook for the last dual flight greater than 1hr, that the required number of hours have been flown for revalidation by experience and that the licence is valid. I then sign in the correct space and send the SRG1119 to the CAA.

enq

26th Jun 2008, 08:56

I had dinner with one of the senior partners from my law firm this evening and we discussed this situation

You actually brought this subject into the real world :8 ? What were you thinking?

Both of us had the same opinion

This presumably is after you objectively summed up both sides of the argument :} ?

But obviously the barrack room lawyers on here know better. Especially as we've all passed air law. That makes you an expert in legal matters doesn't it..................

That is your assumption, based on the fact that no one on here has owned up to having legal experience & / or qualifications other than yourself := - This, however, merely means that we do not all feel the need to validate our opinions by mentioning our professional qualifications :*

Honestly SAS, I'd quit while you're behind :E .

Morning All, enq.

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jun 2008, 10:23

My legal experience is limited to a year at law school and working for a law firm for a couple of years. Hardly anything to write home about! I just wanted to get the opinion of someone I know and trust, just in case I am doing something wrong. Which it seems I'm not.

Bose, the annotation I mentioned IS the signature and licence number. I don't sign logbooks unless there is a reason for it, such as for the "training flight". All other signatures for training courses are dealt with by the use of a stamp and signature at the end of a course as I've already mentioned.

Signing every line of a logbook makes it look awfully messy and is simply unnecessary. All entries are checked against records to ensure that they match up, in goes the stamp and off goes the book to either the Belgrano or to the examiner to sign the form.

A simple process really and one that seems to work fairly well in a busy club environment. As you fly with individuals more, a different system may work better for you. This one works well for me and how we do things. No-one has ever complained and there has never been an issue of any kind, whereas I have seen plenty of mistakes where logbooks have become overcrowded with signatures (especially for people who have flown in the states a lot) where signatures have appeared on the wrong lines, are unreadable or they simply take up so much space that the comment box hasn't got room to annotate what the flight was for.

I think the way we do it, is far more elegant, but horses for courses.

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 14:56

SAS
Sorry, I had to get some sleep last night!
Can I take it then, that you will revalidate a Class Rating on the basis of ANY training flight of at least an hour, so long as it is signed by the instructor, or does it have to be annotated as having been for the specific purpose of revalidation?

MJ

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jun 2008, 17:14

If someone comes to me with a logbook signed by another FI and the hours for renewal, then yes, of course I will sign the form. The other FI has signed the book, it isn't for me to start refusing revalidations just because I didn't sign the log book or do the flight myself.

Personally, I annotate with the phrase "Training flight" and my licence number and signature, just to ensure there isn't any issue.

BEagle

26th Jun 2008, 17:47

SAS, no such thing as 'hours for renewal'! You do, of course, mean Rating revalidation.

Otherwise I agree entirely.

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jun 2008, 17:58

Absolutely BEagle!:eek:

That's what happens when you are away from it for a while!

pembroke

26th Jun 2008, 18:49

To jumbo driver, yes I was a FEEP. To Mach Jump, when I sign the SRG\1119 for revalidation, I will always check that the "inst dual flight" was for purpose of revalidation, and would expect the FI to annotate as such. If a PPL presented a flight where an instructor was simply in the seat for the 1hr , albeit PIC ,what is the point of such a flight? Surely it is a chance to go a small way to maintaining PPL standards, and is recieved in this spirit by most PPL's and instructors.

TheOddOne

26th Jun 2008, 18:54

There is another way of completing the requirements for revalidation - a rating renewal. I follow this course by renewing my IMC rating; kills 2 birds with one stone...

Presumably FI renewal would do the same job, though my next would take me outside the current period.

TheOddOne

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 19:19

Beagle/SAS
I agree too, looks like were substantially on the same side after all.:ok:

Pembroke
The point is that it satisfies the minimum requirement for revalidation in that a flight must be an hour or more, and signed by the instructor.

Odd One
I dont think your FI reval. Flt Test will do it. Only TR, CR, IR, or IMC tests count

MJ

Ps. what's a FEEP?:confused:

pembroke

26th Jun 2008, 19:36

Flight engineer entry to pilot training (BA)

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 19:39

oh i see:cool:

Jumbo Driver

26th Jun 2008, 19:56

To jumbo driver, yes I was a FEEP

Thought you might have been ... one of the select few - well done! :ok:

If a PPL presented a flight where an instructor was simply in the seat for the 1hr , albeit PIC ,what is the point of such a flight?

Whatever the point of the flight, it will still fulfil the requirement for revalidation under JAR-FCL.

JD
:)

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 20:19

At the risk of fanning the embers, having been refused a signature, how, if at all, does Mr. Dangerous log the flight in his logbook?

