Taking responsibility for the flying
Moderator
Thread Starter
It's interesting how far this has drifted from the original question: which was about PPLs managing to take proper command of an aeroplane. That said, the subsequent discussion has been incredibly informative and I hope that everybody else has enjoyed it as much as me.
I'm planning to do a CRI course sometime in the next year - which I was planning to do to scratch a personal itch, but will hopefully benefit the two syndicates that I belong to. I've also, incidentally, been trying for some time to persuade the (rest of the) syndicate on the more difficult aeroplane that we should give a "known good" local instructor some regular hours on the aeroplane so that they can maintain recency and be useful to us - I think that I've finally just about won that argument and have arranged to check him out next month (the instructor and I used to share an even more interesting aeroplane, so I trust him).
It's also a really good idea to have a clear "checkout procedure" existing within the syndicate and I'm going to try and pull that together with the other most experienced pilot on type. I think that what I described earlier covers the shape of that - but obviously covering syndicate, airfield and aeroplane specific stuff as well.
I've also had clarified usefully in my mind that there has to be a point where I tell somebody that they really need to go and spend some quality time with a proper instructor (depending upon my spare time and patience, and how poor somebody's piloting and airmanship seem to be, that may well remain the case after I've done a CRI !).
I think that about covers it?
G
I'm planning to do a CRI course sometime in the next year - which I was planning to do to scratch a personal itch, but will hopefully benefit the two syndicates that I belong to. I've also, incidentally, been trying for some time to persuade the (rest of the) syndicate on the more difficult aeroplane that we should give a "known good" local instructor some regular hours on the aeroplane so that they can maintain recency and be useful to us - I think that I've finally just about won that argument and have arranged to check him out next month (the instructor and I used to share an even more interesting aeroplane, so I trust him).
It's also a really good idea to have a clear "checkout procedure" existing within the syndicate and I'm going to try and pull that together with the other most experienced pilot on type. I think that what I described earlier covers the shape of that - but obviously covering syndicate, airfield and aeroplane specific stuff as well.
I've also had clarified usefully in my mind that there has to be a point where I tell somebody that they really need to go and spend some quality time with a proper instructor (depending upon my spare time and patience, and how poor somebody's piloting and airmanship seem to be, that may well remain the case after I've done a CRI !).
I think that about covers it?
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye it does.
And once you get your CRI remember to have a word with your insurance company. I have been offer a couple of shares at reduced rates due to the fact that having a FI as one of the members chopped quite a large amount off the premium.
And once you get your CRI remember to have a word with your insurance company. I have been offer a couple of shares at reduced rates due to the fact that having a FI as one of the members chopped quite a large amount off the premium.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick to your guns Genghis. As already mentioned, it's a group aircraft with a set series of SOP's. If the bloke won't follow them, then tell him to f off. You might not have a legal point to come from, but you do have a moral one that has been blessed on you by the other members of the syndicate.
I would trust your judgement if I was a member of your syndicate, so don't take any nonsense.
Unfortunately I've seen too many people like this in my career and I don't think I'm wrong when I'd suggest that your group would be better off without them. Handling skill is easily sorted out, but attitude is a far harder thing to deal with, you can either attack it head on, or try and be subtle, but I can assure you that the subtle approach doesn't work very often.
Arrogance is a real killer in the GA world and this bloke sounds like he has a damn good dose of it.
I would trust your judgement if I was a member of your syndicate, so don't take any nonsense.
Unfortunately I've seen too many people like this in my career and I don't think I'm wrong when I'd suggest that your group would be better off without them. Handling skill is easily sorted out, but attitude is a far harder thing to deal with, you can either attack it head on, or try and be subtle, but I can assure you that the subtle approach doesn't work very often.
Arrogance is a real killer in the GA world and this bloke sounds like he has a damn good dose of it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: swindon
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G
Hi G
I'm just finishing a CRI course - only got the test to do. Go for it, I know you have educational skills already but I honestly think you'll still find it useful.
