Taking responsibility for the flying
Moderator
Thread Starter
Taking responsibility for the flying
Apologies as a non-instructor for barging into the instructors forum, but I'm hoping that some of you chaps might have some useful views.
I'm regarded as one of the more experienced pilots in a couple of aircraft syndicates that I belong to (for the record 1100ish hours, with 80+ on each type, and a CPL(A) ), and as such often fly with refreshing or new syndicate members to check them out on type or help them brush up before we let them out unsupervised.
As you might expect, I run through pretty much the same things any of you would if I came to your flying school and wanted to rent an aeroplane I'd not flown before: systems, perf, paperwork, taxiing, variety of circuits, local area, stalls, standard emergencies. So far nobody I've checked out has subsequently bent either of the aeroplanes, so presumably I'm doing it about right.
However, I've just seen for the second time something I don't like, don't understand - and disturbingly both in an already qualified pilot.
The pilot simply won't take full responsibility for their flying: some combination of - won't bring the necessary (checklist / chart / kneeboard notes on the aeroplane / airfield plate), and to a greater or lesser extent in the air just won't accept full responsibility for the flight. Basically they just sit there expecting to be prodded about various things - whether it's navigation actions, who to call on RT, what approach speed to use: I've had a fair set.
Giving them some briefing notes and threatening physical violence if they don't read them before flying doesn't seem to change this at-all. It just seems to be a strange and disturbing attitude.
Needless to say, neither of them have I felt prepared to accept flying our aeroplane unsupervised - the first I sent off to a reliable FI from whom they never came back, the second I'm still scratching my head about.
Is this is common issue - and how do you pros deal with it?
G
I'm regarded as one of the more experienced pilots in a couple of aircraft syndicates that I belong to (for the record 1100ish hours, with 80+ on each type, and a CPL(A) ), and as such often fly with refreshing or new syndicate members to check them out on type or help them brush up before we let them out unsupervised.
As you might expect, I run through pretty much the same things any of you would if I came to your flying school and wanted to rent an aeroplane I'd not flown before: systems, perf, paperwork, taxiing, variety of circuits, local area, stalls, standard emergencies. So far nobody I've checked out has subsequently bent either of the aeroplanes, so presumably I'm doing it about right.
However, I've just seen for the second time something I don't like, don't understand - and disturbingly both in an already qualified pilot.
The pilot simply won't take full responsibility for their flying: some combination of - won't bring the necessary (checklist / chart / kneeboard notes on the aeroplane / airfield plate), and to a greater or lesser extent in the air just won't accept full responsibility for the flight. Basically they just sit there expecting to be prodded about various things - whether it's navigation actions, who to call on RT, what approach speed to use: I've had a fair set.
Giving them some briefing notes and threatening physical violence if they don't read them before flying doesn't seem to change this at-all. It just seems to be a strange and disturbing attitude.
Needless to say, neither of them have I felt prepared to accept flying our aeroplane unsupervised - the first I sent off to a reliable FI from whom they never came back, the second I'm still scratching my head about.
Is this is common issue - and how do you pros deal with it?
G
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Command" is a very common issue when instructing. On the one hand you are trying to teach a skill and on the other you are trying to develop a mindset (part of airmanship). The most regular occurrence is when a student knows he/she needs to go-around but then asks you whether he should do it or not whilst you 'plummet' towards the wrong bit of runway.
Your problem appears to be a variation of this. You are 'checking out' the pilot and therefore he knows that, ultimately, nothing will be allowed to go awry. I don't have a solution to the problem other than you must clarify who is in command and if you are not happy, don't fly him.
Your problem appears to be a variation of this. You are 'checking out' the pilot and therefore he knows that, ultimately, nothing will be allowed to go awry. I don't have a solution to the problem other than you must clarify who is in command and if you are not happy, don't fly him.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is always going to be the problem with non instructors effectively teaching (regardless of what you actually call it). In an instructional relationship the commander is the Instructor and the student expects to be briefed, debriefed and generally nudged. In a more loose arrangement you have more of a problem with establishing responsibility.
It sounds to me like you are entering into a teaching relationship without the background to maintain command ofnthe situation but allow the student to develop.