MJ

Jumbo Driver

26th Jun 2008, 20:33

He should log it as P u/t as it was training - what else?

JD
:)

S-Works

26th Jun 2008, 20:35

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 20:39

Jumbo
Yes, thats what I thought at first, but it doesn't count as Put if it doesnt have a countersignature:confused:

Bose
:= You're so naughty! Was all thet expensive CRM training wasted?;)

MJ

Jumbo Driver

26th Jun 2008, 20:51

MJ, it was still a training flight, even if your FI refuses to sign your logbook.

We are rather going round in circles now - I would maintain the FI should sign the logbook simply to confirm the flight took place. He is not "signing you off", he is simply confirming that the flight happened - he was P1, after all - why shouldn't he sign?

You see how complicated it becomes if an FI acts "ultra vires" and tries to place his own interpretation on what is otherwise a simple clear revalidation requirement?

JD
:)

Say again s l o w l y

26th Jun 2008, 21:52

Bose, I've made my position very clear. If you want to carry on with pathetic jibes, then go ahead. All you're doing is making yourself look like a bell.

Mach Jump

26th Jun 2008, 22:18

Jumbo
I agree entirely!

It just makes me :mad: cross when the CAA come up with these half baked elaborations.

MJ

flybymike

26th Jun 2008, 23:22

As I said earlier, let the CAA make it clear to instructors, that in signing the log book, they are simply confirming that the flight took place, and that in so doing, they are not making any statement as to the competence of the pilot.

There can then be no justifiable reason whatsoever for a signature to be witheld.

S-Works

27th Jun 2008, 07:09

Bose, I've made my position very clear. If you want to carry on with pathetic jibes, then go ahead. All you're doing is making yourself look like a bell.

No mate, your contradiction of your own assertions and persistence on insisting that you are correct is making you look like one.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment I don't agree with your dogged insistence that you are right. As others have said, quit while you are behind as you continue to undermine yourself with every post and trying to deflect attention to me just makes you look worse.

If you really do think you are right and the REGULATIONS support you then prove it to us. Put up or shut up is the term.

Say again s l o w l y

27th Jun 2008, 13:47

Are you really that pedantic or is LASORS not good enough for you?
Seriously, this is like arguing whether a metre is 100 cm or 3.28 feet.

We get a nice book from our friends in Gatwick to try and make sense of all the "regulations" as you put it, which to me makes it all very clear, but for some reason, it isn't good enough.

Instead of wasting time and bandwidth, why not e-mail the CAA and ask for a clarification. I'm very comfortable that what I have always done is pretty much standard across the industry and that no-one is losing out on anything.

If the regulator comes back and says something different, then I'll change.

I'll chuck it back at you. LASORS agrees with me, you go off and look through hundreds of pages of law and tell me where it says anything that disagrees with my interpretation, or where it says that LASORS is a work of fiction to be disregarded as we all see fit.

If you can, I'll buy you a pint.

S-Works

27th Jun 2008, 14:09

Already did. The answer received from the CAA was that LASORS was a guide and if I wanted to view the law I was to read the ANO......

LASORS has no legal basis, it is the OPINION of one person in the CAA.

There is nothing in regulations that require you to do what you do.

That is only the point that we are trying to make. It is you that fails to recognise the fact and therefore leave yourself wide open.

The rules are very simple, any flight of 1hr or greater duration in the qualifying period as PUT meets the revalidation by experience requirements. There are no legal requirements for anything else, no required skills, no required assesment and no certification from an Instructor that they have met any standards.

The fact is that I agree with your sentiment just not your dogged determination to try and convince us your interpretation is the law.

Say again s l o w l y

27th Jun 2008, 14:56

LASORS is not written by a single person, nor can it be simply described as opinion. The editorial process will include the CAA lawyers reading through it.
They wouldn't let anything go into print unless it met certain criteria. Lawyers are funny about things like that. Their job is to minimise risk to their clients most of the time (for example, most newspapers have legal eagles on staff to check if stories are actionable) if the CAA published a book which purported to condense and explain the actual law and it wasn't spot on or defensible, then it would get any where near the printers.

They will always say "go and read the ANO" rather than give an opinion. Why? Because you are usually talking to a beauracrat who doesn't want to make a mistake in interpretation. If you could speak to one of the actual policy people who sat down and wrote this stuff, then you will likely get a very different answer.

The CAA are world leaders in ar*e covering. Do you really think they would publish a book like LASORS if it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

We can argue all we like, but as I've already mentioned, all legislation is open to interpretation unless something is tested and a precedent is set. That's simply the nature of it.

I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......:().

S-Works

27th Jun 2008, 15:20

I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......).

