Endorsement on NDB, VOR?

[Sunfish]

Told some time ago that as a PPL I need an endorsement to use the NDB and VOR in a VFR NDB/VOR equipped aircraft. This is news to me since their use was covered in the PPL syllabus. Is this true?

Also discovered via the Rotax owners association that there is a very specific procedure that must be done before checking the engine oil level, which is news to me. Happily, failure to follow that procedure only results in overfilling and an oily patch on the tarmac.

I keep thinking, "What else don't I know?"

[Horatio Leafblower]

G'day Sunny

Day VFR you are navigating visually "by reference to ground or water" and making positive fixes every 30 minutes. ADF and VOR (my aircraft isn't fitted with an NDB, unless you count the ELT) are there to help.

No such thing as Day VFR endorsement of navaids. :ugh:

Night VFR is a different story and yes, endorsement for specific aids is included on your NVFR rating.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Hi Horatio,

Not quite right - there is an endorsement (made by an authorised person) which can be added to anyone's logbook stating that they have received a course of instruction on NDB and/or VOR.

Until you've got that approval, you can only navigate VFR by reference to ground or water. After the approval you can also satisfy your position fixing requirements using those aids (and not just a night - VFR on top for example).

The same applies to GPS - I think - if you've done the course then you can position fix using the GPS - although that might be an IFR only thing.

So Sunny, nothing to stop you tuning in the aids, following a radial or homing in on a beacon but only if you still visually fix your position every 30(?) minutes. Follow a radial into controlled airspace (for example) and you may get a stern 'please explain'.

UTR

[ravan]

Told some time ago that as a PPL I need an endorsement to use the NDB and VOR in a VFR NDB/VOR equipped aircraft. This is news to me since their use was covered in the PPL syllabus. Is this true?

The "endorsement" for using the NDB and VOR is only required if you wish to nominate those aids on your flight plan notification. If you submit them on the flight notification then the aircraft must be fitted with them and you must be approved to use them as primary means of navigation.

This is one of the good things about the Night VFR; it gives you the endorsement on both of them.

However, as a PPL, you are required to demonstrate proficiency in the use of these aids at testing level. It does not mean that you have to hold an endorsement on them, only that you can show an ability to use them as a supplementary means of navigation to your visual navigation.

In other words, knock yourself out using them to supplement your visual navigation but don't nominate them on your flight notification unless you hold a Night VFR or Instrument Rating.

[Capt Claret]

I well remember a colleague who had his CPL & Instructor rating suspended years ago. During a dual Navex he gave Bloggs a diversion. Bloggs quickly tuned the station NDB & noted the relative bearing before the instructor could turn the ADF off.

After losing radio contact with Flight Service (ahh, the good old days) & disappearing from Radar & having a SAR phase declared, our intrepid aviators landed at Cootamundra, despite having told ATS they were headed to Goulburn!

Less than adequate knowledge of the use & limitations of navaids helped them get lost. Lucky they had plenty of fuel. :\

[Sunfish]

Thank you all for your advice, that's cleared that up.

[VH-XXX]

Regards the Rotax, yes, you are supposed to turn the engine over about 6 times from memory before checking the oil level.

I assume you are referring to the not-so SportyStars at Royal Vic.

You need to "burb" the oil system as it uses a dry sump system.

[Atlas Shrugged]

our intrepid aviators landed at Cootamundra, despite having told ATS they were headed to Goulburn!

NAVAIDS

Remember they are AIDS

.......and just as feckin' deadly!

;)

[Horatio Leafblower]

Not quite right - there is an endorsement (made by an authorised person) which can be added to anyone's logbook stating that they have received a course of instruction on NDB and/or VOR.

G'day UTR

I can see a number of logbook endorsements listed in CAO 40.1.7 for various things - spins, Aeros, formation, instruction on each.

There is a logbook endo reqd for a course of instruction on GPS - refer the relevant CAAP.

I do not know of any reference giving any authority to a logbook endorsement for day, VFR use of the ADF or VOR. :confused:

...might be like those C206 'endorsements' everyone wants :rolleyes:

[Ixixly]

Horatio - I'd always assumed it was to do mostly with flight notifications. In the Domestic Flight Notification form your required to put down what aids your aircraft has that you are able to use. I'd always figured that to be able to legally back yourself up incase someone ever asked what makes you qualified, something signed off in the logbook would be a pretty good idea!!

