What do you do with experienced pilots on a JAR training flight?

[hugh flung_dung]

I flew a JAR training flight recently with a very experienced pilot in his own aircraft. Before the trip I knew that the bod was current in all the things I might normally put into this trip (PFLs, stalls, diversion planning, short runway operations), that the aircraft was about as simple as they come (no flaps, no gyros, and not cleared for spinning or aerobatics), and that he was up-to-speed on the planning and regulatory aspects.

I always want these trips to have value, rather than being a bureaucratic hoop, but all I could think of in this case were control failures and wheel landings - both were handled without drama.. We did what had to be done and flew for exactly 60 minutes but I was left feeling unsatisfied .. any suggestions for next time?

A different (but related) topic: I recall some discussions a while ago about the possibility of splitting the 1 hour training requirement across multiple shorter trips, but don't recall a conclusion. Has there been any statement about whether this is allowed?

HFD

[Pugilistic Animus]

Have a thorough ground briefing,...an engine failure drill, discuss emergencies,..but just l go flying, relax, have fun and 'talk planes'* dude:cool:

*I don't know the regulatory aspects really though--I think while actually flying pilots are not permitted to talk flying the males talk about girls and the females,...only heaven knows

PA

[BEagle]

Navigation exercise culminating in an 'operation at minimum level' return to a an unplanned field for 'forced landing with power', go around (after the final circuit of the field), then RTB?

The JAA haven't changed their policy on the training flight, but for NPPL holders, the requirement is now 'a total of not less than 1 hr of training' in the 24 month period - so the total can be amassed across several flights.

[18greens]

Its pretty rare you get someone that good. The basic renewal is a challenge for most of them and the PFL always turns into a lesson in itself. You could just sit back and enjoy a pleasant ride with a competent pilot. However, no-one knows everything so to spice it up ask those really hard questions like

1) will an aircraft roll faster at altitude or sea level

2) describe the five instrument errors (or six or seven if you feel mean)

3) why is orange jam called marmalade

4) explain ATSOCAS

There's always something more to learn. Your job is to facilitate that learning.

[Pugilistic Animus]

will an aircraft roll faster at altitude or sea level
Well since the roll helix angle is equals to Pb/2V, so at a faster TAS--therefore roll rate will be higher at sea level, the expression also tells us high power or a longer wing all decrease roll rate,..low angle high roll rate

PA



BEagle do you always have to be so hard on 'em?:}

[Der absolute Hammer]

'I always want these trips to have value'
Great attitude..which reminds me..what I used to do in same circmstances was to introduce/build on..instrument flying. If the student had already five hours instrument then a little limited was always appreciated. Also, for fun, you can cover up the ASI with a sticker or a rubber squuegge bottle top opener thing and have him fly circuits using attidudes, RPM gage and ears, nose and throat for asking 'how are we doing?'
That is an interesting exercise and does build confidence also useful perhaps sometime.

[DFC]

Also, for fun, you can cover up the ASI with a sticker or a rubber squuegge bottle top opener thing and have him fly circuits using attidudes, RPM gage and ears, nose and throat for asking 'how are we doing?'



Caution - this is only OK if you have an ASI available on your side i.e. the aircraft has two.

Not legal for the aircraft to operate without an ASI - if you have covered it up, it might as well not be there at all.

The correct way to do the exercise you describe would be to use a device that prevents the student from vewing the ASI while still permitting you to see it. Similar devices are used for limited pannel training on the IR.

Don't confuse covering up the AI and DI when operating in VMC to teach / test limited pannel with the ability to cover other instruments especially close to the ground. Who would cover (totally) the only AI when in IMC to teach limited pannel?

Recomend that the relevant AIC and notice to RTF/FTOs issued following the Bournemouth accident is read before ony FI / CRI tries to operate without ASI - by all means let the student try but the instructor can't.

Regards,

DFC

[Whopity]

Get them to teach you something!

[bsmasher]

From the other side ( A PPL who occasionally has a flight with an instructor) -
I take the opportunity to be 'tidied up' in my flying so comments about accuracy of holding altitude, attitude, airspeed, flare point height etc etc are always welcome.

D.

