What do you do with experienced pilots on a JAR training flight?
Thread Starter
What do you do with experienced pilots on a JAR training flight?
I flew a JAR training flight recently with a very experienced pilot in his own aircraft. Before the trip I knew that the bod was current in all the things I might normally put into this trip (PFLs, stalls, diversion planning, short runway operations), that the aircraft was about as simple as they come (no flaps, no gyros, and not cleared for spinning or aerobatics), and that he was up-to-speed on the planning and regulatory aspects.
I always want these trips to have value, rather than being a bureaucratic hoop, but all I could think of in this case were control failures and wheel landings - both were handled without drama.. We did what had to be done and flew for exactly 60 minutes but I was left feeling unsatisfied .. any suggestions for next time?
A different (but related) topic: I recall some discussions a while ago about the possibility of splitting the 1 hour training requirement across multiple shorter trips, but don't recall a conclusion. Has there been any statement about whether this is allowed?
HFD
I always want these trips to have value, rather than being a bureaucratic hoop, but all I could think of in this case were control failures and wheel landings - both were handled without drama.. We did what had to be done and flew for exactly 60 minutes but I was left feeling unsatisfied .. any suggestions for next time?
A different (but related) topic: I recall some discussions a while ago about the possibility of splitting the 1 hour training requirement across multiple shorter trips, but don't recall a conclusion. Has there been any statement about whether this is allowed?
HFD
Have a thorough ground briefing,...an engine failure drill, discuss emergencies,..but just l go flying, relax, have fun and 'talk planes'* dude
*I don't know the regulatory aspects really though--I think while actually flying pilots are not permitted to talk flying the males talk about girls and the females,...only heaven knows
PA
*I don't know the regulatory aspects really though--I think while actually flying pilots are not permitted to talk flying the males talk about girls and the females,...only heaven knows
PA
Navigation exercise culminating in an 'operation at minimum level' return to a an unplanned field for 'forced landing with power', go around (after the final circuit of the field), then RTB?
The JAA haven't changed their policy on the training flight, but for NPPL holders, the requirement is now 'a total of not less than 1 hr of training' in the 24 month period - so the total can be amassed across several flights.
The JAA haven't changed their policy on the training flight, but for NPPL holders, the requirement is now 'a total of not less than 1 hr of training' in the 24 month period - so the total can be amassed across several flights.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its pretty rare you get someone that good. The basic renewal is a challenge for most of them and the PFL always turns into a lesson in itself. You could just sit back and enjoy a pleasant ride with a competent pilot. However, no-one knows everything so to spice it up ask those really hard questions like
1) will an aircraft roll faster at altitude or sea level
2) describe the five instrument errors (or six or seven if you feel mean)
3) why is orange jam called marmalade
4) explain ATSOCAS
There's always something more to learn. Your job is to facilitate that learning.
1) will an aircraft roll faster at altitude or sea level
2) describe the five instrument errors (or six or seven if you feel mean)
3) why is orange jam called marmalade
4) explain ATSOCAS
There's always something more to learn. Your job is to facilitate that learning.
will an aircraft roll faster at altitude or sea level
PA
BEagle do you always have to be so hard on 'em?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'I always want these trips to have value'
Great attitude..which reminds me..what I used to do in same circmstances was to introduce/build on..instrument flying. If the student had already five hours instrument then a little limited was always appreciated. Also, for fun, you can cover up the ASI with a sticker or a rubber squuegge bottle top opener thing and have him fly circuits using attidudes, RPM gage and ears, nose and throat for asking 'how are we doing?'
That is an interesting exercise and does build confidence also useful perhaps sometime.
Great attitude..which reminds me..what I used to do in same circmstances was to introduce/build on..instrument flying. If the student had already five hours instrument then a little limited was always appreciated. Also, for fun, you can cover up the ASI with a sticker or a rubber squuegge bottle top opener thing and have him fly circuits using attidudes, RPM gage and ears, nose and throat for asking 'how are we doing?'
