Proposed Changes To Fi(a) Revalidation Requirements
Thread Starter
Proposed Changes To Fi(a) Revalidation Requirements
As all FIs should know, to revalidate your FI Rating nowadays you have to complete 2 out of the 3 options of ‘experience’, ‘seminar’ and ‘test’. This seems to have settled down quite happily over recent years; previously you needed only 5 hours experience every 6 months and had to fly a FI check every 2 years.
However, under NPA-FCL 1-16 (Aeroplane), a proposal is now being made to the JAA that ‘For every second revalidation of a FI(A) rating the holder shall pass, as a proficiency check, the skill test set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to JAR-FCL 1.330 & 1.345’.
This is yet another example of the JAA attempting to shift its own goalposts. There has been no consultation with current FI(A)s or UK/FE PPLs over this proposal - only with the FIEs who, perhaps unsurprisingly as they would be the ones to benefit financially from such a proposal, are in support.
I consider that this is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been conducted and certainly no safety case has been demonstrated. As a result I will be writing to Mike Dobson (UK CAA delegate on the JAA Licensing Sectorial Team) to register my objection to this proposal as he will be the one who will supposedly be responsible for presenting the UK’s view. Should anyone else feel as I do, perhaps they might also care to write to him. His e-mail is: [email protected] . If you don’t make your views known, don’t then complain if the JAA introduces this unwelcome and wholly unnecessary amendment.
However, under NPA-FCL 1-16 (Aeroplane), a proposal is now being made to the JAA that ‘For every second revalidation of a FI(A) rating the holder shall pass, as a proficiency check, the skill test set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to JAR-FCL 1.330 & 1.345’.
This is yet another example of the JAA attempting to shift its own goalposts. There has been no consultation with current FI(A)s or UK/FE PPLs over this proposal - only with the FIEs who, perhaps unsurprisingly as they would be the ones to benefit financially from such a proposal, are in support.
I consider that this is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been conducted and certainly no safety case has been demonstrated. As a result I will be writing to Mike Dobson (UK CAA delegate on the JAA Licensing Sectorial Team) to register my objection to this proposal as he will be the one who will supposedly be responsible for presenting the UK’s view. Should anyone else feel as I do, perhaps they might also care to write to him. His e-mail is: [email protected] . If you don’t make your views known, don’t then complain if the JAA introduces this unwelcome and wholly unnecessary amendment.
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Jun 2002 at 16:30.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Proposed Changes To Fi(a) Revalidation Requirements
I agree with you, its crazy for no other reason that yet again many poor instructors will have to pay out more on top of medicals, seminars etc.
With over 700 instructional hours I have never had a medical paid for nor do I know of any other peson that has. I have worked at several clubs in the SouthEast/West.
.
With over 700 instructional hours I have never had a medical paid for nor do I know of any other peson that has. I have worked at several clubs in the SouthEast/West.
.
Thread Starter
'Sources' is all I will say. But the quote ‘For every second revalidation of a FI(A) rating the holder shall pass, as a proficiency check, the skill test set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to JAR-FCL 1.330 & 1.345’ comes directly from the draft amendment.
A further problem might be the impartiality in this issue of the Chairman of the Licensing Sectorial Team, as he was, I am led to believe, personally in favour of this proposal when it was first mooted.
This proposed change to FI revalidation requirements is a very real threat, not just an unsubstantiated rumour. I have already e-mailed Mike Dobson with my objections and would encourage others to do the same.
A further problem might be the impartiality in this issue of the Chairman of the Licensing Sectorial Team, as he was, I am led to believe, personally in favour of this proposal when it was first mooted.
This proposed change to FI revalidation requirements is a very real threat, not just an unsubstantiated rumour. I have already e-mailed Mike Dobson with my objections and would encourage others to do the same.
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Jun 2002 at 23:47.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, thanks..........