The other option, and this is my situation, is that I don't have it signed off in my logbook (Got an MECIR now anyways!), but it was signed off in my training records as that i'd been given specific training in tracking on NDBs and VORs as part of my PPL training.

[empacher48]

Sunfish, don't worry about thinking "what else don't I know"..

I don't think I've met anyone who knows it all in this game and always a lot to learn off other people..

[Fark'n'ell]

SunfishThe reason given by Rotax to turn the prop in the direction of it's rotation is to purge the sump of oil thus returning all the oil to the oil tank.This gives an accurate indication on the dipstick of the quantity of oil.On a cold engine this may require 17 to 20 compressions. Hot engines only a few.

[Sunfish]

Yup, I know that now. Why didn't I know that at the time I was endorsed on type?:ugh:

However the only result is extra oil on the tarmac. Blow by from the cylinders pressurises the crankcase and transports oil to the oil tank. Not mentioned in the POH.

[FNG_WA]

Or own a current copy? AIP ENR 19.2.f(refers to note 2 listed on the next page). see extract below;
Yes you must be either endoresed on the NAVAID via means of a NVFR or IFR rating or have recieved in flight training from flight instructor as the the use of the navaid as sole means navigation. The problem I see is if you dont know if you have to be qualified, then you you probably aren't. Those who think knowing how to turn the unit on and home in are hardly qualified. Can you track on the aid? Can you make an intercept? Do you know the rules for a position fix? Do you know the tolerances to apply to avoid CTA whilst tracking on the aid? When must you notify ATC should you stray off track in CTA? Are you aware of the limitations? Did you get the NOTAMs? Not rocket science but there is something to be said for adequate training.:ugh:

The availability of the AIP on the net means no one has or reads it anymore. Just guess and ask questions of other ill educated people who think they know. I now remember why I dont read here much...its depressing.


19.2
Flight under the VFR19.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR:

e. When navigating by reference to radio navigation systems, the
pilot in command must obtain positive radio fixes at the intervals
and by the methods prescribed in paras 19.1 and 19.5.

f. The pilot in command of a VFR flight wishing to navigate by
means of radio navigation systems or any other means must
indicate in the flight notification only those radio navigation aids
with which the aircraft is equipped and the pilot is qualified to
use (see Note 2).

Note 2. ‘Qualified’ means the holder of an instrument rating or
NVFR rating which is endorsed for the particular navigation aid or
any private or higher category pilot who has received in-flight instruction
from a qualified flight instructor in the use of the radio
navigation aid as the sole means of navigation, and who is competent
to navigate by use of the aid.

[Horatio Leafblower]

FNG,

I understand and share your frustration. I note, however, that the AIP (while speaking of endorsements for NVFR and CIR) does not mention endorsements for Day VFR use of NDB or VOR.

There is no such thing as a Day VFR terrestrial navaid endorsement. :ugh:

Ixilixy observes:
but it was signed off in my training records as that i'd been given specific training in tracking on NDBs and VORs as part of my PPL training.

Your training records also say you have received training in how to read a map - do you have a map reading endorsement in your logbook? :8

The CASA Flight Crew & Licencing manual is very clear on what can be "endorsed" on a licence, and what can be "endorsed" in a logbook. If it isn't a valid endorsement entered by an appropriately qualified person, it doesn't mean ****.

Sunfish's question was:
Told some time ago that as a PPL I need an endorsement to use the NDB and VOR in a VFR NDB/VOR equipped aircraft... Is this true?

The answer is NO.

THAT SAID,

My company (and I didn't invent this) now 'appoints' flight crew to conduct various activities after a check with the CFI/CP to ensure you know what you're doing (eg: teach IF, teach approaches, teach various aerobatic manouvers, conduct SE VFR CHTR, conduct ME IFR CHTR). This appointment system is additional to the CASA system of 'endorsements' (both logbook and licence) and is more encompassing than the CASA system.

There is a list of appointments in your personnel file and you are given a copy, and all those appointments are checked & renewed on a common date on your company check flight.