That is an interesting exercise and does build confidence also useful perhaps sometime.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, for fun, you can cover up the ASI with a sticker or a rubber squuegge bottle top opener thing and have him fly circuits using attidudes, RPM gage and ears, nose and throat for asking 'how are we doing?'
Not legal for the aircraft to operate without an ASI - if you have covered it up, it might as well not be there at all.
The correct way to do the exercise you describe would be to use a device that prevents the student from vewing the ASI while still permitting you to see it. Similar devices are used for limited pannel training on the IR.
Don't confuse covering up the AI and DI when operating in VMC to teach / test limited pannel with the ability to cover other instruments especially close to the ground. Who would cover (totally) the only AI when in IMC to teach limited pannel?
Recomend that the relevant AIC and notice to RTF/FTOs issued following the Bournemouth accident is read before ony FI / CRI tries to operate without ASI - by all means let the student try but the instructor can't.
Regards,
DFC
From the other side ( A PPL who occasionally has a flight with an instructor) -
I take the opportunity to be 'tidied up' in my flying so comments about accuracy of holding altitude, attitude, airspeed, flare point height etc etc are always welcome.
D.
I take the opportunity to be 'tidied up' in my flying so comments about accuracy of holding altitude, attitude, airspeed, flare point height etc etc are always welcome.
D.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever I've done it (uncurrent PPLer...) the instructor has always asked me what I feel I am rusty on, what I would like to practice. Its useful to me if the instructor has some ideas too, as there might be things I hadn't thought about. I fly big aeroplanes all the time, so doing instrument stuff doesn't have a lot of value, whereas handling exercises are far more useful. Similarly, stalls I can do a hundred times over, whereas others might find its something they want to refresh. Do the "students" never come up with ideas?
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they do... in fact most will have thought through what they might expect the instructor to teach for this one hour and will probably volunteer an exercise if asked. For the very experienced ones who know more than yourself it is tricky how to approach the 1hr instructional lesson. Gotta be honest and say I treat it as a paperwork exercise and let the person relax and enjoy the trip.... then spring a PFL toward the end.
VFE.
VFE.
Personally I am not a fan of flight trivia Q and A for these sort of exercises. For an individual like this I think you should approach it as a practical " use your aircraft" exercise. The day before the flight assign a particularly demanding routing including as many different flight planing scenarios as possible including for example
-routings through high density airspace/hilly terrain
-flight over water
-destination near max range
-an intermediate stop at a short grass runway with no fuel
-assign a honking winds aloft and crappy but doable ceiling and vis.
When you go over the plan explore go/no go criteria for each leg and any areas where he has questions.
When you do the flight start the route and insert a few emergencies. When both of you are satisfied break off and do some upper airwork including for example manoevering at minumum airspeed ( i.e. see how slow you can go while doing gentle coordinated turns. Hint, if the stall warner is not on continuously you are not going slow enough) Take a hood and without warning while in a climbing or descending turn slap the hood down and say you just entered cloud. Practice any other manoevers the student would like to sharpen up. Conduct a full PFL and then recover to 1000 ft AGL (or the minimum safe/legal altitude and simulate a sick engine by reducing the RPM to the minimum required to just maintain level flight and return to the airport for a couple of circuits with different configurations
BTW the flying Club where I used to work had a policy that all renter pilots had to do an annual proficency check flight. I always included a PFL and
never had a PPL complete this exercise to a satisfactory standard and many were so bad I could only conclude that an actual engine failure would be probably result in a fatal accident. The reality is all pilots will be good at the stuff they do the most and less good at the manoevers that are seldom if ever practiced. Therefore I think it is important that this kind of exercise also be also used to review the less commonly practiced exercises.
-routings through high density airspace/hilly terrain
-flight over water
-destination near max range
-an intermediate stop at a short grass runway with no fuel
-assign a honking winds aloft and crappy but doable ceiling and vis.
