Fellow Instructors, on Trial Lessons, do you...?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It not really a question of to do the checks or not Genghis more of how you do them. Are you doing them out loud slow time explaining every switch and knob using the printed checklist or are you doing them from memory while say "Now i will just perform some checks to ensure the engine is producing enough power". We are not talking about jumping in the machine cranking it up, calling for taxi, going straight out to the runway and flying without a power check or a control check.
Trial flights are funny beasts with a huge range of punters. They are your primary source of new PPL's so an instructor who can sell learning to fly is a major bonus in your instructor staffing. You can get instructors that are brillant at instructing but utterly crap at selling the course.
Being able to read the TF and what they are looking for in the trial flight is an art.
You can get 12 year old kids to 90 year olds.
Folk with cancer in the last weeks of there life on a last tour of the UK. "Is that shoulder strap hurting you?" "Forget it then its only going to give you an extra couple weeks to live anyway" Funny enough the bloke I said that to Mrs sent me a card and something from his estate (A book on vintage aircraft which I have to this day) thanking me saying that the photo we had taken all standing next to the aircraft was on the cover of the photo album that they had made of thier last month together touring the UK.
This is an example of when not to fanny around reading checklists out. I might add that was my only flight knowingly taking class A drugs onboard.
Juno78 is the oppersite end of the spectrum.
The safety briefing of trial flights is the most serious issue out of that list and unfortunately the one which is proberly missed by a disgustingly large number of FI's.
Trial flights are funny beasts with a huge range of punters. They are your primary source of new PPL's so an instructor who can sell learning to fly is a major bonus in your instructor staffing. You can get instructors that are brillant at instructing but utterly crap at selling the course.
Being able to read the TF and what they are looking for in the trial flight is an art.
You can get 12 year old kids to 90 year olds.
Folk with cancer in the last weeks of there life on a last tour of the UK. "Is that shoulder strap hurting you?" "Forget it then its only going to give you an extra couple weeks to live anyway" Funny enough the bloke I said that to Mrs sent me a card and something from his estate (A book on vintage aircraft which I have to this day) thanking me saying that the photo we had taken all standing next to the aircraft was on the cover of the photo album that they had made of thier last month together touring the UK.
This is an example of when not to fanny around reading checklists out. I might add that was my only flight knowingly taking class A drugs onboard.
Juno78 is the oppersite end of the spectrum.
The safety briefing of trial flights is the most serious issue out of that list and unfortunately the one which is proberly missed by a disgustingly large number of FI's.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get 12 year old kids to 90 year olds.
Folk with cancer in the last weeks of there life on a last tour of the UK.
Folk with cancer in the last weeks of there life on a last tour of the UK.
While in the case of the 12 year old (who is below the minimum age where the training can be credited against the requirements for the PPL) it could be argued that they will still learn something that they will use in future training and even if it is not a credit against future trainining it is loggable and will keep the idea of ,earning to fly alive.
In the unfortunate case of the terminaly ill being given their "last tour of the UK" then that is 100% public transport. If they had wanted to have a flight lesson befrore they gained their wings then that is one thing but satements like this make the reputable training organisations cringe because it simply shows how other organisations are regularly flouting the Public Transport rules.
"Is that shoulder strap hurting you?" "Forget it then its only going to give you an extra couple weeks to live anyway"
Duty of care does not go out the window just because the customer is only expected to live 1 month rather than 1 year or 1 decade or longer.
What if Mr B - a perfectly fit 25 year old asked not to use the shoulder strap? Would you say "ahh never mind that silly strap" or would you comply with the need to to have all the occupants safely secured?
Would you change your opinion (or any aspect of the flight) if you knew that Mr B was about to suffer a fatal brain haemorage 1 hour after the flight due to an undiagnosed brain tumour?
Yes we all want to make the trial lesson as rewarding an experience for whoever the student is but just as in (for many) their professional flying airline day job they are not going to break the rules in cases of PRM and other special categories of passenger then in flight training where these people are not simply down the back but are at the controls we should approach the situation with extra caution rather than less caution.
In my experience, bending the rules to try and make it "more exciting" or "more relaxing" can often have the potential to make it 1000 times worse.
If someone approaches me with a "I want a trial lesson so that I can make a last tour of.... before I depart the world" then I will advise them to use a charter company or if they want I can refer them to an appropriate hour builder within the club where (through cost sharing) they can fly more for less money and go as they please rather than being shoe-horned into a pseudo-lesson to make it look legal and not really getting either a lesson or a decent tour.