As was said earlier, you really need to establish who is in command first. Make it clear that the person your are checking out is in command and that you will be doing nothing to 'nudge' them and that after the flight you will discuss with them if the performance was good enough to be let loose.
It sounds to me like you are entering into a teaching relationship without the background to maintain command ofnthe situation but allow the student to develop.
As was said earlier, you really need to establish who is in command first. Make it clear that the person your are checking out is in command and that you will be doing nothing to 'nudge' them and that after the flight you will discuss with them if the performance was good enough to be let loose.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am the pilot in command. You are going to fully prepare for and safely execute this flight (details). I will not intervene unless it is necessary to ensure the operation remains safe and legal.
If you require any assistance during the flight then please ask and I will help.
--------
The above short to the point brief leave no doubt as to who is PIC and what is to be done.
I recomend that you prepare your own version of the plan for the route so that you are not relying on theirs if they have made a mess of it.
What are you trying to do with them?
Aircraft check-out and local are famil or are you doing something a little more eg sharing a return trip to France?
If it is the latter you need to try to establish what their experience is to establish the posibility that you are introducing something they are not already comfortable with which is where instruction would come into it.
Really, I would recomend that you fly with them and if happy then fine but if not then have the weak area(s) covered by an FI before another go. Otherwise you are simply banging your head against the wall.
Have you thought about pairing them with an experienced tourer (who does it properly!!) and allowing some learning by observation / participation.
If you require any assistance during the flight then please ask and I will help.
--------
The above short to the point brief leave no doubt as to who is PIC and what is to be done.
I recomend that you prepare your own version of the plan for the route so that you are not relying on theirs if they have made a mess of it.
What are you trying to do with them?
Aircraft check-out and local are famil or are you doing something a little more eg sharing a return trip to France?
If it is the latter you need to try to establish what their experience is to establish the posibility that you are introducing something they are not already comfortable with which is where instruction would come into it.
Really, I would recomend that you fly with them and if happy then fine but if not then have the weak area(s) covered by an FI before another go. Otherwise you are simply banging your head against the wall.
Have you thought about pairing them with an experienced tourer (who does it properly!!) and allowing some learning by observation / participation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days I tend to instruct biz owners on their own jets, turboprops and twins...not in a sim, but in their actual planes...
Some of these guys have an attitude that if I can make a buck selling hamburgers, I must be able to fly a plane..
Most don't have any problem buying all the gear, the toys...they tend to bring it all......more GPS units, moving maps, down loadable weather units and such...they get too busy flipping switches, leaning on the gear...that they usually fly better with just an ILS and a DME to concentrate on.
More to your point...if a guy didn't show up with his gear, ask him how expects to shoot an approach without a chart when he's by himself....or just fly up, and when he asks you for a note pad, pen, chart, ect...tell him you didn't bring one,when you got them behind the seat or something....let it sink in that your flying around in the soup with no charts, let him get busy remembering clearances without a note pad..
Everyone seems to be living in a virtual world these days, injecting a little reality once in a while is a good thing.
Some of these guys have an attitude that if I can make a buck selling hamburgers, I must be able to fly a plane..
Most don't have any problem buying all the gear, the toys...they tend to bring it all......more GPS units, moving maps, down loadable weather units and such...they get too busy flipping switches, leaning on the gear...that they usually fly better with just an ILS and a DME to concentrate on.
More to your point...if a guy didn't show up with his gear, ask him how expects to shoot an approach without a chart when he's by himself....or just fly up, and when he asks you for a note pad, pen, chart, ect...tell him you didn't bring one,when you got them behind the seat or something....let it sink in that your flying around in the soup with no charts, let him get busy remembering clearances without a note pad..
Everyone seems to be living in a virtual world these days, injecting a little reality once in a while is a good thing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you're doing check outs like you describe on a regular basis I'd go an get yourself through a CRI course asap. You'll learn exactly what you need about instructional technique in the air and ground from the course. I'd recommend On Track for the course.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTE you are stepping out of checking someone and in some ways your even going past instructing them into an examining role.
I am not doudting you are capable of doing it.
A check ride is just that. You sit on your arse and say nothing unless your life is at risk. You brief them of this fact that your an uneducated pax and proberly won't be able to answer any questions. If at any point you want to stop the check please state clearly "you have control" at which point I will stop being uneducated and the check will be uncomplete. None locals get a bit of slack with local procedure but no slack in actaully operating the aircraft.
