Supervised solos... again!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supervised solos... again!
Fellow instructors,
Yet another question about those dreaded 25 supervised solo flights which are required to remove the Restriction for new instructors.
I know that the Qualifying Cross Country only counts as one supervised flight for the purpose of this rule. (Can't remember where the reference for that is, but I know I've seen it referenced here several times before.) But what about solo land-aways? Do they count as two supervised solo flights - there and back - or do they just count as one in the same way as the QXC?
References, as well as yes/no answers, would be helpful.
Thanks!
FFF
--------------
Yet another question about those dreaded 25 supervised solo flights which are required to remove the Restriction for new instructors.
I know that the Qualifying Cross Country only counts as one supervised flight for the purpose of this rule. (Can't remember where the reference for that is, but I know I've seen it referenced here several times before.) But what about solo land-aways? Do they count as two supervised solo flights - there and back - or do they just count as one in the same way as the QXC?
References, as well as yes/no answers, would be helpful.
Thanks!
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Westward TV
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
Well if the CAA are not going to budge on the QXC being one flight then I can hardly see them accepting a solo landaway as two seperate flights. Don't think there is anything in writing to support this but a quick call to the CAA will probably steer you in the right direction.
Well if the CAA are not going to budge on the QXC being one flight then I can hardly see them accepting a solo landaway as two seperate flights. Don't think there is anything in writing to support this but a quick call to the CAA will probably steer you in the right direction.
Whereas if your student flies a circuit, lands, shuts down and comes in for another brief before repeating the exercise, that'd clearly be fine. Even if he did that 4 times a day for a week.....
A flight is a flight. That is an event lasting from chocks-away to chocks-under and as briefed by the supervising FI. For the CAA to assert that the Q X-C is not 3 separate flights is very much open to question. On what basis have they made this statement? Because they are, as is so often the case, talking total bolleaux.
How long would there need to be between the 'out' and 'return' portions of a solo landaway for it to count as 2 flights? An hour? A day? A week? A month......??
A flight is a flight. That is an event lasting from chocks-away to chocks-under and as briefed by the supervising FI. For the CAA to assert that the Q X-C is not 3 separate flights is very much open to question. On what basis have they made this statement? Because they are, as is so often the case, talking total bolleaux.
How long would there need to be between the 'out' and 'return' portions of a solo landaway for it to count as 2 flights? An hour? A day? A week? A month......??
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25 Solos
Surely in regard to the FI(r) experience requirements we are talking about 25 briefed solo EXERCISES! If not, one could take it to the extreme and maybe even count all 'touch and goes'.
The students first land away and indeed the QXC itself are both complete singular exercises (for that is the point of it) irrespective of the number of landings. NOT two or three or more exercises.
The students first land away and indeed the QXC itself are both complete singular exercises (for that is the point of it) irrespective of the number of landings. NOT two or three or more exercises.
Actually it is 25 flights, not 'exercises':
"The Supervisory Restriction can be removed on the recommendation of the supervising FI(A) once the applicant has at least 100 hours flight instruction and, in addition, has supervised at least 25 student solo flights.
It should be noted that supervision of a students PPL(A) qualifying cross country flight is counted as one flight only.
Approval of first solo flights by day or night and first solo
navigation flights by day or night are excluded."
But authorise a student for 3 circuits, come in for a cup of tea, then another 3 circuits, then lunch, then another 3, another cup of tea, then another 3 would, of course, be entirely OK?
So, if, as the Belgrano inmates would have it, the qualifying cross-country is a single flight (?), then it should be logged from the time at which the a/c first moved under its own power with the intention of becoming airborne until the time it completed its normal taxying after landing?
A flight is a flight is a flight. When I authorise Q X-Cs, I insist hat the student phones in from the intermediate aerodromes and has updated himself on weather, hazards etc, before the next leg is authorised. The next flight, that is!
"The Supervisory Restriction can be removed on the recommendation of the supervising FI(A) once the applicant has at least 100 hours flight instruction and, in addition, has supervised at least 25 student solo flights.
It should be noted that supervision of a students PPL(A) qualifying cross country flight is counted as one flight only.
Approval of first solo flights by day or night and first solo
navigation flights by day or night are excluded."
But authorise a student for 3 circuits, come in for a cup of tea, then another 3 circuits, then lunch, then another 3, another cup of tea, then another 3 would, of course, be entirely OK?
So, if, as the Belgrano inmates would have it, the qualifying cross-country is a single flight (?), then it should be logged from the time at which the a/c first moved under its own power with the intention of becoming airborne until the time it completed its normal taxying after landing?
A flight is a flight is a flight. When I authorise Q X-Cs, I insist hat the student phones in from the intermediate aerodromes and has updated himself on weather, hazards etc, before the next leg is authorised. The next flight, that is!
