25 solo sign-offs [Archive]

GusHoneybun

22nd Oct 2006, 20:25

And who will pay for the check? An hour with an FIE plus aircraft hire will come in over £200. Hardly fair for a struggling FI(R).

While I'm in a rant mood, why the heck are FIC seminars so sodding expensive? 250 squid just to spend two days being waffled at, being told stuff you already know. And why are they all run down south. It's a 1300 mile round trip for me, and add on the cost of hotels as well. Bleedin liberty is what it is.

Whopity

22nd Oct 2006, 22:21

Time we went back to the old "6 months and an upgrade check."
Actually it was 200 hours instructional experience as an AFI; complete the applied IF course and then an FI upgrade test. If you took longer than 13 months to do this then you had to do an AFI renewal after 13 months anyway. In many cases it took two tests plus the cost of the applied IF Course. And a FI test every 25 months after the upgrade.

Attempts were made to run Northern Seminars but there were so few applicants it proved to be a dead loss.

FlyingForFun

23rd Oct 2006, 07:15

I don't know about anyone else here, but as well as needing the experience to judge when a student is ready for solo (as FlyingFarmer says), I know I made a few bad calls for other reasons when I first qualified as an instructor. Like the student whom I sent for solo circuits less than an hour before official night. Or the time I sent an early student to "get a couple of circuits in before that weather arrives".

Just like everything else in aviation, or in life, you need a bit of practice before you know how to do it properly, and sending students solo is one of those things that I think takes a bit of practice. I'm glad that those few times I was sweating in the tower hoping my student gets back on the ground before things turn nasty were not first-solos.

FFF
--------------

Whirlybird

23rd Oct 2006, 08:44

Well, I can't help feeling that as a fulltime helicopter FI(R) with around 240 instructing hours I maybe have some idea what I'm doing now. But getting unrestricted is still a long way off. The school I mainly teach at is newish. We only have one current student who's gone solo, and I've only sent him off a couple of times since then due to weather. We have a few more who should be ready soon, but with autumn winds and short days, it could take a while. And in R22s we don't send them solo with single-digit hours, as some f/w students manage; 20-30 is more usual. So I can see it being 500 hours or so before I get unrestricted. And I'm not sure what I'll know by then about sending someone solo that I don't know now...being the way I am, I ask for advice now about a lot of things if I can, and I probably will then. Doesn't judging when a student is ready for first solo come down to maturity, judgement, and common sense, more than flying experience?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but there must be a better way. :confused: :{ :ugh: :(

baraka

23rd Oct 2006, 20:18

JinksterAnyone in the same boat and think this requirement is a bit stupid!!

I don't know if stupid is the right word to use in this context. I can tell you that after many thousands of hours of instruction and god knows how many 1st solo's, the final decision to get out of that aircraft and walk away never gets any easier. There are just so many "what if's?".
RT failure, balloon, bounce, overshoot, undershoot,will they go-around, weather, not to mention engine problems, the list goes on.........

It doesn't matter how comprehensively abnormal situations have been simulated and "boxes ticked" during the pre solo phase, i believe the real skill and judgement is in how a particular character will react to a specific situation. Now that does get easier, but only after lots of practice. Here i agree fully with FlyingForFun. I too have been on the ground wondering why the hell i sent bloggs solo after he's gone around for the 3rd time, watching the CB looming in from the west at the same time as the sun goes down behind it!! Doesn't happen nowadays though.......not much anyway....

I think the CAA or JAA or whoever it is has had to set the bar somewhere and that is where it's at, 100 hrs and 25 sign offs. Christ knows if it should be more or less or a different system all together. But i think that they may work on the assumption that even after a FI becomes unrestricted, he or she is still going to be mentored and monitored by a CFI or more experienced FI. Quite right too. In that sense the system self governs.

And before i sign off and bore even myself, i would like to throw in my own humble nugget of wisdom. To all you young or not so young green FI's out there. When you find yourself having landed after another hour of ccts, NEVER feel pressurised or obligated into sending Bloggs solo. If there is doubt, there is NO DOUBT. Stay down. Have a coffee. Go for a beer. Whatever. They will respect you far more after having a good old honest constructive debrief, than having what they perceive to be a near death experience. Yes he will be hacked off at having to shell out another £150 or so, and you run the risk of him going to knock on someone elses door. But the gooduns always come back..............

Thats me spent
Good night..