You then make your choice if you are going to let them fly or not. If it is no you say no and tell them the reasons why and if it's yes you tell them and debrief what you don't like. But remember that your presonal opinions on methods are just that. If the flight was safe zero debrief points.
If a none local asked me who to talk to next I would tell them. If it was a local I wouldn't. If it was a none local as we were approach Tain range I would give them a heads up and also explain the joy that it is to deal with them (good bunch of lads BTW).
Your list of things for a check out is extreme and I would say on the sticky side of instructing without a rating. Time to get a CRI rating I think.
BTW the turning up of students with there head up their backsides is just something you have to get used to.
I am not doudting you are capable of doing it.
A check ride is just that. You sit on your arse and say nothing unless your life is at risk. You brief them of this fact that your an uneducated pax and proberly won't be able to answer any questions. If at any point you want to stop the check please state clearly "you have control" at which point I will stop being uneducated and the check will be uncomplete. None locals get a bit of slack with local procedure but no slack in actaully operating the aircraft.
You then make your choice if you are going to let them fly or not. If it is no you say no and tell them the reasons why and if it's yes you tell them and debrief what you don't like. But remember that your presonal opinions on methods are just that. If the flight was safe zero debrief points.
If a none local asked me who to talk to next I would tell them. If it was a local I wouldn't. If it was a none local as we were approach Tain range I would give them a heads up and also explain the joy that it is to deal with them (good bunch of lads BTW).
Your list of things for a check out is extreme and I would say on the sticky side of instructing without a rating. Time to get a CRI rating I think.
BTW the turning up of students with there head up their backsides is just something you have to get used to.
The situation described does not seem to require an instructor rating or any specialist examiner qualification. The OP is charged by the syndicate with merely assuring himself that the wannabe is unlikely to bend their aeroplane, damage its engine etc or bring discredit on its owners (through poor airmanship, overloading or whatever).
Perhaps the syndicate needs to publish a simple set of requirements e.g. use this particular checklist, bring your own headset, charts and if not flying regularly carry a safety pilot. Set up a simple limitations and loading exam for them to complete prior to flight and don't fly until it has been done and graded.
In the situation described, I would then brief along the lines that, while technically (for legal and insurance reasons) the PIC for this flight I would be acting as safety pilot only, would not contribute in any way to the flight but would at the end of it decide whether or not the candidate needed dual with a qualified instructor, or another familiarisation trip as 'co-pilot' with one of the other syndicate pilot before going solo, or would be cleared to go.
If at any stage of the flight I had to intervene or take control, it would automatically require the dual or safety pilot limitation.
Only someone totally thick would fail to understand that messsage, and syndicates don't need these people.
Perhaps the syndicate needs to publish a simple set of requirements e.g. use this particular checklist, bring your own headset, charts and if not flying regularly carry a safety pilot. Set up a simple limitations and loading exam for them to complete prior to flight and don't fly until it has been done and graded.
In the situation described, I would then brief along the lines that, while technically (for legal and insurance reasons) the PIC for this flight I would be acting as safety pilot only, would not contribute in any way to the flight but would at the end of it decide whether or not the candidate needed dual with a qualified instructor, or another familiarisation trip as 'co-pilot' with one of the other syndicate pilot before going solo, or would be cleared to go.
If at any stage of the flight I had to intervene or take control, it would automatically require the dual or safety pilot limitation.
Only someone totally thick would fail to understand that messsage, and syndicates don't need these people.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I'm really chuffed at the quality of advice here, and many thanks everybody.
On a couple of personal notes - no I'm not a CRI, although it's something I hope to do in the next year or so (although unlikely at On-track, simply for reasons of geography). I am a current and qualified teacher in two other areas of endeavour so not totally unaware of teaching issues, but have never (yet) been a flying instructor. I've belonged to 5 syndicates since I first bought a share in about 1997 (I think), and checkouts by non-instructors are very much the norm. Partly this is convenience & cost, and partly that many syndicates operate around aeroplanes for which a suitable instructor is very hard to find: I stay current on our old obscure aeroplanes, but few flying instructors would, or could reasonably be expected to.
