Solo authorisations?

[Snigs]

I recently sent a student on his first solo land away. Naturally, as a restricted FI, solo authorisations are important at the moment, but I'm not clear on whether this should constitute 2 authorisations for the 2 flights, or whether it's only one?

What do you lot say?

[mad_jock]

I logged those flights as how ever many legs for the restriction removal. I know some people will argue with this. It all really comes down to the person who is supervising you and what they are willing to signoff.

Didn't have any hassels from Gatwick.

MJ

[Keygrip]

I remember asking the CAA, many years ago, as to why I (as a student) need not carry the aircraft documents required under the relevant schedule of the Air Navigation Order.

The response was that they view a training flight that departs and returns to the same airfield - even if it lands away at one or more airfields during that day - to be a single flight and, as such, the aircraft documents were not an in-flight requirement.

That would suggest the answer to your question is - ONE.

[GT]

As I recall, the CAA said a while ago that supervision for the qualifying cross country (three legs, of course) shall count as one supervision flight.

Regards, GT.

[MJR]

Mmmmmmmmm!

Interesting point can anyone give a definitive answer. I've been booking these as one supervision myself, I'd be unrestricted by now if I could count each leg.

:hmm: MJR

[mad_jock]

Yet again something which isn't in LASORS.

O well bit late now for me.

Another one is the inclusion of ex 3's in the 100 hours, in LASOR's it says you can't use them but it dosn't mention it anywhere else.

BEagle is there any chance that these type of points for FI's could be answered by a FAQ doc published by the CAA?

MJ

[StrateandLevel]

As you only brief and authorise the student once, it counts as one flight. If you care to drive to the land away airfield and rebrief the student you could probably claim it as two!

A qualifying X Country counts as one, not 3.

[BEagle]

Strate and Level - that is your opinion only, not CAA policy as you well know.

If you really want to be picky, what would happen if you authorised a student to fly 2 visual circuits. Then taxy in, stop, get a quick cockpit re-brief and re-auth, then taxy out for a second session of 2 visual circuits.....then another.....and another.... 25 authorisations would come fairly quickly that way!

Flight time is from 'the moment at which the ac commences taxying with the intention of taking-off until the moment it ceases normal taxying after landing. Hence by the Eurocracy which even you at the SRG can't deny, 3 legs are 3 flights. Each flight requires specific authorisation; so that's 3 authorisations.....

MJ - such a FAQ would require someone at the CAA to come up with policy. That would need legal backing to have any substance - so you'll probably get the usual sloping of shoulders until someone at the Belgrano takes the bull by the horns and says "You'll do it this way because I b£oody well say so!".

[mad_jock]

You must admit though BEagle half of the stuff that gets asked isn't stupid in this forum its purely lack of documentation by the powers that be.

What is supervised etc.

This should be pretty much in stone but it isn't.

A new FI out of school dosn't have a clue what is normal and what isn't. We are way open for abuse by the school owners and CFI's and we could be putting our careers at risk because of what we were told.

BTW 9 out of the list for my solo send offs (3 legs each so 3 flights) were QXC sign offs what am I ment to do now hand my Unresricted lic back in to become restricted again?

MJ

[BEagle]

MJ - you have my sympathy! Quite a lot of the stuff asked on this forum can be answered by a look at LASORS. But there are certainly some points which keep cropping up and which it would help if there was clearer information available from the Belgrano.....

I wouldn't worry about your solo sign-offs - it's a typically stupid piece of Eurocracy in the first place, it isn't properly defined and is open to interpretation. The most important thing is to have your supervisor's recommendation and to have completed the qualifying 100 hours of instruction.

[Unscheduled stopover]

I seem to remember that we had a discussion about the 1 hour flight with an Instructor and could you land away on this flight.

If you do land away that would be two flights and the rules said that it should be one.

The CAA agreed that if you land away that is TWO FLIGHTS but if they were both in the same day it would count for this purpose.

We seem to be looking at the same problem now from a different angle.

For what its worth I logged qualifying cross countries as three flights and had no problems from Gatwick.

[Snigs]

Thanks for the input folks.

My CFI is prepared to sign me off for each flight (as defined by BEagle) so I'm lucky I guess. Nevertheless, I'm grateful for your input, it makes me more certain that he knows his stuff.

[Barney Stubble]

A note of caution from experience - I had my application for removal of restriction rejected by CAA for logging QXC as 3 flights.
This didn't cost me anything except time dealing with the CAA and having to get 2 more signatures.

Other instructors at my school logged QXC as 3 flights and got away with it.

Moral of the story is it depends who checks your application at Gatwick, so if you decide to chance it keep logging signatures in case it gets rejected.

Barney

[The mole]

In response to BEagle's facetious remark about briefing for consecutive visual circuits, that is exactly what has happened at flying schools with which I have had an association. But of course it is within the guidelines. Possiblity of 5 solo sign-offs in one afternoon......

[BEagle]

Good grief! I was only joking - you mean someone really did that?

[mad_jock]

more than one have done it BEagle.

Some schools the instructor is payed to supervise the student solo. Which means all the old wood nick the solo sign offs so they get payed for FA. So even if the instructor has trained them up to that point they are lucky to get a sign off afterwards.

Whats the pupose of the solo send offs anyway?

MJ

[BigEndBob]

Removal of restrictions should be based on an instructors overall experience say 500 hours of dual instruction and recommendation of the CFI. Solo supervision proves nothing other than you have briefed sufficiently to get the student back in one piece. How many instructors are given good students in order to clock up the requirements. Good judgement only comes from experience, which i think cannot be gained in a few hundred hours instructing.

[BEagle]

Agree with you, Bob. But it's all part of the Eurocracy of JARs....

