PDA

View Full Version : Taking responsibility for the flying


Genghis the Engineer
1st Sep 2010, 10:20
Apologies as a non-instructor for barging into the instructors forum, but I'm hoping that some of you chaps might have some useful views.

I'm regarded as one of the more experienced pilots in a couple of aircraft syndicates that I belong to (for the record 1100ish hours, with 80+ on each type, and a CPL(A) ), and as such often fly with refreshing or new syndicate members to check them out on type or help them brush up before we let them out unsupervised.

As you might expect, I run through pretty much the same things any of you would if I came to your flying school and wanted to rent an aeroplane I'd not flown before: systems, perf, paperwork, taxiing, variety of circuits, local area, stalls, standard emergencies. So far nobody I've checked out has subsequently bent either of the aeroplanes, so presumably I'm doing it about right.


However, I've just seen for the second time something I don't like, don't understand - and disturbingly both in an already qualified pilot.

The pilot simply won't take full responsibility for their flying: some combination of - won't bring the necessary (checklist / chart / kneeboard notes on the aeroplane / airfield plate), and to a greater or lesser extent in the air just won't accept full responsibility for the flight. Basically they just sit there expecting to be prodded about various things - whether it's navigation actions, who to call on RT, what approach speed to use: I've had a fair set.

Giving them some briefing notes and threatening physical violence if they don't read them before flying doesn't seem to change this at-all. It just seems to be a strange and disturbing attitude.

Needless to say, neither of them have I felt prepared to accept flying our aeroplane unsupervised - the first I sent off to a reliable FI from whom they never came back, the second I'm still scratching my head about.


Is this is common issue - and how do you pros deal with it?

G

Cows getting bigger
1st Sep 2010, 11:17
"Command" is a very common issue when instructing. On the one hand you are trying to teach a skill and on the other you are trying to develop a mindset (part of airmanship). The most regular occurrence is when a student knows he/she needs to go-around but then asks you whether he should do it or not whilst you 'plummet' towards the wrong bit of runway.

Your problem appears to be a variation of this. You are 'checking out' the pilot and therefore he knows that, ultimately, nothing will be allowed to go awry. I don't have a solution to the problem other than you must clarify who is in command and if you are not happy, don't fly him.

S-Works
1st Sep 2010, 16:16
This is always going to be the problem with non instructors effectively teaching (regardless of what you actually call it). In an instructional relationship the commander is the Instructor and the student expects to be briefed, debriefed and generally nudged. In a more loose arrangement you have more of a problem with establishing responsibility.

It sounds to me like you are entering into a teaching relationship without the background to maintain command ofnthe situation but allow the student to develop.

As was said earlier, you really need to establish who is in command first. Make it clear that the person your are checking out is in command and that you will be doing nothing to 'nudge' them and that after the flight you will discuss with them if the performance was good enough to be let loose.

DFC
1st Sep 2010, 16:44
I am the pilot in command. You are going to fully prepare for and safely execute this flight (details). I will not intervene unless it is necessary to ensure the operation remains safe and legal.

If you require any assistance during the flight then please ask and I will help.

--------

The above short to the point brief leave no doubt as to who is PIC and what is to be done.

I recomend that you prepare your own version of the plan for the route so that you are not relying on theirs if they have made a mess of it.

What are you trying to do with them?

Aircraft check-out and local are famil or are you doing something a little more eg sharing a return trip to France?

If it is the latter you need to try to establish what their experience is to establish the posibility that you are introducing something they are not already comfortable with which is where instruction would come into it.

Really, I would recomend that you fly with them and if happy then fine but if not then have the weak area(s) covered by an FI before another go. Otherwise you are simply banging your head against the wall.

Have you thought about pairing them with an experienced tourer (who does it properly!!) and allowing some learning by observation / participation.

johns7022
1st Sep 2010, 17:45
These days I tend to instruct biz owners on their own jets, turboprops and twins...not in a sim, but in their actual planes...

Some of these guys have an attitude that if I can make a buck selling hamburgers, I must be able to fly a plane..

Most don't have any problem buying all the gear, the toys...they tend to bring it all......more GPS units, moving maps, down loadable weather units and such...they get too busy flipping switches, leaning on the gear...that they usually fly better with just an ILS and a DME to concentrate on.

More to your point...if a guy didn't show up with his gear, ask him how expects to shoot an approach without a chart when he's by himself....or just fly up, and when he asks you for a note pad, pen, chart, ect...tell him you didn't bring one,when you got them behind the seat or something....let it sink in that your flying around in the soup with no charts, let him get busy remembering clearances without a note pad..