[AerocatS2A]

Horatio,

Note 2. ‘Qualified’ means the holder of an instrument rating or
NVFR rating which is endorsed for the particular navigation aid or
any private or higher category pilot who has received in-flight instruction
from a qualified flight instructor in the use of the radio
navigation aid as the sole means of navigation, and who is competent
to navigate by use of the aid.

I think you've missed the bolded part. The pilot needs to be NVFR or instrument rated, OR a private pilot or higher who has recieved instruction on the use of the aid. This MUST apply to day VFR for if it was night you'd NEED a NVFR and if it was IMC you'd need an IR.

[climingflightlevels]

As far as I was aware (although VFR is far and in between for me) is that you can obtain instruction and subsequently pass for the usage of NDB, VOR and/or DME for day VFR and or night VFR usage. All this allows you to do is use these aids for position fixing every two hours instead of every 30 mins (such as in IFR but in VFR conditions). More commonly found in NVFR training but I guess day VFR would be no exception for flight planning purposes if you have done this training.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I think you have missed the OR part.

Note 2. ‘Qualified’ means the holder of an instrument rating OR:
NVFR rating which is endorsed for the particular navigation aid OR:

...any private or higher category pilot who has received in-flight instruction
from a qualified flight instructor in the use of the radio navigation aid as the sole means of navigation, and who is competent to navigate by use of the aid.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ENDORSEMENT FOR DAY VFR USE OF TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATION AIDS :ugh:

Climbingflightlevels,

YES, competent instruction is sufficient to allow you to fly Day VFR using NDB and VOR as NavAIDS.

To pass a NVFR flight test you must demonstrate your competence to the testing officer (not your instructor) on at least one aid to win a NVFR rating, and that aid will be specifically endorsed on your night rating.

I say again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ENDORSEMENT FOR DAY VFR USE OF TERRESTRIAL NAVIGATION AIDS. Please refer to the following link in any further argument on the point...

CASA Flight Crew Licencing manual - endorsements (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/010r0401.pdf)

:=

[AerocatS2A]

No, I was well aware of the OR. That was key to my point. To say that there is no such thing as a day VFR navaid endorsement is just getting caught up in semantics. The fact is that to be able to use the NDB or VOR navaids for position fixing on day VFR flights, you need to have had some kind of training on the use of that navaid. That training can be in the form of an instrument rating, a night VFR rating, or specific navaid training for a PPL or higher.

At any rate, an endorsement, in real English, not CASA English, can mean an approval to do something. So it doesn't matter that CASA may not list day VFR use of navaids as a specific endorsement, if it's something you need approval to do, then it requires an endorsement from someone (i.e., the trainer who gives the training.)

If that's still not clear, just because it is not a CASA endorsement, does not mean it is not an endorsement.

[Horatio Leafblower]

If that's still not clear, just because it is not a CASA endorsement, does not mean it is not an endorsement.

...mate... are you accusing ME of playing semantics??? :D

I beg to differ. These are CASA rules and CASA licences, with CASA-mandated endorsements entered in CASA-mandated logbooks.

If it ain't a CASA endorsement, it ain't an endorsement.

[AerocatS2A]

You're still getting caught up on the word. It doesn't matter what it's called. The point is that specific training is required on the use of navaids if you want to use them for position fixing in day VFR. I don't care if it's an endorsement, a rating, a signature in a training file or what, it doesn't change the key point. You seem to think the fact of it being a CASA endorsement or not is somehow important, why? I know that is the word Sunfish used in his post, but I don't think it was really the point of his post, rather the point was that he didn't realise you needed to be trained specifically on the use of navaids for day VFR, or maybe I've misunderstood him, if so he can clarify.

Now he also says it was covered in his PPL training, but the PPL itself obviously isn't enough to cover the requirement or it wouldn't need to be specified in the AIP.

[Horatio Leafblower]

...it was covered in his PPL training, but the PPL itself obviously isn't enough to cover the requirement or it wouldn't need to be specified in the AIP.

Correct - you can do a PPL in a Chippy, Tiger or a (VH- reigstered) Gazelle, none of which generally have a ADF or VOR. Demonstrating competency with the ADF or VOR is NOT a requirement for your PPL.

