PPL Revalidation training flight - refusal to sign logbook

[macintosh]

A colleague at the flying club, having satisfied the other requirements for revalidation (ie currency) undertook the one hour TRAINING FLIGHT with an instructor. Note - I'm NOT referring here to the TEST which applies if you are NOT current. Anyway, not completely satisfied with the flying, the instructor refused to sign his logbook. Debate at the club ensued. Our understanding is that this training flight is simply that, nothing in the regs about it being a test. Instructor's refusal to sign has effectively made this into a test with: pass = signature, fail = no signature. We think the regs oblige the instructor to sign if the flight is carried out, irrespective of standard. No disrespect to instructors intended, simply seeking clarification.

[BEagle]

If the FI wasn't happy with the standard, then he/she is quite correct in not signing - as the CAA have said. 'Irrespective of standard' would be pointless; the dual training flight is nothing more than a bi-ennial Club check. If your Club member wasn't up to scratch, then perhaps further training will sort that out and she can have her logbook signed. Alternatively, a revalidation proficiency check may be a cheaper option if she prefers.

[eyeinthesky]

Have a look back through the archives for further debate on this.

You are right that the JAR makes no mention of any requirement for the instructor to make a decision on the quality of the flying. All it asks for is an hour's flight with an instructor. The CAA, however, has decided to put out an AIC suggesting what the flight should include, and saying that if the instructor is not happy he/she should not sign the logbook. This is turning the instructor into an examiner with neither the training, licensing, or remuneration commensurate with that. Dodgy, in my opinion.

Having said that, we would all hope that your flying club colleague would be happy to take the construcive criticism from an instructor and, in the interests perhaps of looking after their own skin, take any further training considered necessary to make the instructor happy.

BEagle mentions the other possibility which is to go straight into a full Prof check with an examiner, but that costs money as well and if he fails that then further training I would suggest is mandatory.

The problem comes for the guy who has to sign the CofT. I have yet to see any clear guidance on whether he is allowed to do so without a signature from an instructor in the logbook. JAR seems to suggest that it is not required, but the CAA has stuck its oar in again. I suppose it would be difficult for a CFI to agree to sign a CofT if one of his instructors wasn't happy.

Irrespective of the legalities, common sense SHOULD suggest to your colleague that the fact that another pilot is not happy means that perhaps a little help is required. It should not be a pride thing. Safety should take precedence.



------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[Final 3 Greens]

This situation is ridiculous.

As I understand the regulations, any training flight will count, so what happens if I book an hours IMC instruction (I have no IMC rating) and ask the instructor to sign that? I may have displayed display poor skills, but that would be expected after an hour. But how could he refuse a reasonable request to sign only that he had instructed me?

Is it up to the FI to question my intentions before signing the flight details? It puts the FI into an intolerable position .

Also, why do I need a signature in the first place? I have an invoice stating that training was provided and can cross reference my logbook with this document.

The reality is that we all know what makes sense (BEagle has stated it clearly), but this stupid situation creates loopholes and could benefit the cynical rather than the honest pilots who are really concerned with safety.

[Airprox]

3 greens, your quite right, there is a big loop hole in the system.

If a PPL holder flys with a instructor for the purpose of revalidation and the PPL holder doesn't fly the aircraft safely then the instructor has every right NOT to sign the log book.

Something needs to be done to clarify this once and for all. Maybe examiners only should do the check! ;)

------------------
AP

[Al Titude]

I like the way BEagle assumes that it is a woman who hasn't made the standard!

(stands back and awaits abuse for sexist attitude.)

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is a system open to abuse and often puts us instructor's in a very difficult position.
If the standard being shown is woefully low, then it's an easy choice, but what happens if you aren't 100% sure.(yes,I understand you should refuse) Unfortunately the CAA has not deemed fit to say what the standard should be. I have my own levels, but apart from me, who can say that they are correct.

The revalidation should be standardised, so that any debate be taken out.
I agree that there should be a check (the standard of some PPL's, many of whom have been flying since before I was born, is sometimes shocking.) but the check/test must have better guidelines for everybody's sake.

I don't think examiner's should do it as there aren't enough at the moment, so to make them do all these tests aswell would probably overload the system so much that soon there would be no PPL's flying at all. HHMMM, maybe that's the CAA's idea all along!! ;)

[StrateandLevel]

This is a subject that could be debated all day. The reason for signing is to identify that the required flight has been conducted with an instructor with their knowledge. As an examiner you have no real way of knowing who is and isn't an instructor. At least if the flight is signed for, you can check with the CAA if in doubt.

The purpose of the flight is to ensure that every pilot flies with an instructor at least once every two years. The guidance on what that flight should contain was produced by the CAA because instructors at Seminars requested it.

At the end of the day one flight with an instructor may be meaningless but, for the many PPLs who have not flown with an instructor in the past 20 years, a little purposeful training may go some way to preventing accidents.

If an instructor does not sign, it does not make it a test in the licensing sense, you can still fly whilst you licence remains valid, assuming you have an aeroplane. Maybe a second flight with another instructor will confirm your ability or lack of it.

If you hire an aircraft you get a check out, if you perform badly, you don't get to fly solo, thats at Test! and instructors have been doing them for years.

[foxmoth]

Say again Slowly- surely the criteria is that one most of us apply, would I let my Wife/husband/daughter/mum,etc. etc. fly with this person.
If yes then the standard is ok, if no, then need I say more ?

