logging instruction hours
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: f015
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
logging instruction hours
I've been instructing on for the last few weekends now. I'm instructing from an unlicensed field by doing the touch and go at a close, licensed field.
Has anyone got some guidence about the logging the times. Should i put 3 different entries
1 journey to licensed field
2 the lesson itself
3 journey back to base
It occured to me that i'm going to have to have evidence to lift my restricted status at some point and don't want to have a hard time off the CAA.
Has anyone got some guidence about the logging the times. Should i put 3 different entries
1 journey to licensed field
2 the lesson itself
3 journey back to base
It occured to me that i'm going to have to have evidence to lift my restricted status at some point and don't want to have a hard time off the CAA.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't help you with your specific question as all the airfields I train from are licensed, but another instructor (CFI actually) told me that a training flight only has to take-off from a licensed airfield. He said the landing airfield doesn't have to be licensed.
I've not checked this because it doesn't apply to my flights, but if its true it could save you half of your inconvenience.
I've not checked this because it doesn't apply to my flights, but if its true it could save you half of your inconvenience.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few "off-the-top-of-my-head" completely unofficail thoughts...
Every time I've done a flight with a touch-and-go at an airfield other than where I've set off from, I've logged it as one flight (it's only ever been in the USA, as I always have to stop to pay landing fees over here!). That includes my CPL skills test, when I did the circuits away from my home base, and the CAA didn't query it.
I don't see any reason why an instructional flight should be any different. However, it can't count as instruction until after the touch and go, so the instructional time must be less than the total time of the flight. So, as long as your logbook allows you to keep track of the instrucitonal time separate to the total time of the flight, I can't see why there'd be any problem logging it on just one line.
As I said, this is just my thoughts, please don't take it as official in any way!
What I would be curious to know is how your students log the time.....
FFF
------------------
Every time I've done a flight with a touch-and-go at an airfield other than where I've set off from, I've logged it as one flight (it's only ever been in the USA, as I always have to stop to pay landing fees over here!). That includes my CPL skills test, when I did the circuits away from my home base, and the CAA didn't query it.
I don't see any reason why an instructional flight should be any different. However, it can't count as instruction until after the touch and go, so the instructional time must be less than the total time of the flight. So, as long as your logbook allows you to keep track of the instrucitonal time separate to the total time of the flight, I can't see why there'd be any problem logging it on just one line.
As I said, this is just my thoughts, please don't take it as official in any way!
What I would be curious to know is how your students log the time.....
FFF
------------------
wobblyprop - ab-initio fight instruction may only be conucted from a licensed/government aerodrome. So the transit to the licensed aerodrome and recovery from same cannot be logged as instructional time, nor can you be paid for the time as they are private flights.
No doubt this makes your employer's enterprise more expensive to the customers.....
No doubt this makes your employer's enterprise more expensive to the customers.....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle:
Once the airplane leaves a licensed airport and lands at an unlicensed one has it entered a time warp, or some black hole in space?
Thus making that flying experience invalid?
What a f.cked up world we live in.
Chuck E.
Once the airplane leaves a licensed airport and lands at an unlicensed one has it entered a time warp, or some black hole in space?
Thus making that flying experience invalid?
What a f.cked up world we live in.
Chuck E.
Yes, Chuck, you're right. In the UK it is not lawful to conduct flight training for ab-initio PPL training ftom anything except a licensed or government aerodrome.
To 'license' an aerdrome is an expensive undertaking and the aerodrome operator has a host of CAA requirements to meet. So what some PPL organisations do is to operate from an unlicensed aerodrome, perform a toch-and-go at a convenient nearby licensed aerodrome, do the lesson, than the FI lands at the unlicensed aerodrome. The lesson is considered as the period from the touch-and-go at the licensed aerodrome (for which there will also be a landing fee - remember, this is the UK!) until the FI takes over for the landing..... It's a fiddle to get round the law - but it's a very stupid law.