More importantly you will clarify the slightly grey relationship you have with your checkee. You become an authorised instructor and captain of the aircraft during the instructional sortie, and that carries some authority.
You can't expect the checkee to doff their cap to your other knowledge and experience, but carrying an instructor's ticket should make the job a whole lot easier.
I'm just finishing a CRI course - only got the test to do. Go for it, I know you have educational skills already but I honestly think you'll still find it useful.
More importantly you will clarify the slightly grey relationship you have with your checkee. You become an authorised instructor and captain of the aircraft during the instructional sortie, and that carries some authority.
You can't expect the checkee to doff their cap to your other knowledge and experience, but carrying an instructor's ticket should make the job a whole lot easier.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any 'legal issues' arising should the aeroplane be pranged in GTE's case, if the pilot being checked holds a licence to operate that class of aircraft.
I am not a flying instructor, however I do fly with newcomers to our operation flying 172s in and out of short strips to familiarise them with our specific way of doing things, and how to handle an aeroplane differently approaching differing lengths and surfaces of runway.
Ultimately the person I am 'checking' is PIC, as they have an SEP rating attached to their licence which allows them to act as such. I am simply a passenger, offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control."
This is in no way intended to diminish the skills of flying instructors as it is a completely different kettle of fish - a flying instructor teaches towards the issue of a higher licence, a new rating, complex conversion etc. All we are doing here is flying with somebody already technically qualified to do what they're doing, but may need a steer in the right direction because it is using different skills, although their licence says they are already competent to do it.
Apologies for thread drift.
I am not a flying instructor, however I do fly with newcomers to our operation flying 172s in and out of short strips to familiarise them with our specific way of doing things, and how to handle an aeroplane differently approaching differing lengths and surfaces of runway.
Ultimately the person I am 'checking' is PIC, as they have an SEP rating attached to their licence which allows them to act as such. I am simply a passenger, offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control."
This is in no way intended to diminish the skills of flying instructors as it is a completely different kettle of fish - a flying instructor teaches towards the issue of a higher licence, a new rating, complex conversion etc. All we are doing here is flying with somebody already technically qualified to do what they're doing, but may need a steer in the right direction because it is using different skills, although their licence says they are already competent to do it.
Apologies for thread drift.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately the person I am 'checking' is PIC, as they have an SEP rating attached to their licence which allows them to act as such. I am simply a passenger, offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control."
As soon as you let anyone be PIC of your aircraft in a particular situation then you are saying that you are happy that they are qualified to be in that situation and no further training is required. Having established this then there should be no difference between you being in the aircraft, a non-flier being in the aircraft or even the PIC flying solo in the case you describe.
So if there is an accident - say an over-run into the far hedge on one of these short strips in the example you gave.
Q1. Was the pilot qualified to fly into that strip? (Not just licensing terms but recency, and club/syndicate rules also)
Q2. If the pilot was not qualified then why did you let them take your aircraft and a passenger there?
Q3. If they were qualified then why did you feel that you needed to be there to be "offering advice when required. And should all else fail, a briefing beforehand allows me to regain control - "I have control." This seems to be a contradictary position......and I am sure your insurance company would love to see that!!
In simple terms you can't have it both ways.
Now if you were to be pilot in command and you let your passenger (who holds a valid licence) fly the aircraft into these strips you would have the ability to say "I have control" you would have the ability to "offer advice" you would have the ability to "tell them what to do"......and if you run off the end the PIC was fully insured and current at flying into such short strips.
Of course you would have to pay atleast 50% of the flight costs. Is that a problem? The passenger could also pay 50% but they don't log anything other than the take-off and landings they did as sole manipulator. Is that a problem?
In simple terms - if someone needs training - get an instructor. If they don't then let them fly. But please don't let people who you have decided need instruction fly without training becasue you are leaving yourself open to all sorts of issues.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting thread but it seems to have drifted away a little from the original question asked by GTE into a discussion about his participation in check flights and the conduct generally of such flights in syndicate operations.
