What would you do?
One suggestion is that if the guy shows unsafe flying skills and is reluctant to take any remedial training is advise him/her that you are writing to their insurance company to that effect although I'm not sure how you would find out who the insurers are.
You don't teach CRM I take it Bob?
Providing clear advice that remedial instruction is needed is one thing, refusing to sign the paperwork is another - but issuing threats like that is something else altogether!
G
Providing clear advice that remedial instruction is needed is one thing, refusing to sign the paperwork is another - but issuing threats like that is something else altogether!
G
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
It is not up to the instructor (or the CAA) to 'gold plate' by adding their own personal requirements.
Not ideal at all but due to a lack of further guidance, what else can you do?
Last edited by Tay Cough; 23rd May 2016 at 18:01.
You don't teach CRM I take it Bob?
Providing clear advice that remedial instruction is needed is one thing, refusing to sign the paperwork is another - but issuing threats like that is something else altogether!
Providing clear advice that remedial instruction is needed is one thing, refusing to sign the paperwork is another - but issuing threats like that is something else altogether!
That said I hardly feel that this is an occasion for touchy feely "CRM". If a pilot is clearly unsafe and refuses to take advice to undertake remedial training then I would suggest it's time for "Advocacy" - something which is part of CRM.
Maybe I've been lucky but I've never come across anyone in this respect that I would describe as "unsafe".
How would you feel if you didn't take any action and said pilot killed himself and passenger(s) a week later?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghengis, I need to say Flyflybob is not qualified as a CRM trainer as far as I know, more importantly he is an advocate or CRM and Human Factors, an experienced ailine pilot, but CRM in his DNA, I say that as a CRM Human Factors and CRM trainer for over twenty years. I'm really not sure CRM has much relavence in single pilot PPL as you suggested, it more down to good airmanship and human factors!
Last edited by athonite; 23rd May 2016 at 19:08.
then ground loops.
After the groundloop...
I didn't sign off the flight review. However, I did sign off on dual instruction.
No, I'm not part of the OP's story!
I'm sure Bob's CRM is excellent, and my flippant comment detracted from the serious point. In my opinion, issuing a threat, particularly a relatively unenforceable one, wouldn't help the teaching and learning environment much.
I have been in a similar position with a new syndicate joiner who I was checking out. In that case I saw the situation coming, and ensured that I had the syndicate chairman's backing to insist on further training to meet the required flying standards, and a list of approved (by the syndicate ) instructors ready. Not a universal solution, but it worked there.
G
I have been in a similar position with a new syndicate joiner who I was checking out. In that case I saw the situation coming, and ensured that I had the syndicate chairman's backing to insist on further training to meet the required flying standards, and a list of approved (by the syndicate ) instructors ready. Not a universal solution, but it worked there.
G
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As 'this is my username' points out this is a 'Training Flight' requirement and many people will use it to try a new experience for the first time so competence is not necessarily expected.
However, in the rare instances that an Instructor deems that a Pilot they flew with is unsafe (to themselves and/or others) then I do not believe that they should complete the 'Revalidation by Experience'; and if offered the Pilot's logbook to sign they should also write in "further training recommended" (so that Examiners would also know to politely decline any request for 'Revalidation by Experience' based on that particular training flight).
Just because someone is authorised to take 'Administrative Action' on behalf of the CAA does not mean that they are mandated to do it if they don't want to.
However, in the rare instances that an Instructor deems that a Pilot they flew with is unsafe (to themselves and/or others) then I do not believe that they should complete the 'Revalidation by Experience'; and if offered the Pilot's logbook to sign they should also write in "further training recommended" (so that Examiners would also know to politely decline any request for 'Revalidation by Experience' based on that particular training flight).
Just because someone is authorised to take 'Administrative Action' on behalf of the CAA does not mean that they are mandated to do it if they don't want to.
Personally, I will not sign the log book if I don't think they are safe. No log book signature, no revalidation. Let them appeal or sue if they want to.
Last edited by dobbin1; 25th May 2016 at 18:40.
Tay Cough and BPF
I'm not really suggesting that an unsafe pilot's licence be signed. I'm more playing devils advocate by highlighting the shortcoming of the revalidation regulation that demands a flight with an instructor but then 'bottles it' by not putting any pass/fail criteria in place.
I'm not really suggesting that an unsafe pilot's licence be signed. I'm more playing devils advocate by highlighting the shortcoming of the revalidation regulation that demands a flight with an instructor but then 'bottles it' by not putting any pass/fail criteria in place.
