PPL revalidation flight - refusal to sign logbook

[macintosh]

A friend at the flying club recently undertook a "training flight" (as defined in the regs) of one hour with an instructor, as required to revalidate a PPL where the holder meets the currency requirements. **Note - NOT the skill test which is required where currency reqiurements have not been met. The instructor was not entirely happy with the standard of flying and refused to sign the persons log book. Club discussion ensued. Our understanding is that the instructor must sign as he is simply confirming the training flight has been undertaken, and that he is not issuing a pass or fail. We believe his refusal has turned this into a test Naturally the CFI disagrees. Can anyone clarify.

[Ivchenko]

Macintosh

Sorry I don't have an answer, but I do think you should post this on the Instructors forum as well. Now is just about the time it's all going to hot up.

The legislation seems to be a mess. The pragmatic view may well be that if an instructor is unhappy with the quality of a PPL's flying he has a responsibility to ground him.

But do the JARs intend to make evey instructor an examiner?

I hope this thread gets some serious attention.

[macintosh]

Thanks for your encouragement. It's like a childs joke "when is a test not a test" to which the answer is presumably "you can fail it but we won't admit it's a test"

[javelin]

Macintosh, this is going to be a potential problem with the new requirements coming into force. I do PFA BFR revalidations and our procedures are quite clear. If I carry out a BFR (as a PPL renewal with the normal currency requirements fulfilled) and feel that the person has not reached a suitable standard, the first course of action is to suggest further time, either then or at a mutually agreeable date. If this is not accepted, then I may refuse to sign the person's logbook. As a BFR coach, I have a responsibility to ensure that the person has received the required refresher training and has demonstrated their ability. If after the flight, they cannot do so, then it is wrong for me to sign. It is ambiguous because it must be viewed as a test of some description. In the States, where it has been in force for many years, it is simply that - a biennial skills test. Most of the time it is done in a relaxed and positive way in order to reinforce many of the things which naturally slip away with time - skills that is !

[Cahlibahn]

The instructor is completely within his/her rights not to sign. It is entirely at his/her discretion.

Don't bother writing to the CAA requesting clarification either. Seven weeks after writing to them on this subject I received a copy of GID33 but no answers to my questions.

[Toppers]

I recently completed my hour long revalidation check with an instructor. I asked him (once he had signed me off) what his procedure would have been if my flying standard was not up to his expectations. His reply (which I thought was quite fair) was that he would have entered the hour as DUAL and suggested another date for the check in the near future. Can't get fairer than that really.

I must also say that it was a very useful hour and I can see why it has been brought into force.

[Final 3 Greens]

FAA BFR

I have done two BRFs (one on each coast) and both instructors have stressed that the flight review is not a test, but a review of the key FARs and also an opportunity to look at the flight envelope. In fact, I have been encouraged to contribute strongly to the agenda of the airwork.

I do not know what would have happened if I had flown badly, but the point is that a BFR is not set up as a pass/fail test, but a learning exercise.



[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 28 June 2001).]

[Final 3 Greens]

Toppers

I have ust re-read your post - did you log your training flights as Pu/t or P1/S?

As I understand, you must log as Pu/t, as this is an instructional flight, not a skills test, where you could log P1/S if successful.

[twistedenginestarter]

Mac

Aren't you missing the point a bit here?

Isn't this like "It failed the MOT. Don't worry the old one doesn't run out until 2 weeks time"

Somebody with a vaild opinion has got worried about the ability of someone to fly safely. Why not sort that very important problem out?

Forget the semantics and the barrack-room legal arguments. Someone might get killed...

[Airprox]

Twistedenginestarter, Very valid point, but who gets the power to take a licence off some body? An examiner? 2 examiners who have both agreed the flying standard is so low that the licence should be removed or the pilot grounded until futher notice?

Very hard one isn't it. As far as I know the only way to stop someone current flying is to pull their medical.

If I don't feel safe flying with someone I talk it though with them and suggest training. If as some do they think I'm wrong I will NOT sign their log book or licence and will inform the club CFI so they don't fly solo. If they are part of a group i's a bit harder but often there is a chairperson or co-ordinator who can ground them.

A bit messy isn't it! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did a check flight with somebody a while ago, who expressed some doubts about aspects of my flying. So I booked an instructor, explained the perceived problem, and flew with him until he was fully happy with that aspect of my flying.

There's another way?