Whirlybird

23rd Oct 2006, 21:52

When you find yourself having landed after another hour of ccts, NEVER feel pressurised or obligated into sending Bloggs solo. If there is doubt, there is NO DOUBT.

Excellent advice. :ok: But do you learn that from years and hours of instructing? Somehow I think that's where judgement and maturity comes in, rather than anything specifically to do with flying.

I've been saying ever since I did my FI course that the course is far too much to do with flying, and far, far too little about with dealing with people, human factors, individual differences, and similar subjects. This thread is making me even more certain that this is the case.

baraka

23rd Oct 2006, 22:45

In absolute agreement WhirlyBird.
Teaching someone anything is all about communication. Aircraft are machines, as long as everything is working properly it will do exactly as commanded. People are not machines, even if everything is working properly they will not necessarily do exactly as commanded..if you get my drift.

Imparting the knowledge is a much understated artform in my opinion. Effective instruction is as much about having an intimate understanding of the human condition, as having the same understanding of the machines that we fly and the environment we fly in. Your basic FIC does not address this.

At all levels in flight training and beyond, it seems that PPLs, CPLs, FIs etc. are given the bare minimum to get on.....the rest is down to as you say "maturity and judgement" and a dollop of common sense.

All good stuff....

rotorfossil

24th Oct 2006, 14:53

As whirly says, the major limitation of the current instructor course is that it doesn't really teach dealing with people. In the commercial school that that I taught at, the FI course for trainee in house instructors (modelled on the CFS course) was 63 flying hours. The main difference was that all exercises (including EOL's) were flown mutual as instructor and student. At least you learned something about how people reacted to your teaching technique with someone other than the FIC. However, who would pay the astronomical cost of such a course these days.

advocate for devils

24th Oct 2006, 21:49

I am progressing through my ATPL in the hope of becoming a career instructor.

I see the positive side to the 25 solos rule and am interested at how this is achieved.

The clubs where I completed my PPL had a similar attitude with their instructors. A team celebration was had with the derestriction of an instructor but there was certainly no team spirit in acheiving it.

Overheard conversations about minimal oppertunities for the restricted instructor were echoed by the unrestricted ones moaning about wanting more pay to cover the 'trainee'.

This puts a sour taste to the celebrations!

What is the general rule about newbees being helped to progress?

Sleeve Wing

25th Oct 2006, 14:17

First of all, the 100/25 or 6 months and an upgrade test (a choice.) is a sensible answer the the problem.

To answer GusHoneybun, this is a situation where the employer should cover the cost. The person concerned has been paid a reduced salary until then, will now be a better asset to the organisation and of course the employers' cost is not as high as the normal rates for the aircraft...and it's tax-deductable.

To respond to the comments of Whopity, I'm not sure that the requirement for 200hrs. was fact. It certainly wasn't in the late 60s I feel certain.
Besides, the number of hours of instruction to reach the magic "25" will probably be in the region of 375 anyway (unless you're poaching or there's a fiddle going on.)

Actually the points made regarding attitude, communication and pure teaching skills are far more relevant to the arguement than "so many hours" as is the case in so many aspects of aircraft operation.

"Hours," per se, will never be the right answer. That's why an upgrade test, by someone qualified to judge, should always be the preferred option.

Rgds, Sleeve.

tescoapp

27th Oct 2006, 14:14

Nicely put sleeve.

Personally I was in the 1 month as a resricted instructor club followed by a instant sign off if i wanted it or not from the CFI. Looking back it was daft. Mind you I wasn't really supervised before that. The old excuse I can supervise you from Morrisions, B&Q etc.

Had only trained one person up to first solo stage, 1 person through x country nav. And about 50% of my lessons were trial flights.

Personally at the very least they should ban trial flights counting for the 100 hours and only 20hours for x-countrys. And have a bit more definition about what supervised actually means.

The solo sign offs are so open to abuse. Some people struggle to get them but have a great experence base of teaching the other exercises. Others can get them done in less than a week. I did them properly flying with each student, briefing them, 1 hour sorties once solo. Must admit I did have 2 QXC's which I counted for 6. This was before the debate on here where a poster got Lasors changed so you couldn't do it any more. And I was still only 2 weeks.

I really don't know if anything will get done. As far as I can tell there has been only anecdotal storys about the quality of instructors dropping.
I presume there hasn't been a huge increase in accidents in solo students or the powers that be would have changed things.