Threatening to be aggressive make no difference to the simple fact that you are wrong.

LASORS is a guide not the law. SIMPLE. The ANO is the law simple.

So pick me a section from the ANO that backs your stance up and we can all admit you were right. Otherwise the only person you are making look stupid is your self. Your ego won't let you back down will it?

Say again s l o w l y

27th Jun 2008, 15:44

No, simply explaining my position and why I don't run away when people start chucking childish insults around instead of reasoned argument. I may be guilty of many things, but fortunately being a violent idiot isn't one fo them.
Do you expect me to be able to reach down a phone line to administer a good thrashing.........!! Let's be a bit sensible about that.

It is your opinion that LASORS isn't to be followed in the same way it is mine that it should be.

The ANO cannot possibly be written to cover every nuance, if it was it would tens of thousands of pages long and utterly unreadable.

Let me put it this way, do you refer to the highway code? Do you consider that to be "good enough"?

It isn't law either, but a book written by the DVLA to allow the general public access to the rules and regs in a manageable form.

Next time you get stopped by the police, try arguing that just because it is in the highway code it isn't law. In fact an awful lot of what is contained in the highway code doesn't appear in any legislation, but whilst you can't be prosecuted for failing to abide by the "code", there is the catch all offence of "driving without due care" which can be chucked at you even though what you may have done doesn't appear in the statute books, but does appear in the highway code book.

LASORS is exactly the same in my eyes. It is simply a book clarifying the law and making it more easily digestable and accessable for the general public. Having to refer to the ANO constantly is unwieldy and given that it can only be updated by act of parliament, having a book like LASORS makes life an awful lot simpler for all of us.

It has transformed things for me. I don't get asked anywhere near as many law questions anymore and if I am and I don't know the answer off the top of my head, it is far easier to delve into one book and get an answer.

An excellent publication, not perfect, but it makes life much easier than when we didn't have it.

BEagle

27th Jun 2008, 15:56

LASORS might not be a legal document, but it is a reasonable 'code of conduct'.

In any case, the FEH requires that the instructor who conducts the 1 hr training flight shall sign the applicant's logbook and include his CAA reference no.

If a FE signs a revalidation which is not supported by such a signed entry, he has failed to follow the CFE's requirements and has, therefore, not acted in accordance with his authorisation.

Presnt me with a logbook without such a signed entry and I would offer 2 alternatives:

Either 1. Go and fly a 1 hr training flight and have it 'signed off' by the FI.
Or 2. Fly a revalidation LPC.

And whereas a FI revalidation proficiency check will count towards SEP revalidation by experience in lieu of a 'training flight', a FE 'dummy skill test' won't......:rolleyes:

S-Works

27th Jun 2008, 16:00

SAS. I am not disagreeing with you that LASORS is indeed a fine publication and is a great GUIDE for us as Instructors and Examiners.

I merely needling away at your dogged insistence that it is the regulations and it must be followed to the letter. I refer you to mine and others previous comments.

The rules are very simple, any flight of 1hr or greater duration in the qualifying period as PUT meets the revalidation by experience requirements. There are no legal requirements for anything else, no required skills, no required assesment and no certification from an Instructor that they have met any standards.

I am not trying to put my own interpretation on the rules. I just follow them in as written.

You only have to admit you were wrong and it will be at an end.

As an Instructor people expect you to give good advice and unless you admit that your interpretation is wrong where does that leave us all. After all if an Instructor can't get it right how is the average pilot going to?

Beagle, we are not arguing the fact that the Instructor should sign. It surprises me that SAS does not sign each flight. I certainly do and everyone else I know does the same thing.

Say again s l o w l y

27th Jun 2008, 16:24

When I read the passage in LASORS about the "training flight" I find it very easy to take from the paragraph that we as instructors should be assessing the skill level of the person we are flying with, then according to the paragraph we should "interject if necessary to improve on these".

If by the end of the flight, the standard has not got any better, then for me, the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved. After all, it is a training flight not a test, so if the aim of the training flight is to increase skill levels and that hasn't happened, then this section becomes relevant "Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose."

Why, because it says if the aim is achieved, then you sign, if it isn't, then you don't. I would far prefer it if that was made obvious, but I think the inference is very clear from that, otherwise why mention the phrase "where the aim is achieved"?

In the hundreds of logbooks I have seen, the only time I have noticed each training flight to be signed by an FI is for people who have flown in the States. I simply don't know anyone who signs after every flight, as I mentioned before it is messy and unnecessary. I have taught in schools in the South of England, the Midlands, Welsh Borders and up here in Scotland and not one CFI has insisted or even mentioned that I should sign a students logbook after each and every flight. The only time I've seen lots of signature like that is for P1/S in an airline environment.