[Airbus Girl]

Whenever I've done it (uncurrent PPLer...) the instructor has always asked me what I feel I am rusty on, what I would like to practice. Its useful to me if the instructor has some ideas too, as there might be things I hadn't thought about. I fly big aeroplanes all the time, so doing instrument stuff doesn't have a lot of value, whereas handling exercises are far more useful. Similarly, stalls I can do a hundred times over, whereas others might find its something they want to refresh. Do the "students" never come up with ideas?

[VFE]

Yes they do... in fact most will have thought through what they might expect the instructor to teach for this one hour and will probably volunteer an exercise if asked. For the very experienced ones who know more than yourself it is tricky how to approach the 1hr instructional lesson. Gotta be honest and say I treat it as a paperwork exercise and let the person relax and enjoy the trip.... then spring a PFL toward the end. :}

VFE.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I am not a fan of flight trivia Q and A for these sort of exercises. For an individual like this I think you should approach it as a practical " use your aircraft" exercise. The day before the flight assign a particularly demanding routing including as many different flight planing scenarios as possible including for example

-routings through high density airspace/hilly terrain
-flight over water
-destination near max range
-an intermediate stop at a short grass runway with no fuel
-assign a honking winds aloft and crappy but doable ceiling and vis.

When you go over the plan explore go/no go criteria for each leg and any areas where he has questions.

When you do the flight start the route and insert a few emergencies. When both of you are satisfied break off and do some upper airwork including for example manoevering at minumum airspeed ( i.e. see how slow you can go while doing gentle coordinated turns. Hint, if the stall warner is not on continuously you are not going slow enough) Take a hood and without warning while in a climbing or descending turn slap the hood down and say you just entered cloud. Practice any other manoevers the student would like to sharpen up. Conduct a full PFL and then recover to 1000 ft AGL (or the minimum safe/legal altitude and simulate a sick engine by reducing the RPM to the minimum required to just maintain level flight and return to the airport for a couple of circuits with different configurations

BTW the flying Club where I used to work had a policy that all renter pilots had to do an annual proficency check flight. I always included a PFL and
never had a PPL complete this exercise to a satisfactory standard and many were so bad I could only conclude that an actual engine failure would be probably result in a fatal accident. The reality is all pilots will be good at the stuff they do the most and less good at the manoevers that are seldom if ever practiced. Therefore I think it is important that this kind of exercise also be also used to review the less commonly practiced exercises.

[hugh flung_dung]

Thanks for all the considered replies.
I certainly agree about the poor PFL performance of many PPLs, and also the value of many of the exercises that have been suggested but these didn't apply in this case.

VFE - that's sort of what we did plus a PFL, a touch'n'go on a very short strip, and a 360 degree level turn without use of aileron or elevator.
If I was doing it again I think completion of an approach to 50 feet without use of aileron and elevator might have had some value, and maybe a circuit while having to reach across and use the P2 stick (simulation of disconnected P1 control column).
This might seem like stretching reality a little but a few years ago I was teaching stall turns (hammerheads for those in the colonies ;)) to the right and we were half-way up when there was a little "eek" from the left seat. I looked over and saw that the chap was holding the top part of the stick, with some wires hanging out of it, but it was no-longer connected to the rest of the stick. I was laughing so much at his expression of fear, surprise and imminent death that I can't remember who sorted it out now (he saw the funny side afterwards - are you out there John?).

For the very experienced ones who know more than yourself ... steady on! I didn't say he was *that* good :}

HFD

Edited to add: and thanks for the update BEagle

[Pugilistic Animus]

My statement was sooo wrong

the roll helix angle is pb/2V, but what was neglected to properly state is that p =roll rate which will decrease, not power:O therefore roll rate = Roll helix angle*2V/b

with the correct relation ship it RR will increase with V and RHA and decrease with b exactly the opposite of what I said

This is my third major error on PPRuNE:ouch:

I had to correct it so that I will be convincing when I try to persuade a certain person not to turn back to the departure runway

Great thread

PA

[Jumbo Driver]

This thread makes an intriguing read ... especially as I have a feeling I may know the characters involved here ... ;)

Following some of the replies, I feel bound to observe that there is no defined content or purpose for the "Training Flight", either by JAA or CAA - although there is a rather mischievous attempt to define it in LASORS, despite there being no definitive supporting legislation. LASORS tries to talk about "suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", but omits to mention the fact that there is no such "purpose" actually set out in JAR-FCL 1.245. Thus the "Training Flight" cannot be a test either - despite what may be implied in LASORS, TrainingCom or anywhere else for that matter.

