GFPT - Instructor approval to fly

[YPJT]

Was faced with a strange scenario today. Pilot with GFPT asked me to sign an MR for him to go flying. Turns out his school is in another state and does not have any areas associated with the local aerodrome in their Training Ops Manual. He said his instructor, checks the local wx (probably via NAIPS) and gives the student approval to fly.

I have not looked at the VFR day syllabus, only CAR 5.69 which I see is able to be interpreted a number of ways depending on how you look at the definitions of "flying training area" and "cross country training"

Can this be done legally? Appreciate advice from the instructors on this one.

[MikeTangoEcho]

Signing a MR doesn't approve him to go flying anyway. I don't really understand the whole 'his school in another state' thing.

If you were willing to sign the MR I'm hoping you checked the a/c out yourself?

[tmpffisch]

The answer (like a lot of them) won't come from the regs, but from other documents.

Have a look at the AOC Certification Manual. You should find the school is required to document their training area on a map.


3. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS – PRIVATE SCHOOL
(1) The holder of a certificate with a private school classification must use or employ:
................
d. maps of a suitable scale clearly depicting the following:
i. aerodromes used in training;
ii. the general flying training area;
iii. low flying areas with major obstructions clearly marked;
iv. acrobatic flying area(s); and
v. travel corridor(s) connecting aerodromes and training areas;Same of course goes for Commercial schools.

[YPJT]

Signing a MR doesn't approve him to go flying anyway. I don't really understand the whole 'his school in another state' thing.

Never suggested signing the MR bestowed an approval. What part don't you understand? The school is in a different state and thousands of km from the stude and aircraft in question.

If you were willing to sign the MR I'm hoping you checked the a/c out yourself?:ugh:

Thanks tmpffisch :ok:

[RogerRamjet01]

Is not so strange to have a GFPT fellow who has done their training somewhere else.. what is strange, I agree, is that the student wants the instructor to make the weather assessment.

The Day VFR syllabus requires that the student pilot can interpret weather for the local area, and is familiar with local procedures.

You need to satisfy yourself that the student can meet these obligations with respect to the local area. It doesnt matter what the other school has in their ops manual - what matters is whats in yours (and in the regs, which should be reflected in your ops manual).

(Of course as the instructor signing them out, you will always have the eye on the weather and have final rights to allow / deny the flight.. that is not in question).

[YPJT]

OK I clearly haven't explained this situation well enough.
Firstly I am not an instructor,
There is no training operation at this field so therefore no approved training areas. There is no reference to this airport or the surrounding region in the stuent's school's training manual. There are two privately owned aircraft here. One of the aircraft owners seems to think it is ok for this guy who has a GFPT to go flying around on the basis of the instructor at his school (a long distance away) giving him the ok.

It just seems very strange to me as I recall from when I did my GFPT some 16 yrs ago, the only flying I could do was still within the deisgnated training area of the school where I was learning. How on earth can an instructor thousands of KM away look anyone in the eye and say, "yes I am supervising this student's flying activities"?

I am not saying the student couldn't go to another school to do flying and exercise privelidges of his GFPT. This is not what is occurring in this case.

Then there are the questions of whether the aircraft insured for flying training and is the MR endorsed for air work?

[mcgrath50]

From memory when I did my GFPT, if I was trained at Bankstown and wanted to go flying at say Coffs Harbour. I could as long as the school was satisfied I understood the local area (procedures, weather etc.) and the aircraft. Technically the school could sign me off without seeing my flying like a PPL although I am sure 99% would want a dual flight.

But you are right, I don't see how what this guy is doing is legal.

[Clare Prop]

Some confusion arises even now with people who think a GFPT is the same as an RPPL. A GFPT is not some kind of "licence". A GFPT is simply a flight test that when passed allows a student pilot to carry passengers and go for extended periods between check rides compared to a student pilot who doesn't have one.

A student pilot with or without GFPT requires "permission" from an instructor to go flying, and it is up to that instructor to ensure that the weather, among other things, is suitable, and that permission would normally be verified with a signature authorisation as per the ops manual. If the student pilot becomes a smoking hole, that instructor would be just as responsible as if it were the student pilot's first solo.

Whenever we have operated from remote bases we have had to submit to CASA for approval ops manual amedndments, maps with designated training areas, have all the facilites required for a training school, have an instructor on-site whenever student pilots are flying etc. There is none of this set up where YPJT is.

YPJT holds a CPL but is not a flying instructor and not working in capacity of pilot or under any AOC at this time. This student pilot has come out of woop woop and wanted him to sign the MR, which of course he,or anyone else with the appropriate qualifications can. But my advice is to steer well clear of this situation because if it goes wrong, the instructor who gave the permission is a couple of thousand k's away, then a clever insurance company lawyer could try and hold YPJT partly responsible.

Tell the bloke to get his navs done then he can fly whenever and wherever he likes!