Everyone seems to be living in a virtual world these days, injecting a little reality once in a while is a good thing.

blagger
1st Sep 2010, 20:08
If you're doing check outs like you describe on a regular basis I'd go an get yourself through a CRI course asap. You'll learn exactly what you need about instructional technique in the air and ground from the course. I'd recommend On Track for the course.

mad_jock
1st Sep 2010, 20:16
GTE you are stepping out of checking someone and in some ways your even going past instructing them into an examining role.

I am not doudting you are capable of doing it.

A check ride is just that. You sit on your arse and say nothing unless your life is at risk. You brief them of this fact that your an uneducated pax and proberly won't be able to answer any questions. If at any point you want to stop the check please state clearly "you have control" at which point I will stop being uneducated and the check will be uncomplete. None locals get a bit of slack with local procedure but no slack in actaully operating the aircraft.

You then make your choice if you are going to let them fly or not. If it is no you say no and tell them the reasons why and if it's yes you tell them and debrief what you don't like. But remember that your presonal opinions on methods are just that. If the flight was safe zero debrief points.

If a none local asked me who to talk to next I would tell them. If it was a local I wouldn't. If it was a none local as we were approach Tain range I would give them a heads up and also explain the joy that it is to deal with them (good bunch of lads BTW).

Your list of things for a check out is extreme and I would say on the sticky side of instructing without a rating. Time to get a CRI rating I think.

BTW the turning up of students with there head up their backsides is just something you have to get used to.

Mach E Avelli
1st Sep 2010, 22:05
The situation described does not seem to require an instructor rating or any specialist examiner qualification. The OP is charged by the syndicate with merely assuring himself that the wannabe is unlikely to bend their aeroplane, damage its engine etc or bring discredit on its owners (through poor airmanship, overloading or whatever).
Perhaps the syndicate needs to publish a simple set of requirements e.g. use this particular checklist, bring your own headset, charts and if not flying regularly carry a safety pilot. Set up a simple limitations and loading exam for them to complete prior to flight and don't fly until it has been done and graded.
In the situation described, I would then brief along the lines that, while technically (for legal and insurance reasons) the PIC for this flight I would be acting as safety pilot only, would not contribute in any way to the flight but would at the end of it decide whether or not the candidate needed dual with a qualified instructor, or another familiarisation trip as 'co-pilot' with one of the other syndicate pilot before going solo, or would be cleared to go.
If at any stage of the flight I had to intervene or take control, it would automatically require the dual or safety pilot limitation.
Only someone totally thick would fail to understand that messsage, and syndicates don't need these people.

Genghis the Engineer
2nd Sep 2010, 11:09
I'm really chuffed at the quality of advice here, and many thanks everybody.

On a couple of personal notes - no I'm not a CRI, although it's something I hope to do in the next year or so (although unlikely at On-track, simply for reasons of geography). I am a current and qualified teacher in two other areas of endeavour so not totally unaware of teaching issues, but have never (yet) been a flying instructor. I've belonged to 5 syndicates since I first bought a share in about 1997 (I think), and checkouts by non-instructors are very much the norm. Partly this is convenience & cost, and partly that many syndicates operate around aeroplanes for which a suitable instructor is very hard to find: I stay current on our old obscure aeroplanes, but few flying instructors would, or could reasonably be expected to.

But, in amongst some inevitable disagreement about whether what I (and many others) do in checking new pilots out is instruction or not, I've picked out some really useful bits of information.

It seems to come down to an approach that I should be taking along the lines of:

(1) I brief then demonstrate how to fly the aeroplane, and if required include a brief on the airfield and local area.

(2) Checkee (is that a word?) tries to fly it, with formative feedback from me.

(3) Checkee demonstrates hopefully that they can manage on their own whilst I sit there and say nothing meaningful about the flying.

(4) Either (a) welcome them to the syndicate, or (b) politely encourage them to go and get some proper instruction.


A little bit of additional flying may well be appropriate - say somebody who struggles with achieving the landing attitude, but that should be it.

Where I need to take care is undertanding that if I've got to 4(b), then I need to be clear about it. In our case, it's almost certainly going to require them to go and fly in something else, then come back for a new checkout: which is not perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world!

With regard to a pilot who won't take responsibility for their flying, despite a clear briefing that it's expected and my sitting there apparently doing nothing but enjoy the view - this clearly is a command issue that needs addressing by an FI. However, I'd still be interested to know how anybody else deals with this?

G

mad_jock
2nd Sep 2010, 13:07
If it is a checking detail you should brief what you want them to do then say nothing to them for the check.

I actually understand why alot of ppl's do look for conformation all the time. Its basically because they get retrained every time they get into a cockpit with a new Instructor. They have got it in the ear that often they don'y know really what to do in a check.