G

[skydriller]

On roughly the same subject, and apologies if this has been asked before.

I understand that to revalidate the JAA-PPL you need to have done 12 hours (6 of which need to be solo)in the year before the licence expires, plus one hour (signed off)with an instructor.

My questions are:

When in the year before the licence expires does the hour with the instructor have to be flown?

Does the instructor have to be JAA certified to sign you off?

Thanks, SD.

[bookworm]

I've got more hours than many of the hours-building instructors around and think I can do a pretty good job of assessing what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to flying. Can I have the power to stop someone flying too please? :) (I hope not!)

twistedenginestarter wrote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Isn't this like "It failed the MOT. Don't worry the old one doesn't run out until 2 weeks time"

Somebody with a vaild opinion has got worried about the ability of someone to fly safely. Why not sort that very important problem out? </font>

If I take my car in to a garage that's not qualified to do MOTs, with 6 months left to run on its present MOT certificate, I don't expect a single mechanic to rip up the certificate because he doesn't like the look of my exhaust.

There are two issues here. One is that instructors are qualified to teach but not necessarily qualified to examine. They should not be asked to make a judgement about whether a pilot meets the standard for a PPL. There's a perfectly well-established skills test for that, involving examiners who are "in the loop" when it comes to standards. It also has a well defined appeals process.

The other is that when the revision to the UK legislation was proposed, this "training flight with an instructor" was presented for consultation to the aviation community as just that -- a lesson, not a test. To change it into a test by the back door would be perfidious.

[Cahlibahn]

Hi Skydriller

You need to produce logbook evidence to an authorised examiner of having the 12 hours, including 6 hours PIC and at least 12 take-offs and landings. This experience must include a flight of at least one hour with an instructor (authorised in accordance with JAR-FCL to instruct for the JAR-FCL TMG or SEP rating as appropriate) for which the appropriate logbook entry has been countersigned by the flight instructor.

So, you can do your instructional flight at any time during the last 12 months of validity and the instructor must be JAA certified.

Cheers

Keith


[This message has been edited by Cahlibahn (edited 28 June 2001).]

[flickoff]

As the flip side of the coin, if having just got the relevant BFR sign off I do something stupid which causes some accident or other and it is deemed to be as a result of my poor piloting skills, can the victim sue the person who signed me off for damages. This responsibilty must be the other part of the ability to say yay or nay?

[Yogi-Bear]

Isn't that carrying product liability a little too far? :rolleyes:

[Tricky Woo]

Sorry Chaps, but I'm with the instructor. If (or when) I fly badly with an instructor or examiner I don't fall over with surprise if I fail the exam, revalidation, whatever.

TW

[twistedenginestarter]

Bookworm

If I take my car in the garage and the mechanic points out the brakes are on the point of failure, my first concern is not whether this contravenes the European Human Rights Act.

This thread was started by someone trying to defend his friend in an argument with the friend's club.

My point is, if he is a true friend, then persuade him to listen and not argue.

This is after all a Professional pilots bulletin board. Professional pilots have to accept constant assessment and the fact that it is their responsibility to correct their shortcomings.

If his friend thinks argy-bargy is the solution to criticism then maybe he should become a train driver.

[Final 3 Greens]

Twistedenginestarter

I agree with your attitude to air safety, but not your conclusion about this thread.

You are subjectively perceiving an implication that macintosh is defending his friend per se, but if you read his posting objectively, what he is asking is if the instructor should refuse to sign the logbook to say that the flight has taken place, as it is a training flight not a test.

The dissonance that you are feeling is driven by the system in place being highly ambiguous and unsatisfactory.

There are always many different perspectives in life. In a similar hypothetical situation, it could be argued that an instructor could be seeking to line his own pocket by insisting on unecessary remedial training in circumstances where there is a lot of "grey" over the roles and responsibilities of instructors offering these training flights.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this would ever happen, but have vague and ambiguous situations does open the door to many unpalatable situations.

What needs to happen is that the situation is made clearer. Until then, there will be more and more of these argy bargys and I don't see how it helps air safety, as the resonance to the PPL community will be that these instructional flights are threatening.

BTW, to agree with Bookworm, I did a club checkout a few years ago and the instructor demonstrating a PFL had difficulty maintaining +/- 5kias - even setting the stall warner off a couple of times. I am no hotshot, but I can do much better than that and would be concerned if this guy was judging my piloting ability with the ability to ground me.