Edited because I can't spell today :ouch:

[TSIO540]

There is nothing stopping a GFPT qualified pilot from doing a nav ex anywhere that an 'approved' instructor approves them to go. This is how CPL training is conducted in a lot schools i.e. GFPT directly to CPL.

If you had done a thorough inspection as any licensed person should then I'm sure you would be able to say that you exercised your duty of care with respect to signing off the MR and that no undocumented defects were evident when you signed it.... but that is no guarantee. I wouldn't want to be signing it unless I was covered by insurance (e.g. under an AoC)

[YPJT]

Thanks everyone for your comments. In the end, I refused to sign the MR as I only had the stude pilot's word that he was approved to make the flight. Might have been different had the instructor sent me a signed statement approving the flight to take place. CASA were a bit astounded also but confirmed my stance on the issue to be appropriate.

An ass covering exercise I could well do without.

[beat ups are fun]

this sounds dodgie, dodgie, dodgie!! If I was put in this situation I would have been on the phone asking this instructor for references to the CAR, CAO, etc. that would make this flight legal. Signing a MR is a big responsibility, I'm sure if something happened to this chap, YPJT would have been asked allot of questions (possibly in court) about the condition of the aircraft prior to the flight and could and land in hot water.

I, personally will never sign an MR for another pilot. It's the responsibility of every PIC to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy before they fly it. I don't want to be dragged into an ATSB or CASA investigation. If they can find the slightest thing wrong with that aircraft it will all come crashing down on MY HEAD. The same goes for fuel, never take the word of the previous pilot to what should be left in the tanks. (I digress but I've made my point)

Always think about the outcome incase the worst happens and never put yourself in a position where it'll be your @rse on the line!

I'll let the instructors answer the other questions about training areas etc.

So YPJT, did you end up signing the MR?

[YPJT]

So YPJT, did you end up signing the MR? Nah mate, as per my previous post.
Alarm bells were ringing from the outset on this one.

[VH-XXX]

I'll happily sign an MR placed in front of me. If I decide to not fly and someone else flies the plane instead; not my problem!

They are either legal to fly it or not and me signing the MR won't help them get out of jail!

[desert goat]

On a side note- why exactly did we get rid of the old restricted PPL and replace it with the GFPT? I was once in the position of PJTs student, having learnt to fly at a quiet country field with a part time instructor. I found it a right pain in the ar$e to have to hunt around to find someone to sign the MR when I wanted to do a few practice circuits. I find it a bit bizarre that a PPL is "qualified" to do a daily inspection but a GFPT holder isn't- it isn't as if there is any special emphasis on "how to do a walkaround" during PPL Nav training.

[VH-XXX]

GFPT is quite a bit different to the old PPL restricted isn't it, in that you didn't need approval from instructor to fly under the old system did you?

[desert goat]

That's my understanding- i.e with an RPPL you hadn't done nav's, so couldn't go anywhere- but if you just wanted to do circuits or take a mate for a flip around the training area you didn't need authorisation and could sign the MR. I'm just wondering why we changed away from that-seems like a good setup, particularly for weekend warriors at country strips.

[Clare Prop]

VH-XXX, so what is it you are signing when you sign an MR then?

I understood it was a certification on Part 3 of the MR under 42ZE that the daily inspection had been carried out and the aircraft was serviceable.

Makes no difference who flies it after you have signed it. If it isn't airworthy then your butt is on the line. Pity a lot of flying schools don't teach this stuff.

And for the second time, the GFPT is NOT a licence. It's a test of the student's progress in general flying. It is also optional but most schools will make you do it because then they can milk a few more hours out of you. It did not "replace" the RPPL. A student pilot is a student pilot whether they are on their first solo or have passed a GFPT and have 1000 hours in command, they need nermission. abd the instructor giving that permission carries the responsibility for the flight.

[desert goat]

And for the second time, the GFPT is NOT a licence. It's a test of the student's progress in general flying. It is also optional but most schools will make you do it because then they can milk a few more hours out of you. It did not "replace" the RPPL. A student pilot is a student pilot whether they are on their first solo or have passed a GFPT and have 1000 hours in command, they need nermission. abd the instructor giving that permission carries the responsibility for the flight.

That's what I mean- why did we do away with the RPPL?

[Ando1Bar]

...the GFPT...It is also optional but most schools will make you do it because then they can milk a few more hours out of you.


I beg to differ. It's been a while but, without the CARs in front of me (and relying on memory), prior to passing a GFPT a student pilot can only fly 3 hours solo between dual flights. Post-GFPT this can be 15 hours. A school would milk more from their students if they didn't do a GFPT because more dual checks would be required.

Back to the 3 hour solo limit, a student pilot isn't going to get a very good solo navex in under 3 hours. Plus there are other requirements about distances and landings on solo navexs before sitting a PPL or CPL flight test (300nm from memory - unless you're cruising around in a Bonanza chances are this will take more than 3 hours). Some full-time courses do away with PPL flight test, which might be what you're refering to.