The idea is to protect people from the unscrupulous operator who would operate from a muddy cow pasture with a shabby old spamcan and an ancient caravan (if that). But what is being sought now is a more commonsense approach with less black-and-white distinction between licensed and unlicensed aerodromes. Not a free-for-all, but approval to conduct particular forms of training from 'approved training sites' depending on their individual standards. But it isn't going to be an overnight change.
And don't forget that, whereas in the US an aerodrome is seen as a normal facility supported by local commerce and part of the national transport infrastructure, in the UK they're usually viewed as an annoyance to vociferous local noise campaigners - and such little aerodromes NEVER receive funding from local chambers of commerce or other supporting businesses.
US - Land of the Free
UK - Land of the fee
To 'license' an aerdrome is an expensive undertaking and the aerodrome operator has a host of CAA requirements to meet. So what some PPL organisations do is to operate from an unlicensed aerodrome, perform a toch-and-go at a convenient nearby licensed aerodrome, do the lesson, than the FI lands at the unlicensed aerodrome. The lesson is considered as the period from the touch-and-go at the licensed aerodrome (for which there will also be a landing fee - remember, this is the UK!) until the FI takes over for the landing..... It's a fiddle to get round the law - but it's a very stupid law.
The idea is to protect people from the unscrupulous operator who would operate from a muddy cow pasture with a shabby old spamcan and an ancient caravan (if that). But what is being sought now is a more commonsense approach with less black-and-white distinction between licensed and unlicensed aerodromes. Not a free-for-all, but approval to conduct particular forms of training from 'approved training sites' depending on their individual standards. But it isn't going to be an overnight change.
And don't forget that, whereas in the US an aerodrome is seen as a normal facility supported by local commerce and part of the national transport infrastructure, in the UK they're usually viewed as an annoyance to vociferous local noise campaigners - and such little aerodromes NEVER receive funding from local chambers of commerce or other supporting businesses.
US - Land of the Free
UK - Land of the fee
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ BEagle / Chuck,
the same is true in Germany, except that we don't have any "unlicenced fields", only one's restricted to certain types of aircraft. Even the smallest ultralight or glider field is licenced, but not necessarily for SEP'S etc. The school must designate to the authorities, which field it primary uses and get it approved.
And if you want to save money on landing fees, you go to one that's cheaper.... the flight from your homebase will count since it is licenced (no cow-pasture fields here). Are fields are usually not supported by anyone, either
@ wobblyprop
you better be careful... the CAA, or any other authority for that matter, is very allergic to tipex 
and another thing, if the flight from the unlicenced field cannot be considered a training flight.... eh, who is sitting left? 
Westy
the same is true in Germany, except that we don't have any "unlicenced fields", only one's restricted to certain types of aircraft. Even the smallest ultralight or glider field is licenced, but not necessarily for SEP'S etc. The school must designate to the authorities, which field it primary uses and get it approved.
And if you want to save money on landing fees, you go to one that's cheaper.... the flight from your homebase will count since it is licenced (no cow-pasture fields here). Are fields are usually not supported by anyone, either
@ wobblyprop
Going to have to break out the tipex for the log book
and another thing, if the flight from the unlicenced field cannot be considered a training flight.... eh, who is sitting left? Westy
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thing about the CAA being allergic to tippex is a myth. My log book is covered in the stuff, and I've never had any problems.
As for who sits where, as far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement for anyone to fly from any particular seat.
As for who sits where, as far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement for anyone to fly from any particular seat.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for who sits where, as far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement for anyone to fly from any particular seat.
Westy
P.S. I always find it interesting how different the regulations are from country to country.... I don't expect European harmonisation to EVER happen too soon
I've never understood the UKs restrictive policies. In Oz you're allowed to conduct any level of training from any type of airfield as long as the field is suitable for use by that aircraft. Oz has an advisory publication that give recommended dimensions incl. fly over areas, surface & approach/departure slopes etc. Of course the field must be long enough IAW the aircraft's performance charts.
Historically, these aircraft landing area (ALA) specs. were in the ANOs/AIP, with a slightly more restrictive version for training (called a training ALA). Some differences included shallower obstacle clear approach/departure gradients. The training ALA additional restrictions were dropped around ~10 or 15 years ago.