Now the converstion

1. Brief it
2.Demo it
3 Do it.

If it all goes well you won't have any issues, its when they have issues and you have to do "instructor" stuff you might (I say might but I reckon you won't have an issue GTE) come unstuck.

The Flying Instructor's Patter Manual (http://www.saxoncourtbooks.co.uk/aircraft-books/item176-flying-instructors-patter-manual.htm)

This book gives you the method that we break down exercises and put them back together again.

The checkride bit I am quite happy with experenced PPL's doing but the converstion issue is the bit I feel is best done with someone with a ticket. I have had some right tulips doing conversions and shall we say the skills I have from teaching people how to land for the first time have been used in converstions to save a couple of nose gears.

And I will admit the examiner bit was over kill.

Level 400
2nd Sep 2010, 21:38
I agree with all that has been said before.

When a 'checkee' is being checked by a checker, he/she will often take comfort from the fact that a more qualified/experienced pilot is also at the controls and therefore not display the degree of captaincy that he/she would were they on their own or with Granny, etc.

When solo or accompanied by non pilots in the other front seat, this often changes in my experience (as Instructor, Examiner on SEP/MEP and Jet) and the checkee becomes necessarily a much more self-reliant individual.

So to set the ground rules to start with is good. The checkee needs to be told to display captaincy skills to the checker, as well as basic flying ability, as an integral part of the check. As long as the decisions made are safe, even if not always what the checker would do in the same situation, then they can be discussed on the ground afterwards.

Level 400:ok:

DFC
3rd Sep 2010, 09:49
This scenario seems to have developed way beyond what I would describe as the normal syndicate "checkout" and has gone well down the training route.

I believe that a syndicate checkout completed by a non-instructor should be nothing more than a flight to confirm that the new member satisfies the syndicate requirements. Perhaps some information about some unique features of the syndicate aircraft eg specific GPS type etc etc.

However, if the new member has not flown the type before or is not current or if it is deemed that training is required then the person should be refered to an FI or CRI.

Among other things, to do otherwise leaves an gaping hole should something happen later and the "new member" complains that they were not given any "proper" training and that is why they did whatever which caused loss or injury.

Even if it is only the final part of the "training" that is done by the instructor any training needs an instructor involvement at some stage.

Finally remember that if you let them be PIC at any stage then you are happy that they can fly the aircraft safely - so why the training requirement? If you make them fly with another member who is not an instructor but will of course be PIC, then they can't log much which for most of them is a pain in the.....

Every syndicate should have access to a good friendly instructor. It is well worth it when you think of the 1 hour with an instructor requirement for all members, refreshers after the long winter lay-off, new members etc etc

MIKECR
3rd Sep 2010, 10:44
We had a similar set up in my old Cessna syndicate. Any new members had to complete a familiarisation flight with the nominated club rep. He was not an instructor but rather one of the more experienced members of the group. He did however treat it exactly as a 'familiarisation' flight, almost a bit like test driving a new car...i.e. heres the relevant buttons and switches, here's the POH, logbooks etc, here's how the gps and autopilot works. There was then an input re the group rules and online booking etc.

mad_jock
3rd Sep 2010, 12:24
Mike there is not a problem with that.

I am maybe being a bit over the top because of my experences with some out of the blue conversions. If you don't know them from adam they can pull some truely bizzare stuff out the bag. Even had one manage to get us nearly into a spin by getting his feet confused and booting the wrong pedal in the tommy. As I said you get some right tulips out there which in some ways are harder to deal with than a ppl student. It looks like Genghis has had a couple of said tulips.

To be honest though if they are 200 plus hour PPL's and are ****e your best not even trying to get them up to standard. By that amount of time all the bad habits will be pretty much ingrained 2-3 hours with anyone you like won't solve their problems. By ditching them you are just protecting your investment.

Genghis the Engineer
3rd Sep 2010, 14:24
I believe that a syndicate checkout completed by a non-instructor should be nothing more than a flight to confirm that the new member satisfies the syndicate requirements. Perhaps some information about some unique features of the syndicate aircraft eg specific GPS type etc etc.

However, if the new member has not flown the type before or is not current or if it is deemed that training is required then the person should be refered to an FI or CRI.

All very well DFC, but firstly it's our aeroplane, and we're within our rights to insist on high standards in the people who fly it. If we don't feel that basic PPL pass standard is enough, that's our privilege.

Secondly, the particular aeroplane I have in mind right now, there are three in the UK in flying condition, all privately owned. So, I think in these circumstances, we need to ask whether any problem is with the pilot's basic flying (in which case they can be sent off to fly something like a Cub or Chipmunk with an FI in a training environment, then they can come back later), or with their ability to fly this particular, and difficult, aeroplane - in which case even if we check an FI out on type, they'll still have limited experience on it. So, we have a choice then between an FI with limited type experience, or a 1000+hr syndicate pilot with lots [and in our syndicate that's one ex university aeronautics lecturer, and one ex-gliding instructor]; I don't see that as clearcut in favour of the FI.