Wrong Stuff

27th Jun 2008, 16:32

It [LASORS] has transformed things for me. I don't get asked anywhere near as many law questions anymore
There might be another reason for that :)

Say again s l o w l y

27th Jun 2008, 16:37

I'd like to think it was because of the increased awareness of the law thanks to LASORS, but you're right, it may well be down to my wit, charm and personality! Or lack of.

Either that or the fact that I haven't held a medical since September which tends to cut down the amount of time you spend at the airfield and therefore the chances of people buttonholing me for questions!

Mind you I am still getting at least a phone call a day from students and ex-students asking me questions, so I'm not that bad really!

S-Works

27th Jun 2008, 16:42

I rest my case. :ok:

flybymike

27th Jun 2008, 17:08

SAS,your remark about the ANO being "tens of thousands of pages long and utterly unreadable" is at least fairly accurate... ;)

BEagle

27th Jun 2008, 18:37

It surprises me that SAS does not sign each flight. I certainly do and everyone else I know does the same thing.(sic)

There is no requirement whatsoever for this in the UK at SPA level. I understand that it is an FAA requirement, so perhaps people who have attended FAA schools have brought the pointless habit back with them from the USA.

Apart from FE signatures and FI SEP revalidation training flight signatures, I wouldn't expect to see any other FIs' signatures in UK personal flying logbooks.

I really fail to see what value your comments add to this thread, bose-x....

Mach Jump

27th Jun 2008, 21:15

Gentlemen, and/or ladies:ugh:

We have all had our say now, and it seems that neither side is going to persuade the other to change it's mind by the application of logical argument, nor by slinging insults at each other.

Perhaps we should accept that some are never going to come around to our point of view, and just let it go.

MJ

Say again s l o w l y

27th Jun 2008, 21:19

A typical conclusion to any debate that involves pilots then.........:rolleyes:

I'm still right though!

S-Works

27th Jun 2008, 23:03

I really fail to see what value your comments add to this thread, bose-x....

Likewise Beagle, so I guess we are even.... :ok:

englishal

28th Jun 2008, 01:39

I always get my logbook signed by the FI...for the very reason we're talking about. I don't care if the logbook looks messy or not, does it really matter? Besides as the customer paying the FI for their services, I think it is the least they can do to avoid any confusion later on.

If I happen to do a "club checkout" in month 13 of my 2 year period, it makes sense to get the logbook signed so you don't have to go back and do this extra 1 hr training flight.

Will an FAA BFR count for this 1 hr requirement I wonder? and if not, why not, seeing as there are established procedures for the FAA BFR which are not open to personal interpretation.....Maybe I'll fire one off to the CAA and ask, seeing as I end up doing an IPC every year and a BFR every two years anyway (through my choice)...

BEagle

28th Jun 2008, 03:56

As a general principle, I never sign anything which does not require a signature. And just because a pilot pays to fly with an FI, he/she doesn't own that FI, so the view that being a 'customer' entitles you to have your logbook signed by the FI for any instructional flight is incorrect.

An FAA BFR would only count as a JAR-FCL training flight for the purposes of revalidation if conducted by an FI authorised under JAR-FCL, as I understand it.

englishal

28th Jun 2008, 04:07

he/she doesn't own that FI
No but as they have paid for the FI's time for that flight then don't you think that they deserve a signature to say the flight was indeed carried out with that FI and that the comments entered are correct? I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out. If they don't sign then I assume I am PIC right? ;)

I think it should be a requirement that all FI time is signed by the instructor, to avoid any possible confusion later on. Especially if the flight is for the purpose of the issue of or revalidation of a rating - which it could be ?

BEagle

28th Jun 2008, 04:17

I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out.

NOt required and you have no right to ask for any signature for routine training except for any training flight you specifically wish to use as part of your SEP Class Rating revalidation requirements.

The FI will be PIC on any training flight, unless he/she is flying as a passenger with another pilot operating as PIC. Irrespective of any signature.

englishal

28th Jun 2008, 04:32

Surely ALL training could count towards a rating or revalidation at some time in the future could it not? Therefore I always want a signature.

BEagle

28th Jun 2008, 04:37

Such routine training does NOT require a signature.

As has been stated repeatedly, the only signature which is needed is by the FI who conducts the 1 hr training flight you need if revalidating your SEP Class Rating by experience.

Jumbo Driver

28th Jun 2008, 07:10

A typical conclusion to any debate that involves pilots then.........:rolleyes:

Why am I not surprised that's your personal experience ... ? :ok:

JD
:)

S-Works

28th Jun 2008, 07:36

Quote:
I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out.
NOt required and you have no right to ask for any signature for routine training except for any training flight you specifically wish to use as part of your SEP Class Rating revalidation requirements.

