Run-ups during a flight
Thanks.
And in case anyone’s interested in the real safety issues arising from the scenario - good luck.
And in case anyone’s interested in the real safety issues arising from the scenario - good luck.
The following users liked this post:
You don't have to be an Examiner to conduct a Flight Review. You do have to have a current Gr 1 or 2 instructor rating which means a test in the last 24 months.
Personally I like to see run ups done in a run up bay (check conditions of use of the airport) with the park brake on, not at holding points (delaying others, chance of rolling over the line and possibly blowing away someone behind you) definitely not while taxiing. If on a flight review the pilot could convince me that there is a good reason to do it another way they are welcome to try; "That's what my instructor told me" is not a reason.
Personally I like to see run ups done in a run up bay (check conditions of use of the airport) with the park brake on, not at holding points (delaying others, chance of rolling over the line and possibly blowing away someone behind you) definitely not while taxiing. If on a flight review the pilot could convince me that there is a good reason to do it another way they are welcome to try; "That's what my instructor told me" is not a reason.
The following users liked this post:
You don't have to be an Examiner to conduct a Flight Review. You do have to have a current Gr 1 or 2 instructor rating which means a test in the last 24 months.
Personally I like to see run ups done in a run up bay (check conditions of use of the airport) with the park brake on, not at holding points (delaying others, chance of rolling over the line and possibly blowing away someone behind you) definitely not while taxiing. If on a flight review the pilot could convince me that there is a good reason to do it another way they are welcome to try; "That's what my instructor told me" is not a reason.
Personally I like to see run ups done in a run up bay (check conditions of use of the airport) with the park brake on, not at holding points (delaying others, chance of rolling over the line and possibly blowing away someone behind you) definitely not while taxiing. If on a flight review the pilot could convince me that there is a good reason to do it another way they are welcome to try; "That's what my instructor told me" is not a reason.
To conduct SE flight reviews, you only need Single Engine Training Endorsement. No need to hold a G1, G2 or even a G3 as you can hold SEA TE and all other training endorsements with them.
If I’m not mistaken, an instructor can legally not have a valid AFR and still exercise their privileges to perform the requirements of the AFR, as long as the “student” is current.
I also believe that under part 61.095 that the “student” is the PICUS as long as they are fully licenced and current.
I also believe that under part 61.095 that the “student” is the PICUS as long as they are fully licenced and current.
But they would have an FPC every 2 years and potentially an IPC every year which generally ticks off all the requirements of the flight review for the applicable class of aeroplane.
You are wrong. Whoever is telling this has no idea. So you did your flight review with an instructor without him or her having a flight review and they then signed it? 61.095 is about PICUS for commercial pilots conducting a flight review as part of a check and training program.
https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-...flight-reviews. Para 12.1.1
https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-...flight-reviews. Para 12.1.1
Student - DUAL
Instructor - PIC
*Must have been conducted under a Part 141/142 organisation
If training was NOT conducted in the Flight Review
Student - ICUS
Instructor - PIC
*May be completed privately without the need for a Part 141/142
Cloudee you are also wrong, 61.095 is not only about CPL/ATPL holders within a C&T organisation. Have a look at 61.095(3).
The following 2 users liked this post by Bog Down:
You can never have enough checks.
I'm a believer in post flight checks and inspections.
Way back I jumped in a Chieftain to warm it up for a long trip out of Adelaide only to find a dead magneto.
Had the previous pilot checked the mags prior to shutdown it might have avoided a 4 hour delay.
On another occasion getting into a 310 noticed more status dirt around the edges of the cowl than usual.
Sure enough one of the exhaust pipes had broken off just after the last cylinder causing brownish streaks on the paint
that would have been right in the face of the last pilot to fly it as he got out, if he bothered to pay attention.
I'm a believer in post flight checks and inspections.
Way back I jumped in a Chieftain to warm it up for a long trip out of Adelaide only to find a dead magneto.
Had the previous pilot checked the mags prior to shutdown it might have avoided a 4 hour delay.
On another occasion getting into a 310 noticed more status dirt around the edges of the cowl than usual.
Sure enough one of the exhaust pipes had broken off just after the last cylinder causing brownish streaks on the paint
that would have been right in the face of the last pilot to fly it as he got out, if he bothered to pay attention.