If the word doesn't matter, why does the AIP state:
Note 2. ‘Qualified’ means the holder of an instrument rating or
NVFR rating which is endorsed for the particular navigation aid or
any private or higher category pilot who has received in-flight instruction
from a qualified flight instructor in the use of the radio navigation aid as the sole means of navigation, and who is competent to navigate by use of the aid.

"Endorsed" is a specific word with a specific meaning. Sunfish asked if you need to be ENDORSED. The answer is no, you CANNOT be legally endorsed.

You are 100% correct in stating that a pilot needs to be trained, assessed and found competent... but as I have stated, you need to be trained, assessed and found competent (twice) as part of your training to do anything.

"Trained, assessed and found competent" does not mean I can enter in your logbook some bull**** made-up endorsement that (a) you don't need and (b) doesn't exist anyway.

...and no, comments correctly and rightfully made by your instructor in your training notes do not constitute an "endorsement". :=

[FNG_WA]

Horatio,

You will clearly note on my unedited post that I did not refer to the requirement for an endorsement. Merely that if you have an Navaid endorsement by way or a NVFR or IFR rating then by definition you are qualified as per the AIP. And dont think for a second I am in favour of flying school invented endorsements.

It would be helpful if, in general, the AIP was not 'interpreted'. It is a very clear document that cannot be read in pieces. It is designed to be read as a whole and picking and choosing little bits to debate is futile. In order to use the navaids you must be able to use them without visual navigation (or any other kind of primary means augmentation.). This is the definition of 'sole means navigation'. They are not there to 'help' as you put it in your first post. As last resort a lost pilot might use them without being qualified yes but this would not be in accordance with AIP and should not be planned use. If you are not qualified then you may not rely on there use to navigate by.

In addition to this please do not confuse your own company procedures with the AIP. These company procedures are applicable only to your companies pilots and we are niether privy nor bound to them. If your operations manual may specifies requirements over and above that required by the AIP, that is to be respected.

Sunfish asked a question that could have much more efficiently answered by briefly looking in the AIP (my original point and title of my reply). This is a skill many have lost or failed to aquire. Most of the answers given were opinion (including your comment on 'there to help') instead of directing him/her to the relevent authoriy (AIP). Some even suggested 'it was just for filing flight plans'. It is this attitude that irks me. What do people think they are doing using a navaid that they are not qualified on? (this is evidenced by the 'you can use it just dont put it on the flight plan mentality'.) By all means turn it on and see what it does for further learning but dont navigate on it unless you are qualified. It is not much further to conducting approaches without being qualified.

On semantics (and i do say in jest)...... you wrote:

Quote: ADF and VOR (my aircraft isn't fitted with an NDB, unless you count the ELT) are there to help.

In my experience not many aircraft are fitted with an NDB. Most aircraft designers find them too cumbersome. An ADF or two is more usual as most <5700kg aircraft cannot uplift the 2 tonnes or so of the entire groundbased navaid.:ok:

[Sunfish]

Hmmmm. The AIP says:

or any private or higher category pilot who has received in-flight instruction from a qualified flight instructor in the use of the radio navigation aid as the sole means of navigation, and who is competent to navigate by use of the aid.

The PPL Syllabus includes this, and I was taught to check the NDB and VOR as part of my preflight checks, must have been a reason for this, otherwise why bother if I'm not supposed to use it?

Tunes, identifies and tests all navigation aids before use.
• Determines aircraft is within rated coverage of applicable radio
navigation aids
• Fixes aircraft position and solves aircraft orientation problems using
radio navigation aids
• Tracks/homes to the ground station
• Verifies integrity of GPS signal
• Enters and checks waypoint entry into GPS system
• Confirms waypoints and fixes from all radio navigation aids with flight
plan and identified ground fixes during en route navigation at least
once every 60 minutes.

Now I've been trained and tested in how to use these things as part of my PPL.

Since I come from a school of navigation (starting at age Six) that involved navigating first on land, then on Sea taught by my Dad who sailed to Australia from the Phillipines navigating by the torn out pages of a Dutch Atlas in 1942, I take the view that not knowing all the time exactly where you are and in which direction lies safety is a mortal sin. That means that I will always use every single aid in the aircraft all the time, even if only to cross check my dead reckoning and the GPS.

So the question now is, "Should I tell ASA via my flight plan that I have a VOR and/or NDB?" Exactly how will checking those boxes modify their behaviour towards me?