No access to JAR for the next couple of days. Therefore this skill test, is it similar or same to the SEP(L) for licence issue etc? Don't mind doing tests but if we already have to do one for the FI and also for our licence validity, sounds like a load of tosh. I will write to Mike when I see the facts! Cheers
No access to JAR for the next couple of days. Therefore this skill test, is it similar or same to the SEP(L) for licence issue etc? Don't mind doing tests but if we already have to do one for the FI and also for our licence validity, sounds like a load of tosh. I will write to Mike when I see the facts! Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposal to require a test at every second FI renewal is, in my opinion, a retrograde step. Having held an instructor rating for over ten years I have operated under both the ‘old’ system and the current system a feel that the current system is superior. Apart from the few instructors who fail to meet the experience requirements each of us can chose either to undertake a test or attend a seminar.
At my last renewal I opted to attend a seminar and whilst it occupied two days I believe that it was much more useful than renewal by means of a test. The presentations and workshops at the seminar were more stimulating and thought provoking than a test with an FIE and the opportunity in the evening to talk with instructors from other flying schools added to the value of the seminar.
If the system is going to be changed then why? Has the current system led to a lower standard of instruction? Are the PPLs that are being produced less safe? I have neither heard nor seen any evidence to support either of these views.
If someone is going to be consulted about the proposed change surely the best people to consult are FE(PPL)s and the Chief Flight Examiner. As an FE(PPL) I see the results of training by the same group of instructors on a frequent basis and I, and my fellow FE(PPL)s, are in a much better position to spot any underlying deficiencies and suggest remedial action than an FIE, who under the proposed system may only see any individual instructor once every six years. The CFE has the advantage of having available every Skill Test report and should be in a position to spot any diminution in standards on a national basis. Is there any such evidence?
At my last renewal I opted to attend a seminar and whilst it occupied two days I believe that it was much more useful than renewal by means of a test. The presentations and workshops at the seminar were more stimulating and thought provoking than a test with an FIE and the opportunity in the evening to talk with instructors from other flying schools added to the value of the seminar.
If the system is going to be changed then why? Has the current system led to a lower standard of instruction? Are the PPLs that are being produced less safe? I have neither heard nor seen any evidence to support either of these views.
If someone is going to be consulted about the proposed change surely the best people to consult are FE(PPL)s and the Chief Flight Examiner. As an FE(PPL) I see the results of training by the same group of instructors on a frequent basis and I, and my fellow FE(PPL)s, are in a much better position to spot any underlying deficiencies and suggest remedial action than an FIE, who under the proposed system may only see any individual instructor once every six years. The CFE has the advantage of having available every Skill Test report and should be in a position to spot any diminution in standards on a national basis. Is there any such evidence?
Thread Starter
Perhaps I should have made it clearer - it means that the FI reval skill test would be mandatory every other revalidation!
In other words the options of:
1. At least 100 hours instructional experience in 3 years, of which at least 30 hours must be in the final 12 months of the FI Rating validity period,
2. Attendance at a 2-day FI refresher seminar,
3. A FI revalidation rating test
of which you currently have to do any 2 out of the 3, would change so that the FI revalidation test would become mandatory, NOT optional every other revalidation period.
There is NO safety case to prove that this change is needed, we have only just got used to the current requirements and we have not been consulted. However, now that Examiners are formally standardised by the 'observed flight test' requirements, their standards will be more or less similar across the industry. Hence they will all be able to detect any weaknesses in their PPL applicants resulting from poor instruction and any applicant failing because of such weakneses has a report raised which goes to SRG and to the CFE. Hence the CAA must be aware of any weak areas emerging from the new system - otherwise there'd be no point in FEs having to write these reports, would there CAA? Are there any? You haven't made us aware of any!
The quality assurance of PPL instruction is continually monitored by UK/FE(PPL)s through the medium of PPL Skill Tests, revalidation and renewal proficiency checks and SEP Class Rating Skill Tests. A 'poor' instructor will be readily identifiable at any RF as a result of 'his' students' failure. There is consequently NO NEED to change the current system and we should object in the strongest possible terms to this NPA.
In other words the options of:
1. At least 100 hours instructional experience in 3 years, of which at least 30 hours must be in the final 12 months of the FI Rating validity period,
2. Attendance at a 2-day FI refresher seminar,
3. A FI revalidation rating test
of which you currently have to do any 2 out of the 3, would change so that the FI revalidation test would become mandatory, NOT optional every other revalidation period.
