PPL Registered Facilities

[fibod]

Does anyone know the approx number of PPL Facilities registered with the UK CAA? The UK CAA have withdrawn Standards Doc 30, which would have given the answer, and don't seem to be able to answer my inquiry. Rather worrying that they cannot, really!

Thanks

[BillieBob]

Not surprising really that you couldn't get an answer - the CAA do not know how many Registered Facilities there are. They know how many registrations they have processed over the years and they know, more or less, how many sets of exam papers are in circulation. However, they have no idea how many of the organisations that they have registered in the past are still functioning. It is interesting that the part of the industry that arguably needs the most safety oversight gets virtually none.

[UniFlyBoy]

How do they then keep track of the quality of training? I recently flew at a school where there was one instructor on duty who is restricted but actively doing PPL training. There was no other instructor around. It seems the so called CFI is actually an airline pilot and is rarely there. How does he manage to supervise an instructor from hundreds of miles away or is there no requirement these days? I cannot even check if this facility is registered now. Needless to say there was no response to my e=mail to the CAA.

[DFC]

There is no requirement for the supervising instructor to be present. It is possible to have oversight of an operation without being present all the time.


How does he manage to supervise an instructor from hundreds of miles away


Is that when the CFI is at the field and the FI(R) is in the aircraft hundreds of miles away or vise versa? :D

Provided that the FI(R) was operating within their privileges there is nothing wrong with the situation you experienced.

The only element (which would not be your concern) but is a factor is how the CFI is providing the training required for this instructor to progress.

You could find that the two are in regular contact throughout the day, that the CFI is aware of the plan and it could be that in actual fact this FI(R) receives better career training than the FI(R) who rubs shoulders with 20 FIs at work each day but gets zero training from them.

[Whopity]

The UK ANO defines two different but quite similar ratings, one of which was copied from the other:

The Assistant Flying Instructor:
(2) (a) Such instruction must only be given under the supervision of a person present during the take-off and landing at the aerodrome at which the instruction is to begin and end and who holds a pilot’s licence endorsed with a flying instructor’s rating entitling the holder to instruct on an aircraft of the same type or class as the aircraft on which instruction is being given.
and the FI(Restricted)
The privileges will be restricted to carrying out under the supervision of the holder of a flight instructor rating (aeroplane) approved for this purpose—
With the AFI it is quite clear that the supervising FI must be present, in the case of the FI(R) it is not so clear. At the end of the day it will be up to a Court to decide what is reasonable supervision. As the AFI and FI(R) are essentially identical ratings defined in the same document, it is fair to assume a Court might consider that similar levels of supervision should be provided! Until it happens we won't know.

[DFC]

it is fair to assume a Court might consider that similar levels of supervision should be provided!

I would think the opposite.

1. They are not similar ratings. The AFI is a National Rating and the FI(R) is a rating established in accordance with JAR-FCL

2. JAR-FCL has no requirement for the supervising person to be present

3. The established system in other countries both prior to and after the introduction of JAR-FCL did not require the supervising instructor to be present.

Therefore I find it highly unlikely that a Court would find that the lack of a supervising instructor being physically present at a particular place would have been a factor in any incident or accident.

Having said that they could find the supervision inadequate if the supervisor is unaware of the flying programme, the weather, aircraft state etc and never provided the expected level of training to the FI(R).

BA Responsible Management seems to manage to supervise flights on the other side of the world from London without having to be at every airport for everyoperation. The CAA manages safety oversight of all UK operators without any presence at most operations.

As I said above, it is possible to be surrounded by supervising FIs but get no supervision or further training - unfortunately common at many RTF/FTOs while the FI(R) that appears to the public to be operating solo may have a very tight supervision and excellent career training provided to them.

We have to remember a very important point. If an FI(R) sends a student on a First Solo - it is the FI(R) that has broken the law by doing something that they are not permitted to do. The supervising instructor has not provided that they have ensured that the FI(R) is aware of the privileges they hold.

When an FI(R) taxies out with a student they are operating 100% on their licence and as PIC they and they alone are responsible for the safe outcome of the flight.

Perhaps someone can explain how having an FI at an aerodrome with no radio or telephone can in any way supervise an FI(R) -or AFI for that matter - 20 miles away at 500ft?

[Whopity]

The CAA issued guidance on this in the shape of Training Com 1/2007 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/TRAININGCOM%201-2007.pdf)This implies that the supervising FI must be present at some time during the day and easily contactable during instructional flights.

[DFC]

This implies that the supervising FI must be present at some time during the day


Not at all.

It makes no mention of the supervising FI being present unless they feel a need to observe some briefings.

It clearly leave the responsibility for adequate supervision / duty of care with the management of the organisation.