G

mad_jock
3rd Sep 2010, 14:31
Even just getting the CRI won't solve your problems to be honest.

You would still need a bit of time to build up experence being a CRI in other aircraft types before there would be any marked benefit away from what you are doing now.

Genghis the Engineer
3rd Sep 2010, 14:44
Even just getting the CRI won't solve your problems to be honest.

You would still need a bit of time to build up experence being a CRI in other aircraft types before there would be any marked benefit away from what you are doing now.

Of-course: 30 hours in the classroom and 3 flying hours, compared to what I have now, is not going to make an immediate difference. All experience and ability takes time to accumulate, but the CRI should hopefully add to everything else I have, as well as giving a certain legal top-cover.

Additionally, why on earth should I spend too much of my valuable leisure time sorting somebody's flying out, when an FI whose living it is can make some money from the same exercise?

G

mad_jock
3rd Sep 2010, 23:20
Additionally, why on earth should I spend too much of my valuable leisure time sorting somebody's flying out, when an FI whose living it is can make some money from the same exercise?

You shouldn't but I suspect you would do a better job than quite a few.

Whopity
4th Sep 2010, 05:59
Genghis
I think the important thing here is that you show the group or prospective group member how you want him to operate your aeroplane. Bit like a company SOP.

Once they are fully conversant with your required method of operation you do a check ride. They are PIC and you simply observe and decide.

It is vitally important that the checkee is briefed on his role as already stated.

No need to be a CRI or anything else. Your aeroplane your decision.

DFC
4th Sep 2010, 10:27
They are PIC and you simply observe and decide.



The problem is that in doing so (letting them be PIC) one is stating that one is happy with their ability to be PIC and in the circumstances described this could be described as "jumping the gun" or perhaps a bit reckless is one did not know the capabilities of the person being so authorised.

Genghis,

I think that you need to re-read my post. I said quite clearly that the person checking should confirm that the new member meets the syndicate requirments. As you say - your aircraft, your requirements.

However, since it is clear that you take pride in and value this particular aircraft type so as is your right, you require something other than basic PPL skills from new members. It would be a good investment on the part of the syndicate to invest some time and money in putting in place someone who can provide training and checking to both current and future members.

You are quite right to believe that wheeling in some instructor from an FTO to do a checkout as a money making exercise on their part will not help at all. They will have no interest in your aircraft and will simply do what is required to get the payout and cover their rear end.

What is needed is for the syndicate to sit down and decide how to attract a suitable instructor into the sydicate (perhaps honorary non- paying posiiton that permits them to fly the aircraft) or for one of the current members to become an instructor.

As you will know from your previous experience -

Mr A checks out an aircraft and says it it airworthy. Is it?

Mr A gets the appropriate piece of paper which says they can say it is airworthy and then it is. :)

At the moment you are doing the equivalent of building an aircraft with no engineering oversight. Your aircraft, your rules...........but would you with one of your former hats on see that as a healthy way to proceed?

It is very different from taking on a completed aircraft with the required paperwork isn't it!!

If you have an interesting aircraft then I can't see how you would have a problem finding an appropriate friendly instructor to help you out not just for now but in the long term.

Genghis the Engineer
4th Sep 2010, 12:17
It's interesting how far this has drifted from the original question: which was about PPLs managing to take proper command of an aeroplane. That said, the subsequent discussion has been incredibly informative and I hope that everybody else has enjoyed it as much as me.

I'm planning to do a CRI course sometime in the next year - which I was planning to do to scratch a personal itch, but will hopefully benefit the two syndicates that I belong to. I've also, incidentally, been trying for some time to persuade the (rest of the) syndicate on the more difficult aeroplane that we should give a "known good" local instructor some regular hours on the aeroplane so that they can maintain recency and be useful to us - I think that I've finally just about won that argument and have arranged to check him out next month (the instructor and I used to share an even more interesting aeroplane, so I trust him).

It's also a really good idea to have a clear "checkout procedure" existing within the syndicate and I'm going to try and pull that together with the other most experienced pilot on type. I think that what I described earlier covers the shape of that - but obviously covering syndicate, airfield and aeroplane specific stuff as well.

I've also had clarified usefully in my mind that there has to be a point where I tell somebody that they really need to go and spend some quality time with a proper instructor (depending upon my spare time and patience, and how poor somebody's piloting and airmanship seem to be, that may well remain the case after I've done a CRI !).

I think that about covers it?

G

mad_jock
4th Sep 2010, 12:27
Aye it does.