There is NO safety case to prove that this change is needed, we have only just got used to the current requirements and we have not been consulted. However, now that Examiners are formally standardised by the 'observed flight test' requirements, their standards will be more or less similar across the industry. Hence they will all be able to detect any weaknesses in their PPL applicants resulting from poor instruction and any applicant failing because of such weakneses has a report raised which goes to SRG and to the CFE. Hence the CAA must be aware of any weak areas emerging from the new system - otherwise there'd be no point in FEs having to write these reports, would there CAA? Are there any? You haven't made us aware of any!
The quality assurance of PPL instruction is continually monitored by UK/FE(PPL)s through the medium of PPL Skill Tests, revalidation and renewal proficiency checks and SEP Class Rating Skill Tests. A 'poor' instructor will be readily identifiable at any RF as a result of 'his' students' failure. There is consequently NO NEED to change the current system and we should object in the strongest possible terms to this NPA.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, thanks you have made it clearer! I must say then I am not so hot to contest this.
As much as the seminar must be good. (I have not attended one but most say its worthwhile) I believe there is no substitute for being put through the renewal flight test. And every other renewal i.e six years is no great sweat! As I see it under the JAR system so far, you can get away with no flight test altogether. Hmmmmm.
Everytime I make a ballsup of something on the flight test and learn from it. It makes me remember why we are taught to be disciplined in our approach to it all.
The test seems to cost no more than the seminar. Now I have no objection to the seminar but feel we should be "standardised" by test from time to time as we examiners are.
I can't imagine the CAA wanting me to sit my LPC/OPC by swapping bar stories over a coffee or six instead of sweating my backside off in the sim! I'm sure you would agree on this bit? Why should it be different for instructing. And as RF/FTO's go the standard of monitoring that goes into its staff of instructors is very varied. So the CAA need a check of some sort, we can't rely on RF/FTO system.
So I am sorry BEagle, but I will be in support of this if the details are correct as you put them. Bullet proof vest is on and ready!
As much as the seminar must be good. (I have not attended one but most say its worthwhile) I believe there is no substitute for being put through the renewal flight test. And every other renewal i.e six years is no great sweat! As I see it under the JAR system so far, you can get away with no flight test altogether. Hmmmmm.
Everytime I make a ballsup of something on the flight test and learn from it. It makes me remember why we are taught to be disciplined in our approach to it all.
The test seems to cost no more than the seminar. Now I have no objection to the seminar but feel we should be "standardised" by test from time to time as we examiners are.
I can't imagine the CAA wanting me to sit my LPC/OPC by swapping bar stories over a coffee or six instead of sweating my backside off in the sim! I'm sure you would agree on this bit? Why should it be different for instructing. And as RF/FTO's go the standard of monitoring that goes into its staff of instructors is very varied. So the CAA need a check of some sort, we can't rely on RF/FTO system.
So I am sorry BEagle, but I will be in support of this if the details are correct as you put them. Bullet proof vest is on and ready!
Thread Starter
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. The old FI retest included some really pointless items - for example you had to fly a 'pilot-interpreted approach' and to demonstrate to a FIE that you could recover from a spin and complete a safe off-aerodrome PFL. Something which any FI should be able to do at any time and which was probably the result of CFS-inspired heritage in the CAA FIE world. But very little of which had the slightest thing to do with a check of instructional ability in the air.
Now, however, you have to demonstrate your flying skills during a 2-yearly 'dual training flight' no matter who you are - so the pure flying skill set is routinely tested in any case. But your instructional methods and knowledge may be refreshed at a seminar; instead of pretending that the FIE is a basic student to whom you are giving a single basic lesson - usually something very simple like medium turns or stalling, certainly never navigation - at a seminar (which is not dependent upon a suitable combination of ac availability, dubious UK weather and FIE availability), you are refreshed on a whole range of topics and brought up to date. This is a far more useful standardisation method.
But what would happen to someone who didn't pass this proposed 6-yearly revalidation? Would all his previous 6 years of instruction be declared null and void? Would all his students be recalled for further training?
No - this NPA is a nonsense. Unless there is clear and present evidence that the current system is unsafe, it should be left well alone.
The devious and underhand way it was proposed is another story.........