The FI will be PIC on any training flight, unless he/she is flying as a passenger with another pilot operating as PIC. Irrespective of any signature.

No right to ask for a signature? That has to be one of the most arrogant things I have seen you write for a long time.

As an Instructor if someone pays for my time for Instruction I think they have every right to ask that I sign the logbook as proof that the Instruction took place. If they then want to use that flight later for revalidation then they are perfectly at liberty to do so.

Is it little wonder that pilots prefer to go to independent Instructors for training rather than schools if this is the dogmatic and arrogant approach they face by school instructors.
:ugh:

Mach Jump

28th Jun 2008, 08:45

Beagle
I have, so far, been unable to find any current general requrement for the instructor to countersign Put logbook entries on a routine basis, except that time so logged cannot be counted for the issue of a licence or rating, unless it is countersigned , either on an individual flight basis, or as a summary of a group of flights.

I can see absolutely no reason though, to refuse a signature if one is requested.

MJ

Say again s l o w l y

28th Jun 2008, 09:11

I do hope you have set up a Bose-x RTF as an "independant instructor".

Since you seem to like everything from the ANO, show us where it is a requirement to sign each flight as an FI or where it is even mentioned?

If you are signing flights willy nilly, do you sign them even where the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved? i.e when someone god awful has tried 15 different ways to break the aircraft in a single flight and showed no imporvement or interest in getting better.
You would still sign their logbook and think nothing more of it?
Would you suggest more training?
What would you do if they refused this offer, got their rating revalidated and a few days later hurt themselves or god forbid killed themself and others with them because they made mistakes that you had picked up, tried to rectify but failed to do so and then gave up and signed the form and logbook anway?

That would be interesting from a professional liability stand point. In the same way that training records are scrutinised after a fatal accident from a solo student and that you can be for the high jump if it is proven that you didn't sufficiently train the student in emergency procedures etc. before they were sent off solo.

I wonder how it would work given the fact that LASOR is explicit and whilst not law, it carries more weight than a blank bit of paper and a smart lawyer acting for an estate would be right on to it to try and prove that it was your fault that the pilot died.

All hypothetical, but having seen some cases like that (not aviation based) where someone who in reality had little to do with why some arrogant s*d killed themselves, gets nailed to the wall and smeared for all time. Horrid to watch. One chap later killed himself after he was found negligent after a sailing accident. Poor guy.

The 1hr training flight is about the only opportunity a lot of the time to try and help people.
It isn't about punishing them for being rusty or some power trip for an FI. It's about making sure that people have the required skill set to fly safely.

I can hear the howls of derision. "Who are you to make that judgement?" My answer would be. Get stuffed, who else is going to do it?

99.9% of the time, the flight is a formality, but as flying is about being prepared for problems, I like to have a plan to deal with that 0.1%.

Most people will undergo some form of training every year and if it falls within the time period and they are flying well, then I will sign their logbook as matter of course, usually without having to be asked and certainly without doing a seperate flight.

But there are a few people who won't see an FI apart from every couple of years. That isn't a problem, but it does mean the "training flight" takes on more of a formal basis as it is a different type of flight compared to the ones normally completed by the pilot.

This sometimes can cause problems as it can make people nervous. It gets percieved as a test and no amount of explanation that you are there to help not simply judge makes a difference.

I can't help it if someone gets nervous before hand and then mucks it up. Anyone who knows me, will tell you that I can actually tell if people are wound up and I always do my best to make them as calm as possible. Chatting, stupid jokes, anything to try and make sure that their flying is as minimally affected by having an FI next to them. Explaining that it isn't a test also helps and that I'm only there to help them with any problems or questions.

However, you can only make a call on what you are presented with. As any examiner will tell you, sometimes you fly with someone who you know should walk a test, but nerves get to them. You can't pass them if they didn't fly well enough, even though it was just a temporary blip. It can happen with even the cuddliest and friendliest of examiners.

I would prefer an American style BFR, but that isn't what we have, so you do your best to marry up the requirements from LASORS, your own commonsense and the desires of the person sitting next to you.

It is the fault of the CAA that this discussion is even possible. It should be laid out in black and white with no chance to be misinterpreted, but as per usual we just have to muddle through as best we can, trying to keep everyone happy. That isn't always possible, but you do have to try.

Jumbo Driver

28th Jun 2008, 10:24

OK, SAS - a quick and simple question ...

You fly as FI for an hour with someone as a revalidation "training flight" but (for reasons best known to yourself) you decide it is a "test", that they have failed and you therefore decline to sign their logbook.

In these circumstances, how would you suggest you should each record the flight in your respective logbooks?