And once you get your CRI remember to have a word with your insurance company. I have been offer a couple of shares at reduced rates due to the fact that having a FI as one of the members chopped quite a large amount off the premium.

Say again s l o w l y
5th Sep 2010, 01:35
Stick to your guns Genghis. As already mentioned, it's a group aircraft with a set series of SOP's. If the bloke won't follow them, then tell him to f off. You might not have a legal point to come from, but you do have a moral one that has been blessed on you by the other members of the syndicate.

I would trust your judgement if I was a member of your syndicate, so don't take any nonsense.

Unfortunately I've seen too many people like this in my career and I don't think I'm wrong when I'd suggest that your group would be better off without them. Handling skill is easily sorted out, but attitude is a far harder thing to deal with, you can either attack it head on, or try and be subtle, but I can assure you that the subtle approach doesn't work very often.

Arrogance is a real killer in the GA world and this bloke sounds like he has a damn good dose of it.

Martin Kellett
19th Sep 2010, 08:59
Hi G

I'm just finishing a CRI course - only got the test to do. Go for it, I know you have educational skills already but I honestly think you'll still find it useful.

More importantly you will clarify the slightly grey relationship you have with your checkee. You become an authorised instructor and captain of the aircraft during the instructional sortie, and that carries some authority.

You can't expect the checkee to doff their cap to your other knowledge and experience, but carrying an instructor's ticket should make the job a whole lot easier.

Halfbaked_Boy
19th Sep 2010, 15:24
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any 'legal issues' arising should the aeroplane be pranged in GTE's case, if the pilot being checked holds a licence to operate that class of aircraft.

I am not a flying instructor, however I do fly with newcomers to our operation flying 172s in and out of short strips to familiarise them with our specific way of doing things, and how to handle an aeroplane differently approaching differing lengths and surfaces of runway.

Ultimately the person I am 'checking' is PIC, as they have an SEP rating attached to their licence which allows them to act as such. I am simply a passenger, offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control."

This is in no way intended to diminish the skills of flying instructors as it is a completely different kettle of fish - a flying instructor teaches towards the issue of a higher licence, a new rating, complex conversion etc. All we are doing here is flying with somebody already technically qualified to do what they're doing, but may need a steer in the right direction because it is using different skills, although their licence says they are already competent to do it.

Apologies for thread drift.

DFC
19th Sep 2010, 15:49
Ultimately the person I am 'checking' is PIC, as they have an SEP rating attached to their licence which allows them to act as such. I am simply a passenger, offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control."



Let's start with the absolute no doubt part of the above. As a passenger you can never say "I have control" (unless you want to be accused of hijack). You are a passenger and have no right beyond that of a passenger who is in an aircraft for the first time.

As soon as you let anyone be PIC of your aircraft in a particular situation then you are saying that you are happy that they are qualified to be in that situation and no further training is required. Having established this then there should be no difference between you being in the aircraft, a non-flier being in the aircraft or even the PIC flying solo in the case you describe.

So if there is an accident - say an over-run into the far hedge on one of these short strips in the example you gave.

Q1. Was the pilot qualified to fly into that strip? (Not just licensing terms but recency, and club/syndicate rules also)

Q2. If the pilot was not qualified then why did you let them take your aircraft and a passenger there?

Q3. If they were qualified then why did you feel that you needed to be there to be "offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control." This seems to be a contradictary position......and I am sure your insurance company would love to see that!!

In simple terms you can't have it both ways.

Now if you were to be pilot in command and you let your passenger (who holds a valid licence) fly the aircraft into these strips you would have the ability to say "I have control" you would have the ability to "offer advice" you would have the ability to "tell them what to do"......and if you run off the end the PIC was fully insured and current at flying into such short strips.

Of course you would have to pay atleast 50% of the flight costs. Is that a problem? The passenger could also pay 50% but they don't log anything other than the take-off and landings they did as sole manipulator. Is that a problem?

In simple terms - if someone needs training - get an instructor. If they don't then let them fly. But please don't let people who you have decided need instruction fly without training becasue you are leaving yourself open to all sorts of issues.

3 Point
21st Sep 2010, 09:45
A very interesting thread but it seems to have drifted away a little from the original question asked by GTE into a discussion about his participation in check flights and the conduct generally of such flights in syndicate operations.

As for the matter of pilots not taking responsibility for their actions let me relate a story which happened to me this weekend.

I was with my light aeroplane, parked and preparing for flight when I saw a helicopter hover taxing towards me. I was parked close to a tight gap between two hangars with several vehicles nearby and numerous people around. I was horrified to see the helo continue and pass about 30 feet from my aeroplane (I had to put my weight on the upwind wing to hold it steady!) before landing some 50 meters away.

