Proposed Changes To Fi(a) Revalidation Requirements

[CaptAirProx]

Hang on..................

I thought at the beginning of your posts you were suggesting that we had to do a test flight of just our flying skills as well as doing the usual 1 or 2 year Class Rating thingy that all PPL's do. Now that seemed odd to be tested yet again for flying skill in what seemed a similar test format.

You then told me that what Dobson et al were saying was effectively re-introduce the old QFI renewal type flight test. Now as far as I am concerned thats fine. As thats a test specifically for that rating. Yes it does test your flying skill, but obviously the aim is to see if you can still teach correctly. No point being able to teach yet can't fly accurately!

Your comment about your last instructional flight you did. Yeah, thats fine, because being Multi Crew, thats what you need to do. You ain't teaching the guy how to fly basics, your building on his/her already demonstrated professional skill.

A PPL is being taught the whole thing from scratch. You need to show that you can teach the basics. Demonstrate them accurately, and fly a SEP (L) professionally, and safely for that trial lesson you can legally do with paying punters!

I think your professional instructor bit is a totally different kettle of fish. Most of techniques are the same but the material is different.

Please correct me again if I have the wrong idea of this proposed new FI renewal, but thats how I read your later posts.

[BEagle]

The basic technique of imparting flight instruction is the same in any environment. Brief-monitor-debrief.

The UK CAA favours re-introducing the FI revalidation proficiency check. Does this still include such pointless items (for instructional ability) as a pilot-interpreted let-down (also revalidated on IMC/IR checks)and a non-instructed PFL? Those do NOT need to be checked on such a test; they might have been back in the days when there were no mandatory checks of piloting skills post-GFT, but not nowadays.

I can't see that a 6-yearly re-test will have much merit; it might well be desirable in some people's opinions, but they must prove that it is essential before such a change is approved. Which I challenge them to do with factual proof of lowering standards or deteriorating safety records...............

............and the CAA is not testing 'Q'FIs - only the military does that! Civil terms are FI and FI(R)!

[CaptAirProx]

Beagle,

Your quite right about the QFI bit. I was quoting the old "QFI" test for example purposes. No need to split hairs there me thinks.

Anyway, one my last renewal test that I chose to do last year. I did the let down and pattered it, as asked by the FIE. Yes I got to do umpteen ILS's etc on my last LPC, and yes I got to do an ILS on my MEP(L) IR this year, but I never pattered the ILS thing till this renewal. So thats why the CAA want it done in the renewal surely. We can all fly one but can we still fly and talk? As to the PFL, well I look at it like this. Yes I do do a PFL from time to time, but I can renew my SEP(L) by doing my MEP(L) prof check every year, based on my hours flown SEP(L). So infact, looking at it I will never have to demo to an examiner my skills on no engine ever again under JAR.

So perhaps thats why as a instructor it is still wise to be tested for our skill at forced landing. Remember, they have got to cover the worst case scenario, so I am just glad that I am hopefully not allways the worst case!!!!!!

Now I'm off to do some ground school for a week so can't respond for a while............safe flying.

[FormationFlyer]

Id like to add a little here from a newbie perspective....

Im a relatively new instructor with about 115hrs instructional time, 600TT - just about to become unrestricted.

Personally I welcome flight tests - indeed for my renewal in a couple of years time I have already decided to do both the flight test AND the seminar - even though I will be able to renew on experience. Why? Because I relish every flight test I do - maybe, just maybe I can walk away with just one iota of information that I didnt have before, perhaps another view of a technique I didnt have before, also its one of the few chances you get to speak to FIEs really - I mean yeah we talk about technique amongst ourselves as instructors but it really is important to be able to access that examiner and hear their take on things (I also enjoy canvassing FE to see their take on things...very useful).

The guys who concern me are the ones who have been in the business for years and perhaps think they have seen it all - maybe they have - but I dont think you ever stop learning - and an oppurtunity to reaffirm your skills/lnowledge should not be sniffed at. Surely we should be aiming at continued self-improvement?

This aviation lark is a serious thing. I dont care if you fly for fun, pleasure or whatever - but when you get into an aircraft lives are at stake. As an instructor you want to make sure that you wont kill yourself, other wont kill you and more importantly that someone you teach wont kill themselves/others. Therefore surely the test of ability regardless of experience should be welcomed?

Also, I see no problem in checking BOTH my own personal skills to ensure safe/recoverable flight given emergency situations as well as my teaching ability/techniques.

As I say - Roll on my IRI, & roll on those flight tests...I look forward to picking up some useful tips. I know I did at my initial.

Regards,
FF

[climbs like a dog]

It is my contention that we should never have moved away from the previous system which had worked perfectly well for a number of years in the first place.

Beagle, you are defending the indefensible. The notion that instructional skills in the air shouldn't be tested post initial test is ludicrous. The fact that there is no element of examination of flying skills post initial SEP (L) rating test is also ludicrous (for an instructor particularly).

Having re-read your previous posts I don't see your point is justified. Why not make all revalidations subject to flight tests, instead of relying on these companies springing up to run the seminars, which in itself is quite a racket. Why not press the CAA to provide the seminars as standardisation events? They probably are a very useful tool for disseminating best practice but how can you test or measure any increase in skills achieved or indeed whether the baseline skills are being retained?

You mention that your club, or any decent club will insist on a checkride every year or two; indeed your insurer may compel you to. The only problem is that this isn't a test either. Not in terms of a rigourously applied standard.

I think in cases where an instructor demonstrates skills by renewing a rating, such as the IR revalidation, that the testing on an instructor revalidation should only cover the instructional skills.

I agree with the poster who queried your reliance on an assessment of the overall standard of PPLs coming through the system. That assumes that the standard amongst examiners remains constant or that the emphasis on tests doesn't change.
As a for instance; if you were to use the test standards as a yardstick, you could say that for an average FI their basic IF teaching skills are of the same standard as the average was 5 years ago. That would be a dodgy statement because the IF syllabus in the PPL has become far more basic under JAR ie 180 on instruments and fly out of the cloud. More accurately you could say that the IF tuition has been sufficient for the student to pass the exam. This doesn't assess in any way the ability, in terms of flying skills, of the instructor.

I think you'll find that most JAA edicts get by with at best a cursory RIA. The CAA should have stuck to its guns and filed a difference.

[CaptAirProx]

Formation & Climbs like a dog.................

Thanks guys, I was beginning to think I was the only one with a view on this one!

As formation said, we never stop learning. I have just completed some ground school as a student in whats called "differences" training for an added series of aircraft to go on my type rating.

i have just learnt loads about aviation that I should have already learnt yonks back............must have got lost in the blurb somehow! I am off to the stimulator next week and will be under "test". I expect to learn a great deal more...........and I'm looking forward to it!

I thought that was one of the delights of aviation, in that we never stop learning.

Bring back the old system. I was tested nearly every two months as a new "AFI" years back. As the old system required a quick test flight with an FIE to fly a new series of aircraft as an instructor. It was a great way to refresh and develop my instructional skills. Shame it is still not in place. My have avoided the EGHH incident a couple of years back.

[BEagle]

Thanks to all the contributors to this thread.

My conclusion is that FI revalidation by alternate mandatory flight test might be considered 'desirable' by some, but it must be proven to be 'essential' before changes to current legislation may be considered.

However, I do consider that it would be reasonable for the first FI revalidation to include a mandatory flight test.