As for the matter of pilots not taking responsibility for their actions let me relate a story which happened to me this weekend.
I was with my light aeroplane, parked and preparing for flight when I saw a helicopter hover taxing towards me. I was parked close to a tight gap between two hangars with several vehicles nearby and numerous people around. I was horrified to see the helo continue and pass about 30 feet from my aeroplane (I had to put my weight on the upwind wing to hold it steady!) before landing some 50 meters away.
Once it was shut sown and the crew disembarked I went to speak to the pilot to tell him that I had been very uncomfortable by the proximity between our aircraft. His response was shocking!
He told me that Air Traffic had told him to follow that routing and to park in that position (there is no ATC at this airport, just an A/G service!) and also that the ground crew had indicated he should park in that position (I didn't see any marshaller). I said that, while that was all very well he ought to remember that as the aircraft commander he had a legal duty to operate safely and the legal authority to do (or no to do) anything he sees fit to achieve that aim, I asked him in future to keep more distance between his hovering helo and parked aircraft on the ground. His response was simply to repeat that he was "just following orders"!
This pilot has clearly not understood his responsibility as aircraft commander.
So, do I think that there is a problem with pilots not understanding their authority and not accepting responsibility for their actions? Well, certainly with this guy there is but in general I don't see any evidence.
The real question is what can be done about it and here I think that Genghis is right on the money. A clear indication before hand of what is expected backed up by demonstration of professional standards together with a firm understanding that if a pilot is not ready to be placed in command of a flying machine he will not be put in that position are essential elements of any check flight and they don't need to be administered by an instructor. If deficient piloting skills are identified they may need to be corrected by an instructor but that's another mater. Understanding the right mindset is something that can be taught in discussion on the ground and then demonstrated by any pilot with the right approach; there are many non instructor pilots who have these skills and many instructors who lack them!
Happy landings
3 point
As for the matter of pilots not taking responsibility for their actions let me relate a story which happened to me this weekend.
I was with my light aeroplane, parked and preparing for flight when I saw a helicopter hover taxing towards me. I was parked close to a tight gap between two hangars with several vehicles nearby and numerous people around. I was horrified to see the helo continue and pass about 30 feet from my aeroplane (I had to put my weight on the upwind wing to hold it steady!) before landing some 50 meters away.
Once it was shut sown and the crew disembarked I went to speak to the pilot to tell him that I had been very uncomfortable by the proximity between our aircraft. His response was shocking!
He told me that Air Traffic had told him to follow that routing and to park in that position (there is no ATC at this airport, just an A/G service!) and also that the ground crew had indicated he should park in that position (I didn't see any marshaller). I said that, while that was all very well he ought to remember that as the aircraft commander he had a legal duty to operate safely and the legal authority to do (or no to do) anything he sees fit to achieve that aim, I asked him in future to keep more distance between his hovering helo and parked aircraft on the ground. His response was simply to repeat that he was "just following orders"!
This pilot has clearly not understood his responsibility as aircraft commander.
So, do I think that there is a problem with pilots not understanding their authority and not accepting responsibility for their actions? Well, certainly with this guy there is but in general I don't see any evidence.
The real question is what can be done about it and here I think that Genghis is right on the money. A clear indication before hand of what is expected backed up by demonstration of professional standards together with a firm understanding that if a pilot is not ready to be placed in command of a flying machine he will not be put in that position are essential elements of any check flight and they don't need to be administered by an instructor. If deficient piloting skills are identified they may need to be corrected by an instructor but that's another mater. Understanding the right mindset is something that can be taught in discussion on the ground and then demonstrated by any pilot with the right approach; there are many non instructor pilots who have these skills and many instructors who lack them!
Happy landings
3 point
This problem of failing to take responsibility is possibly more common than is sometimes realised.
Having your flying assessed is always intimidating, no matter whether the assessor is an instructor / examiner or not, and can always lead to the well known 'leaving your brain back at home'. Almost every commercial pilot should be able to relate to this phenomenon, evidence of which is regularly displayed at 6 monthly intervals in the sim at LPC and OPC time. This can contribute towards the appearance of 'not taking responsibility'.
