Diff and Familiarization training shouldn't be Comm all over again?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diff and Familiarization training shouldn't be Comm all over again?
Hi All.
I recently did some diff and famil ratings for new company pilots onto the company a/c. Now, its a SEP a/c, and the idea was simply to get the new pilots signed out on the a/c. In SA this is a legal/licensing issue, whereas i understand is some contries only a 'group' rating is needed (i.e if you have SEP a/c on you license, you can go fly any of them). Not so in SA. Anyway, besides the point. The point is this:
i found that doing this flight, i was so focused on teaching the pilots about the new a/c, that i simply assumed their general flying/airmanship ability was up to standard. I flew with them until i was happy they had a good grasp of the a/c, and that i could happily sign them out to fly that a/c type. A few weeks later, our other comapny instructor took them up for more of a general flight test. He found they were pretty schocking in terms of general airmanship. My question is this: when doing a type rating for a commercial pilot, is it my responsibility to ensure that the pilot is up to par to be a commercial pilot (i.e, radio work, airmanship, etc), or is it simply for that flight to get them signed out on the a/c?
In hindsight i may have approached the training differently, but i hope you can see where this is coming from? Just wondering what the general feel is on this? Thanks.
I recently did some diff and famil ratings for new company pilots onto the company a/c. Now, its a SEP a/c, and the idea was simply to get the new pilots signed out on the a/c. In SA this is a legal/licensing issue, whereas i understand is some contries only a 'group' rating is needed (i.e if you have SEP a/c on you license, you can go fly any of them). Not so in SA. Anyway, besides the point. The point is this:
i found that doing this flight, i was so focused on teaching the pilots about the new a/c, that i simply assumed their general flying/airmanship ability was up to standard. I flew with them until i was happy they had a good grasp of the a/c, and that i could happily sign them out to fly that a/c type. A few weeks later, our other comapny instructor took them up for more of a general flight test. He found they were pretty schocking in terms of general airmanship. My question is this: when doing a type rating for a commercial pilot, is it my responsibility to ensure that the pilot is up to par to be a commercial pilot (i.e, radio work, airmanship, etc), or is it simply for that flight to get them signed out on the a/c?
In hindsight i may have approached the training differently, but i hope you can see where this is coming from? Just wondering what the general feel is on this? Thanks.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the multi crew world we have 2 phases.
First one as you say is getting the aircraft sorted LPC/OPC.
The second stage is the line training where the other points are dealt with finally finishing with a line check which is the sign off that they are good to fly unsupervised for a Capt or with a normal Capt if an FO.
First one as you say is getting the aircraft sorted LPC/OPC.
The second stage is the line training where the other points are dealt with finally finishing with a line check which is the sign off that they are good to fly unsupervised for a Capt or with a normal Capt if an FO.
You are correct that in much of the world uses "class ratings" for SEP - my JAA licence shows SEP as a class rating, and my FAA SEL, and whilst good practice is to get checked out by a grown up, it's seldom legally mandatory - certainly below 2000kg. This is, I think, a peculiarity of the South African licencing system.
I'd venture that you need to talk to your employer - that is the organisation you're checking people out for, and ask them for a clear statement of requirement. Are you looking for minimum acceptable levels of type knowledge, or are you looking to deliver pilots competent to do a particular job? That they need to define, and then you perhaps can cover your backside by informing them in writing of the specific limitations of what you do.
For example, I do quite a lot of syndicate checkouts here in the UK: usually pilots who are buying shares in, sometimes quite interesting, SEP types. I can pick a point on a sliding scale that looks something like:
(1) They understand the aeroplane
(2) They understand the aeroplane, and are demonstrating consistently safe flying
(3) They understand the aeroplane, and are demonstrating both safe flying in it, and would be able to pass a PPL skill test in it
(4) They are flying it as well as I - a CPL and instructor with substantial hours on type can fly it.
It sounds like you delivered (1), I'm usually shooting for (2) within syndicates, but if somebody is upgrading their licence to fly the aeroplane [for example a microlight pilot switching to SEP or vice-versa] and will need to shoot for (3) to pass a test or I need to sign for differences training. (4) is a luxury I allow myself and am happy to offer training to this standard to anybody prepared to pay for it, but strangely enough have had very few takers.
Regardless however, you, your employer, and the pilot you're training, all need to understand what you're trying to achieve on that scale. It sounds like the problem you have is that this wasn't universally agreed.
G
I'd venture that you need to talk to your employer - that is the organisation you're checking people out for, and ask them for a clear statement of requirement. Are you looking for minimum acceptable levels of type knowledge, or are you looking to deliver pilots competent to do a particular job? That they need to define, and then you perhaps can cover your backside by informing them in writing of the specific limitations of what you do.
For example, I do quite a lot of syndicate checkouts here in the UK: usually pilots who are buying shares in, sometimes quite interesting, SEP types. I can pick a point on a sliding scale that looks something like:
(1) They understand the aeroplane
(2) They understand the aeroplane, and are demonstrating consistently safe flying
(3) They understand the aeroplane, and are demonstrating both safe flying in it, and would be able to pass a PPL skill test in it
(4) They are flying it as well as I - a CPL and instructor with substantial hours on type can fly it.
It sounds like you delivered (1), I'm usually shooting for (2) within syndicates, but if somebody is upgrading their licence to fly the aeroplane [for example a microlight pilot switching to SEP or vice-versa] and will need to shoot for (3) to pass a test or I need to sign for differences training. (4) is a luxury I allow myself and am happy to offer training to this standard to anybody prepared to pay for it, but strangely enough have had very few takers.
Regardless however, you, your employer, and the pilot you're training, all need to understand what you're trying to achieve on that scale. It sounds like the problem you have is that this wasn't universally agreed.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys. Thats very helpful.
Yeah, i think that you are right in saying it wasnt universally agreed when we began, and this is something that we can build into the next round of training new guys. i am in quite a nice position of helping the company put together the training program, and so hopefully as it develops it will become very much more defined and professional. Again, thanks for the comments.
Yeah, i think that you are right in saying it wasnt universally agreed when we began, and this is something that we can build into the next round of training new guys. i am in quite a nice position of helping the company put together the training program, and so hopefully as it develops it will become very much more defined and professional. Again, thanks for the comments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are correct that in much of the world uses "class ratings" for SEP - my JAA licence shows SEP as a class rating, and my FAA SEL, and whilst good practice is to get checked out by a grown up, it's seldom legally mandatory - certainly below 2000kg. This is, I think, a peculiarity of the South African licencing system.