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately though BEags, LASORS now actually stipulates that the QXC is only one solo sign off for restricted instructors. There is no definitive advice for solo "there and back" trips though!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Gus, for the suggestion that the land-away only counts as one flight.
As for the rest of the replies, I think we all agree that this is (to use BEagle's word) "bolleaux", but I'm specifically interested in what the rules are, not what we think of the rules
FFF
---------------
As for the rest of the replies, I think we all agree that this is (to use BEagle's word) "bolleaux", but I'm specifically interested in what the rules are, not what we think of the rules
FFF
---------------
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For someone who works part-time at weekends only as I do at the moment, the supervised solos is a frustrating hurdle to overcome! 
I have almost 150 instructional hours but only 8 supervised solos in well over a year of instructing!! 
Any sensible interpretation and/or relaxation in these rules would be most welcome!
I have almost 150 instructional hours but only 8 supervised solos in well over a year of instructing!! Any sensible interpretation and/or relaxation in these rules would be most welcome!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Westward TV
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think the current system is currently too lax and counter productive. It may lead to FI(R)'s that are more instrested in sending students solo in less than ideal wx just to get another notch in the logbook. Also, at some of the larger schools, it's possible that FI(R)'s will poach other solo sign off's from unrestricted FI's without even flying with the said student. The system is open to abuse in it's present form.
Bring back the old flight test with the CFI.....
Bring back the old flight test with the CFI.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you describe certainly doesn't apply to me and I can only speak for myself with any certainty. However, all the other FI(R)s at my club are all very conscientious and competent and I doubt whether any of them would ever do what you allege!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Unrestrict
This notch in the gun mentality of the CAA has been around as we all know for years and has always been frustrating. More valuable is the actual experience covered.
Surely if common sense were applied one would expect that the FI(r) would qualify once the complete PPL syllabus has been covered by experience, including one solo (day), one solo (night) plus one solo (nav) for example. In addition the endorsement by the recognised supervising FI confirming the quality.
Surely if common sense were applied one would expect that the FI(r) would qualify once the complete PPL syllabus has been covered by experience, including one solo (day), one solo (night) plus one solo (nav) for example. In addition the endorsement by the recognised supervising FI confirming the quality.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Westward TV
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RayBan,
Woah there big fella. Far be it for me to start accusing anyone of anything. All I am trying to point out is that the current system is far from infallible and instructors should be rewarded through actual experience gained and not through what can easily become a paper chasing exercise.
Woah there big fella. Far be it for me to start accusing anyone of anything. All I am trying to point out is that the current system is far from infallible and instructors should be rewarded through actual experience gained and not through what can easily become a paper chasing exercise.
As a Chief Flying Instructor, I consider that the (R) should be removed either by 'experience' (100 hrs/25 solo sign-offs) or by test with a FIE.
As the first FI or FI(R) re-validation must nowadays be completed by test, this would provide a feasible opportunity.
As the first FI or FI(R) re-validation must nowadays be completed by test, this would provide a feasible opportunity.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
under the old, pre JAR days, a new German instructor had to bring either one student through the 3 phases of instruction or at least one student in EACH of the 3 Phases, which were:
1) to first solo
2) cross country
3) skills test
These phases were then signed by the chief instructor. Sounds sensible to me. No hour requirments or such.
With the new requirements we are not only losing new instructors, but old ones are giving up! The high costs are keeping students away and few manage the required 100 hours ... I didn't (I had to take a skills test... passed.. but will I want to again in 3 years??)
Westy
1) to first solo
2) cross country
3) skills test
These phases were then signed by the chief instructor. Sounds sensible to me. No hour requirments or such.
With the new requirements we are not only losing new instructors, but old ones are giving up! The high costs are keeping students away and few manage the required 100 hours ... I didn't
(I had to take a skills test... passed.. but will I want to again in 3 years??)Westy
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Ray Ban
Relax pal! I've been instructing part time for three and a half years, have 400 instructional hours, and have only four sup solo sign-offs. Then again I haven't been invited to collude with the CFI in logging sign-offs which I never even flew.
Problem with the system as I experience it is that under JAR, unlike under the old UK system, there is no stipulation that the supervising instructor has to be present at the aerodrome of take-off and landing. This leads to a lot of 'remote supervision' which, while apparently legal, is probably not what the JAA/CAA intended.
I have almost 150 instructional hours but only 8 supervised solos in well over a year of instructing
Problem with the system as I experience it is that under JAR, unlike under the old UK system, there is no stipulation that the supervising instructor has to be present at the aerodrome of take-off and landing. This leads to a lot of 'remote supervision' which, while apparently legal, is probably not what the JAA/CAA intended.
Most of the suggestions here make a lot of sense!! Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know whether you can use solo flights you have supervised before becoming a JAR FI. I have an FAA CFI rating with 900 hours instruction given and over 100 supervised solo flights (mostly JAR PPL's). Will I be able to get the restriction lifted straight after passing the FI flight test?