I recall a specific example of such behaviour, when instructing a student who was close to going solo, some years ago. (GTE does in fact know both characters, the student - who is now an instructor - and me.)
As we worked toward sending this particular student off solo, he initially appeared to be unable to 'get it all together' to the standard needed to go solo, and most infuriatingly, would never take responsibility for any significant decisions in the circuit. With time, it appeared that he was in fact sabotaging his performance, almost as though he was trying to avoid going solo. He simply was not taking responsibility for his flying.
Eventually I took a chance, and surprised both of us by simply climbing out, and telling him to go solo. He flew an excellent first solo, displaying good judgement and decision making, just as I was sure he was capable despite seldom having witnessed it.
As he walked back to the club house after parking, he walked 2 foot taller, with a confidence that I had not seen in him before! It was a turning point in his flying training. From that point on, he would always take responsibility for his flying, and his progress was rapid. He became an excellent pilot, and is now an excellent instructor. But, like GTE's fellow pilots, he seemed unable to take responsibility whilst sat next to a more experienced pilot.
I have heard stories of others who have faked incapacitations of some degree to elicit similar taking of responsibility, even to the extent of fake heart attacks. Somewhat extreme, and not recommended in my view, but it would be a very clear way to force the 'checkee' to take responsibility. It is amazing what people are capable of when needs must!
Having your flying assessed is always intimidating, no matter whether the assessor is an instructor / examiner or not, and can always lead to the well known 'leaving your brain back at home'. Almost every commercial pilot should be able to relate to this phenomenon, evidence of which is regularly displayed at 6 monthly intervals in the sim at LPC and OPC time. This can contribute towards the appearance of 'not taking responsibility'.
I recall a specific example of such behaviour, when instructing a student who was close to going solo, some years ago. (GTE does in fact know both characters, the student - who is now an instructor - and me.)
As we worked toward sending this particular student off solo, he initially appeared to be unable to 'get it all together' to the standard needed to go solo, and most infuriatingly, would never take responsibility for any significant decisions in the circuit. With time, it appeared that he was in fact sabotaging his performance, almost as though he was trying to avoid going solo. He simply was not taking responsibility for his flying.
Eventually I took a chance, and surprised both of us by simply climbing out, and telling him to go solo. He flew an excellent first solo, displaying good judgement and decision making, just as I was sure he was capable despite seldom having witnessed it.
As he walked back to the club house after parking, he walked 2 foot taller, with a confidence that I had not seen in him before! It was a turning point in his flying training. From that point on, he would always take responsibility for his flying, and his progress was rapid. He became an excellent pilot, and is now an excellent instructor. But, like GTE's fellow pilots, he seemed unable to take responsibility whilst sat next to a more experienced pilot.
I have heard stories of others who have faked incapacitations of some degree to elicit similar taking of responsibility, even to the extent of fake heart attacks. Somewhat extreme, and not recommended in my view, but it would be a very clear way to force the 'checkee' to take responsibility. It is amazing what people are capable of when needs must!
This pilot has clearly not understood his responsibility as aircraft commander.
As Genghis isn't an instructor, the flight isn't dual, either. As a pilot correctly licensed for the position, and assigned flying duties on the aircraft, but not in command, the candidate is either a co-pilot or ICUS (in command under supervision), and should log the flight as such.
Genghis - I might suggest you take a little time to write up a one page brief, which can be emailed (or printed and handed to) each candidate, setting forth the legal responsibilities (and the insurance cover), and outlining exactly the command chain and what skills you expect to see for each flight. It removes all grey areas then, and makes it easier for you to say "No" as you can simply point out the bit on the brief they didn't meet.
edit: just read the thread!
Sorry for the repeated info. In terms of command ability, or assessing such - you have run into an authority gradient problem rather than a command problem, I think. Briefing that you are in command, but they are operating the flight should go some way to sorting it. They will still defer to you for the flight, however, and you should expect that.