Once it was shut sown and the crew disembarked I went to speak to the pilot to tell him that I had been very uncomfortable by the proximity between our aircraft. His response was shocking!

He told me that Air Traffic had told him to follow that routing and to park in that position (there is no ATC at this airport, just an A/G service!) and also that the ground crew had indicated he should park in that position (I didn't see any marshaller). I said that, while that was all very well he ought to remember that as the aircraft commander he had a legal duty to operate safely and the legal authority to do (or no to do) anything he sees fit to achieve that aim, I asked him in future to keep more distance between his hovering helo and parked aircraft on the ground. His response was simply to repeat that he was "just following orders"!

This pilot has clearly not understood his responsibility as aircraft commander.

So, do I think that there is a problem with pilots not understanding their authority and not accepting responsibility for their actions? Well, certainly with this guy there is but in general I don't see any evidence.

The real question is what can be done about it and here I think that Genghis is right on the money. A clear indication before hand of what is expected backed up by demonstration of professional standards together with a firm understanding that if a pilot is not ready to be placed in command of a flying machine he will not be put in that position are essential elements of any check flight and they don't need to be administered by an instructor. If deficient piloting skills are identified they may need to be corrected by an instructor but that's another mater. Understanding the right mindset is something that can be taught in discussion on the ground and then demonstrated by any pilot with the right approach; there are many non instructor pilots who have these skills and many instructors who lack them!

Happy landings

3 point

pilotmike
12th Oct 2010, 09:15
This problem of failing to take responsibility is possibly more common than is sometimes realised.

Having your flying assessed is always intimidating, no matter whether the assessor is an instructor / examiner or not, and can always lead to the well known 'leaving your brain back at home'. Almost every commercial pilot should be able to relate to this phenomenon, evidence of which is regularly displayed at 6 monthly intervals in the sim at LPC and OPC time. This can contribute towards the appearance of 'not taking responsibility'.

I recall a specific example of such behaviour, when instructing a student who was close to going solo, some years ago. (GTE does in fact know both characters, the student - who is now an instructor - and me.)

As we worked toward sending this particular student off solo, he initially appeared to be unable to 'get it all together' to the standard needed to go solo, and most infuriatingly, would never take responsibility for any significant decisions in the circuit. With time, it appeared that he was in fact sabotaging his performance, almost as though he was trying to avoid going solo. He simply was not taking responsibility for his flying.

Eventually I took a chance, and surprised both of us by simply climbing out, and telling him to go solo. He flew an excellent first solo, displaying good judgement and decision making, just as I was sure he was capable despite seldom having witnessed it.

As he walked back to the club house after parking, he walked 2 foot taller, with a confidence that I had not seen in him before! It was a turning point in his flying training. From that point on, he would always take responsibility for his flying, and his progress was rapid. He became an excellent pilot, and is now an excellent instructor. But, like GTE's fellow pilots, he seemed unable to take responsibility whilst sat next to a more experienced pilot.

I have heard stories of others who have faked incapacitations of some degree to elicit similar taking of responsibility, even to the extent of fake heart attacks. Somewhat extreme, and not recommended in my view, but it would be a very clear way to force the 'checkee' to take responsibility. It is amazing what people are capable of when needs must!

Checkboard
14th Oct 2010, 20:10
This pilot has clearly not understood his responsibility as aircraft commander.
Ahh - but in this situation, Genghis the Engineer was the aircraft commander. The commander is the person nominated by the owner or owner-authorised operator to be responsible for the safety of the flight. As Genghis was flying with this candidate in order to assess whether they were safe to operate the aircraft in the future (and until the flight was complete, that assessment isn't complete) then the candidate cannot be the pilot-in-command.

As Genghis isn't an instructor, the flight isn't dual, either. As a pilot correctly licensed for the position, and assigned flying duties on the aircraft, but not in command, the candidate is either a co-pilot or ICUS (in command under supervision), and should log the flight as such.

Genghis - I might suggest you take a little time to write up a one page brief, which can be emailed (or printed and handed to) each candidate, setting forth the legal responsibilities (and the insurance cover), and outlining exactly the command chain and what skills you expect to see for each flight. It removes all grey areas then, and makes it easier for you to say "No" as you can simply point out the bit on the brief they didn't meet.

edit: just read the thread! :O Sorry for the repeated info. In terms of command ability, or assessing such - you have run into an authority gradient problem rather than a command problem, I think. Briefing that you are in command, but they are operating the flight should go some way to sorting it. They will still defer to you for the flight, however, and you should expect that.

Genghis the Engineer
15th Oct 2010, 08:22
Damn fine idea Checkboard, I'll do exactly that.

G

mad_jock
15th Oct 2010, 08:43
As Genghis isn't an instructor, the flight isn't dual, either. As a pilot correctly licensed for the position, and assigned flying duties on the aircraft, but not in command, the candidate is either a co-pilot or ICUS (in command under supervision), and should log the flight as such.


