DFC
Mike Cross,
I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?
I hinted at no such thing.
You misinterpret my point. What concerns me is LASOR's failure to distinguish between that which is advice/best practice and that which is law. It would IMHO be better if LASORS clearly presented the LAW and then discussed it rather than presenting the author's opinion as though it was a legal requirement. An example would be this from LASORS F 1.4
The Training Flight
The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.
FI's will no doubt take the above as a requirement, however none of the above wording appears either in JAR or UK legislation.
"FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement " Eh? JAR-FCL says
"(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test ."
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.
Another example would be the AIC (now withdrawn) that laid down the content of the 1 Hr training flight as being that of the JAA Proficiency Check, which it absolutely is not.
This sort of thing leads to confusion, and confusion erodes safety.
Mike