Last edited by Checkboard; 14th Oct 2010 at 20:28.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Genghis isn't an instructor, the flight isn't dual, either. As a pilot correctly licensed for the position, and assigned flying duties on the aircraft, but not in command, the candidate is either a co-pilot or ICUS (in command under supervision), and should log the flight as such.
Common mistake. Single pilot aircraft may be flown single pilot, but there is no regulation stating that they must be flown single pilot.
Many light twins and small jets have single pilot authorisation, but are flown as two pilot operations for safety/passenger insurance reasons.
If two correctly licenced pilots are assigned flying duties on a Cessna 150 (with only two seats) they are perfectly within their rights to log commander and co-pilot, if that is what they are actually doing.
Many light twins and small jets have single pilot authorisation, but are flown as two pilot operations for safety/passenger insurance reasons.
If two correctly licenced pilots are assigned flying duties on a Cessna 150 (with only two seats) they are perfectly within their rights to log commander and co-pilot, if that is what they are actually doing.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the UK unless you have approval from your flight ops inspector and they have jumped through some hoops to satisfiy the CAA you are operating under multi crew SOP's.
There are currently no approvals in the UK for multi crew ops for SEP-SPA aircraft.
Its a whole load of paper work and changes including another multi crew LPC to be able to log it. I have worked for 2 companys which had such approval and it certainly isn't the case you can stick anyone in the RHS and they can log it or for that matter any airframe will do. There were 2 aircraft which were legal for multi crew and 2 that wern't it was mainly to do with instrument fit.
Its been argued on here before that a safety pilot should be able to log co-pilot when the AP is tits up. But again this is another false statement.
If its a private operation it is impossible to log multi crew time in a SPA.
There are currently no approvals in the UK for multi crew ops for SEP-SPA aircraft.
Its a whole load of paper work and changes including another multi crew LPC to be able to log it. I have worked for 2 companys which had such approval and it certainly isn't the case you can stick anyone in the RHS and they can log it or for that matter any airframe will do. There were 2 aircraft which were legal for multi crew and 2 that wern't it was mainly to do with instrument fit.
Its been argued on here before that a safety pilot should be able to log co-pilot when the AP is tits up. But again this is another false statement.
If its a private operation it is impossible to log multi crew time in a SPA.
My mistake. JAR-FCL 1.080(c) (2)
... and goes on to say that you can't log PICUS unless you are a co-pilot.
The differences you don't know about, when you change country ...
Co-Pilot flight time
The holder of a pilot licence occupying a pilot seat as co-pilot may log all flight time as co-pilot flight time on an aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
The holder of a pilot licence occupying a pilot seat as co-pilot may log all flight time as co-pilot flight time on an aeroplane on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aeroplane, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
The differences you don't know about, when you change country ...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can log PICUS in a SEP-SPA aircraft but only when you have passed a license/class flight test with an approved examiner.
Same here mate I now have 3 different ATPL's thankfully two of them have decided to use JAR as there base line which is my original first ATPL. But all have differences which can bite your bum.
Unless you have operated in that type of company that does dual crew in SPA types the whole subject is open to wide interpretation. Unfortunately some pilots believe some of the crap spouted on here and end up getting log books bounced back when the apply for stuff.
Same here mate I now have 3 different ATPL's thankfully two of them have decided to use JAR as there base line which is my original first ATPL. But all have differences which can bite your bum.
Unless you have operated in that type of company that does dual crew in SPA types the whole subject is open to wide interpretation. Unfortunately some pilots believe some of the crap spouted on here and end up getting log books bounced back when the apply for stuff.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If two correctly licenced pilots are assigned flying duties on a Cessna 150 (with only two seats) they are perfectly within their rights to log commander and co-pilot, if that is what they are actually doing.