Not in the UK, as its a SPA type the pilot being checked can't log anything I am afraid if Genghis is PIC and not some form of Instructor.

Checkboard
15th Oct 2010, 08:56
Common mistake. Single pilot aircraft may be flown single pilot, but there is no regulation stating that they must be flown single pilot.

Many light twins and small jets have single pilot authorisation, but are flown as two pilot operations for safety/passenger insurance reasons.

If two correctly licenced pilots are assigned flying duties on a Cessna 150 (with only two seats) they are perfectly within their rights to log commander and co-pilot, if that is what they are actually doing.

mad_jock
15th Oct 2010, 09:09
Not in the UK unless you have approval from your flight ops inspector and they have jumped through some hoops to satisfiy the CAA you are operating under multi crew SOP's.

There are currently no approvals in the UK for multi crew ops for SEP-SPA aircraft.

Its a whole load of paper work and changes including another multi crew LPC to be able to log it. I have worked for 2 companys which had such approval and it certainly isn't the case you can stick anyone in the RHS and they can log it or for that matter any airframe will do. There were 2 aircraft which were legal for multi crew and 2 that wern't it was mainly to do with instrument fit.

Its been argued on here before that a safety pilot should be able to log co-pilot when the AP is tits up. But again this is another false statement.

If its a private operation it is impossible to log multi crew time in a SPA.

Checkboard
15th Oct 2010, 09:57
My mistake. JAR-FCL 1.080(c) (2)

Co-Pilot flight time

The holder of a pilot licence occupying a pilot seat as co-pilot may log all flight time as co-pilot flight time on an aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.... and goes on to say that you can't log PICUS unless you are a co-pilot. :O

The differences you don't know about, when you change country ...

mad_jock
15th Oct 2010, 10:25
You can log PICUS in a SEP-SPA aircraft but only when you have passed a license/class flight test with an approved examiner.

Same here mate I now have 3 different ATPL's thankfully two of them have decided to use JAR as there base line which is my original first ATPL. But all have differences which can bite your bum.

Unless you have operated in that type of company that does dual crew in SPA types the whole subject is open to wide interpretation. Unfortunately some pilots believe some of the crap spouted on here and end up getting log books bounced back when the apply for stuff.

DFC
15th Oct 2010, 17:34
If two correctly licenced pilots are assigned flying duties on a Cessna 150 (with only two seats) they are perfectly within their rights to log commander and co-pilot, if that is what they are actually doing.


I can se where you are comoing from.

However, if you make your C150 a 2 crew operation then both pilots have to be qualified and by this I mean checked-out / insured to operate the flight legally from their relevant seat. If you go down this road you don't solve anything you make it worse because you now need an instructor to sit in the left seat and check-out the new co-pilot in the right seat or as is more common, the instructor sits the right seat, checks out the new pilot and then they swap seats to complete a right seat check on the new pilot.

Commercially, unless there is a lot of money to be saved on insurance or it is needed under EU-Ops then a single crew aircraft will whenever possible be operated single crew.

The only way that I know of logging co-pilot time in a C150 is for the PIC to go under the hood and thus operate in a situation where the regulations require a second pilot. Can't see anyone spending vast amounts of time doing that though!!

You may find that some high performance aircraft certified for single pilot have an insurance requirement for two crew but the justification for that is often to provide some measure of redundancy in the event of incapacitation ( in some cases read inability to keep up with the aircraft!! )

Checkboard
15th Oct 2010, 18:08
What I meant was, in Australia (at least when I was there), there is no requirement for multi-pilot courses, command courses, two pilot aircraft , right seat courses, left seat courses etc etc.

The only requirement is that, in aircraft certified for single pilot ops, the pilot in command must be able to reach all of the necessary controls from the seat they occupy.

So, you have a pilot-in-command - who logs command.
You may have a student (under an instructor or training captain) who logs "dual",
You may have other pilots assigned duties for the flight - who all log "co-pilot",
unless they are acting in command (in every sense, not just handling) - who log ICUS...

After all, that is what a "co-pilot" is - a pilot, licensed to do the job they have been assigned (i.e. not training), who isn't in command but is performing duties on board the aircraft.

and so on...

It seems in Europe, they have written the rules for the typical commercial situation, and ignored all GA/private ops, where a PPL may want or need someone (also licensed) to manipulate the controls. It seems poor legislation in that sense - to ignore a VERY common occurrance, leaving it in legal limbo...

Dan Winterland
18th Oct 2010, 02:38
Just seen this thread and I'm going back to Genghis' original Q by relating my experience of a very similar situation.