JD
:)

PS I'm going flying now - there's plenty of lift in the air today ...

Say again s l o w l y

28th Jun 2008, 10:46

Well, it would still be a training flight, just one that hasn't reached it's aim. So it would still be P/UT for them and P1 for me.

You could annotate the flight as "unsatisfactory" if you wanted to be a complete ar*e, but I simply wouldn't sign the logbook or put my licence number against it.

You can't be forced into signing anything you don't wish to. Especially as you are supposed to be signing to say that something has been achieved, when it hasn't.

And no signature or licence number means no revalidation, unless the signature gets forged.

Enjoy your flight.

S-Works

28th Jun 2008, 11:15

I do hope you have set up a Bose-x RTF as an "independent instructor".

Another one of your made up regulations then?
:ugh:

Say again s l o w l y

28th Jun 2008, 11:24

S-Works

28th Jun 2008, 11:31

For ab-inito. I don't think so. You need an OCP number for when the PPL application is sent away. Something you don't have as an "independant instructor" unless you are an RTF yourself. You used to be able to set yourself up as one easily, but now you need airside accessable facilities which obviously cost a fair bit when you make the application.

SRG1175 is the form to apply for one.

I am sorry you will have to point me to the post in this thread where we were talking about ab-initio training. And also explain to me how ab-intio relates to the SEP revalidation flight........

englishal

28th Jun 2008, 11:35

What would you do if they refused this offer, got their rating revalidated and a few days later hurt themselves or god forbid killed themself and others with them because they made mistakes that you had picked up, tried to rectify but failed to do so and then gave up and signed the form and logbook anway?
Tough luck...they are revalidating by "EXPERIENCE" not by test. If they have survived 12 hours on their own, and managed to get revalidated then obviously the CAA thinks this is good enough....

If on the other hand they are revalidating by TEST with an FE then fair enough.

Say again s l o w l y

28th Jun 2008, 12:01

EA, I know where you are coming from, but that simply isn't good enough for me. I will not sit back and let someone who isn't competent carry on and cause problems for themself or others, if all I need to do is woork with them for a while. I'd do it for free if that was the issue.

Flight safety is more important than someones ego.

That's not being an arrogant sky god, that's being a sensible person, who actually has the well being of the person involved at heart.

I couldn't in all conscience sit back and watch as I knew someone was highly likely to smash themselves up.

It also doesn't fit in with the advice in LASORS.

However, for the final time. I'm not talking about the vast majority of PPL holders, but the sort of idiot who gives all of us who fly light aircraft a bad name.

How can I spot them? You show me an FI who's being doing this for a few years and I'll show you someone with a sixth sense!

englishal

28th Jun 2008, 12:40

This is normally the time I'd use to "do something different" and if that route is gone, then there doesn't seem much point in the flight as far as I am concerned, other than to waste money.

I fly with FAA instructors several times per year at least, (my friend is one and we fly together in my plane a fair bit - for fun) but that time doesn't count, but the training is just as good. So for the "official" time I want to do something else other than steep turns, stalls, blah....

thats all ;)

S-Works

28th Jun 2008, 12:50

IO540

28th Jun 2008, 17:06

I haven't read the whole thread but

LASORS has no legal basis

is not quite the whole story.

Regardless of whether a particular statement in LASORS is legally correct or not: if you rely on something in LASORS and then break the law, it is virtually impossible for the CAA to successfully prosecute you.

This has been discussed in another thread here recently.

The way it works is that a member of the public has a reasonable expectation of getting the correct information from a body like the CAA.

Even a letter from the CAA, containing completely incorrect information which you act on and then break the law, will make a prosecution impossible. This has been tested, too, because the CAA is not immune to having individuals inside it writing letters which are not authorised by the legal department and which somebody then relies on. I can think of one excellent example right away but won't post it publicly.

If you think about it, the law has to work this way, otherwise all correspondence (containing any advice or assurance whatsoever) emanating from any official body would be completely worthless.

It leads to the concept of "apparent authority" on which there is ample case law, and the current state AIUI is that pretty well anything appearing to come from an authoritative source inside the organisation can be relied on.

Jumbo Driver

28th Jun 2008, 20:57

It leads to the concept of "apparent authority" on which there is ample case law, and the current state AIUI is that pretty well anything appearing to come from an authoritative source inside the organisation can be relied on.

An interesting concept, IO540 - however I don't quite follow the reasoning because if two mutually contradictory statements come from the same "authoritative source", how then can that principle be applied?

In LASORS, there is also the caveat, which reads:

Nothing in this publication is meant to conflict with aviation legislation. Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive. The precise privileges of licences and ratings are set out in Schedule 8 of the Air Navigation Order (please refer to Section A, Appendix F).