Personally I think that the simple fact that a low houred FI is actually expecting a high standard similar to what was expected of them on thier CPL and FIC, that they don't release the students when an experenced instructor would.

puntosaurus

28th Oct 2006, 23:12

I don't know if it's the same for fixed wing, but the requirement on the helicopter side is now for 25 student solo air exercises, not flights.
On the basis that every flight includes Taking off and landing (1), Hover taxiing (2), Spot turns(3), Transitions to and from the hover(4), and circuits(5), you can theoretically do it with five flights, I took seven.

Whirlybird

29th Oct 2006, 06:58

puntosaurus,

I think that change is helicopter specific.....and please check your pms.

timzsta

29th Oct 2006, 07:31

I think its fine how it is. I started as an FI(R) instructing at weekends about 6 months ago. I am approaching the 100hrs FI but do not have anywhere near the requisite number of sign offs yet.

I feel far from ready to be in a position to decide whether someone is in a position to go solo for the first time so I think the regulators have got it about right. It is a big responsibility sending someone of solo - even if it is for their fourth of fifth, let alone the first.

Most of the students I have taken over were at the start of their PPL so they are just coming up to first solo stage now, so although I have been instructing six months and nearly have the hours I don't have all the experience I need I feel to go unrestricted.

To my mind the 100hrs/25 sign offs is right as it balances instructional time with sending people solo. If when I had started I had 4 students at the circuit stage I could have had the sign offs done in three months but be lacking experience in other areas.

Still got much to learn.

Whopity

3rd Nov 2006, 10:37

When you have your FI Restriction removed, you can not only send students on their first solo, but you can operate unsupervised and more importantly you can become a supervisor of other FI(R)s. If there was an accident, the buck might stop with you. A court would look to see if things had been done in a reasonable manner; if they considered that it hadn't, the liability could be emense! If you have fudged your 25 solo sign offs you may have fooled the CAA but its the Court you will need to worry about! 25 sign offs don't guarantee anything however, there is an assumption that if you've had sufficient time to accrue that experience you might be capable of operating on your own and supervising others. Its still a damm site easier and cheaper than the previous system.

homeguard

3rd Nov 2006, 16:23

As a matter of fact, there is some confusion with regard to FI(r).
An AFI may only instruct when an FI is present for the take-off and landing, true.
That is not the case of an FI(r). The supervision of the FI(r) is of a general nature and the supervising FI ( or any other ) is not required to be present when an FI(r) is instructing. An FI(r) may work alone. FI's acting as supervisors are required to be registered to the CAA and the same should subsequently sign the form confirming the FI(r) has met the requirement to have their restriction removed. The extent to which supervision is required of an FI(r) is not stipulated.

Whopity

3rd Nov 2006, 19:48

The only difference is that the wording for the FI(R) was copied directly from JAR-FCL. The level of supervision that a court would consider reasonable is likely to be the same in both cases. There will soon be an AIC qualifying the level of supervision expected.

homeguard

3rd Nov 2006, 20:06

I too like many believe that the current 100 hours and 25 solo 'sign offs' is insufficient to become unrestricted as an FI. However the ANO is more than a photcopy of the JAA JAR. It is a document passed by parliament and scrutinised, what is written is intended.
If some have changed their minds then parliament will need to be persuaded and a new act or an amendment to it passed - some chance of that. An AIC will make little difference for it can only express that which some would like to have it be but a recommendation may be forthcoming, just the same, which could and will probably be ignored.

BillieBob

3rd Nov 2006, 20:14

There will soon be an AIC qualifying the level of supervision expected....and not before time, after all it's only, what, 8 years since JAR-FCL 1 (and the FI(R)) was implemented? The behaviour of the CAA both in this area and in the botched implementation of Amendment 6 to JAR-FCL 1 and Amendment 4 to JAR-FCL 2 is nothing short of scandalous.

There was a time when the CAA was run by professionals for professionals - it appears that those days are long gone and that the Belgrano is now inhabited by a bunch of incompetent time servers whose knowledge of professional aviation extends no further than the next business class ticket to Florida. Roll on EASA, at least we know ahead of time that we will then be regulated by know-nothing bureaucrats.

BEagle

4th Nov 2006, 07:34

"There will soon be an AIC qualifying the level of supervision expected."

Really? Have you conducted a Regulatory Impact Assessment and industry-wide consultation?

Or will the AIC be 'advice' dreamed up by people with no current PPL instructional experience in a struggling industry?

tescoapp

4th Nov 2006, 11:21

Personally I was never happy with supervising the school when I was down to disappear off on long nav ex's.

Then there is the other days when you find out that you have been supervising, but knowbody has bothered telling you.