Now, however, you have to demonstrate your flying skills during a 2-yearly 'dual training flight' no matter who you are - so the pure flying skill set is routinely tested in any case. But your instructional methods and knowledge may be refreshed at a seminar; instead of pretending that the FIE is a basic student to whom you are giving a single basic lesson - usually something very simple like medium turns or stalling, certainly never navigation - at a seminar (which is not dependent upon a suitable combination of ac availability, dubious UK weather and FIE availability), you are refreshed on a whole range of topics and brought up to date. This is a far more useful standardisation method.
But what would happen to someone who didn't pass this proposed 6-yearly revalidation? Would all his previous 6 years of instruction be declared null and void? Would all his students be recalled for further training?
No - this NPA is a nonsense. Unless there is clear and present evidence that the current system is unsafe, it should be left well alone.
The devious and underhand way it was proposed is another story.........
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Jun 2002 at 13:25.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur with BEagle and must disagree with CaptAirProx. Handling skills and demonstration of decision-making ability can only be checked by practical test whilst instructional skills are better checked by sampling.
Each and every instructor is subject to sampling, irrespective of any internal mechanisms within the RF/FTO, every time he/she submits a candidate for a Skill Test. If an instructor has a lower success rate than his/her colleagues or presents students for test who repeatedly fail a particular part of the Skill Test then this should become obvious to both the FE(PPL) and the instructor’s CFI. Surely this continual sampling is a superior method of monitoring instructional standards when compared to the previous system where during the instructor test the FIE acted as a student and was then ‘taught’ disjointed fragments of a variety of exercises.
As an FE(PPL) I do however believe that the requirement for us to be re-tested as examiners is an improvement upon the old system where the BX examiner authority was revalidated simply by paying a fee. The FIE can set up situations during the dummy Skill Test that call upon us to make a decision as to the outcome of the dummy test and then ensure that the result which each of us awards is consistent with the test standard
Each and every instructor is subject to sampling, irrespective of any internal mechanisms within the RF/FTO, every time he/she submits a candidate for a Skill Test. If an instructor has a lower success rate than his/her colleagues or presents students for test who repeatedly fail a particular part of the Skill Test then this should become obvious to both the FE(PPL) and the instructor’s CFI. Surely this continual sampling is a superior method of monitoring instructional standards when compared to the previous system where during the instructor test the FIE acted as a student and was then ‘taught’ disjointed fragments of a variety of exercises.
As an FE(PPL) I do however believe that the requirement for us to be re-tested as examiners is an improvement upon the old system where the BX examiner authority was revalidated simply by paying a fee. The FIE can set up situations during the dummy Skill Test that call upon us to make a decision as to the outcome of the dummy test and then ensure that the result which each of us awards is consistent with the test standard
This shall not be allowed to stand. NO. NO.
WWW
WWW
Thread Starter
Regarding the comparative costs of a 2-day seminar and a FE revalidation proficiency check, I was somewhat surprised at the comment:
"I think you will agree that a proficiency check with an FI(E) is probably cheaper than a two day seminar."
Does anyone agree that this is the case? An hour and a half at £90 per hour, plus a fee of about £175, plus the FIE's expenses will set a FI back over £300 - I certainly paid nothing like that for a 2-day seminar, even allowing for overnight accommodation!
I understand that this proposal actually started with the UK FIEs at one of their conferences and was subsequently taken up by the JAA Flight Examiners' Working Group, who introduced it as a text change to the helicopter requirements (JAR-FCL 2) and suggested that perhaps it should be introduced for the aeroplane instructors (JAR-FCL 1) as well. So it was never even suggested by a fixed-wing group in the first place!
I consider that 6-yearly mandatory testing would serve no useful purpose and would merely alienate FIs against what seems to be a heavy-handed CAA.
Please say NO!! I shall certainly be writing to the JAA Regulation Director to register my opposition to this proposal and would urge others to do the same. The correct address is:
Yves Morier
JAA Regulation Director
Central JAA
PO Box 3000
2130 KA Hoofddorp
The Netherlands
"I think you will agree that a proficiency check with an FI(E) is probably cheaper than a two day seminar."