But, in amongst some inevitable disagreement about whether what I (and many others) do in checking new pilots out is instruction or not, I've picked out some really useful bits of information.
It seems to come down to an approach that I should be taking along the lines of:
(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.
A little bit of additional flying may well be appropriate - say somebody who struggles with achieving the landing attitude, but that should be it.
Where I need to take care is undertanding that if I've got to 4(b), then I need to be clear about it. In our case, it's almost certainly going to require them to go and fly in something else, then come back for a new checkout: which is not perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world!
With regard to a pilot who won't take responsibility for their flying, despite a clear briefing that it's expected and my sitting there apparently doing nothing but enjoy the view - this clearly is a command issue that needs addressing by an FI. However, I'd still be interested to know how anybody else deals with this?
G
On a couple of personal notes - no I'm not a CRI, although it's something I hope to do in the next year or so (although unlikely at On-track, simply for reasons of geography). I am a current and qualified teacher in two other areas of endeavour so not totally unaware of teaching issues, but have never (yet) been a flying instructor. I've belonged to 5 syndicates since I first bought a share in about 1997 (I think), and checkouts by non-instructors are very much the norm. Partly this is convenience & cost, and partly that many syndicates operate around aeroplanes for which a suitable instructor is very hard to find: I stay current on our old obscure aeroplanes, but few flying instructors would, or could reasonably be expected to.
But, in amongst some inevitable disagreement about whether what I (and many others) do in checking new pilots out is instruction or not, I've picked out some really useful bits of information.
It seems to come down to an approach that I should be taking along the lines of:
(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.
A little bit of additional flying may well be appropriate - say somebody who struggles with achieving the landing attitude, but that should be it.
Where I need to take care is undertanding that if I've got to 4(b), then I need to be clear about it. In our case, it's almost certainly going to require them to go and fly in something else, then come back for a new checkout: which is not perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world!
With regard to a pilot who won't take responsibility for their flying, despite a clear briefing that it's expected and my sitting there apparently doing nothing but enjoy the view - this clearly is a command issue that needs addressing by an FI. However, I'd still be interested to know how anybody else deals with this?
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is a checking detail you should brief what you want them to do then say nothing to them for the check.
I actually understand why alot of ppl's do look for conformation all the time. Its basically because they get retrained every time they get into a cockpit with a new Instructor. They have got it in the ear that often they don'y know really what to do in a check.
Now the converstion
1. Brief it
2.Demo it
3 Do it.
If it all goes well you won't have any issues, its when they have issues and you have to do "instructor" stuff you might (I say might but I reckon you won't have an issue GTE) come unstuck.
The Flying Instructor's Patter Manual
This book gives you the method that we break down exercises and put them back together again.
The checkride bit I am quite happy with experenced PPL's doing but the converstion issue is the bit I feel is best done with someone with a ticket. I have had some right tulips doing conversions and shall we say the skills I have from teaching people how to land for the first time have been used in converstions to save a couple of nose gears.
And I will admit the examiner bit was over kill.
I actually understand why alot of ppl's do look for conformation all the time. Its basically because they get retrained every time they get into a cockpit with a new Instructor. They have got it in the ear that often they don'y know really what to do in a check.
Now the converstion
1. Brief it
2.Demo it
3 Do it.
If it all goes well you won't have any issues, its when they have issues and you have to do "instructor" stuff you might (I say might but I reckon you won't have an issue GTE) come unstuck.
The Flying Instructor's Patter Manual
This book gives you the method that we break down exercises and put them back together again.
The checkride bit I am quite happy with experenced PPL's doing but the converstion issue is the bit I feel is best done with someone with a ticket. I have had some right tulips doing conversions and shall we say the skills I have from teaching people how to land for the first time have been used in converstions to save a couple of nose gears.
And I will admit the examiner bit was over kill.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkouts on Syndicate Aircraft
I agree with all that has been said before.
When a 'checkee' is being checked by a checker, he/she will often take comfort from the fact that a more qualified/experienced pilot is also at the controls and therefore not display the degree of captaincy that he/she would were they on their own or with Granny, etc.
When solo or accompanied by non pilots in the other front seat, this often changes in my experience (as Instructor, Examiner on SEP/MEP and Jet) and the checkee becomes necessarily a much more self-reliant individual.
