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

FCL.050 is perfectly clear 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: So if he/she, the pilot has not flown them themself, they are not current.
You mean they go for 90 days as an Instructor and never demonstrate anything, sounds like poor instruction to me.

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

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

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

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?

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..

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.

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

Now look at the Instructor requirements to teach the Night Rating
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.

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.

Not many taught EFATOs should, I hope, go immediately on to a loggable landing!

G

Unless they have a SPA-IR I presume?

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!

Simulated engine failure after lift off on a 5000’ runway.

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:

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.

I did say "not many", not "none". :cool:

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.

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.

Its a personal flying log book. So long as you fulfill the requirements of your National Authority, then you have met the legal requirement. Nothing grey about that.

But if the wheels don't reach the ground, arguably it's not a loggable landing.

G

Bet I can find a smaller pinhead than you, G 😉

https://media.giphy.com/media/Rhhr8D5mKSX7O/giphy.gif

Picky bu66ers, the lot of you :}

I'm sticking with my version, it's only a landing if the aeroplane touched the ground at some point.

G

Apart from the old night currency, I've never logged a landing in my life. No legal requirement in the UK.

There isn't, but personally I've started keeping a note of late, simply to have clear evidence that I'm within the 90 day rule if required.

G

JHC in a rowboat, it’s only one (1!) measly landing a month you need to log for currency.

With my pedantic nature I could be picky and point out that it is technically not correct, but what fuddles me more is the fact that people still don't understand the rules here and choose to go flying with a 'mate' in the other seat because they know they haven't done the required 3 in 90 as sole manipulator of the controls before flying with passengers.

When I used to teach in the US, I never even bothered to log landings. I'd consider myself fortunate if I could go 3 days without landing the plane, let alone 3 months. For a private or commercial student, you'll eventually have to demonstrate a few landings. Instrument or ATP, they already know how to land, and don't mind a little landing competition for fun. We had a few 10,000+ft runways nearby. It was possible to get all your landings done in one pass.

Incidentally, under the FAA, an instructor does not need to be current at night to teach night landings, as long as no passengers are on board. The student is not considered a passenger.

Also, I had no hard and fast rules determining how many landings to demonstrate before giving the student a go. For example, I'd taught many of my multi-engine students since day 1. If all was well, I'd usually just talk them through their first single engine landing.

If we want to be pedantic, the phrase "as sole manipulator" was JAR stuff and does not appear in the EASA Regulation!

Which is why it was in italics.... being inferred not stated.

Didn't spot the italics!

I am a little flabbergasted it at this....... How can any Instructor regardless of the level they teach not manage to log 3/90? I teach from PPL to type ratings and every course has more than enough opportunity to demonstrate take off and landings. If you are not demonstrating them, how the hell does your student learn?

Many part time instructors do not fly regularly, especially during the winter.

That is no excuse to not be able to maintain the required landings. I they are that rusty then they should not be teaching.

My policy exactly. I was just pointing out the fact that they're out there.

As has been said, it is quite easy.... a while ago all I taught was iR and IR conversions, it seemed that everyone in the door already had their ME class. The only way I could maintain currency was to nick a circuit at the end of the day....

You could make a strong case for somebody doing a job like that, that the CFI should have factored this in and ensured you did a periodic CT sortie of a bit of general handling, few circuits, few duty emergencies. Maybe sent instructors up together to do that, so that they can do a bit of practice pattering it to each other as well.

G

No excuse and would not happen in my school. There is nothing wrong with you yelling the student you are doing a landing for your own currency as part of any course. I expect my staff to do so and I do so myself in the situation you quote.

There is no excuse for an instructor not to keep current.