As far as I can find there is no difference in accident or injury rate between training at licenced aerodromes (which may or may not have a fire service. It's not required, anyway), ALAs or the defunct Training ALAs.
So, why does the UK bother?
Historically, these aircraft landing area (ALA) specs. were in the ANOs/AIP, with a slightly more restrictive version for training (called a training ALA). Some differences included shallower obstacle clear approach/departure gradients. The training ALA additional restrictions were dropped around ~10 or 15 years ago.
As far as I can find there is no difference in accident or injury rate between training at licenced aerodromes (which may or may not have a fire service. It's not required, anyway), ALAs or the defunct Training ALAs.
So, why does the UK bother?
Some very useful stuff here! Thanks, Westy. That'll be very useful in our work with the CAA.
How typical that our chums in Oz have a commonsense view on such things!
How typical that our chums in Oz have a commonsense view on such things!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Unlicenced hop!
Public Transport dosn't specify cash but 'hire or reward'!
Take care. Someone must take benefit from the 'positioning flight' even if the student isn't charged cash.
Instructing is 'Arial Work' but the positioning legs may be construed as 'Public Transport' for 'hire or reward'. i.e. the Student as the passenger.
At the moment it would appear that no one wants to grasp that particular nettle, including the CAA, but it would only need an accident or a serious incident for the proverbial to hit the fan!
Take care. Someone must take benefit from the 'positioning flight' even if the student isn't charged cash.
Instructing is 'Arial Work' but the positioning legs may be construed as 'Public Transport' for 'hire or reward'. i.e. the Student as the passenger.
At the moment it would appear that no one wants to grasp that particular nettle, including the CAA, but it would only need an accident or a serious incident for the proverbial to hit the fan!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the comment that started off this whole topic needs re-wording -
"The aircraft is based at abc which is unlicensed and when conducting training flights it operates to and from another airfield - DEF (which is the airfield notified to the CAA as the base field for RTF purposes) which is a licensed airfield. The student meets the instructor at abc and completes the pre-flight briefing before the instructor positions the aircraft to DEF. After completion of the flight at DEF, the instructor positions the aircraft back to abc."
Important points regarding the above -
The student is simply a passenger on the positioning flights but this does not prevent them "manipulating the controls".
Two landings are required at the second field to start and end the training flight.
However, most importantly of all and at times overlooked - no circuit training is permitted at the unlicensed field.
The only thing I can assume is that this is a very quiet group/club operation where the extra expense of all those positioning flights and extra landing fees is less than the cost of basing the organisation at the licensed airfield (even if it is only from morning to night).
Regards,
DFC
PS - The JARs don't require a licensed airfield for training - they simply require that the field meets certain minimum appropriate standards. The UK CAA't method of checking suitability is simply to limit training to licensed airfields.
Perhaps the CAA needs a new muddy cow path inspection team - M-COP-IT.
"The aircraft is based at abc which is unlicensed and when conducting training flights it operates to and from another airfield - DEF (which is the airfield notified to the CAA as the base field for RTF purposes) which is a licensed airfield. The student meets the instructor at abc and completes the pre-flight briefing before the instructor positions the aircraft to DEF. After completion of the flight at DEF, the instructor positions the aircraft back to abc."
Important points regarding the above -
The student is simply a passenger on the positioning flights but this does not prevent them "manipulating the controls".
Two landings are required at the second field to start and end the training flight.
However, most importantly of all and at times overlooked - no circuit training is permitted at the unlicensed field.
The only thing I can assume is that this is a very quiet group/club operation where the extra expense of all those positioning flights and extra landing fees is less than the cost of basing the organisation at the licensed airfield (even if it is only from morning to night).
Regards,
DFC
PS - The JARs don't require a licensed airfield for training - they simply require that the field meets certain minimum appropriate standards. The UK CAA't method of checking suitability is simply to limit training to licensed airfields.
Perhaps the CAA needs a new muddy cow path inspection team - M-COP-IT.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another aspect you have not considered is that the FI(R) must be supervised by an instructor who is present at the point of take off and landing. If you transit to another arerodrome to commence training, an insurer may well deceide that the FI(R) is not supervised!
