This thread makes an intriguing read ... especially as I have a feeling I may know the characters involved here ...
Following some of the replies, I feel bound to observe that there is no defined content or purpose for the "Training Flight", either by JAA or CAA - although there is a rather mischievous attempt to define it in LASORS, despite there being no definitive supporting legislation. LASORS tries to talk about
"suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", but omits to mention the fact that there is no such "purpose" actually set out in JAR-FCL 1.245. Thus the "Training Flight" cannot be a test either - despite what may be implied in LASORS, TrainingCom or anywhere else for that matter.
While common-sense would certainly suggest that the aim of the "Training Flight" should be to ensure that a pilot is "safe", it also represents an opportunity for some pilots to explore and expand upon their abilities with the help of an instructor. However, it is unfortunate that some instructors persist in regarding it as some sort of "test" - indeed
HFD himself could almost be read as implying this by the way the original question is framed, although I don't somehow think he really believes that. Some suggestions in the replies that there should be some kind of planned format as if it were a test seem to me to say more about the attitude of the proposers in the sense that they feel a flight is not worthwhile unless something has been "tested", and perhaps the victim found wanting, rather than reflecting a more simple "safety check" function for the flight. I believe it is much more appropriate to regard the "Training Flight" as similar to what, in commercial pilots' language, would be called a Route Check, with the Instructor observing that the pilot flies to a safe standard, rather than as a mini Skill Test.
I therefore believe an FI would be totally wrong to try and impose a fixed structure for this flight; rather the FI should ask the revalidee what he/she would like to do and then accompany him/her accordingly. The FI may by all means make suggestions but, as it is not a test, suggestions like
BPF's
"When you do the flight start the route and insert a few emergencies"
are, in my view, quite inappropriate - unless of course the revalidee has requested or pre-agreed to such a format. There are far too many answers in this thread that imply that it is a test in all but name. It is not.
In my opinion, the "Training Flight" should be enjoyed and flown in a relaxed fashion, with the pilot flying normally and the instructor offering comments on any points that might be improved. In this way, all pilots will benefit as no sensible pilot should ever think they have nothing more to learn. I suppose what I am saying is that the approach of the FI to this exercise is fundamentally important to its success. It should be treated as a practice - but if an FI takes it upon himself to try and run it in the form of a test, most sensible revalidees would simply ask another FI with a more practical attitude to the requirement to fly with them instead. I certainly would. The FI should discuss the flight beforehand with the revalidee in order to agree (but not impose) a suitable format from which both can benefit. With the more experienced pilot that
HFD mentions, this flight undoubtedly has the potential to be more rewarding for both involved, but in all cases it should be approached in the appropriate manner.
JD