However, if you make your C150 a 2 crew operation then both pilots have to be qualified and by this I mean checked-out / insured to operate the flight legally from their relevant seat. If you go down this road you don't solve anything you make it worse because you now need an instructor to sit in the left seat and check-out the new co-pilot in the right seat or as is more common, the instructor sits the right seat, checks out the new pilot and then they swap seats to complete a right seat check on the new pilot.
Commercially, unless there is a lot of money to be saved on insurance or it is needed under EU-Ops then a single crew aircraft will whenever possible be operated single crew.
The only way that I know of logging co-pilot time in a C150 is for the PIC to go under the hood and thus operate in a situation where the regulations require a second pilot. Can't see anyone spending vast amounts of time doing that though!!
You may find that some high performance aircraft certified for single pilot have an insurance requirement for two crew but the justification for that is often to provide some measure of redundancy in the event of incapacitation ( in some cases read inability to keep up with the aircraft!! )
What I meant was, in Australia (at least when I was there), there is no requirement for multi-pilot courses, command courses, two pilot aircraft , right seat courses, left seat courses etc etc.
The only requirement is that, in aircraft certified for single pilot ops, the pilot in command must be able to reach all of the necessary controls from the seat they occupy.
So, you have a pilot-in-command - who logs command.
You may have a student (under an instructor or training captain) who logs "dual",
You may have other pilots assigned duties for the flight - who all log "co-pilot",
unless they are acting in command (in every sense, not just handling) - who log ICUS...
After all, that is what a "co-pilot" is - a pilot, licensed to do the job they have been assigned (i.e. not training), who isn't in command but is performing duties on board the aircraft.
and so on...
It seems in Europe, they have written the rules for the typical commercial situation, and ignored all GA/private ops, where a PPL may want or need someone (also licensed) to manipulate the controls. It seems poor legislation in that sense - to ignore a VERY common occurrance, leaving it in legal limbo...
The only requirement is that, in aircraft certified for single pilot ops, the pilot in command must be able to reach all of the necessary controls from the seat they occupy.
So, you have a pilot-in-command - who logs command.
You may have a student (under an instructor or training captain) who logs "dual",
You may have other pilots assigned duties for the flight - who all log "co-pilot",
unless they are acting in command (in every sense, not just handling) - who log ICUS...
After all, that is what a "co-pilot" is - a pilot, licensed to do the job they have been assigned (i.e. not training), who isn't in command but is performing duties on board the aircraft.
and so on...
It seems in Europe, they have written the rules for the typical commercial situation, and ignored all GA/private ops, where a PPL may want or need someone (also licensed) to manipulate the controls. It seems poor legislation in that sense - to ignore a VERY common occurrance, leaving it in legal limbo...
Just seen this thread and I'm going back to Genghis' original Q by relating my experience of a very similar situation.
I was in exactly the same situation about twenty years ago. As a member of a flyng group with about a thousand hours and as the only professional pilot in the group, I was the person who did the group's acceptance check rides and type 'training'. The group operated from an airstrip which it has sole leasing rights to and operated a slightly unusual type with a stick and throttle operated by the left hand which prospective group members had usually not flown before, so a fairly high standard was required. Also, we required 100 hrs P1 since the award of the PPL. This seems quite high, but as the group members/aircraft owners were going to fly unsupervised, it was quite desirable plus also an insurance requirement in this group.
When I accepted the job of doing the flying, I laid down my own terms, in that if I wasn't happy about any of the prospective group members then they weren't in - and this was accepted by the rest of the group. And it all went well for about two years. Typically, the prospective member flew the aricraft with me for a looksee and if they liked the group, they would join provisionally and once checked out on the aircraft to my liking, paid the remainder of the share and were in. The insurance company were happy with this situation, and as for logging the hours, I would log P1 from the RHS, as for the candidate, it was up to him. But one day, we were faced with a big maintenance bill and there was some pressure to accept two new members to the group. I was not happy with either. One was underconfident and not a particularly profficient pilot, but eventually, he convinced me he was safe and I recommended to the chairman that he be accepted. The second was overconfident and irresponsible as well as not being a particularly good pilot. I told the group commitee that we had our first rejectee, but I was over-ruled due to him already having stumped up the cash and also the fact he was a close friend of the Chairman.