Does anyone agree that this is the case? An hour and a half at £90 per hour, plus a fee of about £175, plus the FIE's expenses will set a FI back over £300 - I certainly paid nothing like that for a 2-day seminar, even allowing for overnight accommodation!
I understand that this proposal actually started with the UK FIEs at one of their conferences and was subsequently taken up by the JAA Flight Examiners' Working Group, who introduced it as a text change to the helicopter requirements (JAR-FCL 2) and suggested that perhaps it should be introduced for the aeroplane instructors (JAR-FCL 1) as well. So it was never even suggested by a fixed-wing group in the first place!
I consider that 6-yearly mandatory testing would serve no useful purpose and would merely alienate FIs against what seems to be a heavy-handed CAA.
Please say NO!! I shall certainly be writing to the JAA Regulation Director to register my opposition to this proposal and would urge others to do the same. The correct address is:
Yves Morier
JAA Regulation Director
Central JAA
PO Box 3000
2130 KA Hoofddorp
The Netherlands
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Jun 2002 at 09:58.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Shoreham West Sussex
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - this sounds like a case of "he who doth protest too much" -one test every six years!! Hardly onerous. When I became an instructor I did four tests in the first three years in order to become a MEI, then to upgrade to QFI on singles and then to upgrade to QFI on ME. I learnt an enormous amount every time I did a test and I consider that it is only in the one to one environment in the air that any unusual habits or misconceived methods can be straightened out. If someone does not want to take a test I am curious as to whether they are doubtful of their own ability. In the interests of imrpoving standardisation regular testing is surely desirable.
By all means have a seminar - it is a useful forum for conveying large amounts of material to a large number of people. I would be in favour of both being compulsory, although I believe that the schools should pay for the attendance by their instructors. I also think that three years is far too long between tests. Effectively a new instructor need never be checked again by test, which is as unsatisfactory as the PPL who never ever flew again with an instructor; at least they now have to do the dual training flight on a biennial basis.
By the way BEagle it may have cost a little less to attend the seminar but did you factor in the two days of lost revenue (as opposed to half a day if you do the test) or are you in the fortunate position, not enjoyed by the majority of instructors, of having a salary?
By all means have a seminar - it is a useful forum for conveying large amounts of material to a large number of people. I would be in favour of both being compulsory, although I believe that the schools should pay for the attendance by their instructors. I also think that three years is far too long between tests. Effectively a new instructor need never be checked again by test, which is as unsatisfactory as the PPL who never ever flew again with an instructor; at least they now have to do the dual training flight on a biennial basis.
By the way BEagle it may have cost a little less to attend the seminar but did you factor in the two days of lost revenue (as opposed to half a day if you do the test) or are you in the fortunate position, not enjoyed by the majority of instructors, of having a salary?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the basket.
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The contention that Instructors are TESTED every two years by dint of an instructional flight is overstating the nature of the flight with an instructor. It isn't a test remember. I'll wager that at more than a few clubs, two instructors from the same club will go tootling off for a jolly and there won't be an element of testing. It is a formality, or possibly will be in the minds of the individuals concerned. The system we have in place now ensures that no instructor need be tested after their initial flight test and that is wrong. By introducing the mandatory test you are introducing an independant eye and a standard to the revalidation of the rating and you are ensuring that specific skills are being assessed.
You may find it preposterous that high standards, such as applied by yourself, aren't universal; and I'm not suggesting that a majority of FI's are so irresponsible, but come on guys, you have as much of a vested interest too.
As a postscript....any test to renew any rating also counts as an instructed flight. Therefore an airline pilots LPC/OPC counts? What relevance does that have to flying and instructing in light aircraft?
You may find it preposterous that high standards, such as applied by yourself, aren't universal; and I'm not suggesting that a majority of FI's are so irresponsible, but come on guys, you have as much of a vested interest too.
As a postscript....any test to renew any rating also counts as an instructed flight. Therefore an airline pilots LPC/OPC counts? What relevance does that have to flying and instructing in light aircraft?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
climbs like a dog. I totally agree. Your comments about LPC/OPC and light aircraft are spot on. They are two totally different fields of aviation.
I am still, regardless of the responses of others here, in total favour of an FI renewal flight test.