While common-sense would certainly suggest that the aim of the "Training Flight" should be to ensure that a pilot is "safe", it also represents an opportunity for some pilots to explore and expand upon their abilities with the help of an instructor. However, it is unfortunate that some instructors persist in regarding it as some sort of "test" - indeed HFD himself could almost be read as implying this by the way the original question is framed, although I don't somehow think he really believes that. Some suggestions in the replies that there should be some kind of planned format as if it were a test seem to me to say more about the attitude of the proposers in the sense that they feel a flight is not worthwhile unless something has been "tested", and perhaps the victim found wanting, rather than reflecting a more simple "safety check" function for the flight. I believe it is much more appropriate to regard the "Training Flight" as similar to what, in commercial pilots' language, would be called a Route Check, with the Instructor observing that the pilot flies to a safe standard, rather than as a mini Skill Test.

I therefore believe an FI would be totally wrong to try and impose a fixed structure for this flight; rather the FI should ask the revalidee what he/she would like to do and then accompany him/her accordingly. The FI may by all means make suggestions but, as it is not a test, suggestions like BPF's "When you do the flight start the route and insert a few emergencies" are, in my view, quite inappropriate - unless of course the revalidee has requested or pre-agreed to such a format. There are far too many answers in this thread that imply that it is a test in all but name. It is not.

In my opinion, the "Training Flight" should be enjoyed and flown in a relaxed fashion, with the pilot flying normally and the instructor offering comments on any points that might be improved. In this way, all pilots will benefit as no sensible pilot should ever think they have nothing more to learn. I suppose what I am saying is that the approach of the FI to this exercise is fundamentally important to its success. It should be treated as a practice - but if an FI takes it upon himself to try and run it in the form of a test, most sensible revalidees would simply ask another FI with a more practical attitude to the requirement to fly with them instead. I certainly would. The FI should discuss the flight beforehand with the revalidee in order to agree (but not impose) a suitable format from which both can benefit. With the more experienced pilot that HFD mentions, this flight undoubtedly has the potential to be more rewarding for both involved, but in all cases it should be approached in the appropriate manner.


JD
:)

[DFC]

Quite right. It is a Training Flight.

Instructors have to remember that the 1 hour training flight can be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test. This means that pilot who holds both a SEP and MEP ratings can on Monday have their MEP rating test stopped after 45 minutes because they are a hazard to aviation and 5 minutes later proudly use their pink slip as evidence along with their SEP hours in the logbook to have their SEP rating extended by another two years.

However, as soon as there is any training given in the correct form there will be demonstration by the instructor, practice by the student and assessment made by the instructor of the student followed by feedback.

There is no way to complete a meaningfull training flight without some form of assessment being done by the instructor regarding the student's performance.

There is no requirement for the training flight to cover exercises from the PPL sylabus unless the student requests them. As suggested in the Trainingcom, they could take the opportunity to try night flying, instrument flying, aerobatics, tailwheel and so on.

This will be fixed in a few years but until then all I can recomend is that where there is serious doubt about the ability of the "student", it is probably best to stop the flight before 1 hour has elapsed and in doing so stop them wasting their money.

How do you do that when they have opted for some night training? - In most such cases the fact that they have taken the opportunity to expand their skill and knowledge is the foundation of good airmanship and safety outlook.

It is the ones that insist on no pre-flight briefing / lesson, a flight including at the most a quick stall, PFL and a few circuits ending at exactly 60 minutes block time followed by paying not a blind bit of attention to the de-brief that one has to watch out for!

Regards,

DFC

[JonathanB]

It is the ones that insist on no pre-flight briefing / lesson, a flight including at the most a quick stall, PFL and a few circuits ending at exactly 60 minutes block time followed by paying not a blind bit of attention to the de-brief that one has to watch out for!

In which case then the instructor would not sign their logbook surely?

[mad_jock]

Well I was never trained at assessment of students on my course.

Also with the different ways to skin a cat up and down the country you could be the greatest pilot the area has seen or the biggest risk to aviation depending on which method the instructor thinks is correct. In fact some airfields all you have to do is walk 50 yards across the apron and you will get a different opinion.

And as I presume the current batch of 200hour FI's were as cluless as myself at that level of experience their opinion on anyone's level of flying ability is really rather pointless on a majority of experienced PPL's.