Last edited by BlueLine; 29th Sep 2004 at 08:49.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no JAR requirement for the supervision instructor to be present when supervision the FI(R).
Don't think that is the requirement for the UK either since I have sen many FI(R) teaching dual crosscountry flights who land at another airfield.......and where is the supervising FI?
Supervision ad Observation are different things!
Regards,
DFC
Don't think that is the requirement for the UK either since I have sen many FI(R) teaching dual crosscountry flights who land at another airfield.......and where is the supervising FI?
Supervision ad Observation are different things!
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: f015
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the supervising instructor has to be contactable. Whether they are having a coffee in the club house or flying in the curcuit.
Fortunately for me, the licensed field I use is where I completed my FI course and they are happy to provide FI cover.
Fortunately for me, the licensed field I use is where I completed my FI course and they are happy to provide FI cover.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supervision
Refer; ANO Schedule 8, Part B
[para-phrased]
An AFI (I presume the old UK/AFI) may only instruct when an FI is present at the aerodrome of departure at the time the flying lesson commences and at the place of landing when the flying lesson ends. Nothing about intermediate landings that may take place as part of the lesson.
An FI(R) has no such restriction applied to them, therefore an FI is not required to be present. An FI(R) appears only to be restricted to the first solo bits! No telephone required eigther.
[para-phrased]
An AFI (I presume the old UK/AFI) may only instruct when an FI is present at the aerodrome of departure at the time the flying lesson commences and at the place of landing when the flying lesson ends. Nothing about intermediate landings that may take place as part of the lesson.
An FI(R) has no such restriction applied to them, therefore an FI is not required to be present. An FI(R) appears only to be restricted to the first solo bits! No telephone required eigther.
Strange, when I phoned the CAA FCL, they informed me that an FI must be present as under the AFI.
So those who are supervising the FI(R) on the end of a phone and not at the point of first departure, I suggest that you call the CAA and ASK THEN rather then just trying to interpert LASors to suit your own needs!
It would be unfortunate if any incident occured and YOU where not there!
If anyone else cares to phone the CAA and find out then please post this here as this should be sorted out so that no confusion reigns.
Then we can all worry about their students first solo!
So those who are supervising the FI(R) on the end of a phone and not at the point of first departure, I suggest that you call the CAA and ASK THEN rather then just trying to interpert LASors to suit your own needs!
It would be unfortunate if any incident occured and YOU where not there!
If anyone else cares to phone the CAA and find out then please post this here as this should be sorted out so that no confusion reigns.
Then we can all worry about their students first solo!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've not asked the CAA about this one but, out of interest, how many of you have telephoned the CAA about some point of regulation or licencing requirements and had different answers on different days.
I've had this happen lots.
It seems to me that when we have to go to court to defend some action it will be the judge's interpretation that matters and not the opinion of whoever you happen to speak to at the CAA on a particular day.
If you want to use the "...but the CAA said..." argument in court then you'd need to be able to produce a letter from them. What one of them told you on the telephone one day would be worthless.
In the absence of a letter from the CAA, you may find that your interpretation of the regulations is just as trustworthy as a CAA bod's - possibly more so.
If the point's been tested in court then I guess that the outcome of that would be the most reliable indicator of what would happen if you went to court. Most of the detail doesn't appear to have been tested though and I hope that most of it never is.
I've had this happen lots.
It seems to me that when we have to go to court to defend some action it will be the judge's interpretation that matters and not the opinion of whoever you happen to speak to at the CAA on a particular day.
If you want to use the "...but the CAA said..." argument in court then you'd need to be able to produce a letter from them. What one of them told you on the telephone one day would be worthless.
In the absence of a letter from the CAA, you may find that your interpretation of the regulations is just as trustworthy as a CAA bod's - possibly more so.
If the point's been tested in court then I guess that the outcome of that would be the most reliable indicator of what would happen if you went to court. Most of the detail doesn't appear to have been tested though and I hope that most of it never is.