When you go over the plan explore go/no go criteria for each leg and any areas where he has questions.
When you do the flight start the route and insert a few emergencies. When both of you are satisfied break off and do some upper airwork including for example manoevering at minumum airspeed ( i.e. see how slow you can go while doing gentle coordinated turns. Hint, if the stall warner is not on continuously you are not going slow enough) Take a hood and without warning while in a climbing or descending turn slap the hood down and say you just entered cloud. Practice any other manoevers the student would like to sharpen up. Conduct a full PFL and then recover to 1000 ft AGL (or the minimum safe/legal altitude and simulate a sick engine by reducing the RPM to the minimum required to just maintain level flight and return to the airport for a couple of circuits with different configurations
BTW the flying Club where I used to work had a policy that all renter pilots had to do an annual proficency check flight. I always included a PFL and
never had a PPL complete this exercise to a satisfactory standard and many were so bad I could only conclude that an actual engine failure would be probably result in a fatal accident. The reality is all pilots will be good at the stuff they do the most and less good at the manoevers that are seldom if ever practiced. Therefore I think it is important that this kind of exercise also be also used to review the less commonly practiced exercises.
Thread Starter
Thanks for all the considered replies.
I certainly agree about the poor PFL performance of many PPLs, and also the value of many of the exercises that have been suggested but these didn't apply in this case.
VFE - that's sort of what we did plus a PFL, a touch'n'go on a very short strip, and a 360 degree level turn without use of aileron or elevator.
If I was doing it again I think completion of an approach to 50 feet without use of aileron and elevator might have had some value, and maybe a circuit while having to reach across and use the P2 stick (simulation of disconnected P1 control column).
This might seem like stretching reality a little but a few years ago I was teaching stall turns (hammerheads for those in the colonies
) to the right and we were half-way up when there was a little "eek" from the left seat. I looked over and saw that the chap was holding the top part of the stick, with some wires hanging out of it, but it was no-longer connected to the rest of the stick. I was laughing so much at his expression of fear, surprise and imminent death that I can't remember who sorted it out now (he saw the funny side afterwards - are you out there John?).
... steady on! I didn't say he was *that* good
HFD
Edited to add: and thanks for the update BEagle
I certainly agree about the poor PFL performance of many PPLs, and also the value of many of the exercises that have been suggested but these didn't apply in this case.
VFE - that's sort of what we did plus a PFL, a touch'n'go on a very short strip, and a 360 degree level turn without use of aileron or elevator.
If I was doing it again I think completion of an approach to 50 feet without use of aileron and elevator might have had some value, and maybe a circuit while having to reach across and use the P2 stick (simulation of disconnected P1 control column).
This might seem like stretching reality a little but a few years ago I was teaching stall turns (hammerheads for those in the colonies
) to the right and we were half-way up when there was a little "eek" from the left seat. I looked over and saw that the chap was holding the top part of the stick, with some wires hanging out of it, but it was no-longer connected to the rest of the stick. I was laughing so much at his expression of fear, surprise and imminent death that I can't remember who sorted it out now (he saw the funny side afterwards - are you out there John?).
For the very experienced ones who know more than yourself
HFD
Edited to add: and thanks for the update BEagle
Hooey---from Misses Tooey
My statement was sooo wrong
the roll helix angle is pb/2V, but what was neglected to properly state is that p =roll rate which will decrease, not power
therefore roll rate = Roll helix angle*2V/b
with the correct relation ship it RR will increase with V and RHA and decrease with b exactly the opposite of what I said
This is my third major error on PPRuNE
I had to correct it so that I will be convincing when I try to persuade a certain person not to turn back to the departure runway
Great thread
PA
the roll helix angle is pb/2V, but what was neglected to properly state is that p =roll rate which will decrease, not power
therefore roll rate = Roll helix angle*2V/bwith the correct relation ship it RR will increase with V and RHA and decrease with b exactly the opposite of what I said
This is my third major error on PPRuNE
I had to correct it so that I will be convincing when I try to persuade a certain person not to turn back to the departure runway
Great thread
PA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread makes an intriguing read ... especially as I have a feeling I may know the characters involved here ...