It not really a question of to do the checks or not Genghis more of how you do them. Are you doing them out loud slow time explaining every switch and knob using the printed checklist or are you doing them from memory while say "Now i will just perform some checks to ensure the engine is producing enough power". We are not talking about jumping in the machine cranking it up, calling for taxi, going straight out to the runway and flying without a power check or a control check.
The safety briefing of trial flights is the most serious issue out of that list and unfortunately the one which is proberly missed by a disgustingly large number of FI's.
I did it anyway.
G
It's important to match the instructing style to the needs and expectations of the student. Students differ hugely but they are all with you because they want to enjoy the experience, so the instructor needs to establish a fun and relaxed atmosphere (whilst conforming with legal and common sense requirements).
Clearly a checklist/do-list of sorts is needed but I would expect most experienced and current instructors to have this in their head, rather than on a piece of paper.
A safety brief is needed, but IMnsHO some FIs go horribly overboard on this and I wonder sometimes if we lose potential students because of the severity of the t/l safety briefs. All people need to know is how to operate the harness, how to open/close the canopy/door, how to accept/give control, and to know where the fire extinguisher is - but this can all be done while showing them around the cockpit and settling them in.
I often let people make a few calls on the ground and will scribble-down what they need to say so that they use the right terminology - but I always do the read-back. No harm done if they fudge it and it adds to the experience.
HFD
Clearly a checklist/do-list of sorts is needed but I would expect most experienced and current instructors to have this in their head, rather than on a piece of paper.
A safety brief is needed, but IMnsHO some FIs go horribly overboard on this and I wonder sometimes if we lose potential students because of the severity of the t/l safety briefs. All people need to know is how to operate the harness, how to open/close the canopy/door, how to accept/give control, and to know where the fire extinguisher is - but this can all be done while showing them around the cockpit and settling them in.
I often let people make a few calls on the ground and will scribble-down what they need to say so that they use the right terminology - but I always do the read-back. No harm done if they fudge it and it adds to the experience.
HFD
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time this occurs Genghis I want you to point up in the air and say "ooooh look at that" and when they do give them a right good kick in the bollocks/flaps.
And we are now on the same wavelength in regards to doing the checklist from memory. I can't speak for EVERY instructor but I haven't met one yet in Scotland that doesn't do preflight checks be it memory or by checklist.
And we are now on the same wavelength in regards to doing the checklist from memory. I can't speak for EVERY instructor but I haven't met one yet in Scotland that doesn't do preflight checks be it memory or by checklist.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a bit of Public Transport work to me.
In the unfortunate case of the terminaly ill being given their "last tour of the UK" then that is 100% public transport. If they had wanted to have a flight lesson befrore they gained their wings then that is one thing but satements like this make the reputable training organisations cringe because it simply shows how other organisations are regularly flouting the Public Transport rules.
In the unfortunate case of the terminaly ill being given their "last tour of the UK" then that is 100% public transport. If they had wanted to have a flight lesson befrore they gained their wings then that is one thing but satements like this make the reputable training organisations cringe because it simply shows how other organisations are regularly flouting the Public Transport rules.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a bit of Public Transport work to me.
Just proves you really don't have a bloody clue what you are talking about DFC.
The gentleman in question did all the ground handling apart from the checks, did the takeoff. Then flew the aircraft round the highlands of scotland for 50mins then I did the landing from 100ft. I can't even imagine how many public transport regs that would breech.
I am more than happy it wasn't public transport, it was exactly the same as as any of the other 300 odd trial flights I have done who haven't continued to be trained as PPL's.
It was memorable and very satisfying to do.
Good onya madlandrover, people with a terminal illness have enough stigma and arse covering rules preventing them enjoying the days they have left. If your flying school is an oasis of normality and enjoyment more power to you sir!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly a checklist/do-list of sorts is needed but I would expect most experienced and current instructors to have this in their head, rather than on a piece of paper.
There is no argument for not using a checklist in an open-cockpit aircraft since there is also no basis on which they are absolved from carrying the appropriate chart(s). Can't think of any open-cockpit aircraft that would require a checklist bigger than 1 side of A6 (perhaps 1 side of A5 at a push).
The checklist is there is ensure that safety critical items are not forgotten - the memory system is not 100% perfect (75% seems to the the aviation standard
) so if it is safety critical then we want very close to 100% reliability so memory is not going to guarantee that level of safety.On the other hand.....in some simple fixed gear aircraft one has to ask.......is there more than 1 or perhaps 2 things that are really "safety critical".......therefore a 2 item checklist?
----------------------------------------------------------
Folk with cancer in the last weeks of there life on a last tour of the UK.
I can't even imagine how many public transport regs that would breech.