You just have to look at alot of the posts on this forum to realise the breath of bollocks being taught up and down the country is staggering. I must admit I was guilty of this as well due to repeating what I had been told by the CFI as the way he wanted it done. Instructors don't even know how to get students to fill their log books in correctly.

Added to it all as you say it is perfectly valid for me to use my LPC as the hour with an instructor. What quite wanging a multi crew pressurised turbo prop around some instrument procedures IFR single engine does in relation to keeping your SEP skill set up I don't quite know.

[VFE]

I think the 1 hour training flight is basically bollocks.

Amend the definition to "Assesment Flight" and appoint designated persons who can exercise some sort of set standard, whatever that may be. These persons can then exercise that all forgotten aspect in this ridiculous computer age of 'yes/no' - common sense and advise the PPL holder as to how to improve their game.There is a lack of harmonisation here which is irritating.

VFE.

[DFC]

In which case then the instructor would not sign their logbook surely?


This issue has caused much debate in more than one country. The generally accepted answer is if the flight is not going well to the point where you are not sure that the student will demonstrate the required basic safe standard before the 1 hour is up, you terminate the flight before the 1 hour is completed.

That means that you can sign the logbook showing the training you gave, you can verbally recomend further training and the student can not walk down the road and use the flight for revalidation with an examiner while not telling them that you regarded them as unsafe.

Other methods such as refusing to sign, writing comments in the logbook have at times resulted in arguments. If the flight was not 1 hour long then there is legal certainty.

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

Mad Jock,

It is part of the course and is tested on the skill test - assessment and correction of mistakes / faults etc

You did it while working as an FI but probably did not realise it at the time. How else did you decide that the student had met the required standard to move on to the next lesson, that the student would be safe to fly solo and that the student was to the required standard for PPL issue / pass the PPL skill test.

You are correct regarding the LPC - even if the LPC is stopped after 5 minutes and you fail, you can still use it for SEP revalidation!

The PPL flight examiner is there to satisfy the CAA (as best one can in the time available) that the person you (as instructor) say is suitable for PPL issue is indeed so.

If instructors could not assess students then students would progress regardless of standard displayed with disasterous consequences.

----------

VFE,

EASA are moving in the right direction - tests required with an examminer at regular intervals regardless of experience.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

It is a very small part of the course and in the 8hours or what ever your test works out at it maybe lasts 10mins if your lucky.

The main point I was trying to get across is the standardisation of the minimum level required. Be it handling or "Airmanship". Yes with experience we all learn on the job what's required by the local examiners to secure a pass.

But when we first start instructing we have a different outlook on what is expectable compared to when we have 500hours under our belts.

Added onto the fact as we have already discussed there are so many ways of bypassing the spirit of the hour, making it nearly pointless.

I am all in favour of having a 2 year check on SEP skills and I am sure all of us want to maintain if not raise the current standards. Let the PPL examiners deal with it, the current 1 hour with an instructor doesn't even begin to fit the bill for what its intended to do.

And I can see some with a disagreement and you decided to go home early to stop the 1 hour dual. They wouldn't be paying for either rental or instructor. Their contract with you was 1 hour dual training for the purpose of SEP renewal you don't provide they don't pay. And the problem punters who are in a very small minority will be the ones that will know there rights and will kick off.

Does anyone actually know of any case of someone being refused a signature by a bog standard FI?

[DFC]

Their contract with you was 1 hour dual training for the purpose of SEP renewal you don't provide they don't pay.


I would hope that any training provider would have clearly laid down the system by which flight training is paid for - Tacho, Take-off to landing + 12 minutes, Block Time, Hobbs time or whatever. The student has in advance agreed to pay the appropriate rate be it more or less than 1 hour in the logbook.

Far easier to justify stopping the flight so that you can brief on the issues and come up with a plan for further training rather then extending the flight and expecting the student to pay for the extended flight and come back for more.

This whole "1 hour training flight" is just the same as the PPL who purchases a Mooney and asks you to check him out. After 1 hour training, you debrief him and say that a few more hours will be required. The student thanks you, pays you, enters the flight in his logbook and hops back into the aircraft with their family and departs.

