Run-ups during a flight
 

… 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?

In Charter (I suspect this is where you are coming from) it is common practice to do the run-ups once, unless you suspect there's something amiss.
...but as a CASA FOI once pointed out to me, "I've never seen a piston engine POH that says only do the Run-ups once per day...."

Apologies for answering a question with some questions, but:

What do you expect to learn from a 'run up' check that you won't learn as soon as you apply (what you think is) full power or can't learn without a 'run up'?

To put this question another way:

When in the last - let's say two decades - has anyone discovered, during 'run ups', that a CSU unit on an 'average' GA aircraft is malfunctioning in a way that will pose a risk to safety, which malfunction wouldn't become evident as soon as full power is applied? I'm not aware of anyone. I know my CSU will fail 'full fine' and, in the unlikely event that the engine 'overspeeds', I can easily deal with that. Both are 'fail safe' problems.

When in the last - let's say two decades - has anyone discovered, during 'run ups', that there's a magneto or sparkplug malfunction that would not become evident from selecting each magneto, individually, at idle/taxi revs? Not me. (Don't tell anyone, but I usually do my magneto and sparkplug checks at cruise power in the cruise, just before TOD, but only after the engine 'numbers' were all normal during take off - that's why I 'made it' to the cruise. Cruise power at altitude is where developing ignition problems will first show up.)

Carby heat? Discuss.

Who's the pilot in command of your hypothetical flight?

Time poor so answering the easiest question.

I am the pilot in command and fully licenced with current AFR and current on the aircraft.

The AFR is a learning exercise for the pilot, so when the instructor tells you to do or not to do something, do you simply disagree or stop and discuss it? I guess this is why CRM is important,
even at the low end of the GA spectrum.

In that case, as PIC, do whatever you consider necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

If the instructor on board is rushing you or pushing you to do something you do not reckon is in the interests of safety, do your 'PIC thang'. If you're being coerced into to doing something your judgement says you shouldn't be doing, and you do it, you've failed the 'PIC thang'.

(If you want to know what's causally connected with the safety of air navigation, in the case of 'run-ups', let me know upon what engine and propeller your life depends.)

No, you are not the pilot in command when conducting a flight review, the instructor is.

I concur. So if the instructor is clearly waiving an expectation that you need to demonstrate a run up, either live with it, or if you are really concerned about your safety, cancel the flight.
Arguing the toss with another crewmember on any flight is bad CRM. Asserting your authority is only valid when you are the PIC or being formally checked (as opposed to 'reviewed') and even then sometimes requires flexibility.

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.

That sentence makes no sense to me.

7700,
I think you'll find that it is unlawful to exercise the privilege of PIC unless you have passed an AFR in the last 24 months.
Instructor is PIC under the rules for AFR.

The instructor may well not have an AFR, but to instruct would have a higher level CHECK to maintain instructor privileges completed within the past two years - which presumably covers an AFR.
PICUS is under supervision. So the supervisor would be the ultimate carrier of the can, should it all go pear shaped, n'est pas?

I might have to have a further discussion with said PE.

It would blow my mind that someone with their level of experience would tell me these “facts” when they may be incorrect.

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

And thus...

The perpetual nonsense continues.

This is indeed the exact situation.

And....

Who was the PIC?

I'm not being critical if the answer is unclear.

That lack of clarity is, in and of itself, a safety risk.

It appears that the vote of public pprune opinion and google say that the PE was the PIC.

The PE threw me off with comments made that indicated the contrary, prior to the flight.

I’ll take it up with the PE.

The issue for private operators like myself is that these type of things only ever come up every 2 years and usually with different instructors.

My last instructor was so busy taking selfies and posting them on Instagram, that I got nothing out of it, so it’s like I haven’t had any instruction / updates for 4 years.

I'm still confused.

For what does "PE" stand (other than physical education)?

That’s sad. Keep looking, when you find a good one, keep him (or her). You don’t need to wait for a flight review to go up with an instructor.

Pilot Examiner, formerly ATO or is it FE these days? I can’t keep up :-)

Thanks.

And in case anyone’s interested in the real safety issues arising from the scenario - good luck.

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.

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.

Any pilot must have a valid Flight Review before performing the privileges of their licence.

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.

If training was conducted in the Flight Review
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).

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.

OP referred to doing training during the review. In which case it is done under part 141/142 and the instructor is P1. If the other pilot was qualified as PE than that would be irrelvant for a flight review as it is not the same as a flight test where an examiner rating holder is required..

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.

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,

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.

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.

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 know its not the gist of your original question but just as a matter of interest, when I worked there in ATC over 30 years ago, the clearance limit for piston aircraft was actually the runup bay (entering and looping around to the stop line).
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

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.

Of course not! Let me say though this person is so high up if they got it wrong I would lambast them publicly.

Did this 'high up' person put it in writing? No?
The higher up some are, the more wrong they can be....

Does anyone perceive any regulatory difference between someone conducting a flight "review" and someone conducting some in-flight "training"?