Following some of the replies, I feel bound to observe that there is no defined content or purpose for the "Training Flight", either by JAA or CAA - although there is a rather mischievous attempt to define it in LASORS, despite there being no definitive supporting legislation. LASORS tries to talk about "suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", but omits to mention the fact that there is no such "purpose" actually set out in JAR-FCL 1.245. Thus the "Training Flight" cannot be a test either - despite what may be implied in LASORS, TrainingCom or anywhere else for that matter.
While common-sense would certainly suggest that the aim of the "Training Flight" should be to ensure that a pilot is "safe", it also represents an opportunity for some pilots to explore and expand upon their abilities with the help of an instructor. However, it is unfortunate that some instructors persist in regarding it as some sort of "test" - indeed HFD himself could almost be read as implying this by the way the original question is framed, although I don't somehow think he really believes that. Some suggestions in the replies that there should be some kind of planned format as if it were a test seem to me to say more about the attitude of the proposers in the sense that they feel a flight is not worthwhile unless something has been "tested", and perhaps the victim found wanting, rather than reflecting a more simple "safety check" function for the flight. I believe it is much more appropriate to regard the "Training Flight" as similar to what, in commercial pilots' language, would be called a Route Check, with the Instructor observing that the pilot flies to a safe standard, rather than as a mini Skill Test.
I therefore believe an FI would be totally wrong to try and impose a fixed structure for this flight; rather the FI should ask the revalidee what he/she would like to do and then accompany him/her accordingly. The FI may by all means make suggestions but, as it is not a test, suggestions like BPF's
are, in my view, quite inappropriate - unless of course the revalidee has requested or pre-agreed to such a format. There are far too many answers in this thread that imply that it is a test in all but name. It is not.
In my opinion, the "Training Flight" should be enjoyed and flown in a relaxed fashion, with the pilot flying normally and the instructor offering comments on any points that might be improved. In this way, all pilots will benefit as no sensible pilot should ever think they have nothing more to learn. I suppose what I am saying is that the approach of the FI to this exercise is fundamentally important to its success. It should be treated as a practice - but if an FI takes it upon himself to try and run it in the form of a test, most sensible revalidees would simply ask another FI with a more practical attitude to the requirement to fly with them instead. I certainly would. The FI should discuss the flight beforehand with the revalidee in order to agree (but not impose) a suitable format from which both can benefit. With the more experienced pilot that HFD mentions, this flight undoubtedly has the potential to be more rewarding for both involved, but in all cases it should be approached in the appropriate manner.
JD
Following some of the replies, I feel bound to observe that there is no defined content or purpose for the "Training Flight", either by JAA or CAA - although there is a rather mischievous attempt to define it in LASORS, despite there being no definitive supporting legislation. LASORS tries to talk about "suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", but omits to mention the fact that there is no such "purpose" actually set out in JAR-FCL 1.245. Thus the "Training Flight" cannot be a test either - despite what may be implied in LASORS, TrainingCom or anywhere else for that matter.
While common-sense would certainly suggest that the aim of the "Training Flight" should be to ensure that a pilot is "safe", it also represents an opportunity for some pilots to explore and expand upon their abilities with the help of an instructor. However, it is unfortunate that some instructors persist in regarding it as some sort of "test" - indeed HFD himself could almost be read as implying this by the way the original question is framed, although I don't somehow think he really believes that. Some suggestions in the replies that there should be some kind of planned format as if it were a test seem to me to say more about the attitude of the proposers in the sense that they feel a flight is not worthwhile unless something has been "tested", and perhaps the victim found wanting, rather than reflecting a more simple "safety check" function for the flight. I believe it is much more appropriate to regard the "Training Flight" as similar to what, in commercial pilots' language, would be called a Route Check, with the Instructor observing that the pilot flies to a safe standard, rather than as a mini Skill Test.
