Certificate of Experience - Whats changed!

[Fuji Abound]

My last certificate of experience required a flight with an instructor in the last year of the two, subject to the other conditions having been met. It was well publicised the flight was not a test and the "candidate" could not "fail". It was also accepted that the flight could comprise any flight with an instructor, so for example an IMC or IR renewal would qualify, as would instruction towards the grant of a new rating.

Now I gather there has been some changes and wonder whether these have been officially handed down by the CAA, and if so on what legal basis. I gather the flight can no longer be part of other training or other renewal, and must encompass many of the components of a GFT. What’s the story! If this is so, it is yet another cost being imposed on us because for many it was very convenient to combine your IMC or IR renewal with re-validating your C of E.

[Bluebeard2]

Got my revalidation by experience done and signed-off just before Xmas. I understand that the content of your 1 hour flight with an instructor is the subject of advice in an AIC, but its just that - advice - and not mandatory. I spoke to the CAA and they confirmed to me that my signed-off tailwheel conversion (with a flight of greater than 1 hour) was sufficient. I guess you can flunk the flight if the instructor refuses to sign your book, I can see few instructors wanting to sign you off if you are clearly dangerous, irrespective of the purpose of the flight.

(BTW, I did do a successful club checkout in the preceding 12 months, just short of an hour, but it did include PFLs, stalls, steep turns and a circuit or two, which covers most of that AIC).

[KitKatPacificuk]

Fuji Abound

I have recently done an Instuctor seminar and they covered these points.

The 1 hour Instructor flight in the last 12 months is compulsary. But it doesn't have to include certain aspects of flying. (It doesn't have to but is a good idea if it does!) It can be 1 hour of IMC training or 1 hour of Aerobatics or just a general revision trip with an Instructor(Always a good thing!), it doesn't matter as long as the Instructor is happy to sign your log book to confirm you have flow with one.
The reason for this 1 hour is there are too many Private owners out there who have never flown with an Instructor for years and obviously habits start to develop. So if the Private owner goes flying with an Instructor for that hour and he(or any other instructor) wont sign it off then he has to go for more training before his license can be revalidated.

6 hours P1, 6 of any other flying including a one hour flight with an Instructor in the last 12 month.

Big thing to remember. If you have the required hours, don't let the date pass without the Examiner signing the license for Revalidation. If you do, but have the hours you will have to do a Renewal test with an Examiner.

So if you've got it get it signed. Don't wait for the Date. You can do it before the date, and the 24 months will run from the date it runs out, not the date signed.


Hope this helps.

[pondlife]

Nothing's changed.
As the last poster said, there's an AIC giving non-mandatory advice for instructors conducting these flights. Sounds like you might have come across an instructor who's taking the advice too literally and interpreting it as mandatory.

As far as pass/fail goes it's really unclear what, as an instructor, to do if the "student" is dangerous. It's true to say that since it's not a flight test the "student" can't fail but what should one do if the "student" isn't safe?
Luckily it's not been a problem for me so far because all of the "students" I've flown with either were fine or agreed with me that they needed a bit more instruction. However, I'm dreading the day when I consider that one of these "students" doesn't seem safe but doesn't agree with me. I'm willing to bet that, having signed the logbook, and following a subesquent fatal accident, a suitably expensive lawyer could, on behalf of the dead pilot's or dead passenger's estate, find a case with which to sue me.
The CAA don't tell me what to do in that circumstance and, strictly, the requirement to fly the hour with an instructor would have been met and, strictly, the "student" could insist that I sign the logbook to say that the flight took place.
If it ever happens, what I thought I'd do is say "OK - I'll sign your log book to say that the flight took place but I'll also add a note to the effect that your flying is not to a safe standard - do you really want me to do that?".
That would then effectively pass the buck onto the examiner responsible for signing the certificate and who could then refuse to sign it - although the examiner may be in a similar dilema.
I hope I never come across a student who's daft enough to make me put any of this to the test.

[Ludwig]

Just got my GASIL for March 2003 and in the GA Feedback thing is a great screed about this from the CAA FCL (it's on page2).

To paraphrase:

It's not a test, the AIC is only advice and can be completely ignored, although some operators have taken it to be gospel, and a revised AIC is intended to be issued and incorporated into LASORS. The instructor is quite at liberty to not sign if he thinks you are unsafe. An hour is an hour is an hour.

[gasax]

Great stuff flying - we all do very little of it in absolute terms and then worry about all sorts of theoretical problems!

The AIC says the instructor is signing to state the pilot has completed a flight of one hour with an instructor. How can that possibly mean that that instructor has any liability? Remember it is not a competence check.

Indeed any instructor who refuses to sign is actually exposing themselves to action for theft/fraud - you pay for an hour to get the signature - the signature it then withheld on some competency grounds which are no supported in the offical documentation. Think about that interesting theoretical situation!

As with most of the JAA related stuff it is fodder for lawyers and not much use for the rest of us. Having said that I am one of those 'rogue private pilots' who never (usually) flys with an instructor. I have significantly more experience than many of the local instructors and fly in aircraft and locations they cannot. We simply operate in very different environments.

I too fell foul of the new rules and required to do the GFT route to re-validate - to be blunt it is no big deal. To anyone on a budget facing re-validation I would say forget all the currency stuff and just go and do the GFT. If you are reasonably experienced and think about your flying, you will easily pass.

Happy landings

[Doghouse]

Fuji A., as far as I understand it, a training flight with an instructor/examiner still counts towards the Dual Flight With an Instructor. I believe a new AIC is due to be published soon and perhaps this will give us further guidance.

As for the signature on the dual flight, instructors have been invited by the CAA not to sign the log book if they considered the flight unsatisfactory. I think the difficulty is in the legal position for instructors to offer duty of care. We do not have professional indemnity insurance and it seems that there would be a case for an individual who crashed his aircraft and, say, broke his back, to sue the instructor who signed off the dual flight. Grounds for the suit would be failure to deliver duty of care. The lawyers that I have come across in aviation are telling me that instructors are very exposed in this regard. I personally suspect that the CAA know this too and have therefore issued the instruction that we don't sign the log book if we are unhappy with the flight. The FIC course also seems to encourage instructors to obtain professional indemnity insurance - which for most is a financial impossibility.

I also feel that by choosing not to follow the AIC's recommended content for the flight, the instructor unecessarily exposes himself to a similar legal risk. I'm sure a barrister could easily make an instructor look negligent by challenging him to explain his rationale for rejecting the CAA's recommendations. At our club, we therefore insist that the AIC is followed.

I know some people have an issue with the dual flights, but I instinctivley feel that they are good idea and time will tell if any accident statistics are reduced.

Finally, I think people talk highly emotively about the CAA wasting pilot's money with the introduction of this dual flight. In the course of 12 months, one of the hours you fly is with an instructor. That's basically another 30-odd quid on top of your normal flying costs - once every two years. I reckon incorrect leaning could account for more than that! The poster from Aberdeen (sorry can't get back to your callsign) has a case in claiming he's more experienced than some of the club instructors, but even then I'm sure he could rummage around local flying clubs and find someone from whom he could learn something.

Dual flight gets my thumbs up.