So to set the ground rules to start with is good. The checkee needs to be told to display captaincy skills to the checker, as well as basic flying ability, as an integral part of the check. As long as the decisions made are safe, even if not always what the checker would do in the same situation, then they can be discussed on the ground afterwards.
Level 400
When a 'checkee' is being checked by a checker, he/she will often take comfort from the fact that a more qualified/experienced pilot is also at the controls and therefore not display the degree of captaincy that he/she would were they on their own or with Granny, etc.
When solo or accompanied by non pilots in the other front seat, this often changes in my experience (as Instructor, Examiner on SEP/MEP and Jet) and the checkee becomes necessarily a much more self-reliant individual.
So to set the ground rules to start with is good. The checkee needs to be told to display captaincy skills to the checker, as well as basic flying ability, as an integral part of the check. As long as the decisions made are safe, even if not always what the checker would do in the same situation, then they can be discussed on the ground afterwards.
Level 400
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This scenario seems to have developed way beyond what I would describe as the normal syndicate "checkout" and has gone well down the training route.
I believe that a syndicate checkout completed by a non-instructor should be nothing more than a flight to confirm that the new member satisfies the syndicate requirements. Perhaps some information about some unique features of the syndicate aircraft eg specific GPS type etc etc.
However, if the new member has not flown the type before or is not current or if it is deemed that training is required then the person should be refered to an FI or CRI.
Among other things, to do otherwise leaves an gaping hole should something happen later and the "new member" complains that they were not given any "proper" training and that is why they did whatever which caused loss or injury.
Even if it is only the final part of the "training" that is done by the instructor any training needs an instructor involvement at some stage.
Finally remember that if you let them be PIC at any stage then you are happy that they can fly the aircraft safely - so why the training requirement? If you make them fly with another member who is not an instructor but will of course be PIC, then they can't log much which for most of them is a pain in the.....
Every syndicate should have access to a good friendly instructor. It is well worth it when you think of the 1 hour with an instructor requirement for all members, refreshers after the long winter lay-off, new members etc etc
I believe that a syndicate checkout completed by a non-instructor should be nothing more than a flight to confirm that the new member satisfies the syndicate requirements. Perhaps some information about some unique features of the syndicate aircraft eg specific GPS type etc etc.
However, if the new member has not flown the type before or is not current or if it is deemed that training is required then the person should be refered to an FI or CRI.
Among other things, to do otherwise leaves an gaping hole should something happen later and the "new member" complains that they were not given any "proper" training and that is why they did whatever which caused loss or injury.
Even if it is only the final part of the "training" that is done by the instructor any training needs an instructor involvement at some stage.
Finally remember that if you let them be PIC at any stage then you are happy that they can fly the aircraft safely - so why the training requirement? If you make them fly with another member who is not an instructor but will of course be PIC, then they can't log much which for most of them is a pain in the.....
Every syndicate should have access to a good friendly instructor. It is well worth it when you think of the 1 hour with an instructor requirement for all members, refreshers after the long winter lay-off, new members etc etc
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a similar set up in my old Cessna syndicate. Any new members had to complete a familiarisation flight with the nominated club rep. He was not an instructor but rather one of the more experienced members of the group. He did however treat it exactly as a 'familiarisation' flight, almost a bit like test driving a new car...i.e. heres the relevant buttons and switches, here's the POH, logbooks etc, here's how the gps and autopilot works. There was then an input re the group rules and online booking etc.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike there is not a problem with that.
I am maybe being a bit over the top because of my experences with some out of the blue conversions. If you don't know them from adam they can pull some truely bizzare stuff out the bag. Even had one manage to get us nearly into a spin by getting his feet confused and booting the wrong pedal in the tommy. As I said you get some right tulips out there which in some ways are harder to deal with than a ppl student. It looks like Genghis has had a couple of said tulips.
To be honest though if they are 200 plus hour PPL's and are ****e your best not even trying to get them up to standard. By that amount of time all the bad habits will be pretty much ingrained 2-3 hours with anyone you like won't solve their problems. By ditching them you are just protecting your investment.