If this particular chap has flown from interstate, there is a good chance they'll be getting very close to their 15 hours. Bust the 15 hours and there could be a bit of trouble next CASA audit.

What the flying school has done is not illegal, but is a bit rude. I would never sign off a student with the expectation that someone I don't know from another airfield will sign the MR for them. My rule was pre-PPL - sorry mate, but you'll have to be back before end of daylight. Post-PPL - fill your boots, fly to Broome if you like (with the appropriate planning of course!).

[YPJT]

Ando,
I beg to differ. It's been a while but, without the CARs in front of me (and relying on memory), prior to passing a GFPT a student pilot can only fly 3 hours solo between dual flights. Post-GFPT this can be 15 hours. A school would milk more from their students if they didn't do a GFPT because more dual checks would be required.
I guess that's one way to look at it but why would a student want to be flying around on supervised solo endlessly when their training dollars can be put to far better use completing their navs and obtaining their PPL which is likely their whole aim from the outset? Some people might, for whatever reason choose to do a GFPT whether for personal achievement or to take friends up for a jolly within the training are etc etc. I did it when I did my training however I certainly wasn't forced to. For those without unlimited cash and a desire to complete their PPL in the shortest amount of time, not having to complete a GFPT in my optinion is certainly the best way to go.

Which brings me back to the original subject of this thread, another reason I expressed my original concern is that I have real problems with student pilots flying solo amongs RPT jet aircraft in class G with their instructor well over 2,000km away.

[Clare Prop]

Solo cross country requirement for the PPL is minimum of 5 hours. This can be done easily in two solo flights of around 2.5 hours and it would be a very slow aeroplane that couldn't complete the 150nm with two land away requirment in under three hours.

I'd suggest the student would gain more from an interesting flight of around 2.5 hours than lots of straight lines for 4 hours to justify doing the GFPT. All sequences in the GFPT have to be tested again in the PPL flight test so having a GFPT doesn't give any "exemptions" later on.

Why did they do away with the RPPL, I don't know I wasn't here then, but maybe because it wasn't "ICAO" ...but then neither is the GFPT. Nowhere else I am aware of allows someone without a PPL to carry passengers! :eek: Most countries do a navigation flight test at the completion of navigation training then advanced training leading to a separate general flight test at the very end of the course. Here in Australia things always have to be different...

[Ando1Bar]

There is value in flying straight lines in more remote areas. A large number of PPL and CPL students fail due to 'failure to navigate'. Why? Poor position fixes and the poor application of course correction rules like the 1 in 60.

2.5 hours, minus around 0.3 for each destination the student visits for the approach, landing and subsequent take off (remember - two full stop landings are required on at leave one of their solo navs) leaves around 1.6 hours flying time. Even at 120 knots the student is really going to leave the boundaries of their training area for very long. You're looking at 30-40 mins nav legs at most, which doesn't always give a lot of time for the student to bed down their navigation cycle, particularly if they are familiar with their surroundings.

From experience, students who try to take short custs and skip things like the GFPT end up shooting themselves in the foot and costing themselves more money when things don't go exactly to plan. Just do the GFPT and obtain your PPL and build some real flying experience on your way to a CPL (I fully agree with you YPJT). There are other benefits too like becoming familiar with the flight test format and ATOs.

[Tinstaafl]

It used to be that all GFPT sequences didn't have to be tested again in the PPL flight test if the student had previously demonstrated skill in those areas ie has passed a GFPT. If, however, the student has not passed a GFPT prior to his/her PPL test then the GFPT sequences would need to be included in the PPL test. It seems that credit allowance has disappeared. Wonder why?

Doing a GFPT doesn't have to add additional flight time to getting a PPL. Last time I wrote a syllabus the GFPT was included within the 40 hr PPL syllabus so it wasn't 'additional' hours at all.

The GFPT has advantages:

15 hours instead of 5 solo. That can save money for the student in the long run by reducing the number of required dual checks. Bear in mind that most people don't complete the licence in minimum time so the flexibility is often handy eg stronger headwinds delaying the flight. Who wants student stuck at another field because they don't have sufficient solo time left to return? Also, not all CPL courses involve a PPL test. Some go straight to CPL. Having the additional solo time is needed to meet CPL training requirements.

Previously it would break the required test items into one short test and one longer test instead of one much longer flight. A bit of an icebreaker to introduce the student to flight tests, if you like.

If the student really wants they can go for a pleasure flight with friend or two. Not part of their training but nothing wrong with flying just for the fun of it. It can even help motivate a person to finish their training.

[mcgrath50]

If I had my time over I would still do the GFPT for two reasons. Firstly, the dual checking as mentioned but more importantly, when I went for my PPL despite being with a different ATO I knew the procedure, i was more relaxed than many of my non-GFPT friends were. I knew what to expect in the theory, I knew to expect an engine failure after take off situation on any climb out and I knew that when given the simulated engine failure, the field may not be obvious but the ATO sure has one they think is best (in both tests directly under the plane).