Signature in logbook

[slr737]

Is there a requirement to have his flight signed by a FI in the UK for any rating?

that's a requirement in certain european country but i do not think it is needed for a UK JAR licence?

thx

[S-Works]

If the flight was for the purpose of meeting the requirements for the renewal or issue of a rating then it must be signed. As an examiner i will not accept a flight that has not been signed and carries the instructors number.

[what next]

As an examiner i will not accept a flight that has not been signed and carries the instructors number.

On what legal basis if I may ask? JAR is JAR everywhere I thought. We go to the UK every year for our recurrent trainings and neither has any instructor ever signed my logbook nor did any examiner ever want to see a signature.

[S-Works]

I am curious, do you think that if you turned up with an entry in your log book that you claim is a dual flight looking for me to revalidate you by experience you would expect me to sign it?

[RTN11]

Lasors specifically states that the entry for revalidation must be countersigned by the instructor.

For any other dual training for a licence or rating I would expect the school to stamp and certify the hours before any application is submitted.

[S-Works]

LASORS does not specifically state none is required either....

I would be interested in the comments of other examiners on this one. I won't accept a flight being claimed for revalidation unless it's signed as per the instructions given to me when I first became an examiner.

[mrmum]

I agree with Bose, in the UK (or for a UK issued PPL with SEP(L) class rating) the training flight has to be signed by the instructor.
LASORS F1.5
iii. a training flight of at least 1 hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A)* who must countersign the appropriate logbook entry
I don't have my FEH at home, but not sure if there's a need for the instructor's licence/reference number, although I do like to see it as well as a signature. I rarely get asked to revalidate or renew for people I've never heard of, so usually I can recognise the instructors name/number/signature. However, if someone was going to fake a page of logbook entries, then go to an examiner who doesn't know them, a signature and number aren't any harder to do than the flight entry itself. Has anyone actually got suspicious and checked?

[mrmum]

what next:
On what legal basis if I may ask? JAR is JAR everywhere I thought. We go to the UK every year for our recurrent trainings and neither has any instructor ever signed my logbook nor did any examiner ever want to see a signature.
The countersignature requirement could well be a UK thing, but it only applies to the revalidation of SEP and TMG class ratings, when doing it by experience. I guess what you're coming to the UK to do, is some other rating which is revalidated by test with an examiner, so no need in that case.

[Whopity]

The reason that a FI/CRI is asked to sign the logbook on a Dual flight is simply to assist the examiner by providing a verifiable endorsement that a particular flight met the requirement for a dual flight as described in JAR-FCL 1.245(c)(ii)(C). It is not a legal requirement, nor is it even a JAA requirement that the log book be signed by the instructor. Prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL in 1999, Examiners asked the CAA how they could verify that a person in a log book was a FI. The CAA agreed that if the FI signed the entry with a licence number the examiner could cross check it with the CAA if necessary. That is not to say this is the only method of checking, but it has proved to be a simple method for the past 12 years.

If a pilot produced evidence of such a flight to the CAA they would have no alternative but to revalidate the rating by experience if all other criteria were met, even if there was no signature.

[high wing harry]

My FIC instructor told me thus:

1.) As an instructor you always have the right to refuse to sign off a two-yearly flight if you deem it to be unsatisfactory but the licence holder has every right to pop down to CAA HQ and get his/her licence revalidated by them direct as they have, in theory, completed the requirements

2.) If you do a flight that aint great and you don't want the responisibility, I was told to tell the individual concerned that you would be signing there logbook but stating that the flight was not to standard. In this way most examiners would be unhappy about signing the licence off and the CAA take the responsibility

Anyway, logbooks look so much more interesting with signatures and stamps all over them!

[slr737]

thanks for the all the answers.

I was more wondering : " does a FI need to sign all the flight he has done with a trainee, for the trainee to gain his PPL"

or does a FII need to sign all the hours he has flown with a trainee FI. The CAA is checking the logbook to issue a FI rating, do they need to see every flight made to obtain a FI countersign by the FI instructor?

thx

[Another_CFI]

As an examiner if I am revalidating an SEP by experiencce then I require to see either:-

a) a successfel flight test with an appropriate licence endorsement

or

b) a one hour flight with an instructor. In this case I would insist that the instructor had signed the log book. Otherwise the flight might have been a total disaster.

[RTN11]

or does a FII need to sign all the hours he has flown with a trainee FI. The CAA is checking the logbook to issue a FI rating, do they need to see every flight made to obtain a FI countersign by the FI instructor?

For any course of training, the school should put a nice stamp in the log book and certify the training. Failing that, either the instructor or someone responsible at the school would sign the paperwork that goes to the CAA. So either way, for a course of training the CAA should have some evidence that the hours are correct.

Once you have a licence and are flying alone, you can log what you want and no one will certify it. For a course of training for the issue of a licence or rating, each flight would not need to be signed individually, it would all be signed off at the end.

