PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 24th Feb 2012, 17:29   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aberdeen,Scotland,UK
Posts: 10,442
I have and I did the hour and signed the log book as per the regs. I have also refused to get in an aircraft with a pilot. The only thing you can do is refuse to do the flight if you believe that your name will be tarnished.

I have no training or authorisation to examine the standard of SEP pilots as a FI.

And I wouldn't be paying for the aircraft either.

As you say genghis the vast vast majority of pilots know that things didn't work out and they book themselves in for training. But even if they do I always sign the logbook and do the hour because that is what the contract is for doing the flight.

There is nothing to stop a pilot booking a 1 hour trial flight with an instrutor then producing a log book afterwards and requesting the signature. And their is no reason for the instrutor to refuse to sign it.
mad_jock is offline   Reply
Old 24th Feb 2012, 20:59   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 47
Posts: 486
Quote:
As an examiner if I am revalidating an SEP by experiencce then I require to see either......a successfel flight test with an appropriate licence endorsement or....
Wouldn't this then be revalidation by Proficiency Check, rather than by experience?
Also, I can't really think of a scenario where a licence holder would do the LPC with one FE, then go to a different examiner for the administrative actions. Surely they'd just get the FE to complete the SRG1119 and ratings page after the test.
mrmum is offline   Reply
Old 24th Feb 2012, 21:03   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aberdeen,Scotland,UK
Posts: 10,442
When you have done either another class or type test. eg MEP or 747. TRE's can't sign your SEP's off even though someone that has filled the paperwork out and payed the dosh and become a ground examinor with no training at all can.

You can go years and years without ever having flown with an SEP instructor if you fly other things.

Which is one of the many reasons why I think that the 1 hour with an instructor is a load of pish.

And in case it comes up yes there are tre's out there who have all the ticks in the boxes and can sign you but if they are "just a TRE" on one type with no other auths they can't.
mad_jock is offline   Reply
Old 24th Feb 2012, 21:12   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 47
Posts: 486
MJ, really
Quote:
I have no training or authorisation to examine the standard of SEP pilots as a FI.
Now I happen to be an FE, but before I was and when I have my FI hat on, I do precisely that several times a week. Isn't that exactly what we do as instructors every time we do a club check-out prior to PPL hire, also when we're considering sending a student solo, it's a similar situation, we assess (examine) the standard of their flying.
mrmum is offline   Reply
Old 24th Feb 2012, 21:18   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 47
Posts: 486
Another CFI / MJ
I take back by earlier comments, I'd briefly not thought about the option to replace the one hour with an instructor with a flight test on another class or type. Bit annoyed with myself about that sorry.
mrmum is offline   Reply
Old 24th Feb 2012, 21:46   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Aberdeen,Scotland,UK
Posts: 10,442
We authorise people to fly on our licenses when sending solo. We don't examin students for solo, the level that needs to be obtained is purely one persons opinion. There is no standards they have to meet. The instructor though has to justify themselves if anything goes wrong. And more to the point there is no exam for the instructor to do to prove there standards are acceptable. Everyone presumes if they don't crash your acceptable. But there is no training to do that your just meant to pick it up as you go along.


And as for club checkouts any pilot can do them, ppl instructor or otherwise in fact if they are within 90 days, the person doing the checking doesn't even need to have a license. I know of a group that has a unmedically fit pilot defined in the insurances docs as a check pilot. So as such it is an opinion that the person is safe. It holds no merit in the grand scale of things apart from it means you do or don't get access to someones aircraft. It has no legal standing apart from a tick in the insurance box.

FE's have been trained and be examined themselves for their standards. All these hour flights should be given to them and they should be empowered to be able to suspend/revoke someones ticket until they can demonstrate competency. This current go for a fanny around with what could be some clueless knumb nut 225hr FI(R) who can barely fly themselves is utterly pointless.
mad_jock is offline   Reply
Old 24th Feb 2012, 22:33   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 47
Posts: 486
FE's have only been "trained" since we adopted the JARs, prior to that you needed a lot more instructional experience and IIRC a couple of good reports from your FI rating tests. Nowadays, all you need is 1000TT and a pathetic 250 instructional. As far as relative experience goes to examine someone, that's not much better than your 225hr FI(R) for the hour with an instructor is it? We do however have a "standardisation" flight test every three years or so.

Whether there's much merit in just putting someone in an aeroplane for an hour with an instructor, or if it should be a mandatory test with an examiner, is a different question. What I'm saying is we all regularly examine or assess (what's the difference practically?) the people we fly with, it's part of the job. A lot of the time, yes it may have no legal standing, but we still do it.
mrmum is offline   Reply
Old 25th Feb 2012, 08:27   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
We authorise people to fly on our licenses when sending solo.
A popular misconception. We authorise people to fly in accordance with Article 52 of the ANO, which exempts them from the requirement to hold a licence. We need an appropriate licence and rating in order to give instructions to the solo student but the responsibility as PIC of the aircraft is entirely his/hers.
BillieBob is offline   Reply
Old 25th Feb 2012, 13:00   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 631
Hello!

I had some time to kill waiting for passengers and re-read my JAR-FCL (thanks to the miraculous iPad which allows me to carry around an entire library). Not a waste of time because EASA-FCL will be 99 percent identical to JAR-FCL.

There are exactly three mentions to (counter-)signatures in logbooks:
Time logged as SPIC and PICUS (1.1080) and differences training (1.235).

And the signature for the biennial training flight for revalidation of the SEP class rating gets written onto the back side of the license (App. 1 to FCL 1.1075), which as an instructor I can refuse to sign if I am not happy with the applicants performance.

All these JARs have been implemented to the letter here in Germany (and from experience I would guess also in France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland,...) therefore I think that the vast majority of European pilots happily fly around with unsigned and unstamped logbooks.
what next is offline   Reply
Old 25th Feb 2012, 14:18   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,554
Quote:
And the signature for the biennial training flight for revalidation of the SEP class rating gets written onto the back side of the license (App. 1 to FCL 1.1075), which as an instructor I can refuse to sign if I am not happy with the applicants performance.
According to App 1 to JAR-FCL 1.075, only an Examiner or the Authority is permitted to sign the revalidation process. An Instructor is not so authorised.
Quote:
Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.075 (continued)
Instructor ratings and SE piston class ratings may also at the discretion of the Authority be revalidated in
the licence by the Examiner who forms a part of the revalidation process. If an Examiner is not involved in
the revalidation process, the rating entry will be made by the Authority
.
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 25th Feb 2012, 19:02   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 631
Quote:
According to App 1 to JAR-FCL 1.075, only an Examiner or the Authority is permitted to sign the revalidation process. An Instructor is not so authorised.
Then this must be one of the few german differences to the "universal" JARs. If you read any German then this form may be of interest by which an instructor or examiner notifies the authority that he has revalidated an SEP classrating in handwriting on the applicants license: Luftfahrt Bundesamt - Lizenzierung - Nachweis Handeintrag SEP

It references FCL 1.024(a) (german) that seems to be missing from the english FCLs. So much for international standardisation!
what next is offline   Reply
Old 25th Feb 2012, 20:51   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,554
And with 24 different States in EASA there will be many more different interpretations! EASA claim that their mission is to promote the highest common standard of safety in civil aviation. Whilst that sounds very grandiose, it is more sobering to think that mathematically, that is known as the Lowest Common Denominator. They only set the bottom line, it comes with no guarantee of equality or even standardisation.
Whopity is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network