This chap subsequently gave me lots of missed heatbeats by flying in unsuitable weather, low flying and dubious decisions and eventually proved me right by crashing the aircraft - without injury to either himself or his daughter, which considering he managed to remove both wings in the crash was a miracle!
So my advice is to stand your ground and make it clear to the rest of the syndicate that if you aren't happy, then they aren't to fly the aircraft.
I was in exactly the same situation about twenty years ago. As a member of a flyng group with about a thousand hours and as the only professional pilot in the group, I was the person who did the group's acceptance check rides and type 'training'. The group operated from an airstrip which it has sole leasing rights to and operated a slightly unusual type with a stick and throttle operated by the left hand which prospective group members had usually not flown before, so a fairly high standard was required. Also, we required 100 hrs P1 since the award of the PPL. This seems quite high, but as the group members/aircraft owners were going to fly unsupervised, it was quite desirable plus also an insurance requirement in this group.
When I accepted the job of doing the flying, I laid down my own terms, in that if I wasn't happy about any of the prospective group members then they weren't in - and this was accepted by the rest of the group. And it all went well for about two years. Typically, the prospective member flew the aricraft with me for a looksee and if they liked the group, they would join provisionally and once checked out on the aircraft to my liking, paid the remainder of the share and were in. The insurance company were happy with this situation, and as for logging the hours, I would log P1 from the RHS, as for the candidate, it was up to him. But one day, we were faced with a big maintenance bill and there was some pressure to accept two new members to the group. I was not happy with either. One was underconfident and not a particularly profficient pilot, but eventually, he convinced me he was safe and I recommended to the chairman that he be accepted. The second was overconfident and irresponsible as well as not being a particularly good pilot. I told the group commitee that we had our first rejectee, but I was over-ruled due to him already having stumped up the cash and also the fact he was a close friend of the Chairman.
This chap subsequently gave me lots of missed heatbeats by flying in unsuitable weather, low flying and dubious decisions and eventually proved me right by crashing the aircraft - without injury to either himself or his daughter, which considering he managed to remove both wings in the crash was a miracle!
So my advice is to stand your ground and make it clear to the rest of the syndicate that if you aren't happy, then they aren't to fly the aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very interested to know what type Ghengis is refering to, I am instructor with a very large range of experience from vintage to high performance aero aircraft and would be very surprised if I would not be able to cope with almost any aircraft after a short check flight and would find it strange he cannot find a number of similarly experienced instructors who could do the same. On the question of the checkee taking command I actually back right off the instructor level, turning up without headset/chart and asking if they have checked wx and notams (Headset/chart actually being in my car and having already checked wx and notams) if they have not done this I hand them my laptop which has a Dongle for internet and tell them to check this, pointing out that this is their job as P1, the rest of the flight continues in much the same vein - I will only step in if dangerous/illegal, with the debrief afterwards pointing out things that would have been done better.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) I brief then demonstrate how to fly the aeroplane, and if required include a brief on the airfield and local area.
(2) Checkee (is that a word?) tries to fly it, with formative feedback from me.
(3) Checkee demonstrates hopefully that they can manage on their own whilst I sit there and say nothing meaningful about the flying.
(4) Either (a) welcome them to the syndicate, or (b) politely encourage them to go and get some proper instruction.
(2) Checkee (is that a word?) tries to fly it, with formative feedback from me.
(3) Checkee demonstrates hopefully that they can manage on their own whilst I sit there and say nothing meaningful about the flying.
(4) Either (a) welcome them to the syndicate, or (b) politely encourage them to go and get some proper instruction.
First, you don't brief the person being checked out, they should be briefing you, if not, then they don't get in the plane, cuz they don't know enough about it to be able to fly it.
Second, you don't show them anything about the plane, but rather, like an uneducated passenger you ask annoying questions about how this or that works, and have them show you.
You are checking them out, not the other way around.