Personally I sit in the back and watch one of my FI(R)s teaching a dual trip once he/she has achieved his/her 100+25 before I'll sign them off to the CAA. And no, I don't log the hours!

[cessnababe]

In my view the removal of the restriction is far too easy. I agree with the post suggesting 500 hours minimum experience before the removal. I believe that you only gain enough experience by having instructed through all the seasons in this country because the met conditions are so varied. You have to gain experience in judgment which takes time and just cannot be speeded up. i also believe it is appropriate to do another test for the removal of the restriction, because now the examiner can actually test your instructional ability and technique, whereas first time round he is only testing for potential. I agree with Beagle that a course would be a good idea too.

[mad_jock]

I also think that the night rating restriction removal is a bit dodgy.

I payed and extra 100 quid to do an hour with the FII and thought it was agood idea.

How wrong i was. Its the blind leading the blind I had 20 night (15 IFR which isn't much use) at the time and wouldn't say I was all that hot at night flying. When my first night rating came up I hadn't flown at night for 6 months and all i got was the standard 3 circuits which were fought for because i have a IR rating and the boss reckoned i could teach after 1 circuit.

First lesson suddenly realised that the work load was at least 4 times as much as during the day.

I reckon that you must have more experence than just your night rating then 1 hour restriction removal.

And before anyone starts I know you only get IFR at night what i meant was the other 15 hours was IR training under screens not IFR and responsable for your own ground seperation.

MJ

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

On QXC and the like I would log 3 solos sent and stuff the CAA.

If they return it with a quibble tell them you de-briefed the student by mobile phone at each landaway and then verbally authorised him to continue.

Nowhere does it say that you must be physically present etc.

Its a jobsworth rule plucked out of thin air as it is.

Its easily and legally circumventable by all qualified instructors at a school 'giving away' all the their solo auths to the new instructor who then accumulates them at a prodigious rate.

If they are going to invent arbitrary rules then people will treat them arbitrarily.

WWW

[CaptAirProx]

Cessnababe, very true. I wish we could have the "old" system back of testing to get rid of the restriction. I learnt so much more in that test. I was more confident of what I was doing, was able to put together a much more refined patter. The examiner was able to dig deeper into my knowledge, or lack of and teach me something new. I also saw a different slant on how things can be done. All very humbling and informative.

The new renewal requirements have gone some way to addressing this.

Even the old system of a quick "test" on a new type was a great way for my CFI (FIE) to introduce new techniques or just weed out bad habits creeping in. It certainly hammered home a standard to be maintained in all my instruction. Your learning curve is highest at this point and this helped immensely.

[RodgerF]

The benefit of the old system for FI qualification was that AFIs had to present students for pre first solo checks, this gave some indication of the quality of airmanship and skills being taught. There was a higher experience bar (400 PIC, 200 instruction as I remember) and the FI test. One of the items I remember being covered in the test Q and A was criteria for judging someone fit to go solo.

MJ

You point about the night rating reminds be of an answer given at one of the JAA Instructor seminars regarding the currency of the instructor, particularly when it was the first NR of a new season.

The answer was that you didn't need to have 1 landing in the last 90 days at night, since the student wasn't a passenger but a member of the flight crew!

[The mole]

www: I agree - waste of bloody time.

Cessnababe: I also agree - give FIR's a test to remove the restriction

[mad_jock]

Bollocks to that, I much prefer to get the cockups and eye in, out the way and all by myself.

MJ

[BEagle]

There should also be an assessment of the suitability of the individual to hold an instructional role as well as a far more searching check of their flying skills before they are permitted to commence a FI course.

Too many people view the world of flying instruction as purely a route to fund their hours building and airline aspirations. Not all 'hours builders' should be tarred with such a brush as there are some keen and enthusiastic youngsters out there giving it their all. Indeed, if they can manage to find the time, many come back from their airlines to keep their insructional ticket valid and build up a few more P1C hous. This helps to motivate others further down the food chain and to keep the school/club in touch with the airline industry.

Unfortunately some FTOs would seem to view the task of training FIs as a merely a convenient revenue stream. Personally I feel that the initial FI Skill Test should be conducted by an approved, wholly independent group of FIEs rather than by 'in-house' FIEs with a commercial interest in the FTO....as should a FI(R) upgrade test to remove the supervisory and 'No Applied Instrument' restrictions.

[Airbedane]

Here! Here! BEagle, some sense in the PPRuNE pages at last!

[BEagle]

Would you be AS, perchance? If so, hope that you're feeling better now. But if you're not AS, please give him my best wishes for a speedy recovery (ex-ULAS mate).

[boffo]

Just as a matter of interest: Does the instructor log the student's flight as P1 or what?

Boffo

[Send Clowns]

Where am I supposed to get these signed off? I have not done any yet (ony 10 instructional hours so far)

[Snigs]

boffo, the student log the flights as solo, i.e. P1, the instructor logs nothing except the solo authorisation (if FI(R)), and that's not needed when the instructor is unrestricted, he/she just lounges around, or better still takes another student for a lesson.

Send Clowns, the CAA form for the removal of FI restrictions (Form FCL676 Issue 2 (SRG\1133)) has a sheet (page 3) which is a record of your supervised solo authorisations, each flight is signed off by the supervising FI, usually the CFI.

[cessnababe]

BEagle, once again your views exactly mirror my own regarding training, testing and removal of restrictions from FI(R). I would like very much if those agreeing with BEagle would send me a private email as there are a number of topics I would welcome discussing in another arena.

[Send Clowns]

Thanks a lot Snigs, have printed off a copy of this form. Up to 21 hours instruction now, but no solos to sign off. Need a student of my own :( Maybe one or two to start after trial lessons today, 16-year old girls, so looking up :E