If the intention was a flight lesson then why not simply say so. If by coincidence the flight took in a few scenic places then that is nice but if the intention was solely to tour some scenic places (as per the quote above) where is the flight lesson intention?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume DFC has just made a reply to a post that they know the author will never read.
I have no need to read it either I can just presume he will be talking ****e as usual.
I have no need to read it either I can just presume he will be talking ****e as usual.
Last edited by mad_jock; 12th Oct 2010 at 12:34.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find when I fly with people who do checks from memory, they are actually checking things much better than people with a list to follow.
Memory checks flow around the cockpit, covering everything in order. When you are reading checks out, you often lose your place in the list, or read a check but not actually do it.
There are countless times where students, reading from a checklist, are happy to line up for a navigation flight without having set the DI properly, or reading "t's and p's in the green" without actually visually checking this.
If you can cut checks down to what actually needs to be done, and do them from memory, in my opinion this would be safer. From a student point of view, it's more about realising why certain checks need to be done.
Memory checks flow around the cockpit, covering everything in order. When you are reading checks out, you often lose your place in the list, or read a check but not actually do it.
There are countless times where students, reading from a checklist, are happy to line up for a navigation flight without having set the DI properly, or reading "t's and p's in the green" without actually visually checking this.
If you can cut checks down to what actually needs to be done, and do them from memory, in my opinion this would be safer. From a student point of view, it's more about realising why certain checks need to be done.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or reading "t's and p's in the green" without actually visually checking this.
Starter warning light h'mm by the time they have got to that bit in the list the thing would be well shagged.
T's and P's in the green h'mm no oil pressure thats the engine shagged as well.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial Lessons/PT?
DFC
Are you really saying you think we should all stop doing "trial lessons" unless the customer is actually going to continue and attain a licence? Surely not.
Are we all meant to go out and get an AOC, wasting months of people's time and £10k's, so we can can then sell the same punter, the same flight, in the same aircraft, with the same pilot, but for double the price. Who's gained anything out of that other than the CAA?
While the terms "trial lesson/flight" are commonly used when referring to exercise 3, I can't find them mentioned in either the NPPL or JAA syllabus, they use the phrase "Air Experience" with regard to this. I'm not an expert on EASA, but I don't think they've got round to re-inventing the PPL syllabus yet, although I'm sure it's on their list of pointless meddling to be done.
I'm not aware of any specific thing that must be taught on an Air Experience Flight to make it not PT. If MJ 's customer wants to go for a fly round some bit of Scotland he particularly likes, whether or not there's much "hands-on" for the "student", if that's what they want their air experience to be, then that meets the requirements.
As long as the flight is sold as what it is, an air experience or trial flight, and we don't pretend it's a pleasure flight or PT, then it's perfectly legal. You don't see the CAA heading off to court to prosecute FI's and flying clubs every week do you?
Are you really saying you think we should all stop doing "trial lessons" unless the customer is actually going to continue and attain a licence? Surely not.
Are we all meant to go out and get an AOC, wasting months of people's time and £10k's, so we can can then sell the same punter, the same flight, in the same aircraft, with the same pilot, but for double the price. Who's gained anything out of that other than the CAA?
While the terms "trial lesson/flight" are commonly used when referring to exercise 3, I can't find them mentioned in either the NPPL or JAA syllabus, they use the phrase "Air Experience" with regard to this. I'm not an expert on EASA, but I don't think they've got round to re-inventing the PPL syllabus yet, although I'm sure it's on their list of pointless meddling to be done.
SECTION 2 JAR-FCL 1 Subpart C
Exercise 3 Air experience
– flight exercise
Exercise 3 Air experience
– flight exercise
SYLLABUS OF FLIGHT BRIEFINGS AND AIR
INSTRUCTION FOR THE NATIONAL PRIVATE PILOT
LICENCE SIMPLE SINGLE-ENGINE AEROPLANE (SSEA)
Exercise 3 Air experience
-flight exercise
INSTRUCTION FOR THE NATIONAL PRIVATE PILOT
LICENCE SIMPLE SINGLE-ENGINE AEROPLANE (SSEA)
Exercise 3 Air experience
-flight exercise
As long as the flight is sold as what it is, an air experience or trial flight, and we don't pretend it's a pleasure flight or PT, then it's perfectly legal. You don't see the CAA heading off to court to prosecute FI's and flying clubs every week do you?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it, thats from the resident prat who I have on ignore.