[BillieBob]

Under JAR-FCL the issue is somewhat blurred by the fact that we are talking about requirements and not regulations. Different authorities have different interpretations of the requirement and impose, in addition, their own legal requirements. Once the EU Regulation is in force, however, this will not be possible - the law will state only that, for revalidation of a class rating, an applicant must have completed "a training flight of at least 1 hour with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI)." There is no requirement in law for any specific content nor for a specific standard (or even a safe standard) to have been achieved. Nor is there a legal requirement for the instructor to endorse the logbook (in case of doubt it would be for the competent authority to prove that the relevant logbook entry was fraudulent).

Provided, therefore, that the applicant's logbook shows evidence of 1 hour's dual flight instruction within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating (and all other requirements have been met) , the competent authority has no choice (assuming that the logbook has not been falsified) but to revalidate the rating. The fact that the the flight may have been a complete disaster is totally irrelevant in law, all that matters is that it was conducted.

Welcome to the brave new world!

[Whopity]

Otherwise the flight might have been a total disaster.
As an instructor you always have the right to refuse to sign off a two-yearly flight if you deem it to be unsatisfactoryThe requirement is for a dual training flight of at least 1 hour. There is no requirement for it to be "satisfactory" or a "non disaster" both of which imply this is some sort of test. It is not! It is an experience requirement and as Billiebob says, it will be up to the NAA to prove if any claimed experience is fraudulent, so as examiners we will have to take it at face value, just like the old 5 hours in 13 months.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It does rather beg the question as to the point of the JAA biennial if the pilot being "instructed" has apparently no requirement to demonstrate satisfactory flying, or to have made any attempt to learn anything from their instructor.

The FAA BFR, where certain things have to be refreshed, and the pilot under review has to demonstrate a minimum level of safe flying to the instructor, is arguably a rather more rational approach.

G

[Another_CFI]

If EASA means that the only requirement is that the one hour flight took place then the instructor has a simple remedy if he/she is not satisfied with the conduct of the flight - simply ensure that the flight is a maximum of 55 minutes!

[Genghis the Engineer]

If EASA means that the only requirement is that the one hour flight took place then the instructor has a simple remedy if he/she is not satisfied with the conduct of the flight - simply ensure that the flight is a maximum of 55 minutes!

Thank you CFI, a very useful point!

A 50 minute flight and a robust debrief covers much!

G

[mad_jock]

Personally if i had come in and the purpose of the flight was to get the one hour and the instructor cut it short...

I wouldn't be paying for it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

An interesting moral position.

Choice between not getting paid for an hour's work, or being the name associated with what you consider to be a dangerously inept pilot being cleared to fly for another 2 years.

What a choice!


Widening this a little, has anybody actually found themselves up against this? I'm glad to say that to date (in a short and limited instructional career, to be fair) anybody I've suggested needs some more instruction to be safe, has accepted the point.

Maybe the dangerously inept pilot who won't take an instructor's advice is a fiction? Somehow however, I sort of suspect he isn't.

G

[mad_jock]

I have and I did the hour and signed the log book as per the regs. I have also refused to get in an aircraft with a pilot. The only thing you can do is refuse to do the flight if you believe that your name will be tarnished.

I have no training or authorisation to examine the standard of SEP pilots as a FI.

And I wouldn't be paying for the aircraft either.

As you say genghis the vast vast majority of pilots know that things didn't work out and they book themselves in for training. But even if they do I always sign the logbook and do the hour because that is what the contract is for doing the flight.

There is nothing to stop a pilot booking a 1 hour trial flight with an instrutor then producing a log book afterwards and requesting the signature. And their is no reason for the instrutor to refuse to sign it.

[mrmum]

As an examiner if I am revalidating an SEP by experiencce then I require to see either......a successfel flight test with an appropriate licence endorsement or....
Wouldn't this then be revalidation by Proficiency Check, rather than by experience? :confused:
Also, I can't really think of a scenario where a licence holder would do the LPC with one FE, then go to a different examiner for the administrative actions. Surely they'd just get the FE to complete the SRG1119 and ratings page after the test.

[mad_jock]

When you have done either another class or type test. eg MEP or 747. TRE's can't sign your SEP's off even though someone that has filled the paperwork out and payed the dosh and become a ground examinor with no training at all can.

You can go years and years without ever having flown with an SEP instructor if you fly other things.

Which is one of the many reasons why I think that the 1 hour with an instructor is a load of pish.

And in case it comes up yes there are tre's out there who have all the ticks in the boxes and can sign you but if they are "just a TRE" on one type with no other auths they can't.

[mrmum]

MJ, really :hmm:
I have no training or authorisation to examine the standard of SEP pilots as a FI.
Now I happen to be an FE, but before I was and when I have my FI hat on, I do precisely that several times a week. Isn't that exactly what we do as instructors every time we do a club check-out prior to PPL hire, also when we're considering sending a student solo, it's a similar situation, we assess (examine) the standard of their flying.