[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]

[Toppers]

Aren't we all getting a bit wound up over this? Surely it's simple.... the instructor feeld safe and he signs you off. You make him nervous and he'll ask you to go up again and see if he feels safer that time.

Let's not underestimate the skills of our instructors, they may sometimes have less hours than a pilot they fly with but they've been trained to a far higher standard than the average PPL. (No I'm not an instructor either)

For what it's worth, I found talking through the way I pre-flight, communicate, rejoin etc with the instructor gives him the opportunity to suggest better/safer ways of doing things as you fly. Surely this is better than a silent hour when you really don't know what he's thinking and then being hit with bad news back at base.

[Final 3 Greens]

Toppers

Sorry, but you are missing the point.

This is not a test and the instructor is not an examiner.

If bi-annual testing is being introduced, then it should be done transparently and properly; what we have now is a dogs dinner.

BTW, I do not agree with your very sweepingly general upbeat assessement of flying instructors, you might talk to a few airline training captains (15 thousand plus hour guys) and get their view as to the typical ability/knowledge of the entrant first officers, many of whom are ex hours building flying instructors; you might find it interesting. (please note that I am not judging your instructor, who sounds as if he added value for you.)

The best instructor I have ever experienced had 18,000 hours and was a jet captain who also flew light aircraft; Now I learned about flying from him!

[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]

[You want it when?]

OK - New boy here not even started regular training for PPL(a). It is my understanding that the flight was not a test but a required check ride. The instructor thinks the pilot is not up to the job and won't sign the log book. Easy resolution either get better or find an instructor with lower standards. Why would he not sign the log book (or did I miss that?). Would he let you pal fly one of the club aircarft? IMHO any instructor is trying to ensure a consistent level of ability in the air - some 18,000 hours characters may certainly fly well but during an "under instruction" flight they must adhere to the same standards as all. Sorry if my lack of hours causes a different thought process.

------------------
Stop that oscillation!

[Airprox]

This thread is ongoing on the instructor forum as well. It was pointed out that if you weren't current and wanted to fly a club aircraft you would first have to fly with an instructor. Yes! And if that instructor wasn't happy with your flying he wouldn't allow you to fly solo. Correct?

So whats the difference? Its the same idea.

Some one said that instructors aren't trained to examine! I beg to differ. How does your instructor know when you're realy for the skill test? Because he knows the standard required and that is the knowledge, amongs other things, you need to examine. I am an examiner so I know a little about it.

Final 3 greens - You must of had some bad instructors, either that or you're flying around with a very BIG head. There are instructors out there with varying capablities and experience isn't always the yard stick to measure them against. :)

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

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

[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.

[Final 3 Greens]

Airprox

Please read my mail again. I did not say that I had suffered from any bad instruction, but made two points:

1 That I did not agree with Toppers sweeping generalization and a supporting reason why not - quoting third parties who I believe are qualified to have opinions. I am not suggesting that all instructors are bad, but Toppers post did rather imply the opposite

and

2 That the best instruction I ever had was from the person mentioned (and it was)

If you choose to infer that I have a big head, that is your perrogative, but I really do not understand how you can reach this conclusion rationally.

I would also like to support macintosh's newly raised concerns about creeping regulation. I prefer transparency and openess - if air safety will benefit from bi annual TESTS then fine, but let's be open and honest about it and get some proper rules into place.



[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]

[Toppers]

WHHOOOOOOAAAAAAHHHHH......BBOOYYYYYSSSS!!!!!!

3 Greens, I was not suggesting anything in my last post about whether or not instructors are "good" or "bad". I have full repect for what they do and was merely giving my personal account of my "check-ride".

All I am saying is that I know it is not a test and if you don't treat it like one from the outset, it won't feel like one when you are on it.

What are we all so afraid of? Does every Private Pilot think there is nothing more we can learn from an fully qualified instructor?

I'm not saying that I agree with the latest rules and regs (the annual hours minima is still far too low), all I am suggesting is that when we keep reading "another bad weekend for GA" on these threads, the check-ride can only be a good thing and perhaps those that are so afraid of it should ask themselves why.

[Toppers]

Oh, and by the way 3 Greens, your post in the Instructors Forum about your IMC training hour just goes to show how little you know about this subject.

You might find a quick chat with an instructor at your local club would tidy up a few of your questions and you would see that "rating" training is quite separate from PPL training.