[BEagle]

AlTitude - my honest apologies; for some reason I thought that I'd read that a lady member had been the person in question. Having re-read the original post, I know that wasn't the case. My apologies to all who may have thought that I was casting a slur on the proficiency of the fairer sex.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Foxmoth, that is exactly the standard I use myself. Would I be happy to let my Grandmother go flying with them?

My problem is not one of standard for FI's, but rather having a criteria if somone does not reach the required level but thinks they have and demands you to justify why you won't sign their logbook. This can on occasion get quite heated as there is no way in the world I would ever back down about someone I feel to be unsafe.
What I would like is something tangible that I could show to someone, rather than just refusing on my say so.
I have on a couple of occasions been told "what would you know about flying, I've been flying for 20 years." About 10 minutes after trying to smear us across East Anglia. Unfortunately some people seem to have the attitude that they know best because of the time they have held a licence, despite only having done the minimum of hours to keep it.
A very dangerous attitude, but seemingly not particularily uncommon. (in my limited experience admittedly.)

I feel that a specific flight that could be carried out by FI's but with elements of a test situation. Would help clear up any argument.
The very fact that this thred exists shows how flawed and open to misinterpretation the current system is. Far be it from me to ask that the CAA pass even more regulation normally, but this time I think there is a need for it. (End of sermon! I'll pass the collection plate around later!)

[pondlife]

I haven't had this situation yet, but if a PPL holder insisted that I sign his logbook, and I didn't want to then I would say something like :-
"OK, I'll sign your logbook to say that you've received an hour training, but I'll also write that I considered the standard to be inadequate - are you sure that you want me to do that?"
Having done that, the decision is defered to the examiner who signs the CofE - they could clearly see that the instructor isn't happy when they check for my signature.
My interpretation of the law at the moment is that the examiner *COULD* then sign the CofE because, strictly, the requirements would have been met - but they can't be forced into producing an autograph if they don't want to.

[Final 3 Greens]

Pondlife

Be very careful how you word the statement or you'll be in the county court for losses caused by you supplying instruction of a quality not fit for purpose! This was after all an instructional flight and you were P1, so if the student didn't perform, you are the culprit.

I make this (tongue in cheek) comment just to show how barmy the situation is.

[macintosh]

As the poster of the original thread (rope?) I’d like to make a few further comments. The suggestion that anyone, whose skills an instructor is not happy with, is trying to find a back door method to keep flying IS NOT MINE; likewise the comments about would you let your grannie/uncle/dog fly with someone like this are very sensible BUT NOT RELEVANT HERE; also the suggestion I’m trying to uphold the position of anyone who may have had an argument with an instructor IS NONSENSE.

This situation was mentioned (I wish to hell I hadn’t) simply to indicate that what amounted to a “fail” had started a discussion about “has a test been introduced by a back door method?”

As far as I can see (correct me if wrong) the CAA website mentions only a “training flight”. Now in my own case, this training flight was carried out by an instructor (not an examiner), at the end of which he signed my logbook. The CFI (an examiner) then filled out CAA form LPC/SPA (parts one and two). Section 3 of this form is headed “notification of completion”. While admittedly is does not say “pass”, the next section is headed “notification of failure”. Three lines further on is “class rating: pass/fail” with on mine the “pass” ticked. Now as a layman I associate a pass/fail outcome with a test, not a training session.

The rest of section 3 relates to the actual flight (a/c type, timings, etc) with a space at the bottom entitled “signature of examiner” (not instructor) again reinforcing the notion of a test. On mine the CFI has signed. Now while a lawyer might argue it does not explicitly say so, a layman would assume the person signing here had carried out the flight detailed immediately above. In my case this was not so.

Moving on to part two of the LPC/SPA form, this is a detailed record of the elements making up the flight. Again it says “result” then “pass/fail” where again pass is ticked. Below this is again “signature of examiner” which from the layout of the form again appears to indicate the person who carried out the flight although in my case it is again signed by the CFI whereas it was an instructor who carried out the flight.

The concern about signing of the logbook fades into insignificance when an actual form indicating the outcome of a test is required to be submitted to the CAA. Or is this so cobbled-together an inappropriate form is being used? Or is the wrong form being used in our area?

Again clarification is genuinely sought and apologies for being long-winded. This is being posted on both Instructor’s and PPL’s forums.

[BEagle]

Well - tell your CFI to have another look at the FE's Handbook. If the LPC SPA is being completed for a re-validation BY EXPERIENCE, all he/she has to check is that the 'Training flight' has been completed satis., and that the hours requirement has been met. The 'PASS/FAIL' should NOT be marked as this refers ONLY to Proficiency Checks; neither do the flight details refer to your training flight - only to a Proficiency Check. Similarly, Part Two is an Examiner's Record ONLY for Proficiency Checks, it should NOT to be completed for re-validation by experience as no flight with an Examiner took place - if your CFI signed it and kept it, he/she has NO right to have done so. The LPC SPA is a generic form, not all of it is relevant for every re-validation or renewal. THe CFI should NOT charge you ANYTHING for signing this form if the re-validation is a straightforward '12 in the last 12 including 1 with a FI' re-validation!!

The LPC SPA is a typically poorly designed form penned by a Belgrano half-wit, but don't worry - no-one will ever look at it; the FCL150CJAR 'Ratings - Certificate of Revalidation' in your licence is what really matters! But some CFIs have simply not bothered to learn the new rules and regulations. You should demand that ANY reference to 'PASS/FAIL' is removed from your LPC SPA re-validation by experience!!

And yes - I'm both a UK/FE(PPL) and CFI!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 29 June 2001).]

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle

Thank you!

Your post about "cock up" rather than conspiracy is the most reassuring things that I have read on this thread.