[Whopity]

I am quite sure that the writer of:Before training commences, the supervising instructor should assess the days program as appropriate having considered the exercise(s) to be flown, student performance and progress, aircraft maintenance and serviceability, the weather forecast, NOTAM and any other factors likely to affect the planned activities. considered that the supervisor would be present at some point to achieve this.

We also have to consider the insurance company, what do they consider supervision to mean.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is a ridiculous situation. Why is it written in a way that makes it so unclear?

Common sense dictates that the supervising FI should be at the airfield, but how does that work when they are busy flying themselves? If you are off on a long cross country, then you aren't exactly easily contactable.

It is a silly rule that is poorly written and impossible to police.

[Whopity]

Why is it written in a way that makes it so unclear? Because it was copied directly from JAR-FCL, whereas the AFI requirement was written in the UK and is more specific.

If we only had the JAA requirement I would agree with DFC but it is complicated by two different requirements on the same page of the ANO. Like it or not an AFI and a FI(R) are doing exactly the same job and should be subject to the same requirements, I believe that is the view of the CFE who wrote the Training Comm. There is still a number of AFIs who incidentally, maintain their UK ratings in accordance with JAR-FCL. Some have actually requested FI(R) ratings whilst others have become CRIs to circumvent the issue.

[DFC]

Before training commences, the supervising instructor should assess the days program as appropriate having considered the exercise(s) to be flown, student performance and progress, aircraft maintenance and serviceability, the weather forecast, NOTAM and any other factors likely to affect the planned activities.


All of the above can be completed without having to travel to or even be present at the training location.

To say that having the regulations for a National Rating - AFI on the same page or in the same document as the FI(R) has any influence on the situation is to say that IR holders could in any way be affected by the IMC rating - a national rating that appears in the same document.

Many Authorities other than the CAA have operated for years without any requirement for a supervisor to be physically present while training is provided. Most take the reasonable view that the supervisor can not be present in the aircraft and if operating non-radio has no way to contact / influence the actions of the FI(R) once the flight has departed and most importantly, as I have said earlier, the FI(R) is the PIC and they alone are responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft during flight.

If the FI(R) meets with the FI downtown and has a thorough briefing and some training before the FI alone proceeds to the aerodrome, it is safe to say that the FI(R) in that case has received better briefing and supervisions ythan many FI(R)s that run shoulders with 20 supervising FI's each day but get no real training / supervision.

I see this desire to have a supervising FI present at an aerodrome at all times as being a contributing factor in the poor standard of newly released FI. The organisations are in arush to release the FI(R) asap so that they no longer feel the need to have a supervisor hanging round costing money (or not making money).

Perhaps following the JAR system better could result in a better standard of FI.

Finally, in some countries pre-JAR, each organisation has 1 FI and all others were FI(R). A large organisation could have 2 FI but the majority of instructors were FI(R) regardless of experience and therefore the instructors authorising first solos and providing career training to FI(R)s were experienced people. There is a lot of merit to be had from going back to such a system. However, the single FI can not be expected to be at the aerodrome 24-7!!

[Whopity]

To say that having the regulations for a National Rating - AFI on the same page or in the same document as the FI(R) has any influence on the situation is to say that IR holders could in any way be affected by the IMC rating - a national rating that appears in the same document.
The IMC and IR are in no way comparable. The AFI and FI ratings however require the same experience and qualifications, have the same privileges and both require supervision. If a lawyer tried to explain the difference to a Court and then give a logical reason as to why there should be different levels of supervision for the two different ratings, the interpretation and outcome could go either way. Until such time as a precedent is set one cannot guarantee anything.

[TOT]

I very strongly disagree with the general implication "RF's, - that the part of the

industry that arguably needs the most safety oversight gets virtually none."

Granted , TRTO, FTO, or RF is only as good as its top man, manager - whoever,

Over the years I have come across numerous TRTO's pulling every trick in the

book - and more - and somehow getting away with it.!!!.

Likewise I have come across only a very,very small minority of RF mis
behaving.

For my money, take a good long look at the TRTO's first!

[DFC]

Whopity,

Since JAR-FCL was introduced, how many new AFI ratings have been included in JAR-FCL licenses that entitle the holders to instruct for the JAA PPL SEP?

:D

------------

TOT,

I have raised that question many times.

I would not say that they set out to be worse but the consequences of being below par are more serious.

[puntosaurus]

The CAA issued guidance on this in the shape of Training Com 1/2007This implies that the supervising FI must be present at some time during the day and easily contactable during instructional flights.

The helicopter community got this Training Com 1/2007 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=2859), which is quite explicit about the supervising instructor being physically present. I wonder why two parts of the same organisation took such different views ?