I am maybe being a bit over the top because of my experences with some out of the blue conversions. If you don't know them from adam they can pull some truely bizzare stuff out the bag. Even had one manage to get us nearly into a spin by getting his feet confused and booting the wrong pedal in the tommy. As I said you get some right tulips out there which in some ways are harder to deal with than a ppl student. It looks like Genghis has had a couple of said tulips.
To be honest though if they are 200 plus hour PPL's and are ****e your best not even trying to get them up to standard. By that amount of time all the bad habits will be pretty much ingrained 2-3 hours with anyone you like won't solve their problems. By ditching them you are just protecting your investment.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I believe that a syndicate checkout completed by a non-instructor should be nothing more than a flight to confirm that the new member satisfies the syndicate requirements. Perhaps some information about some unique features of the syndicate aircraft eg specific GPS type etc etc.
However, if the new member has not flown the type before or is not current or if it is deemed that training is required then the person should be refered to an FI or CRI.
However, if the new member has not flown the type before or is not current or if it is deemed that training is required then the person should be refered to an FI or CRI.
Secondly, the particular aeroplane I have in mind right now, there are three in the UK in flying condition, all privately owned. So, I think in these circumstances, we need to ask whether any problem is with the pilot's basic flying (in which case they can be sent off to fly something like a Cub or Chipmunk with an FI in a training environment, then they can come back later), or with their ability to fly this particular, and difficult, aeroplane - in which case even if we check an FI out on type, they'll still have limited experience on it. So, we have a choice then between an FI with limited type experience, or a 1000+hr syndicate pilot with lots [and in our syndicate that's one ex university aeronautics lecturer, and one ex-gliding instructor]; I don't see that as clearcut in favour of the FI.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even just getting the CRI won't solve your problems to be honest.
You would still need a bit of time to build up experence being a CRI in other aircraft types before there would be any marked benefit away from what you are doing now.
You would still need a bit of time to build up experence being a CRI in other aircraft types before there would be any marked benefit away from what you are doing now.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Additionally, why on earth should I spend too much of my valuable leisure time sorting somebody's flying out, when an FI whose living it is can make some money from the same exercise?
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additionally, why on earth should I spend too much of my valuable leisure time sorting somebody's flying out, when an FI whose living it is can make some money from the same exercise?
Genghis
I think the important thing here is that you show the group or prospective group member how you want him to operate your aeroplane. Bit like a company SOP.
Once they are fully conversant with your required method of operation you do a check ride. They are PIC and you simply observe and decide.
It is vitally important that the checkee is briefed on his role as already stated.
No need to be a CRI or anything else. Your aeroplane your decision.
I think the important thing here is that you show the group or prospective group member how you want him to operate your aeroplane. Bit like a company SOP.
Once they are fully conversant with your required method of operation you do a check ride. They are PIC and you simply observe and decide.
It is vitally important that the checkee is briefed on his role as already stated.
No need to be a CRI or anything else. Your aeroplane your decision.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are PIC and you simply observe and decide.
Genghis,
I think that you need to re-read my post. I said quite clearly that the person checking should confirm that the new member meets the syndicate requirments. As you say - your aircraft, your requirements.
However, since it is clear that you take pride in and value this particular aircraft type so as is your right, you require something other than basic PPL skills from new members. It would be a good investment on the part of the syndicate to invest some time and money in putting in place someone who can provide training and checking to both current and future members.
You are quite right to believe that wheeling in some instructor from an FTO to do a checkout as a money making exercise on their part will not help at all. They will have no interest in your aircraft and will simply do what is required to get the payout and cover their rear end.
What is needed is for the syndicate to sit down and decide how to attract a suitable instructor into the sydicate (perhaps honorary non- paying posiiton that permits them to fly the aircraft) or for one of the current members to become an instructor.
As you will know from your previous experience -
Mr A checks out an aircraft and says it it airworthy. Is it?
Mr A gets the appropriate piece of paper which says they can say it is airworthy and then it is.
At the moment you are doing the equivalent of building an aircraft with no engineering oversight. Your aircraft, your rules...........but would you with one of your former hats on see that as a healthy way to proceed?
It is very different from taking on a completed aircraft with the required paperwork isn't it!!
If you have an interesting aircraft then I can't see how you would have a problem finding an appropriate friendly instructor to help you out not just for now but in the long term.