[Final 3 Greens]

Toppers

Let's not get personal, this is an important issue. If I have upset you with my postings, then please accept my full apologies. This post is very long as I would like to explain my reasoning openly.

Just let's be very clear about what JAR actually says. The JAA website URL is http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/toc00000464.htm.
__________________________________________

Extract from JAR-FCL 1.245 - Type and Class Ratings - Validity, Revalidation and Renewal

"(1) All single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings (land) and all touring motor glider's ratings - Revalidation. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall on single-engine piston aeroplanes (land) and/or touring motor gliders:

(i) within the three months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check with an authorised examiner on either a single-engine piston aeroplane (land) or a touring motor glider; or

(ii) within 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating :

(A) complete 12 hours of [flight time in the class including] 6 hours of pilot-in-command time and 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and

(B) complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor. This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test for a class or type rating."
____________________________________________

You will see that (B) does not specify what content the training flight should contain (so the IMC flight would count) and also allows "any other proficiency check or skill for a class or type rating" to replace the training flight.

My beef here is not about the need to maintain safety levels (that goes without saying), but about the way that JAR has been implemented - e.g. see BEagle's last comment on the Instructors forum!

If you read the extract from JAR-FCL 1.245 again, it is crystal clear that the instructional flight is not a proficiency test nor is it to be conducted by an examiner; nor is content mandated. So why has the CAA issued advice to FI's guiding them on content and suggesting that they refuse to sign the logbook if they are unhappy with the standards achieved in the training flight? (please note that I am NOT suggesting any malicious intent by the CAA, but I think that this well intentioned action is unhelpful)

Some people (including some FIs) have expressed discomfort about this because they feel that it is introducing an unofficial test by unapproved examiners. I am one of these people.

The point of the original thread was not whether the PPL was safe or not, but whether the instructors stance was in line with JAR.

My point is that situation is a mess and requires resolution. Self regulation within clubs and groups has handled these sort of situations for years (e.g. you don't fly until the check pilot is satisfied), but this new situation is not self regulation.

If a skills/proficiency check with an *examiner* every two years would help aviation safety, then I have no problem with that(especially bearing in mind the accident figures recently); I undergo regular instructional flights (e.g. am doing an hour with an FI today to sharpen up) and have nothing to fear from a GFT (sorry, skills test!)

Having got that out of the way, let me say that I completely agree with your comments about approaching this instructional flight as a learning exercise; if you look at my earlier posting about the FAA BFR, that is precisely how it is done and very valuable it is too.

The pilot is encouraged to raise areas of concern and these are then worked upon in a very positive way. Also, let's not forget that the FAA BFR also includes an hour's ground review (of key FARs etc) and this has been equally beneficial in my experience - e.g. when did any of us last look at our air law text books? (assuming that they are up to date.)

I believe that this "learning experience" was the spirit of the JAR and I am very concerned that it appears to creeping into a pass/fail test, to be conducted by people who are not approved examiners. So I believe that either JAR-FCL 1.245 needs to be worded in a more detailled way to ensure that appropriate and consistent refresher training is given or a skills test should be introduced, so that everybody knows exactly what is required and can prepare for it.

Finally on the point of instructors, I agree there is much to be learned from many (even another experienced PPL can observe helpfully from the RHS), but I want to be examined by a qualified examiner; fair enough?



[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 30 June 2001).]

[rambler]

if a pilot is not up to speed on the check flight, they should not be allowed to operate until satisfactory..it goes for everyone, that is the nature of the game,even instructors get assessed regularly, if they fail they can no longer teach...there is always a safety aspect to the fun..

[BEagle]

Yes - the 'training flight' only has a RECOMMENDED content. So a PPL holder could indeed ask for a signature from the FI conducting a 1hr IMC training flight - or a 'training' flight to somewhere nice for lunch for that matter! However, if the content didn't follow the CAA's recommendation, would the LPC SPA be signed by an Examiner? Under law, I guess it should be.

The only way out of this mess is to introduce a biennial proficiency check with a FE. Somehow I can't see that being terribly popular - even if it would be a cheaper option for most!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 30 June 2001).]

[Final 3 Greens]

BEagle

I am coming around to your way of thinking.

Much better to have a bi-annual proficiency test with an examiner than the present position.

After all, there is no need to be afraid of a regular proficiency test with known content and standards, but every reason to be be concerned about an uncertain and ambiguous position.




[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 01 July 2001).]