The following 3 users liked this post by Peter Fanelli:
Completely irrelevant to the original post, however, you're no longer required to be a G2 or G1 instructor to conduct flight reviews, all you require is the correct training endorsement for the aircraft class.
To conduct SE flight reviews, you only need Single Engine Training Endorsement. No need to hold a G1, G2 or even a G3 as you can hold SEA TE and all other training endorsements with them.
To conduct SE flight reviews, you only need Single Engine Training Endorsement. No need to hold a G1, G2 or even a G3 as you can hold SEA TE and all other training endorsements with them.
Also the issue was run ups, so I discussed run-ups. One of the things being reviewed is the decision making, so as long as the reviewee can demonstrate some critical thinking rather than displaying that they have only learned by copying their instructor (eg It's a hot day so I want to be sure the plugs haven't fouled and I would like to do this in the run up bay with the park brake on so as not to hold up/ blast with prop wash other people on holding points and taxiways, and be sure to give taxiing my full attention". rather than "My instructor told me I should always do this or that")
Fact is the person conducting the review is PIC if training is taking place so their decision is final. If the reviewee owns the aeroplane then they can demonstrate their knowledge by saying "I operate my aeroplane this way because..."
While it may be that regulations (if one is able to penetrate them - Clinton's point is important) will determine that one person is ultimately responsible, it would seem to me that good CRM should dictate that such thing would be discussed and a plan agreed upon between both parties.
IOW the reviewee should be able to briefly give their reasons for a run-up to the reviewer and have that reasonably considered. How this was responded to would determine to me whether I'd want to be reviewed by said person - I well remember being in the back seat of a machine on a review flight when the reviewer was such an arse that the reviewee shut the motor down and exited the 'plane - they hadn't even started taxiing. To avoid doubt, the reviewee, IMV, was doing the right thing, and did it respectfully - they were so angry at the reviewers attitude (understandably so) that it could have affected the flight.
FP.
IOW the reviewee should be able to briefly give their reasons for a run-up to the reviewer and have that reasonably considered. How this was responded to would determine to me whether I'd want to be reviewed by said person - I well remember being in the back seat of a machine on a review flight when the reviewer was such an arse that the reviewee shut the motor down and exited the 'plane - they hadn't even started taxiing. To avoid doubt, the reviewee, IMV, was doing the right thing, and did it respectfully - they were so angry at the reviewers attitude (understandably so) that it could have affected the flight.
FP.
The following 3 users liked this post by First_Principal:
Run ups are a bit like checking the function of landing lights, though of course more important. Checks prove that systems are performing right now, but offer no guarantee that they will be working five minutes later.
However, if the POH or company SOP requires something to be done, you need a bloody good reason to disregard that instruction.
An example of NOT doing a run up would be on a gravel surface. The best one can do in those circumstances is a dead cut check of the magnetoes on the previous flight when downwind ( not both at once!) and again after start. Hopefully, you already found other engine functions satisfactory on the previous flight.
Doing half arsed run ups while taxiing is rarely a good idea,
However, if the POH or company SOP requires something to be done, you need a bloody good reason to disregard that instruction.
An example of NOT doing a run up would be on a gravel surface. The best one can do in those circumstances is a dead cut check of the magnetoes on the previous flight when downwind ( not both at once!) and again after start. Hopefully, you already found other engine functions satisfactory on the previous flight.
Doing half arsed run ups while taxiing is rarely a good idea,
Thread Starter
I figure that if I don’t do a quick mag check at the end of the flight taxiing in or just before shutdown, then if something was wrong, it may spoil my day the next time I decide to go flying and I discover it on the next start-up.
I am always weary as I once had a plug lead come loose in flight and if you didn’t do a mag check before the hot take-off, you’d be running with less redundancy and the associated risk over a heavily populated area on takeoff.
I am always weary as I once had a plug lead come loose in flight and if you didn’t do a mag check before the hot take-off, you’d be running with less redundancy and the associated risk over a heavily populated area on takeoff.
The following users liked this post:
That'll be an interesting one for my next AFR in the RV. Bugger all chance the instructor would have sufficient knowledge of the EFIS, EI, VPX and so on to satisfy the 'General Competency' requirement of 'the roolz', and if they can't satisfy that, how can they be considered PIC?
