Prof Check: What would you cover?

[M14P]

I guess that quite a few of you are starting to do (or have done) a flight with an instructor to revalidate your licenses.

Since this is an anonymous forum, what is the general consensus on ideal content and duration from the point of view of an 'average' GA pilot?

What - in particular - do you feel least confident with in your repetoire?

How useful is it to fly with an instructor who has little or no experience of your type of aircraft?

Thoughts...

[FNG]

I did mine last week. The trip included steep turns, stalls (clean and in the approach configuration), a PFL and a couple of circuits. I would suggest that the stalls and PFL ought to be included in every such trip, but otherwise it's an opportunity to work on something that bothers you. For example, on the Flyer forum recently people have been saying that they don't know how to do overhead joins. You could work on something like that, or VOR tracking, or lost procedures, or maybe do a full spin if you never did one during your ppl course, or whatever. As for the instructor not knowing your aircraft, I expect that it depends on the instructor. The instructors I know of who check people out on their own aircraft tend to have flown loads of different types and are what I would call all-round pilots who can readily adapt to a new aircraft. The youngish instructor who is building up experience on club aircraft may be very sound generally but wouldn't be an obvious choice to check you out on your Stampe, Stearman or esoteric homebuild.

[GeeLoc]

The info you need is in AIC White 378 - which outlines the content of the Instructor Check. Obviously some tailoring is required to suit the ac type.

http://www.ais.org.uk/Uk_aip/pdf/aic/4W378.pdf

Hope this helps.

Happy Flying

[SteveR]

We've discussed this extensivly on the flyer list, and although I can't quote you any references, we concluded (and have had confirmed by the CAA) that this AIP is twaddle and will be re-written.

Obviously, if you want to you can do all of those things but there is absolutely NO stated requirement other than simply flying for an hour with an instructor and then getting the logbook signed.

For myself, I think I'll probably go and do some spinning 'cos I had my eyes shut in my one and only spin so far in any a/c.

To bang the point home: If you had a 30 minute hold before taking off, then climbed to 3000' and did a stall, then had a long taxi back to the apron - provided brakes off to brakes on was an hour and the intructor was happy to sign, the requirement are met and you're legal for another 2 years.

Steve R


ps For 'twaddle' read: They have admitted that the AIP could be taken by training organisations as an 'exam' syllabus, and it isn't.

pps. The flight is logged as P.u/t NOT P1s

------------------
PPL(A) EGTO
View my logbook, back up your own:
http://www.e-logbooks.co.uk

[This message has been edited by SteveR (edited 05 June 2001).]

[Fuji Abound]

Go for a bad day, a really bad day, maybe poor vis. (particularly if you do not have an IMC /IR) strong x-wind, really busy circuit, so you explore your limits, realise maybe conditions you should avoid in the security of a good instructor who can give you some solid pointers for dealing with the conditions should you inadvertently find yourself having to cope. You will get a lot from it and the instructor will earn his fee. Just a thought!!

[BEagle]

The content of the 'training flight' is only a recommendation. It can be replaced by your IMC revalidation (so long as it takes an hour), or even by an airline OPC in a simulator. There is actually nothing to stop you taking your instructor over to France for lunch, having lunch and then letting another pilot do another hour on the way home whilst you snore peacefully in the back.
Yes - in typically woolly JAR-FCL fashion they haven't been able to get their $hit in the right sock over this, so if the dual training flight requirement becomes abused then the CAA only have themselves to blame!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 06 June 2001).]

[eyeinthesky]

The AIC is potential legal dynamite. Page 2 refers to the instructor not being satisfied with the standard of the flight and not signing the logbook. This is turning the Instructor into an Examiner with none of the training or licensing that goes with it.

Without a signature I wonder how many CFIs or whoever would be content to sign up the C of E. But the JAR only stipulates it has to be a flight with an instructor. No checking process mentioned. Another case of the CAA sticking its oar in and muddying the water for no real reason.

You wonder what will happen when someone who has been signed off by an instructor has a nasty incident sometime thereafter and tries to have legal recourse to the instructor for not picking him up on a causal fault. Or the insurance company gets their teeth into it..



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

[juswonnafly]

I agree with eyeinthesky. It IS a potential minefield, however the instructor does have a 'duty of care'.

For my two penneth, I do include most of the details as suggested in the AIC however I modify them according the the pilots recent/total experience. Yes (no?) I am not an examiner, but I do wish to be able to sleep at night with a clear concience. If the pilot I am flying with needs a little more training/practice then I will suggest and offer this. If he/she declines then I will not put my name to it.

Although I speak as an instructor I cannot really see what all the fuss is about. There are too many pilots out there willing to 'bury their head in the sand' hoping that nothing untoward will happen to them, and that if it does they will 'get away with it'.

When did YOU last stall/wingdrop or do a PFL.

At my flying club the CFI will not let you fly unless you can atleast demonstrate a half decent (safe) PFL (ie, would you have survived?)

In summary, don't knock the renewal, it is there to help you stay a safe pilot.

JWF

[eyeinthesky]

JWF: Like you, I think a flight with an instructor is a good idea, but I think the CAA's attitude to it is not helpful.
I would also hope that Fred the Farmstrip Flyer who has a barely controlled crash each time he flies will benefit from instructor input in a way he didn't before when the only requirement was 5 hours in 13 months (no offence to farmstrip flyers or anybody called Fred intended!!). But to turn it into a pseudo test is I think not helpful.

We rely I suppose on everybody's good sense to be able to take constructive criticism in the interests of saftey, but some don't see it that way.



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

[Grandad Flyer]

I also did an hour with an instructor earlier this year, as I didn't realise (owing to the fact the CAA told me otherwise) that an OPC can count. I don't know why the CAA didn't go fully with the FAA system like they did with the rest of the new JAA PPL details. Under FAA rules you need a check flight with an instructor every 2 years. Its a "flight review" which means just that. There is no set time. A good instructor will look at what you have done in the past 2 years and see what you need to brush up on. Perhaps you've only been doing long cross countries so need circuit practice and stalling, unusual attitudes, etc. Or perhaps you've just done a few circuits and not much cross country in which case he/she'll concentrate on that.
You don't get signed off until the instructor is happy that you are current once again on all procedures.
Sounds sensible to me.

[M14P]

Thanks for your responses so far.

I am an instructor/aircraft owner and I wanted to know what people wanted out of the flight. That way I am providing a service.

I feel that it is a great idea so long as folks don't think of it as a chop ride and instructors don't run it as such. I hope the private flying community will embrace it as the useful requirement that it is.

Just an idea - if one were to check out on a new type at the same time that would make it fun, educational and valuable too.

[Final 3 Greens]

Grandad Flyer

I have done two BFRs in the US and both times the format has been an hour on the grounds looking at the key FARs and ane hours airwork.

Both were very usful and non-threatening, as the instructor (different each time) prefaced the BFR with a statement that this is not a pass/fail test.

Of course, they could decline to sign your logbook and no doubt would in the appropriate circumstance, but based on past experience I am looking forward to my next BFR as a motivational and reassuring couple of hours.

F3G