I disagree with some comments on here that instructors are monitored through sampling via the PPL Skill Test Candidate.
That system works if the instructor has done the majority of the course for the candidate, but one of the clubs I frequent as an instructor/examiner, every lesson is completed by a different instructor. I have found both the standard of progress of the student is slow, inconsistant knowledge and skill, and the student records are awful. I have tested these guys and found that it is very hard to find out "who" was teaching the wrong techniques etc.
There are some great instructors around the skies and there are some not so good ones. Skill Test sampling is just not good enough at weeding the men out from the boys. Its a good help but testing of the instructor is surely the final nail in their coffin!
Instructors want to be seen as professionals in their chosen career, so why is it they aren't all in agreement to be tested as professionals.
Mr Dobson - if your reading this.....................bring back mandatory testing!
I believe that I am still learning heaps about aviation, and therefore testing is a great way to put my money where my mouth is and I often fluff it! All very humbling!
I am hoping that one day I will walk into my LPC/OPC and treat it like water off a ducks back. I probably never will but I am sure some guys/gals do but they still have to go through the hoops. Its all part of professional aviation and hopefully stops us from getting complacent.
I am still, regardless of the responses of others here, in total favour of an FI renewal flight test.
I disagree with some comments on here that instructors are monitored through sampling via the PPL Skill Test Candidate.
That system works if the instructor has done the majority of the course for the candidate, but one of the clubs I frequent as an instructor/examiner, every lesson is completed by a different instructor. I have found both the standard of progress of the student is slow, inconsistant knowledge and skill, and the student records are awful. I have tested these guys and found that it is very hard to find out "who" was teaching the wrong techniques etc.
There are some great instructors around the skies and there are some not so good ones. Skill Test sampling is just not good enough at weeding the men out from the boys. Its a good help but testing of the instructor is surely the final nail in their coffin!
Instructors want to be seen as professionals in their chosen career, so why is it they aren't all in agreement to be tested as professionals.
Mr Dobson - if your reading this.....................bring back mandatory testing!
I believe that I am still learning heaps about aviation, and therefore testing is a great way to put my money where my mouth is and I often fluff it! All very humbling!
I am hoping that one day I will walk into my LPC/OPC and treat it like water off a ducks back. I probably never will but I am sure some guys/gals do but they still have to go through the hoops. Its all part of professional aviation and hopefully stops us from getting complacent.
Thread Starter
Climbs like a dog - whilst it might not be unreasonable to check 'instructional ability' in some way, checking flying skills on a FI revalidation is irrelevant. I know the UK CAA wanted to continue as they had pre-JAR; however, they weren't prepared to file a National Variance to back up their chuntering opinions as this would have attracted flak from the JAA! In fact they went out of their way to tell us what a good idea the seminar was..... Sorry - either you sign up to JARs or you contract out of them altogether!
This 'opportunity' to re-introduce mandatory testing was first suggested by FIEs at one of their symposiums. Convince me that this suggestion wasn't financially influenced, that there has been a worrying downward trend in instructional standards or that all FEs have been consulted and perhaps I'd feel different.
6-yearly testing would be totally meaningless. If an FI hadn't learned how to instruct by then, then perhaps he never would. If this is made mandatory, many of those 'get the hours any old how and go to the airlines asap' FIs would have come and gone in 6 years, leaving only those who choose to instruct because that's what they want to do, not just hours-build pre some 737 bucket-and-spade RHS job.....
An alternative? Make the first FI revalidation of a new FI's career include a mandatory revalidation proficiency check - not 'every second revalidation' as is proposed? That way the development of instructional ability can be adequately proven and thereafter the FI should continue to revalidate as at present
This 'opportunity' to re-introduce mandatory testing was first suggested by FIEs at one of their symposiums. Convince me that this suggestion wasn't financially influenced, that there has been a worrying downward trend in instructional standards or that all FEs have been consulted and perhaps I'd feel different.
6-yearly testing would be totally meaningless. If an FI hadn't learned how to instruct by then, then perhaps he never would. If this is made mandatory, many of those 'get the hours any old how and go to the airlines asap' FIs would have come and gone in 6 years, leaving only those who choose to instruct because that's what they want to do, not just hours-build pre some 737 bucket-and-spade RHS job.....