[Horatio Leafblower]

It would be helpful if you, in turn, did not presume that I am straight out of flying school with shiny bars, gold wings and raybans.

You will clearly note on my unedited post that I did not refer to the requirement for an endorsement. Merely that if you have an Navaid endorsement by way or a NVFR or IFR rating then by definition you are qualified as per the AIP.my emphasis

Correct. The AIP says that - for visual navigation - either you have a RATING that is endorsed for those Navaids OR you DO NOT hold a rating but you have received instruction.

And dont think for a second I am in favour of flying school invented endorsements.

You seem very keen to derive the Flight Crew Licencing rules from the AIP, so you can't be totally opposed to fiction...

It would be helpful if, in general, the AIP was not 'interpreted'. It is a very clear document that cannot be read in pieces. It is designed to be read as a whole and picking and choosing little bits to debate is futile.
Don't lecture me on legal interpretation, son, I'll betcha I've received more legal training than you.

In addition to this please do not confuse your own company procedures with the AIP.
I wrote the company procedures, just as I wrote the procedures for 3 other companies. I'm not likely to confuse my carefully designed training management systems with the AIP. But thank you for your concern. :rolleyes:

Sunfish asked a question that could have much more efficiently answered by briefly looking in the AIP

Since when did the AIP discuss Flight crew licencing, other than the paragraph which you seem to cling to here?
If you want to debate endorsements and RATINGS you will need to refer to the CAOs and CARs. This is a skill you seem to have lost, or failed to acquire.

Sunfish did not ask "do I need to be trained?" He asked "Do I need to be endorsed?"

On semantics (and i do say in jest)...... you wrote:

Quote: ADF and VOR (my aircraft isn't fitted with an NDB, unless you count the ELT) are there to help.
In my experience not many aircraft are fitted with an NDB.

:yuk:

FNG_WA, your failure to grasp my little joke about carying an NDB in an aeroplane and then proceeding to 'correct' me about it leads me to conclude that any further debate with you about interpretation of the English language is futile. :sad:


Aviation is a technical pursuit which has developed its own lexicon over 100 years. Using technical terms incorrectly results in misinterpretation and confusion.
I have trained a number of pilots who have previously been sailors. They have the quaint habit, at each turn in the circuit, of saying:
"Clear left.. clear center... clear right... going around"

Should I have let them persist in this potentially confusing habit? :confused:
...or should I just duck so the boom doesn't hit me in the head?
SUNFISH Thank you.

Yes you have been trained... full stop.

[Mark1234]

Inclined to think semantics have taken this into 'very overcomplicated'.

If you have an IR / NVFR you can/will have an endorsement (CASA english) on said navaids. If you do not, then you need to be/have been appropriately trained. It's not an endorsement in the casa sense, however, common sense would seem to suggest that some kind of stamp/signoff in your logbook is sensible, if only to cover your a$$ when/if questions arise :E Perhaps the instructor who trained you in the first place would be willing to provide such?

In my experience, the PPL training included basic use of NDB/VOR and tracking. My night rating was much more comprehensive, and involved intercepts position fixing and a much more in-depth understanding of limitations etc. I am slightly bemused by the syllabus as quoted, particularly the mention of GPS - does that mean you have to have GPS in the aircraft you train in? One would think not, but how do you meet that item without?

In any case, I suspect the 'sign off' (if I may call it that) would remove the "Confirms waypoints and fixes from all radio navigation aids with flight plan and identified ground fixes during en route navigation at least once every 60 minutes." requirement.

Using them as a cross check is simply common sense. As Sunfish so eloquently put, use what's available to you. As for what difference it makes, having the boxes on the flightplan checked means that you may be asked to navigate by them - for example, coming into melbourne from the north being asked to "track direct ML VOR", rather than via visual fixes.

[sprocket check]

Now, I may be simplistic, but as I read the regs, VFR is VFR and very clearly defined. Using Nav Aids while VFR does not remove the requirements for anything in terms of navigation. If I am wrong, please someone point me to the appropriate place in the regs. This is why I suspect there is no NAV AID endorsement on VFR licence and this is why your AIDS get added as you get your NVFR, IR, etc.

VFR on Top is an IFR procedure as I read it and nothing to do with VFR.