JD
:)

IO540

28th Jun 2008, 21:13

Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive
That disclaimer wouldn't stand up in court if somebody had actually relied on something in LASORS - an official CAA publication.

That's before one gets to the way much of the ANO is worded - impenetrable to most.

Jumbo Driver

28th Jun 2008, 21:16

... and what about my first question:

An interesting concept, IO540 - however I don't quite follow the reasoning because if two mutually contradictory statements come from the same "authoritative source", how then can that principle be applied?

JD
:)

IO540

29th Jun 2008, 06:46

LASORS would be regarded as much more accessible. That's why it was published, after all!

Anyway, for some research, here is a starter:

Apparent authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_authority)

will5023

29th Jun 2008, 09:05

Phew, just trolled through this thread, long and short is, nobody likes to go back to school after they have passed, flying clubs/schools will want people they are hiring to,to be safe , hence the need to be proficient in "there eyes" during the test. It is the LAW and that is that. If you have the luxury of your own aircraft then flying circles with an FI/CRI/FE, is allowable, you can usually tell if a pilot is safe within the first 15mins, or if they need to brush up on skills a gentle approach usually worms out the problem.
I usually ask for some cordinated turns, a stall and a PFL etc, for fun, they might as well get there monies worth !

Will.

BEagle

5th Jul 2008, 20:32

Of course, if EASA gets its way, every SEP Class Rating holder will have to fly not just the 2-yearly training flight, but very 6 years a mandatory Proficiency Check with an Examiner....

FCL.740.A Revalidation of class and type ratings aeroplanes

(b) Revalidation of single pilot single engine class ratings.

(1) Single engine piston aeroplane class ratings and touring motor glider ratings. For revalidation of single pilot single engine piston aeroplane class ratings or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall:

(i) within the three months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or

(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including: 6 hours as pilot-in-command ; 12 takeoffs and 12 landings; and a training flight of at least one hour with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this flight if they have passed a proficiency check or skill test in any other class or type of aeroplane.

(2) For at least every third revalidation, the applicant shall comply with the requirements in (1)(i).

(3) When the applicant holds both a single engine piston aeroplane land class rating and a touring motor glider rating, he/she may complete the requirements of the paragraph above in either class, and achieve revalidation of both ratings.

englishal

5th Jul 2008, 22:20

That will be the day I let my Euro licence laps, and simply fly on the FAA ticket. I only renewed this time because I had just got the medical renewed which is valid for almost 4 years.....

flybymike

6th Jul 2008, 13:02

I got panned by the holier than thou fraternity on the Flyer forums for complaining about this new 6 yearly examiner test.

It is just another example of the creeping over regulation put in place to guarantee jobs for the boys and which is slowly strangling GA to death.

The recent CAA safety review of the new JAA regs (2 yearly instructor flights, 90 day rule etc) showed no improvement in safety statistics, and the new EASA proposals will do nothing but present yet another obstacle and more expense for GA pilots.

How about two yearly instructor driving lessons and resitting our driving tests every 6 years? How would that go down with the great british public. It might reduce the 3000 deaths a year on the roads never mind not reduce the dozen or so GA deaths per annum?

BEagle

6th Jul 2008, 18:36

That will be the day I let my Euro licence laps, and simply fly on the FAA ticket.

That may well not be an option under €urocracy.....

Say again s l o w l y

6th Jul 2008, 18:54

Hmmm, that would be a bit of a change. I can't see many liking that, apart from examiners of course.........

It's not as if the GA world is crawling with FE's anyway. I can see a lot of people letting it lapse if this comes in.

Though to be fair the SEP rating is still the only one where you haven't got to renew with an examiner every year.

If they want to bring in a full on test, then do it, stop mucking about. How is every 6 years going to solve anything? Especially as the accident rate is pretty static and I can't see this making a blind bit of difference.

englishal

7th Jul 2008, 04:53

The question has to be asked.....is this in the name of Safety or jobs for the boys? Where is the evidence that people are falling out of the skies left, right and centre due to not flying with an examiner every 6 years?

I really think Europe should look at the USA and FAA - who after all invented flying. They have it right in my humble opinion. Firm but fair. The BFR satisfies everything that is needed, every 2 years. A rating is for life, not just for 1 year. Those that have lapsed (IR) can be renewed by instructor training.

Worse case scenario, I'd even give up flying group A (or whatever it is called) in Europe completely and just go to the USA 4-5 times per year and fly there at a quater the cost. There are only so many hoops I am prepared to jump through.....

Say again s l o w l y

7th Jul 2008, 10:31

Yep, got to agree with you there EA. The FAA system does seem a wee bit more sensible and user friendly than ours. I could understand our muddle if it produced significantly better accident rates, but it doesn't.