The issue with AIC's needs to be sorted as well. You have some very qualified examiner examiners, who state that you must follow the AIC's. And there others who say you don't have to bother they are only recomendations and have no legal standing but I would advise you to follow them. But of course in both cases the AIC apply's to everone but them. A bit like the differences training for different types of twin. I have yet to hear of a MEP examiner to refuse to test someone in a type they haven't flown before.

I haven't yet heard of any court cases which have set a precedent to which opinion is correct. The caa officially of course will say you have to follow the AIC. If you speak to the people informally they will say its a grey area which has yet to be tested.

Keygrip

5th Nov 2006, 01:55

A bit like the differences training for different types of twin. I have yet to hear of a MEP examiner to refuse to test someone in a type they haven't flown before.

Tesco - It's not only "types", it's also variants/models. I'd flown Seneca 1's, 3's and 5's. Then came time to fly a Seneca 2.

Asked the school to send me a Pilots Information Manual and company checklists (UPS, at my expense) two weeks before I arrived.

Then postponed the first test I was scheduled to do and flew with a senior instructor in the Seneca 2 before going anywhere near it as P1. It does happen (occassionally). Granted - I didn't pay for the flight - but didn't log it as command either. Also did some "area famil" before venturing out in the wild unknown.

Another "tick in a box" on the checklist of life - you've now "heard of an examiner that refused to test someone in a type they hadn't flown before".

tescoapp

5th Nov 2006, 09:31

Well done sir, thats at least one.

I still think you are in the minority.

Keygrip

5th Nov 2006, 10:17

ME? In the minority?

In more ways than one, Tesco - more ways than one. :} :} :}

tescoapp

5th Nov 2006, 20:01

Well your shirts are rather special in the examining circuit.

P. youre slated by some, you are put on a pedestal by others. Most of us that have met you think of you as a nice bloke that is a professional and does the old minimal fuss but maintain standards.

It doesn't suprise me you won't lower your standards and keep the checklist in life right. Your not due a slating, neither are you due being put on a pedestal.

My hat is off to a very professional aviator.

Gbarral

7th Nov 2006, 15:52

I have been told (by the CAA) that the CAA expects the FI to be present on the airfield for the duration of each lesson the FI(R) gives and that he/she should attend post and preflight briefings. If this was applied fully it would probably cause a serious problem to most flying schools in this country. The logic would also entail that the supervising FI probably would have to go with the student and instructor on land-away cross-country's. A bit of a difficulty in an R22 or C152.

Baron Von Mildred

15th Nov 2006, 22:43

How about this...... I'm a CFI with around 800 instructional hours and a JAR FI(R)!
Before you all call in the CAA I'll explain.

I am currently teaching on the Ikarus C42 a VLA/microlight. You can buy one as an SEP class, but as its a permit to fly aircraft you have to do training on the microlight version. I have supervised 100's of solos, but they don't count, as they were were not on the identical VLA SEP aircraft but the microlight one. Consequently, I have also had to get a microlight QFI rating!

Malc

30th Nov 2006, 11:13

Excellent advice. :ok: But do you learn that from years and hours of instructing? Somehow I think that's where judgement and maturity comes in, rather than anything specifically to do with flying.
I've been saying ever since I did my FI course that the course is far too much to do with flying, and far, far too little about with dealing with people, human factors, individual differences, and similar subjects. This thread is making me even more certain that this is the case.
I think it depends on where you took the course / who with. I started at one school, and transferred for a number of reasons to another part-way through. The school I ended up at covered the whole of the above - different teaching methods/styles, how different students react to different styles of teaching...with probably as much time spent on this aspect as on the flying parts (which was in no way skimped on as a result). School no 1 only taught the content of each standard exercise, and almost totally ignored the fact that different student would react in different ways to the same delivery methods.
My advice would be to check out potential FI schools as thoroughly as you checked out (hopefully) PPL, CPL etc training organisations. You'll be spending a fair whack of cash with them - get good value for money. (You may also find that having been taught at a school with a good/bad reputation can influence whether you get a FI job later on).

Whirlybird

30th Nov 2006, 12:12

My advice would be to check out potential FI schools as thoroughly as you checked out (hopefully) PPL, CPL etc training organisations.

I agree entirely. In fact I did just this, and went to the one with probably the best reputation in the country. And the way I was taught was first-rate, on the whole. But it was lacking in just this one aspect. It's good to know that it's being taught elsewhere....even if possibly not in the rotary world. :(