I therefore believe an FI would be totally wrong to try and impose a fixed structure for this flight; rather the FI should ask the revalidee what he/she would like to do and then accompany him/her accordingly. The FI may by all means make suggestions but, as it is not a test, suggestions like BPF's
"When you do the flight start the route and insert a few emergencies"
In my opinion, the "Training Flight" should be enjoyed and flown in a relaxed fashion, with the pilot flying normally and the instructor offering comments on any points that might be improved. In this way, all pilots will benefit as no sensible pilot should ever think they have nothing more to learn. I suppose what I am saying is that the approach of the FI to this exercise is fundamentally important to its success. It should be treated as a practice - but if an FI takes it upon himself to try and run it in the form of a test, most sensible revalidees would simply ask another FI with a more practical attitude to the requirement to fly with them instead. I certainly would. The FI should discuss the flight beforehand with the revalidee in order to agree (but not impose) a suitable format from which both can benefit. With the more experienced pilot that HFD mentions, this flight undoubtedly has the potential to be more rewarding for both involved, but in all cases it should be approached in the appropriate manner.
JD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right. It is a Training Flight.
Instructors have to remember that the 1 hour training flight can be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test. This means that pilot who holds both a SEP and MEP ratings can on Monday have their MEP rating test stopped after 45 minutes because they are a hazard to aviation and 5 minutes later proudly use their pink slip as evidence along with their SEP hours in the logbook to have their SEP rating extended by another two years.
However, as soon as there is any training given in the correct form there will be demonstration by the instructor, practice by the student and assessment made by the instructor of the student followed by feedback.
There is no way to complete a meaningfull training flight without some form of assessment being done by the instructor regarding the student's performance.
There is no requirement for the training flight to cover exercises from the PPL sylabus unless the student requests them. As suggested in the Trainingcom, they could take the opportunity to try night flying, instrument flying, aerobatics, tailwheel and so on.
This will be fixed in a few years but until then all I can recomend is that where there is serious doubt about the ability of the "student", it is probably best to stop the flight before 1 hour has elapsed and in doing so stop them wasting their money.
How do you do that when they have opted for some night training? - In most such cases the fact that they have taken the opportunity to expand their skill and knowledge is the foundation of good airmanship and safety outlook.
It is the ones that insist on no pre-flight briefing / lesson, a flight including at the most a quick stall, PFL and a few circuits ending at exactly 60 minutes block time followed by paying not a blind bit of attention to the de-brief that one has to watch out for!
Regards,
DFC
Instructors have to remember that the 1 hour training flight can be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test. This means that pilot who holds both a SEP and MEP ratings can on Monday have their MEP rating test stopped after 45 minutes because they are a hazard to aviation and 5 minutes later proudly use their pink slip as evidence along with their SEP hours in the logbook to have their SEP rating extended by another two years.
However, as soon as there is any training given in the correct form there will be demonstration by the instructor, practice by the student and assessment made by the instructor of the student followed by feedback.
There is no way to complete a meaningfull training flight without some form of assessment being done by the instructor regarding the student's performance.
There is no requirement for the training flight to cover exercises from the PPL sylabus unless the student requests them. As suggested in the Trainingcom, they could take the opportunity to try night flying, instrument flying, aerobatics, tailwheel and so on.
This will be fixed in a few years but until then all I can recomend is that where there is serious doubt about the ability of the "student", it is probably best to stop the flight before 1 hour has elapsed and in doing so stop them wasting their money.
How do you do that when they have opted for some night training? - In most such cases the fact that they have taken the opportunity to expand their skill and knowledge is the foundation of good airmanship and safety outlook.