[mrmum]

Another CFI / MJ
I take back by earlier comments, I'd briefly not thought about the option to replace the one hour with an instructor with a flight test on another class or type. Bit annoyed with myself about that :ugh: sorry.

[mad_jock]

We authorise people to fly on our licenses when sending solo. We don't examin students for solo, the level that needs to be obtained is purely one persons opinion. There is no standards they have to meet. The instructor though has to justify themselves if anything goes wrong. And more to the point there is no exam for the instructor to do to prove there standards are acceptable. Everyone presumes if they don't crash your acceptable. But there is no training to do that your just meant to pick it up as you go along.


And as for club checkouts any pilot can do them, ppl instructor or otherwise in fact if they are within 90 days, the person doing the checking doesn't even need to have a license. I know of a group that has a unmedically fit pilot defined in the insurances docs as a check pilot. So as such it is an opinion that the person is safe. It holds no merit in the grand scale of things apart from it means you do or don't get access to someones aircraft. It has no legal standing apart from a tick in the insurance box.

FE's have been trained and be examined themselves for their standards. All these hour flights should be given to them and they should be empowered to be able to suspend/revoke someones ticket until they can demonstrate competency. This current go for a fanny around with what could be some clueless knumb nut 225hr FI(R) who can barely fly themselves is utterly pointless.

[mrmum]

FE's have only been "trained" since we adopted the JARs, prior to that you needed a lot more instructional experience and IIRC a couple of good reports from your FI rating tests. Nowadays, all you need is 1000TT and a pathetic 250 instructional. As far as relative experience goes to examine someone, that's not much better than your 225hr FI(R) for the hour with an instructor is it? We do however have a "standardisation" flight test every three years or so.

Whether there's much merit in just putting someone in an aeroplane for an hour with an instructor, or if it should be a mandatory test with an examiner, is a different question. What I'm saying is we all regularly examine or assess (what's the difference practically?) the people we fly with, it's part of the job. A lot of the time, yes it may have no legal standing, but we still do it.

[BillieBob]

We authorise people to fly on our licenses when sending solo.A popular misconception. We authorise people to fly in accordance with Article 52 of the ANO, which exempts them from the requirement to hold a licence. We need an appropriate licence and rating in order to give instructions to the solo student but the responsibility as PIC of the aircraft is entirely his/hers.

[what next]

Hello!

I had some time to kill waiting for passengers and re-read my JAR-FCL (thanks to the miraculous iPad which allows me to carry around an entire library). Not a waste of time because EASA-FCL will be 99 percent identical to JAR-FCL.

There are exactly three mentions to (counter-)signatures in logbooks:
Time logged as SPIC and PICUS (1.1080) and differences training (1.235).

And the signature for the biennial training flight for revalidation of the SEP class rating gets written onto the back side of the license (App. 1 to FCL 1.1075), which as an instructor I can refuse to sign if I am not happy with the applicants performance.

All these JARs have been implemented to the letter here in Germany (and from experience I would guess also in France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland,...) therefore I think that the vast majority of European pilots happily fly around with unsigned and unstamped logbooks.

[Whopity]

And the signature for the biennial training flight for revalidation of the SEP class rating gets written onto the back side of the license (App. 1 to FCL 1.1075), which as an instructor I can refuse to sign if I am not happy with the applicants performance.According to App 1 to JAR-FCL 1.075, only an Examiner or the Authority is permitted to sign the revalidation process. An Instructor is not so authorised.Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.075 (continued)
Instructor ratings and SE piston class ratings may also at the discretion of the Authority be revalidated in
the licence by the Examiner who forms a part of the revalidation process. If an Examiner is not involved in
the revalidation process, the rating entry will be made by the Authority.

[what next]

According to App 1 to JAR-FCL 1.075, only an Examiner or the Authority is permitted to sign the revalidation process. An Instructor is not so authorised.

Then this must be one of the few german differences to the "universal" JARs. If you read any German then this form may be of interest by which an instructor or examiner notifies the authority that he has revalidated an SEP classrating in handwriting on the applicants license: Luftfahrt Bundesamt - Lizenzierung - Nachweis Handeintrag SEP (http://www.lba.de/SharedDocs/download/Formulare/L4/Lizenzierung_Flug/Nachw_Handeintrag_SEP_FI.html?nn=23208)

It references FCL 1.024(a) (german) that seems to be missing from the english FCLs. So much for international standardisation!

[Whopity]

And with 24 different States in EASA there will be many more different interpretations! EASA claim that their mission is to promote the highest common standard of safety in civil aviation. Whilst that sounds very grandiose, it is more sobering to think that mathematically, that is known as the Lowest Common Denominator. They only set the bottom line, it comes with no guarantee of equality or even standardisation.