Of course all this training will be completed at an RTF / FTO as required by JAR-FCL and the student should sign their training record which will accurately reflect their performance during the flight. So even if they do a dangerous hour and get some examiner to sign their licence, when their estate has you in the High Court for damages, you can produce the signed training record showing that they knew how bad they were and what further training was required to reach a safe standard but ignored it.

Regards,

DFC

[Jumbo Driver]

In which case then the instructor would not sign their logbook surely?

As DFC has implied, there is no legal basis for the Instructor not signing the logbook, if the hour's flight has been completed. He is simply confirming that the flight took place.

Conversely, it can be argued of course that there is nothing in legislation that actually requires the FI to sign the logbook either.

What is clear, however, is that the paragraph purporting to set out the procedure for the "Training Flight" in LASORS (LAS Section F1, para F1.4 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Section%20F%20-%20TYPE%20AND%20CLASS%20RATING%20(AEROPLANES%20AND%20HELICOP TERS).pdf)) is entirely without any legal foundation.

The cynic might say that it is the usual JAA/CAA can of worms ...


JD
:)

[mad_jock]

So the solution for the more challenged pilots is simple just book in for a 1 hour trial flight and present your log book afterwards.

saves any hassels with FI's who have ideas they are examiners.

Its a load of tosh 1 hour with an examiner not a FI is the solution at least then you will have some form of standards. It would also mean that the experience would stay in the examiners and the examiners would have some chance of covering their costs of the maintaining it. I suspect allot of examiners are out of pocket with this authorisation.

[hugh flung_dung]

I don't agree that it is, or should be, a test in all but name. It's an opportunity to refresh or develop some skills ... but if I spot something which is potentially unsafe and requires further work I would have no qualms about not signing until the problem was fixed.
(MJ asked whether anyone has refused to sign - yes, I have once declined to sign. We discussed the trip and agreed that, despite trying to fix the landings they were not really as they should be and that more training would be required. No problem!)

Last night I flew another one of these. It was obvious in the initial meet'n'greet that the chap's skills were likely to be sound so we discussed things that might be of value. In 30+ years he hadn't made a practise (or real!) PAN call and hadn't practised I/F - so these became the primary aim. We also looked at stall recoveries (excessive height loss initially, but fixed), a circuit without elevator or aileron and a circuit flown with the P2 stick from the left seat, a flapless landing and a PFL. If it had been a test I would (in theory) have sat there asking for a series of exercises, some of which may or may not have been particularly polished, and then have to decide whether some training was required or whether I could give a "pass with admonishment".
At the end of this trip the chap felt that he had polished some skills and explored a few useful areas - overall that that there had been a lot of value in the flight; I felt that he was a competent, conscientious and safe pilot. It was also an enjoyable experience for both.

HFD

[Jumbo Driver]

It sounds like you had another enjoyable flight HFD and I substantially agree with your philosophy towards the "Training Flight".

However, you say ...

... but if I spot something which is potentially unsafe and requires further work I would have no qualms about not signing until the problem was fixed.


... and that is surely regarding it as a test.

So, without wishing to disagree with you in principle, what legislation or authoritative guidance would you regard as backing your decision to decline to sign the logbook?


JD
:)

[hugh flung_dung]

Legislation - none (AFAIK)

Authoritative guidance - a letter (which I no longer have) sent by the CAA when this was first introduced, it advised FIs not to sign if they're unhappy about the pilot's ability to fly safely

Other considerations - duty of care
M'lud, I submit that Captain Godsgift's actions led directly to the death of Mr Tryer, his twelve children and several of the parishioners in the village of Much Bending. By signing Mr T's log book, despite him having failed to demonstrate an ability to avoid church spires without assistance, and knowing that the signature would lead directly to Mr T taking his children with him when flying to a strip which is adjacent to the church of Saint Prang in the village of Much Bending, Captain G demonstrated a grievous failure of his duty of care towards Mr T and the rest of society. :O

HFD

[Jumbo Driver]

An amusing submission, HFD ... :)

I understand, however, that Captain Godsgift was not convicted, as counsel pointed out that Captain Godsgift was only required to sign the logbook to confirm that a training flight had taken place and that did not in any way suggest that Mr Tryer had passed any form of test or qualification. Furthermore, His Lordship found that Captain Godsgift was not in a position to prevent, by either offering or withholding that signature, Mr Tryer from immediately taking twelve of his twenty-seven children on a low-level circuit of his house, thereby tragically ending all their lives as well as those of some of the assembled enthusiastic audience of local churchgoers. The only action that might have prevented this unfortunate occurrence would have been to have immediately suspended Mr Tryer's flying licence which, as His Lordship said, even Captain Godsgift in his exalted position was legally unable so to do. The case was dismissed.