Perhaps some would also argue that taking a blind student could not be a trial lesson because medically he would never hold a licence? He was able to exit the aircraft unaided (and demonstrated this several times), was able to find the neutral point of all controls and feel their effect. His final landing was better than many sighted students, and he learnt something new. My definition of a training flight. There are many possible examples, sadly not all of us can see outside quite a narrow box of courses.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps some would also argue that taking a blind student could not be a trial lesson because medically he would never hold a licence?
If you take a blind person for an enjoyable flight and they have a go and they thoroughly enjoy the experience then that is great. It is a big plus for aviation, and a thoroughly rewarding experience.
However, if you take money (or other valuable consideration) in order for the flight to take place i.e. you are not going to do the flight for free or on a cost share basis then it is 100% public transport because you are taking money for the flight and trying to justify that by incorrectly claiming that the blind person was a valid crewmember i.e. a student. They were not.
Just ask your insurance company if they cover blind students
I have come across several people who can never qualify as a student pilot eg disability, inability to hold medical etc etc but still want to experience the joy of flight. I either refer them to a suitable pilot who can give them that experience for free or on a cost share basis. I frequently do such flights for free and have more than one person who has lost their medical but still flies with me (cost share) to lunch or some other there and back outing which they thoroughly enjoy and I am quite happy to pay my share of the costs etc.
I don't think that I would feel comfortable charging a blind person for something that a numnber of people will do for free. In fact I would go as far as saying that I find it rather sad that people would think of charging such a person for something that that can not fully benefit from.
It is very surprising that not one of the people crying foul here realise that it is only because the person pays for the flight that there is any claim of public transport. Is this the instructor forum?
If for example Mad Jock takes a terminally ill person on a their last tour of the UK ( and also teaches them how to fly (or not - it makes no difference) but does so for free or on a cost sharing basis then there is no problem because it is a 100% private flight. Not so if they charge for the flight.
---------
Are you really saying you think we should all stop doing "trial lessons" unless the customer is actually going to continue and attain a licence? Surely not.
However, there are unfortunately some people who can never (through no fault of their own) get a licence or even go solo. in these cases there can never be even the remotest expectation of continuation of the training.
They can fly for free, cost share, etc etc and I would have to ask why for example a blind person would be expected to pay trial lesson rates to not get what they are paying for i.e. they are unable to experience a true flight lesson. Is there parts of the flight training / club flying population that see profit in blind people "learning to fly"?
This is the moral equivalent of a deaf person walking into a shop selling hi-fi equipment and the sales person working hard to convince them that they would be better off spending £500 on the super hi-fidelity surround sound system when what they really wanted was a simple £20 alarm-clock radio that will plug into their pillow vibrator.
Next thing we know there will be flying schools who also charge the guide dog a "day membership fee" while there are plenty of suitable PPLs in the "club" who could give the same experience - and more for free.
Last edited by DFC; 12th Oct 2010 at 22:35.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memory checks flow around the cockpit, covering everything in order. When you are reading checks out, you often lose your place in the list, or read a check but not actually do it.
There are countless times where students, reading from a checklist, are happy to line up for a navigation flight without having set the DI properly, or reading "t's and p's in the green" without actually visually checking this.
There are countless times where students, reading from a checklist, are happy to line up for a navigation flight without having set the DI properly, or reading "t's and p's in the green" without actually visually checking this.
People loose their place on the list becasue it is a 500 point do list and not a checklist.
People using a 500 point do list forget to set the DI because they don't know what to do, they need the do list and once the do list is done there is no check that it was done correctly i.e. there is no checklist just a procedure (do list) that is never checked.
A well designed and learned flow from memory is very good. One point leads to the next. A good example being the walk-round.
How many times have people been distracted during the walk-round and missed something that later turned out to be important (pitot cover)?
A good flow and then a proper checklist or some other appropriate cross-check (very short and only critical items) adds a layer of safety that is missing in both the flow alone or do list alone.
--------
Aviation CRM / Human Factors experts have done a good job of educating and changing habits in the medical industry. Two of the significant things they introduced were checklists and formal briefings in operating theatres. These simple things have saved lives.
Quite ironic to find that general aviation / flight training is perhaps less willing to make the same progress and embrace the same ideas and principles.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do your rules regard dual instruction as? The definition in my country of dual instruction is: "instruction in the control of an aircraft in basic and advanced manoeuvres..." There is nothing to suggest that said instruction must be towards a qualification, rating, or endorsement. Plenty of trial flight 'students' (cough) love to fly over their house/work/grandma, but that doesn't make it a sightseeing trip.
Damn, if you have a student that rides motorcycles, drinks every weekend, and dances to ABBA they're probably not going to live long enough to gain a qualification, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I would however get in trouble if I cost shared a sightseeing trip with an unlicensed friend and then let them fly the plane.
