Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

Logging landing during instruction

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Logging landing during instruction

Old 5th Mar 2018, 11:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Logging landing during instruction

A Brand new FI has asked me a good question. I have never come across that issue as I also fly SEP and MEP myself so I can log landing when I fly myself.

Can a FI log the landing made by his student either in SEP or MEP. If he cannot then he cannot prove that he made 3 landings in 90 days.
Majority of FI, they only fly during instruction and rarely fly themselves so are not landing the aircraft.

EASA FCL.050 is not very clear on that.

thanks
slr737 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 14:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,028
EASA FCL.050 is not very clear on that.
FCL.050 is perfectly clear
FCL.050 Recording of flight time The pilot shall keep a reliable record of the details of all flights flown in a form and manner established by the competent authority.
In the UK this is Article 228 of the ANO, which has no requirement to log any take-offs or landings at all!

FCL060 specifies the recency requirement:
A pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air transport or carrying passengers:
(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 takeoffs,approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class.
So if he/she, the pilot has not flown them themself, they are not current.
Majority of FI, they only fly during instruction and rarely fly themselves so are not landing the aircraft.
You mean they go for 90 days as an Instructor and never demonstrate anything, sounds like poor instruction to me.
Whopity is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 15:03
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,330
Quite often I'll 'nick' aircraft after the student training detail is complete and 'land or touch and go' to ensure I do meet the 3-in-90 rule - more so in the multi as I get enough SEP stuff
Duchess_Driver is online now  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 16:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 584
I think the question is there a requirement to be “the sole manipulator of the controls” for 3 landings in 90 days.Many instructors doing only advanced instruction and examiners could easily fal foul of this one.I,ve seen it written in the past not sure if it’s still in force in today’s mishmash of regulations.I,m lucky I own my own aircraft in addition to instructing!Regards Stampe
Stampe is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 16:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,725
Personally I keep a tally of take-offs and landings on my PLOG and logbook, and find that if I'm doing much instructing I invariably end up demonstrating a few circuits in the course of the month, so it's little issue.

And if I'm not instructing, I'll usually be doing a bit of private flying and will often ensure an approach or a couple of circuits on the end of a sortie - but I appreciate that is an expensive luxury on the salaries many full time instructors earn.

That said it certainly can be an issue, particularly if you are mostly instructing existing qualified pilots, that you don't get much hands-on time. It hardly seems appropriate to log take-odds and landings where your student handled the controls.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 17:36
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,028
I think the question is there a requirement to be “the sole manipulator of the controls”
That was the statement under JAR but if the student had conducted the takeoffs and landings then the instructor would not have carried them out. The fact he/she was PIC is irrelevant. In the case of instructor and student is there a passenger on board?
Whopity is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 20:54
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
You mean they go for 90 days as an Instructor and never demonstrate anything, sounds like poor instruction to me.
some instructor might only teach IFR, or advanced PPL course, where demonstrating a take off or landing is not part of the course. If you are on a MEP course, you do not demonstrate landing or take off either.

Demonstrating take off and landing will only be part of the initial PPL training.

Now, "stealing" one circuit once in a while might be ok, but what about on a Seneca where the rental price is not the same as C152..
slr737 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 07:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 639
If an instructor is carrying out dual instruction (and is therefore PIC) with a PPL or with a student - providing there is no one else on board - he is not flying with passengers.

In theory, that instructor could be way past 90 days and still be legal. Doesn't make it right of course.

Dead easy, at the end of a training session, to say; "Let me show you a slightly different landing technique." Or; "Do you mind if I do this landing?"

I've never been refused.........yet.
MrAverage is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 09:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,725
Originally Posted by slr737 View Post
.

Now, "stealing" one circuit once in a while might be ok, but what about on a Seneca where the rental price is not the same as C152..
THere will always be some people for whom the cost of a circuit in a C152 is more more expensive than the cost to somebody else of a circuit in a Seneca. This probably includes most flying instructors given that it's hardly the best paid job in the world.

That said, it's hardly unusual that an instructor has reason to demonstrate and patter a "gold standard" circuit for their student's benefit is it? There is no need to steal a circuit, simply to construct the lesson so that it's done in a particular way from which everybody benefits.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 10:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,028
If an instructor is carrying out dual instruction (and is therefore PIC) with a PPL or with a student - providing there is no one else on board - he is not flying with passengers.