Nothing to do with semantics, but if you are calling something an endorsement with regards to aviation in Australia, you SHOULD be referring to an actual CASA endorsement otherwise you are risking misunderstanding and could be accused of spreading misinformation. You could also be taken for not knowing what you are talking about. You could also be causing great confusion amongst those newbies that read your posts and think that PPRUNE is the fountain of all knowledge.

sc

[Mark1234]

Now, I may be simplistic, but as I read the regs, VFR is VFR and very clearly defined. Using Nav Aids while VFR does not remove the requirements for anything in terms of navigation. If I am wrong, please someone point me to the appropriate place in the regs. This is why I suspect there is no NAV AID endorsement on VFR licence and this is why your AIDS get added as you get your NVFR, IR, etc.

VFR on Top is an IFR procedure as I read it and nothing to do with VFR.Correct, VFR is VFR, however, NVFR is also VFR, just in the dark, where it's a bit more difficult to visually fix. VFR does not require visual fixing. If you have the prerequisites, which many do not, you can do without visual reference. However, don't take my word for it:


AIP, ENR 1.1, page 33:
19.1 Flight under the IFR (bear with me...)
19.1.1 An aicraft operating under the IFR must be navigated by:
...
c) use of a radio navigation system or systems (...) the maximum time interval between positive fixes must not exceed 2 hrs
...

19.2. Flight under the VFR
19.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR
a) the pilot in command must navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the ground or water or by using any of the methods specified in para 19.1.1 except that when operating at or below 2000ft AGL the pilot in command must be able navigate by visual reference to ground or water
b) when navigating by visual reference (...) the pilot in command must positively fix the aircrafts position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 mins (...)
Note: Flight over more than SCT cloud or over featureless land areas, or over the sea may preclude visual position fixing at the required intervals and therefore make visual navigation impractical.

19.2.1d) gives the requirements for flying VFR over >SCT; basically VMC climb and descent, weather forecasts to support that and minimum instrumentation.
So:
1) You don't have to navigate visually.
2)You only have to fix every 30 mins navigating visually. you can make it 2hrs when navigating by radio aids etc as specified by the IFR rules, to which the VFR refer.
3) Yes 'VFR on top' as a specific clearance is an IFR procedure, but VFR flight is also available above OVC, it's just not called VFR on top in the regs (more confusing semantics!)

19.2.1f) notes the pilot in command of a VFR flight wishing to navigate by means of radio navigation systems or any other means must indicate in the flight notification only those aids with which the aircraft is equipped and the pilot is qualified to use (note 2)We already covered note 2 earlier - holder of instrument / NVFR / recieved instruction. That includes GPS too :)

The summary is that for most basic PPL holders, VFR means visual nav. It doesn't have to, that's not coded in the VFR regs at all, there are just requirements to be 'let loose' fully.

I am not however suggesting that flight over solid cloud is a great plan - it can be ok, but do you trust the weather guessers to provide the hole you need to descend? Night / Instrument teaches you about things like Min Safe Alts that navaid instructuion does not. HOWEVER, there are plenty of other reasons you may want to navigate (primarily) by aids even when you are visual.

Hopefully I'm not misleading anyone :) Interestingly it seems there's a contradiction between the syllabus 60 min fix and the AIP 30 min fix. Can't be bothered to think about that though!

/Mark.

[Lasiorhinus]

The AIP holds more legal weight than the syllabus.:8

[Old Akro]

Rather than focus on the legalese, why not focus on what you think you need to be safe & competent. If you feel that using a VOR or ADF will help with day VFR, then read about them, experiment with flight simulator, get some SIM time and/or pay for an instructor for an hour to show you.

NVMC is a neat way of packaging all the various bits at a relatively small incremental cost and where is the harm in picking up additional skills than you currently use?

If you want extra VFR day enroute guidance - get a handheld GPS. The truth is that ADF & VOR are really terminal aids. VOR range is limited which limits its use for enroute guidance while ADF is just plain inaccurate compared with GPS.

Most IFR guys will use GPS for enroute guidance, then use ADF or VOR at the destination airport if there is no GPS NPA approach.

I reckon you'd be better to use the time spent reading regulations on doing an honest self audit on your skills, then working to improve the areas you're not happy with. I'd rather be safe than legal.