What would you do?

[mrmum]

Here's a scenario:

You had taken a PPL holder to a grass airfield for some familiarisation training on that type of runway, which is a reasonable size, but with a significant slope and has standing crops on both sides right up to the runway edges.

While having a coffee, you observe a LAA tail wheel type aircraft make an approach, then disappear below the crest of the runway, then reappear possibly following a bounce or balloon, then descend out of view again, followed by a go-around. After the second "interesting" approach, it drops out of view with a high ROD, comes back into sight, touches down quite hard, then ground loops into the crops and heads back down the hill out of sight. While this was occurring one of the occupants inadvertently presses the PTT and we are treated to a string of expletives on the R/T.

A few of the locals go to help and after a while it reappears and taxis to the parking area, no injuries, no significant damage.

The two guys get out, come into the building, where one of them takes the other's licence and fills out the ratings page. There didn't seem to be any test forms, so let's assume that the one hour dual flight with an instructor had just taken place, then a revalidation by experience.

Would you sign off either the dual flight, or the rating revalidation if you'd sat through a performance like that?
I don't believe I would, I think I'd be encouraging them to undertake some further refresher training.
I understand the required hour with an instructor isn't a test, however we don't have to sign it if we think something about it wasn't safe. I those circumstances I believe the examiner should refuse to carry out the revalidation and direct the licence holder to submit an application to the CAA to carry out the administrative action.

[Whopity]

Do you know which pilot was flying it?
however we don't have to sign it if we think something about it wasn't safe.Do you have a reference for this? Current regulation only requires experience, no mention of safety! Instructors can now sign a revalidation in accordance with FCL-945 which, like a cheap Chinese watch, comes with no instructions!

[mrmum]

No, either person could have been handling pilot, or PIC. In fact the flight may have had nothing to do with the rating being revalidated.

Don't have a reference for that, just a recollection of reading it. What I mean though, is that an instructor carrying out the training flight for revalidation, doesn't have to sign the person's logbook. If you are the FE/CRE then yes, if the logbook has the required experience, then revalidate the rating.

[Whopity]

is that an instructor carrying out the training flight for revalidation, doesn't have to sign the person's logbook.If it is a training flight, then under current regulation, to be counted for licence issue or revalidation etc, it must be signed by the instructor giving the instruction:AMC1 FCL-050 (4) instruction time: a summary of all time logged by an applicant for a licence or rating as flight instruction, instrument flight instruction, instrument ground time, etc., may be logged if certified by the appropriately rated or authorised instructor from whom it was received;
If you refused to sign for a training flight that the candidate had paid for, then the term fraud comes to mind.

[this is my username]

The pilot being revalidated might have chosen to do an hour of tailwheel differences training for his/her "hour with an instructor". For all we know the debrief might have been the candidate saying "well, I'm never doing that again" or the instructor saying "another 20hrs and you'll have this tailwheel thing sorted!"

[mrmum]

Whopity,
I'll concede on the signing issue, guess I was still thinking pre EASA

[Level Attitude]

As 'this is my username' points out this is a 'Training Flight' requirement and many people will use it to try a new experience for the first time so competence is not necessarily expected.

However, in the rare instances that an Instructor deems that a Pilot they flew with is unsafe (to themselves and/or others) then I do not believe that they should complete the 'Revalidation by Experience'; and if offered the Pilot's logbook to sign they should also write in "further training recommended" (so that Examiners would also know to politely decline any request for 'Revalidation by Experience' based on that particular training flight).

Just because someone is authorised to take 'Administrative Action' on behalf of the CAA does not mean that they are mandated to do it if they don't want to.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What would I do?

If I was the instructor with revalidation privileges, the legal requirements are met, but the pilot has significant deficiences in his flying?

Sign the forms, and annotate the logbook with a statement along the lines of "flying standards poor, remedial instruction essential for safety" or words to that effect.

That seems to cover both the law and my conscience.

But, for all we know, that was the student's first ever tailwheel lesson and the groundloop was basically down to the instructor's failure to cover and take over control quickly enough - and he was man enough to admit it.


G

[Whopity]

and annotate the logbook with a statement along the lines of "flying standards poor, remedial instruction essential for safety" or words to that effect.What right have you to make such an entry in a personal log book? You can certainly give the candidate advice, and refuse to rent them an aeroplane, but using a log book as a "training record" could come back to haunt you if the pilot was subsequently involved in an incident.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Surely the other way around? If his flying standards were poor and there was no formal record of my advising him to seek remedial training.