In theory, that instructor could be way past 90 days and still be legal. Doesn't make it right of course.
Now look at the Instructor requirements to teach the Night Rating
(e) the night rating, provided that the FI:
(1) is qualified to fly at night in the appropriate aircraft category;
(2) has demonstrated the ability to instruct at night to an FI qualified in accordance with (i)
below; and
(3) complies with the night experience requirement of FCL.060(b)(2);
So to teach the Night Rating with no passengers on board the FI must be 90 day current.

No doubt unintentional; a typical case of poor drafting and even poorer checking.
Whopity is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 11:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,422
I’m pretty sure you do t let a SEP student land without having demonstrated multiple times and I’m pretty damn sure you wouldn’t let a MEP student do their first engine out landing without a demonstration.

SEP:
First 3-4 landings demo regardless
Partial flap landings demo
No flap landings demo
Forward slip landings demo
EFATO demo
Low viz or bad weather circuit
Sim eng failure from overhead/circuit
Night landing demo

You’re supposed to teach each one and why they’re different from the other ones.

MEP:
First landing demo and why it’s different from a SEP
Assymetric landing demo
EFATO and SE circuit to landing

Plus all the times you say “my controls” before you head for the weeds.
I’ve never had currency issues and never had to use the students dime.

Last edited by B2N2; 6th Mar 2018 at 12:10.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 12:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,725
Not many taught EFATOs should, I hope, go immediately on to a loggable landing!

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 14:03
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
So to teach the Night Rating with no passengers on board the FI must be 90 day current.
Unless they have a SPA-IR I presume?
tescoapp is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 18:07
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,028
That is one of the options in FCL.060(b)(2). It does not say if the IR has to be valid on the class!
Whopity is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2018, 22:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,422
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post
Not many taught EFATOs should, I hope, go immediately on to a loggable landing!

G
Simulated engine failure after lift off on a 5000’ runway.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2018, 02:00
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 518
Originally Posted by Whopity
In the case of instructor and student is there a passenger on board?
A student must come under the ANO definition for flight crew member rather than passenger which is supported by a non-binding statement made in CAP 1335, p 8:

Originally Posted by CAP 1335
A flight classified as aerial work is normally a flight where some form of payment is made by one of the parties involved in connection with the flight, but does not involve the carriage of passengers. Remunerated flight instruction is probably the most common example of this.
selfin is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2018, 08:29
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,028
A student must come under the ANO definition for flight crew member rather than passenger
The ANO definition does not apply to EASA aircraft. There is no definition in the Basic Regulation or Part FCL however; there is a definition in Commercial Operations.
Whopity is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2018, 09:31
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,725
Originally Posted by B2N2 View Post
Simulated engine failure after lift off on a 5000’ runway.
I did say "not many", not "none".

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2018, 11:07
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,422
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post
I did say "not many", not "none".

G
Point being every demonstration is a landing you could log.
And that’s a large part of what you do as Flight Instructor. Demonstrate.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2018, 12:00
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 1,423
In my view there is a bit of a grey area here. Should I only log the landings where I'm the sole manipulator of the controls? Should I also log the landing if the student did most of it but I grabbed the controls at the last moment to avoid a tailstrike during the bounce? Can I log the landing if I was directly coaching the student through the entire process?

The way I did it when I was instructing for a larger school (SEP/VFR only), I kept track of the total number of landings during a lesson. I then logged this in my logbook, the aircraft journal and had the student log the same number. During one day I would sometimes fly up to five different lessons with between 3 and 11 landings per lesson. Keeping track of who flew during which landing, although possible, became difficult and for logging purposes I just ignored this.

It certainly never led to a situation where I was unable to carry passengers, as there were plenty of demonstrations and other situations where I flew most if not all of the landing. Was I cheating? Perhaps a bit, but passenger carrying is the only thing that this has any influence on. In my logbook, I had plenty of landings to show that I could carry passengers. For myself, I always made sure to be 'in practice' before I carried passengers.

In my view the responsibility still lies with you to make sure that you are capable of carrying out a flight with passengers to the highest possible level of safety. The 3 landings in 90 days bit is just a bit of a legal backstop to prevent pilots with oversize egos to redefine the 'capable' bit in the previous sentence.
Jhieminga is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.