Whenever there is wooly legislation, you will get a myriad of interpretations. Pilots will usually argue to the death that they are right in their personal versions.
In my eyes, the rules say one thing, but mean something else, therefore they are poorly written.
A club can set any rules it likes via the flying order book and when a member reads and signs it, they are agreeing to follow them. They are always as strict or stricter than anything laid down by the CAA. It's the same as an airline having it's own procedures.
I have always taken the duty of care element very seriously as an FI and as a CFI and in our club we FI's are the "police" to use a horrid analogy.
If you spot something dangerous happening, then I would expect it to be brought up and something done about it.
I don't know any flying club/school where this isn't the case.
Private owners are a different matter, but when the original AIC came out, there was an onus on there being an assessment and there was a suggested content to the flight, which I for one thought was a good idea.
What there needs to be is clarification about exactly what is expected, but any club that has any sort of decent standards will expect people to pass regular assesments. It is only sensible that these are combined with a flight for rating renewal as this then cuts the costs down for the PPL.
If someone isn't competent enough to pass a "mini LPC", then they shouldn't be flying without further training. End of story.
How else do we keep the skill level up without regular checks and assessments?
If it wasn't necessary, then why is it a requirement for airline pilots who fly far more regularily than any PPL? Or for Helicopter PPL's?
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 24th June 2008 at 12:20.