I have completed several flight reviews for owners in their aircraft including an EFIS RV6 that I was not familiar with. Before the flight I got hold of a POH and learnt everything I could about the aeroplane including all the Buck Rogers gizmos. I had to spend time sitting in it to find everything. Any instructor worth his salt would do the same. It's not as if these things are Boeings, it is not hard and does not take long. We then had an enjoyable flight learning off each other.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
My correspondence with CASA today said "The PIC will be the individual being reviewed." (Assuming that the "student" is operating under a current AFR)
Re. CASA, just bear in mind that their current advisory publication (dated Nov 2022) is still actually referring to pre-Part 61 CARs and the old "Day VFR Syllabus".
I've brought this to their attention a few times but they still haven't updated it.
Meanwhile61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61
(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
I've brought this to their attention a few times but they still haven't updated it.
Meanwhile61.095 Definition of flight time as pilot in command under supervision for Part 61
(1) A person’s flight time as pilot in command under supervision is the duration of a flight if:
(a) the person holds a pilot licence; and
(b) the person performs all the duties of the pilot in command for the flight; and
(c) subregulation (2) or (3) applies to the flight.
(2) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the flight is conducted by an operator that has training and checking responsibilities; and
(b) the pilot in command of the flight is authorised by the operator or the operator’s Part 142 operator to conduct the supervision of the person.
(3) For paragraph (1)(c), this subregulation applies to the flight if:
(a) the person is supervised by a flight instructor or flight examiner; and
(b) the person is not receiving flight training.
The following users liked this post:
… well not exactly, I couldn’t think of a better title.
So let’s just say you’re on an AFR flight (I chose AFR to make the scenario more black and white).
You took off from Essendon and you flew to Moorabbin and were cleared to the apron. With engine still running, you check your maps and route, clean up, get the information and taxi out with your clearance to the holding point which is on the way past the run-up bay.
Your instructor says go straight to the holding point for the runways and do some checks there which you assume include a run-up. As you approach the holding point, you do a control check and all is good. You then set up to do a quick run-up and the instructor tells you not to do it.
You say that you want to do a run-up and the instructor clearly tells you not to, giving the advice that nothing with the engine has changed during the flight, it hasn’t been shut down and it’s not necessary to do a run-up.
Do you:
- Take the instructors advice and not do it?
- Tell the instructor you’re doing it anyway and just do it?
- Something else?
Remember you are a licensed pilot with a current AFR.
Side note: On such a flight where you don’t shut down the engine, would you always do a mag check before departing again?
So let’s just say you’re on an AFR flight (I chose AFR to make the scenario more black and white).
You took off from Essendon and you flew to Moorabbin and were cleared to the apron. With engine still running, you check your maps and route, clean up, get the information and taxi out with your clearance to the holding point which is on the way past the run-up bay.
Your instructor says go straight to the holding point for the runways and do some checks there which you assume include a run-up. As you approach the holding point, you do a control check and all is good. You then set up to do a quick run-up and the instructor tells you not to do it.
You say that you want to do a run-up and the instructor clearly tells you not to, giving the advice that nothing with the engine has changed during the flight, it hasn’t been shut down and it’s not necessary to do a run-up.
Do you:
- Take the instructors advice and not do it?
- Tell the instructor you’re doing it anyway and just do it?
- Something else?
Remember you are a licensed pilot with a current AFR.
Side note: On such a flight where you don’t shut down the engine, would you always do a mag check before departing again?
Unless you already reported ready prior to the runup bay and were cleared to the holding point, you were supposed to enter the bay regardless you needed a runup or not.
Is that still the case? I thought you were going to say the Instructor told you to go straight to the HP and you got a bollocking from the Tower controller...
Cheers
Thread Starter
No bollocking from the tower for us but shortly before the CP of VicPol in the Kingair got a lambasting from ATC about what you’re referring to!
Did they give you a regulatory reference for that? If so please let us know. If not please ask for one. CASA have a habit of getting these things wrong.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
The following users liked this post:
Does anyone perceive any regulatory difference between someone conducting a flight "review" and someone conducting some in-flight "training"?