I was in exactly the same situation about twenty years ago. As a member of a flyng group with about a thousand hours and as the only professional pilot in the group, I was the person who did the group's acceptance check rides and type 'training'. The group operated from an airstrip which it has sole leasing rights to and operated a slightly unusual type with a stick and throttle operated by the left hand which prospective group members had usually not flown before, so a fairly high standard was required. Also, we required 100 hrs P1 since the award of the PPL. This seems quite high, but as the group members/aircraft owners were going to fly unsupervised, it was quite desirable plus also an insurance requirement in this group.

When I accepted the job of doing the flying, I laid down my own terms, in that if I wasn't happy about any of the prospective group members then they weren't in - and this was accepted by the rest of the group. And it all went well for about two years. Typically, the prospective member flew the aricraft with me for a looksee and if they liked the group, they would join provisionally and once checked out on the aircraft to my liking, paid the remainder of the share and were in. The insurance company were happy with this situation, and as for logging the hours, I would log P1 from the RHS, as for the candidate, it was up to him. But one day, we were faced with a big maintenance bill and there was some pressure to accept two new members to the group. I was not happy with either. One was underconfident and not a particularly profficient pilot, but eventually, he convinced me he was safe and I recommended to the chairman that he be accepted. The second was overconfident and irresponsible as well as not being a particularly good pilot. I told the group commitee that we had our first rejectee, but I was over-ruled due to him already having stumped up the cash and also the fact he was a close friend of the Chairman.

This chap subsequently gave me lots of missed heatbeats by flying in unsuitable weather, low flying and dubious decisions and eventually proved me right by crashing the aircraft - without injury to either himself or his daughter, which considering he managed to remove both wings in the crash was a miracle!


So my advice is to stand your ground and make it clear to the rest of the syndicate that if you aren't happy, then they aren't to fly the aircraft.

foxmoth
25th Oct 2010, 01:24
I would be very interested to know what type Ghengis is refering to, I am instructor with a very large range of experience from vintage to high performance aero aircraft and would be very surprised if I would not be able to cope with almost any aircraft after a short check flight and would find it strange he cannot find a number of similarly experienced instructors who could do the same. On the question of the checkee taking command I actually back right off the instructor level, turning up without headset/chart and asking if they have checked wx and notams (Headset/chart actually being in my car and having already checked wx and notams) if they have not done this I hand them my laptop which has a Dongle for internet and tell them to check this, pointing out that this is their job as P1, the rest of the flight continues in much the same vein - I will only step in if dangerous/illegal, with the debrief afterwards pointing out things that would have been done better.

darkroomsource
20th Nov 2010, 06:15
1) I brief then demonstrate how to fly the aeroplane, and if required include a brief on the airfield and local area.

(2) Checkee (is that a word?) tries to fly it, with formative feedback from me.

(3) Checkee demonstrates hopefully that they can manage on their own whilst I sit there and say nothing meaningful about the flying.

(4) Either (a) welcome them to the syndicate, or (b) politely encourage them to go and get some proper instruction.

I have been through many check outs. I would disagree with most of what you've said here.
First, you don't brief the person being checked out, they should be briefing you, if not, then they don't get in the plane, cuz they don't know enough about it to be able to fly it.
Second, you don't show them anything about the plane, but rather, like an uneducated passenger you ask annoying questions about how this or that works, and have them show you.
You are checking them out, not the other way around.

mad_jock
20th Nov 2010, 08:18
If you check again the quote was to do with converting someone onto a new type in the SEP class.

Hence the discussion about who is best to do such conversions.

Genghis the Engineer
22nd Nov 2010, 07:09
If you check again the quote was to do with converting someone onto a new type in the SEP class.

Hence the discussion about who is best to do such conversions.

Although, I can see some sense in what Darkroomsource is saying. There is a general approach (in my experience anyhow) within British light civil aviation that if you are going to fly a new aircraft type, you turn up, get a short briefing, fly the aeroplane with the instructor / checkee, then take it from there.

Yet I don't think that this exists anywhere else. If you are converting to a jet, you can expect a week or more in the classroom these days before you get to go anywhere near the aeroplane (or increasingly, simulator). In FAA land a short quiz based upon the POH is fairly normal before flying an aircraft for the first time, whilst the military in the UK certainly expects a pilot do do some considerable study before getting into a new type.

Is there perhaps a bit of a cultural error in the UK, that I'm just seeing one symptom of?

G

mad_jock
22nd Nov 2010, 08:42
That wasn't the way I read it.

What the poster says for a check out I agree with.

But flying a new type its slightly different in that the instructor is driving the course content. The content will depend on the experence of the student and also if they have flown a similar type before. It maybe the case that the exercises will be driven by the student for example if the student is an instructor themselves.

Interesting though.