Okay, yes I can use my own records and provide them with a copy - and I do that for all training. But, where someone is dangerously weak and won't listen to advice - there's no good answer is there?

G

[Tay Cough]

What right have you to make such an entry in a personal log book? You can certainly give the candidate advice, and refuse to rent them an aeroplane, but using a log book as a "training record" could come back to haunt you if the pilot was subsequently involved in an incident.

Every right, if invited to write in it.

I don't know the circumstances of this specific event and wouldn't wish to guess but should I find myself in a position where I was not happy with the performance of the pilot seeking revalidation, they would be given the option of either me not signing anything (i.e. the pilot will then need to fly with someone else anyway in order to be revalidated) or putting a suitable comment, such as the previously mentioned "further training recommended". I don't have licence signing privileges but equally I would not want to put an examiner in the position of signing a licence on the basis that "Tay Cough was happy" when I wasn't.

I assure you a world of pain will befall any instructor who revalidates a pilot despite having had major doubts over that pilot's performance if that pilot subsequently becomes involved in an incident.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think this is a good example of what is legal vs what is right. If the purpose of the flight is to attain/maintain currency and the person demonstrates a clearly unsafe level of flying skill then I think, as an instructor, you have a moral obligation to document that.

The problem however is the situation is seldom black and white, where the pilot is clearly safe vs clearly unsafe. The much more common cundrum is how good is good enough ? That is there are significant skill deficits in multiple areas but no one thing so over the top you can say this person is clearly unsafe.

That is why I try never to do checkouts :\

[Kemble Pitts]

As the legal requirement for revalidation by experience is 12 hrs... blah... and a 1hr flight with an instructor, arguably, if both you and the 'student' are still alive at the end of the 1 hr flight, the requirement has been met and thus you should sign all the necessary bits of paper!

No mention in the actual law of competence.

[foxmoth]

If you refused to sign for a training flight that the candidate had paid for, then the term fraud comes to mind.

As many have said, the circumstances are not properly known, if however it was just a dual flight for the hour revalidation I would have made the point beforehand that I would not be signing anything if I was not happy that the pilot was safe in his normal aircraft and operation. So, lets say this was a pilot who normally flew a Pa28 from a 2,000' runway and was trying a tailwheel into a short strip for the first time as an experience, then I would be happy to sign if the basic flying was ok, if he generally flew the same aircraft into the same short strip then I might refuse to sign at the end - but I would probably not insist on payment either!

[Whopity]

But, where someone is dangerously weak and won't listen to advice - there's no good answer is there? Correct.

If you are appointed by the CAA to sign certificates of experience and the candidate has met the requirements and you refuse to sign, the candidate has the right to appeal under CAA Regulation 6.

[Tay Cough]

... at which point the CAA is likely to investigate the circumstances of the appeal.

I agree that if the candidate has met the requirements, a logbook/licence should be signed. If not, it should be justifiable why not, in which case the instructor has nothing to fear from the CAA. In my book, "dangerously weak and won't listen to advice" could potentially be grounds for that justification.

Equally, I don't believe a revalidation flight should take place without it being made clear to the candidate that there may be circumstances where a signature will not result. Foxmoth makes a particularly valid point in this regard with reference to a new experience for the candidate, where more discretion can probably be exercised by the instructor, versus a familiar situation.

[Mickey Kaye]

And what about when a candidate presents his licence to an examiner with all the revalidation requirements met and the one hour dual signed in his logbook. The examiner signs it. He has no idea if he is safe or not.

The system is too complicated and doesnt work and it needs to be replaced with something that does.

[Level Attitude]

As the legal requirement for revalidation by experience is 12 hrs... blah... and a 1hr flight with an instructor, arguably, if both you and the 'student' are still alive at the end of the 1 hr flight, the requirement has been met and thus you should sign all the necessary bits of paper!"should" is incorrect - it implies it must be done. It is completely up to the authorised person (Instructor/Examiner) whether they choose to or not.


If you are appointed by the CAA to sign certificates of experience and the candidate has met the requirements and you refuse to sign, the candidate has the right to appeal under CAA Regulation 6.Appeal against what exactly ??
The candidate is perfectly able to approach other individuals (Examiners), or the CAA themselves, to get their Revalidation paperwork signed.