----

Certainly, the Duty of Care aspect may just be pertinent; in my opinion, it seems about the only basis that might reasonably be argued for withholding a signature after the Training Flight, but I'm not certain that even that would stand up. In any event, it does not cater for the situation that mad_jock suggests, namely
just book in for a 1 hour trial flight and present your log book afterwards.

The only fully satisfactory solution is for a biennial "test" flight but even that could not cover everything and would carry no guarantee of continued adequate performance. However, that really is quite another question ...

It would be interesting to see what the CAA actually said at the outset about the "Training Flight" in their letter that you mention. My guess would be that it was much as appeared in TrainingCom 1/2006 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_fcl_1_2006_a.pdf), now three years ago. It is interesting also that the CAA allowed the original AIC on the subject to lapse and to date have not replaced it. There could be a view, of course, that this is because they are not confident enough of their legal position to restate it in a new AIC, even though it still remains in their previous confidential advice to the relatively restricted audience of Instructors and Examiners.


JD
:)

[hugh flung_dung]

I may well be thinking of that TrainingCom, or the AIC, or something entirely different - it's so difficult to know these days:)

The TrainingCom contains the following:
"Following the flight you will be expected to sign the pilot’s logbook. This is a UK CAA requirement to indicate that the instructional flight was completed safely and in accordance with JAR-FCL 1.245. Remember that an authorised examiner will subsequently be asked to sign the certificate of revalidation in the pilot’s licence and complete the LST/LPC Form (SRG\1119) based upon your signature and logbook evidence of experience. Therefore, if you consider the pilot to be unsafe and that additional training is advisable you should de-brief the pilot accordingly and decline to sign the logbook."
I suggest that the average FI would be better following this advice than being (or feeling) potentially responsible, in part, for a foreseeable incident. In the unlikely event that the pilot does not agree that their performance was unsafe the FI should refer them to this TrainingCom and suggest that they either fly with another FI or contact the CFE - I find it difficult to believe that anyone would take that course.
It would be useful if the CFE would restate the guidance in the highlighted part of the above extract.

On this topic I rest my case, m'lud.

The training flight is not a perfect way to ensure that skill levels are adequate but it's hard to see how it can be bettered whilst maintaining a "light touch". However, to maximise its value the FI and student need to work together to get something worthwhile out of it, rather than going through the motions or treating it like a test. I could accept that, on balance, the addition of a periodic test (every 2 revals?) would not be a bad thing (but I need to declare an interest ;))

HFD

[flybymike]

The CAA flight safety review following introduction of all this stuff from JAA ( BFR, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests etc) shows absolutely no discernible improvement over pre JAA days. I.e. we all survived just as safely for decades on end without any requirement to lay out hard earned money on what is an already expensive and hopelessly over regulated pursuit which the regulators are doing their best to strangle out of existence altogether just for the sake of jobs and money for the boys and the bureaucrats who invent it.

This is all before the new load of periodic flight tests and God knows what else EASA are plotting to chuck at us from their ivory towers. Those who feel they need check outs are at liberty to have one whenever necessary without any regulation on the matter. Pilots operating their own aircraft will invariably remain current or they wouldn't be operating their own aircraft, and those renting in the club environment will be subject to regular checks whether they like it or not. The rest are free to have a check out whenever they feel it necessary. Every week if they like.

If we must have all this periodic crap to contend with then I am completely in favour of the philosophies espoused by Mad Jock and Jumbo Driver.

Of course , as HFD has pointed out, I am preaching to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo....

[JonathanB]

There's a good article by Irv Lee in the latest Flyer (June edition). He suggests that perhaps it shouldn't just be about the hour in the air, but also making sure that pilots are aware of new systems and processes (e.g. in the last 2 years, the following items: new AIS system, AFPEx, new Metform 215, new TAF date/time format, listening squawks, ATSOCAS, NPPL currency requirement changes, etc.). I'm sure there are some people outside of a club/forum environment who may not be aware of some of the changes and a biennial meeting with an instructor would be a good time to cover these items!