Why not make it all easy and obvious and just let people get on with flying.

nosignificantweather

3rd Aug 2009, 20:22

Hi All,

I have a JAR-FCL PPL (Aeroplane) which I qualified for in the UK 23 months ago. I am therefore due to revalidate my license and have the relevant experience hours in place, except for having had my logbook signed and stamped against the revalidation flight for the one hour P u/t.

I have two questions which I would like your help on, and these are the following:

1. I'm living in Spain. Can I have a local examiner at Sabadell sign my log book and sign and date the certificate of revalidation page on my license?
2. Can you confirm if it is SRG1119 that I complete and send to CAA along with payment in order that the CAA log that my license has been revalidated? What is the cost to have my PPL record updated?

Is there anything else that I need to do to ensure my license is valid for a further 24 months?

Many thanks for your help,

NSW.

S-Works

3rd Aug 2009, 20:31

You can have a Spanish JAA Instructor carry out the 1 hour flight and sign your logbook. You can have a Spanish JAA Examiner sign the licence. For simplicity send a copy of his Examiner authority with an SRG1119 to the UK CAA.

I do this the opposite way around renewing the type and class ratings for our Spanish pilots and established from both the UK CAA and the Spanish that it was acceptable both ways.

cessna-kevin

3rd Aug 2009, 21:23

Ive read most of this thread but not all, im getting on a bit and tend to read the start middle and end of a thread,please excuse me if i duplicate someone elses comments.Many ppls especially in the current economic climate dont fly as often as they would like in order to keep current, so its bleedin obvious some will not be performing as expected upon their "check flight" with an instructor.Surely we are all aiming for the same goal enjoyable safe flying. We have all read flying mags accident investigations some of which beggar belief and some educational, if an instructor feels a pilot is not up to standard then he must speak out and act for the good of the ppl and us all.Otherwise whats the point in being an instructor if you cant express your views.

tmmorris

4th Aug 2009, 07:35

No fee - at least I hope not, as I've just done mine! There's no mention of a fee on the fees list on the CAA website and I'm pretty sure I didn't pay one two years ago, either. Would be a bl00dy cheek if there were, to be honest.

Tim

nosignificantweather

4th Aug 2009, 11:54

Bose-x,

Thanks for the reassurance that JAA examiner in Spain is entitled to sign my license. I will ask for a copy of his examiner's authority to include, as you have recommended.

TMMorris,

You are absolutely correct, I've checked again on notes page accompanying SRG1119 and it confirms:

2 Revalidation by Experience
• Sign the applicant’s “Rating - Certificate of Revalidation” page. Send the completed form SRG 1119 to PLD. No payment to
PLD is required.

Can't fault the help us (relatively) inexperienced PPL's get when we ask for help.

Thank you PPRuNe and PPRuNE'ers

nosignificantweather

9th Aug 2009, 17:38

Hi Bose-x, TMMorris, anyone else who can help

Having now had the examiner sign and date my certificate of revalidation, I am now ready to send the SRG1119 form to the CAA.

Having read the accompanying instructions, I am still confused as to what are the mandatory fields on the form for my circumstances. I have revalidated by experience, although the flight I did yesterday was in fact with the examiner himself. It was of duration 1hour and 5 mins. Although I had other previous dual flights within the last 3 months, I've counted yesterday as the dual flight for the purposes of revalidation, and had the examiner also sign my log book.

The questions I've got are as follows:

Section 2 - tick class rating, specify SEP (land) A and score out sea. Score out MPA, tick revalidation by experience (SEP) - scoring out TPM only. Put date of qualifying dual flight - 08/08/09
As the PPL license holder and applicant, I sign and date section 2. Is this correct?

Section 3
Certify completion by revalidation by experience.
Tick the box beside class rating, scoring out type. As I only have SEP (land) Aeroplane
Do I tick the pass and the single pilot boxes and add the aircreaf registration and type (C 152)
Also note expiry of current rating, and expiry of new rating (this date examiner has written on license itself).
Examiner has then signed and dated, and entered his examiner's number.
Is this correct?

Section 4 - leave blank as not relevant

Section 5 - leave blank as not relevant

Section 6 - I've read the instructions but as an english native, does the examiner still need to date and sign this section? Seems very strange.

Either I misunderstand the form, or section 3 in particular reads very poorly. If revalidating by experience, it seems strange to have details for pass/partial/fail/incomplete. Should this all just be left blank. Then, would the flight time be relevant, or is this just for a proficiency test?

Thanks for any pointers. Final question I have, will the CAA write to acknowledge processing of the form? I just want to make sure that it is processed by 1st September, which is the current expiry date CAA have on record.