Damn, if you have a student that rides motorcycles, drinks every weekend, and dances to ABBA they're probably not going to live long enough to gain a qualification, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I would however get in trouble if I cost shared a sightseeing trip with an unlicensed friend and then let them fly the plane.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ask your insurance company if they cover blind students
Endex.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it actually quite funny to even considering refusing anybody a trial flight on the grounds they will never get a license. But then again exactly how am I as a Mech Eng degree qualified ATPL/FI qualified to say who would or wouldn't get a medical/license?
Why bother sending them to a doctor when FI's can do it? "2 arms 1.5 legs and you can find the aircraft on the apron your good for me mate" or "sorry pal your no getting a medical cause you have ginger hair it will clash horribly with your High viz jacket and be a danger to other airside users"
Looking back over the years it's definately into double figures the number of TF's I have done that would have zero chance (in my completely untrained opinion) of getting a medical.
H'mm 2-3 Cystic fibrosis kids, 2-3 early muscular dystrophy, old blokes with milk bottom specks or one eye, class 1 diabeties, Coffin dodgers popping angina pills and of course my terminally ill cancer bloke. And they are just the ones I knew about.
Anyway it was done in scotland where the CAA has zero powers of prosecution. I doudt very much the proc fiscal would touch it with a barge pole.
I know what he would take on though a Flying school for refusing to allow a lesson under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if there was no safety reason for refusing it. eg I refused one because the lad was epileptic and subject to Grand Mal seizures and having helped with disabled kids since I was 12 in the scouts I wasn't dealing with one of them in a C172. I really wanted to get him up even if it was just in the back but after a discussion with his dad between us we decided it wasn't safe.
So even without reading your posts DFC, I can tell you have excelled again at talking ****e about flying.
Why bother sending them to a doctor when FI's can do it? "2 arms 1.5 legs and you can find the aircraft on the apron your good for me mate" or "sorry pal your no getting a medical cause you have ginger hair it will clash horribly with your High viz jacket and be a danger to other airside users"
Looking back over the years it's definately into double figures the number of TF's I have done that would have zero chance (in my completely untrained opinion) of getting a medical.
H'mm 2-3 Cystic fibrosis kids, 2-3 early muscular dystrophy, old blokes with milk bottom specks or one eye, class 1 diabeties, Coffin dodgers popping angina pills and of course my terminally ill cancer bloke. And they are just the ones I knew about.
Anyway it was done in scotland where the CAA has zero powers of prosecution. I doudt very much the proc fiscal would touch it with a barge pole.
I know what he would take on though a Flying school for refusing to allow a lesson under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if there was no safety reason for refusing it. eg I refused one because the lad was epileptic and subject to Grand Mal seizures and having helped with disabled kids since I was 12 in the scouts I wasn't dealing with one of them in a C172. I really wanted to get him up even if it was just in the back but after a discussion with his dad between us we decided it wasn't safe.
So even without reading your posts DFC, I can tell you have excelled again at talking ****e about flying.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
It used to be different in my country before JAR, but now the medical is only required before a student can be released for solo flights. Until then, an FI does not need to worry about the chances his student has for getting his medical. Unless he has moral concerns about taking someones money for a trial lesson who has (or seems to have) few chances of ever getting a license. In our school, we strongly advise would-be students to get their medical _before_ spending any further money on flight training. But the choice is theirs of course.
And regarding the original questions:
1: Yes, always. Especially in the early stages of training: The first impressions one gets are the ones that last longest. Our school trains mainly (95%) ATPL candidates and they will have to use checklists throughout their career. It's simply part of the job. Right from the beginning.
2: Yes, at least as far as seat belts and doors/exits are concerned. Without proper training, a (smallish) fire extinguisher and a first aid kit are of little value anyway.
3: Not at our home base (international airport), but why not at a small airfield? RT standards are so poor there (sometimes) that a student on a trial lesson under supervision of his instructor will probably stand out
But then again exactly how am I as a Mech Eng degree qualified ATPL/FI qualified to say who would or wouldn't get a medical/license?
And regarding the original questions:
1: Yes, always. Especially in the early stages of training: The first impressions one gets are the ones that last longest. Our school trains mainly (95%) ATPL candidates and they will have to use checklists throughout their career. It's simply part of the job. Right from the beginning.
2: Yes, at least as far as seat belts and doors/exits are concerned. Without proper training, a (smallish) fire extinguisher and a first aid kit are of little value anyway.
3: Not at our home base (international airport), but why not at a small airfield? RT standards are so poor there (sometimes) that a student on a trial lesson under supervision of his instructor will probably stand out