It is the ones that insist on no pre-flight briefing / lesson, a flight including at the most a quick stall, PFL and a few circuits ending at exactly 60 minutes block time followed by paying not a blind bit of attention to the de-brief that one has to watch out for!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Woking, Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
It is the ones that insist on no pre-flight briefing / lesson, a flight including at the most a quick stall, PFL and a few circuits ending at exactly 60 minutes block time followed by paying not a blind bit of attention to the de-brief that one has to watch out for!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I was never trained at assessment of students on my course.
Also with the different ways to skin a cat up and down the country you could be the greatest pilot the area has seen or the biggest risk to aviation depending on which method the instructor thinks is correct. In fact some airfields all you have to do is walk 50 yards across the apron and you will get a different opinion.
And as I presume the current batch of 200hour FI's were as cluless as myself at that level of experience their opinion on anyone's level of flying ability is really rather pointless on a majority of experienced PPL's.
You just have to look at alot of the posts on this forum to realise the breath of bollocks being taught up and down the country is staggering. I must admit I was guilty of this as well due to repeating what I had been told by the CFI as the way he wanted it done. Instructors don't even know how to get students to fill their log books in correctly.
Added to it all as you say it is perfectly valid for me to use my LPC as the hour with an instructor. What quite wanging a multi crew pressurised turbo prop around some instrument procedures IFR single engine does in relation to keeping your SEP skill set up I don't quite know.
Also with the different ways to skin a cat up and down the country you could be the greatest pilot the area has seen or the biggest risk to aviation depending on which method the instructor thinks is correct. In fact some airfields all you have to do is walk 50 yards across the apron and you will get a different opinion.
And as I presume the current batch of 200hour FI's were as cluless as myself at that level of experience their opinion on anyone's level of flying ability is really rather pointless on a majority of experienced PPL's.
You just have to look at alot of the posts on this forum to realise the breath of bollocks being taught up and down the country is staggering. I must admit I was guilty of this as well due to repeating what I had been told by the CFI as the way he wanted it done. Instructors don't even know how to get students to fill their log books in correctly.
Added to it all as you say it is perfectly valid for me to use my LPC as the hour with an instructor. What quite wanging a multi crew pressurised turbo prop around some instrument procedures IFR single engine does in relation to keeping your SEP skill set up I don't quite know.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 1 hour training flight is basically bollocks.
Amend the definition to "Assesment Flight" and appoint designated persons who can exercise some sort of set standard, whatever that may be. These persons can then exercise that all forgotten aspect in this ridiculous computer age of 'yes/no' - common sense and advise the PPL holder as to how to improve their game.There is a lack of harmonisation here which is irritating.
VFE.
Amend the definition to "Assesment Flight" and appoint designated persons who can exercise some sort of set standard, whatever that may be. These persons can then exercise that all forgotten aspect in this ridiculous computer age of 'yes/no' - common sense and advise the PPL holder as to how to improve their game.There is a lack of harmonisation here which is irritating.
VFE.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In which case then the instructor would not sign their logbook surely?
That means that you can sign the logbook showing the training you gave, you can verbally recomend further training and the student can not walk down the road and use the flight for revalidation with an examiner while not telling them that you regarded them as unsafe.
Other methods such as refusing to sign, writing comments in the logbook have at times resulted in arguments. If the flight was not 1 hour long then there is legal certainty.
-------------
Mad Jock,
It is part of the course and is tested on the skill test - assessment and correction of mistakes / faults etc
You did it while working as an FI but probably did not realise it at the time. How else did you decide that the student had met the required standard to move on to the next lesson, that the student would be safe to fly solo and that the student was to the required standard for PPL issue / pass the PPL skill test.
You are correct regarding the LPC - even if the LPC is stopped after 5 minutes and you fail, you can still use it for SEP revalidation!
The PPL flight examiner is there to satisfy the CAA (as best one can in the time available) that the person you (as instructor) say is suitable for PPL issue is indeed so.
If instructors could not assess students then students would progress regardless of standard displayed with disasterous consequences.
----------
VFE,
EASA are moving in the right direction - tests required with an examminer at regular intervals regardless of experience.
Regards,
DFC