An alternative? Make the first FI revalidation of a new FI's career include a mandatory revalidation proficiency check - not 'every second revalidation' as is proposed? That way the development of instructional ability can be adequately proven and thereafter the FI should continue to revalidate as at present
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, yeah right?
So like a new instructor, I go to my first airline job. Now as I'm a professional pilot I don't need to be tested everytime I go flying, I know it all already. All I need is just a reval of my type rating in the first year and then go off never to be checked again. All because I know it all already and have nothing to learn from any further re-test. Yeah right. I don't think so some how!
Well I don't know what you guys do on the heavy metal at Brize, flying VC's et al but I bet you get tested every now and then as a professional? Am I right.
Come on Beagle, you don't surely think that once you have an instructor's ticket you become immortal? That is certainly the way I read your lines. Please correct me if I'm wrong. ta
If we are not going to be tested as instructors any more then I reckon they should up the requirements in the initial test and include the pilots attitude to aviation. Then we might just be left with the sort of guys that take pride in their qualifications and go seek advice when needed and take advice when given. Then there would be no need for testing. But hey, that's the ideal world and we all have to live to the lowest common dinominator. Get tested every now and then to get rid of the bad wood. And I might add, make us better at our job in the meantime.
So like a new instructor, I go to my first airline job. Now as I'm a professional pilot I don't need to be tested everytime I go flying, I know it all already. All I need is just a reval of my type rating in the first year and then go off never to be checked again. All because I know it all already and have nothing to learn from any further re-test. Yeah right. I don't think so some how!
Well I don't know what you guys do on the heavy metal at Brize, flying VC's et al but I bet you get tested every now and then as a professional? Am I right.
Come on Beagle, you don't surely think that once you have an instructor's ticket you become immortal? That is certainly the way I read your lines. Please correct me if I'm wrong. ta
If we are not going to be tested as instructors any more then I reckon they should up the requirements in the initial test and include the pilots attitude to aviation. Then we might just be left with the sort of guys that take pride in their qualifications and go seek advice when needed and take advice when given. Then there would be no need for testing. But hey, that's the ideal world and we all have to live to the lowest common dinominator. Get tested every now and then to get rid of the bad wood. And I might add, make us better at our job in the meantime.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing..............
You could take it the other way. Why make PPL's do a 2 year instructional or prof check. Why not make them attend a seminar instead and not be tested ever again?
I wonder if you defended the PPL's when this was first mooted. Because lets face it, you and I both benefit from this new scheme as PPL FE's. Whats your view on that?
Is it a case of the table has turned now?
You could take it the other way. Why make PPL's do a 2 year instructional or prof check. Why not make them attend a seminar instead and not be tested ever again?
I wonder if you defended the PPL's when this was first mooted. Because lets face it, you and I both benefit from this new scheme as PPL FE's. Whats your view on that?
Is it a case of the table has turned now?
Thread Starter
1. The dual training flight does not need to be conducted by a FE. Ergo, as a PPL FE, I do not gain materially from this reqt. But most reputable clubs have always required an annual dual check of their pilots in any case, so this wasn't really anything new for most folk.
2. The prof. check requirement is really only the same as the old 'GFT if not enough P1 hours' reqt.
3. I am not talking about the 'testing of flying skills' - I am querying this proposed revised reqt. for the evaluation of the ability to impart instruction.
4. My last instructional check was conducted during the asessment of a captain on an international route flight. Nothing to do with my own flying skills - those are tested 2-yearly at CR(S) level.
5. Please re-read my posts, you haven't quite got the gist of my argument.
2. The prof. check requirement is really only the same as the old 'GFT if not enough P1 hours' reqt.
3. I am not talking about the 'testing of flying skills' - I am querying this proposed revised reqt. for the evaluation of the ability to impart instruction.
4. My last instructional check was conducted during the asessment of a captain on an international route flight. Nothing to do with my own flying skills - those are tested 2-yearly at CR(S) level.
5. Please re-read my posts, you haven't quite got the gist of my argument.
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Jun 2002 at 19:52.