[Whopity]

Since JAR-FCL was introduced, how many new AFI ratings have been included in JAR-FCL licenses that entitle the holders to instruct for the JAA PPL SEP?Actually quite a few. Old AFIs who had never upgraded, coming back to instruct after an airline career and a 20 year gap!

[DFC]

Whopity,

I said "new" AFI ratings. I specified "new" to exclude AFI renewals or revalidations.

The CAA can not issue a new AFI rating to teach PPL SEP since JAR-FCL came into force. That rule alone sets the FI apart from the AFI.

---------

puntosaurus,

To give you one example of the differences between the heli training and fixed wing training;

Until recently, quite a number of fixed wing RTFs were based at unlicensed aerodromes. They positioned to a licensed aerodrome where the instructional flight would start and end and then position back to the unlicensed base aerodrome.

In such a case, would you expect the supervising FI to be present at the unlicensed aerodrome to supervise the briefing, then drive, catch a ferry and drive again to the licensed aerodrome where the training flight was to start and end after which they drive - ferry - drive back to the base aerodrome to supervise the de-briefing.

Even think of the FI(R) to completes a dual A-B-C-A series of instructional flights. How are you going to ensure a suitable supervising instructor at B and C.

Seems like the CAA trying to turn supervision into observation.

[BillieBob]

To give you one example of the differences between the heli training and fixed wing training;

Until recently, quite a number of fixed wing RTFs were based at unlicensed aerodromes.So were/are a number of helicopter RTFs, FTOs & TRTOs - no difference there.

[DFC]

So how did the "Supervising FI" get to the aerodrome where the training flight started and ended to comply with the CFE's wishes?

--------

Just to straighten something up (fixed wing).

There is no such thing really as an FI(R) rating.

There are three distinct ratings;

The "Flying Instructor Rating"

The "Assistant Flying Instructor Rating"

and

The Flight Instructor Rating

Each separately defined and with it's own limitations etc in the ANO.

There is no JAA equivalent of the AFI.

As a separate issue, it just happens that in addition, when someone obtains a Flight Instructor rating the privileges are limited until they meet some further requirements.

However, the ANO makes it very clear that an AFI can not under any circumstances claim to have the privileges or limitations of a Flight Instructor Rating and no Court is ever going to let them!!...............why would they want to - the restrictions applied to an AFI are less onerous in terms of what they can teach dual compared to a restricted FI.

[Whopity]

The CAA can not issue a new AFI rating to teach PPL SEP since JAR-FCL came into force.Quite right; but they have re-issued AFI ratings for that precise purpose, provided the holder has completed a declaration of JAA knowledge!
There is no such thing really as an FI(R) rating.In JAA terms correct; but the CAA do issue such a rating because it replaced the AFI rating. The Spanish DGAC simply issue a FI rating and the restriction is administered by the holder; two quite different interpretations.the restrictions applied to an AFI are less onerous in terms of what they can teach dual compared to a restricted FI. A FI(R) can teach on an Integrated course whereas a AFI cannot; An AFI can teach IMC and Multi if qualified but so can a FI(R) if they hold stand alone CRI and IRI ratings. So really there is little difference.In such a case, would you expect the supervising FI to be present at the unlicensed aerodrome to supervise the briefing, then drive, catch a ferry and drive again to the licensed aerodrome where the training flight was to start and end after which they drive - ferry - drive back to the base aerodrome to supervise the de-briefing.Maybe a FI(R) should not be operating in such an environment. I recall one CFI who was interviewed by the CAA because circuits were conducted at another aerodrome unsupervised.
The CAA are still issuing JAA Flight Instructor ratings with "Restrictions" that ceased to exist with the old Flying Instructor Rating because they hadn't got the software to cope with the change. 11 years later they still haven't done anything about it! Whilst the UK embraced JAR-FCL with enthusiasm, it did not follow all the requirements.

[BillieBob]

So how did the "Supervising FI" get to the aerodrome where the training flight started and ended to comply with the CFE's wishes?Don't know, don't care. I was merely pointing out, in the interests of accuracy, that your previous post was ill-informed.

[Bob Stinger]

102 professional flying training orgs, 107 microlight schools, 102 helicopter schools.

[BillieBob]

102 professional flying training orgs, 107 microlight schools, 102 helicopter schools.You'd make a good politician having given us entirely accurate information that is totally irrelevant to the original question. Your real name's not Brown by any chance, is it?

[Bob Stinger]

Smartar$e, there are 102 facilities offering PPL training, i added the others for the purpose of completeing the picture.

[BillieBob]

No, you stated "102 professional flying training orgs" (presumably FTOs). The original question relates to Registered Facilities and not to FTOs. When Standards Document 30 was last published the number was rather more than 102.