They could, possibly, put in a complaint to the CAA about the (lack of) action on the part of the Instructor but I seriously doubt it would be upheld - and may even lead to consequences for the candidate themselves.

[Kemble Pitts]

I say 'should' quite deliberately because all of the legal requirements for revalidation have been met and that is what the instructor is signing to say - he has checked that the necessary number of hours have been flown and that the 'applicant' has had a 1 hr flight with an instructor. Full-stop.

It is not up to the instructor (or the CAA) to 'gold plate' by adding their own personal requirements.

Debate.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Kemble

So you watch a guy display demonstrably unsafe flying skills during the hour you where flying with him and you are just going to shrug and sign the guys book anyway.......really :confused:

[fireflybob]

One suggestion is that if the guy shows unsafe flying skills and is reluctant to take any remedial training is advise him/her that you are writing to their insurance company to that effect although I'm not sure how you would find out who the insurers are.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You don't teach CRM I take it Bob?

Providing clear advice that remedial instruction is needed is one thing, refusing to sign the paperwork is another - but issuing threats like that is something else altogether!

G

[Tay Cough]

It is not up to the instructor (or the CAA) to 'gold plate' by adding their own personal requirements.


I'd hardly call covering your own back "gold plating". The least controversial option is not to sign anything at all if you have doubts. Unfortunately that amounts to passing the buck but ensures the instructor has no comeback if there is a later incident.

Not ideal at all but due to a lack of further guidance, what else can you do?

[fireflybob]

You don't teach CRM I take it Bob?

Providing clear advice that remedial instruction is needed is one thing, refusing to sign the paperwork is another - but issuing threats like that is something else altogether!


Genghis, I merely said it was a suggestion (which was made at an Instructor's seminar).

That said I hardly feel that this is an occasion for touchy feely "CRM". If a pilot is clearly unsafe and refuses to take advice to undertake remedial training then I would suggest it's time for "Advocacy" - something which is part of CRM.

Maybe I've been lucky but I've never come across anyone in this respect that I would describe as "unsafe".

How would you feel if you didn't take any action and said pilot killed himself and passenger(s) a week later?

[athonite]

Ghengis, I need to say Flyflybob is not qualified as a CRM trainer as far as I know, more importantly he is an advocate or CRM and Human Factors, an experienced ailine pilot, but CRM in his DNA, I say that as a CRM Human Factors and CRM trainer for over twenty years. I'm really not sure CRM has much relavence in single pilot PPL as you suggested, it more down to good airmanship and human factors!

[athonite]

I say this as a CRM profesional, fireflybob, in my experience in arilnes he was the best,

[LTCTerry]

then ground loops.


After the groundloop...


I didn't sign off the flight review. However, I did sign off on dual instruction.


No, I'm not part of the OP's story!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm sure Bob's CRM is excellent, and my flippant comment detracted from the serious point. In my opinion, issuing a threat, particularly a relatively unenforceable one, wouldn't help the teaching and learning environment much.

I have been in a similar position with a new syndicate joiner who I was checking out. In that case I saw the situation coming, and ensured that I had the syndicate chairman's backing to insist on further training to meet the required flying standards, and a list of approved (by the syndicate ) instructors ready. Not a universal solution, but it worked there.

G

[dobbin1]

As 'this is my username' points out this is a 'Training Flight' requirement and many people will use it to try a new experience for the first time so competence is not necessarily expected.

However, in the rare instances that an Instructor deems that a Pilot they flew with is unsafe (to themselves and/or others) then I do not believe that they should complete the 'Revalidation by Experience'; and if offered the Pilot's logbook to sign they should also write in "further training recommended" (so that Examiners would also know to politely decline any request for 'Revalidation by Experience' based on that particular training flight).

Just because someone is authorised to take 'Administrative Action' on behalf of the CAA does not mean that they are mandated to do it if they don't want to.

Actually the FCL. 945 is not an "authorisation", it is an "obligation". We are mandated to do it!

Personally, I will not sign the log book if I don't think they are safe. No log book signature, no revalidation. Let them appeal or sue if they want to.

[Kemble Pitts]

Tay Cough and BPF

I'm not really suggesting that an unsafe pilot's licence be signed. I'm more playing devils advocate by highlighting the shortcoming of the revalidation regulation that demands a flight with an instructor but then 'bottles it' by not putting any pass/fail criteria in place.

[Tay Cough]

Point taken, KP.

Some form of guidance from the regulator to instructors who find themselves in this situation would be most useful.