JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you point me towards ths docu which says that this is the case?
Because although common sense says its that way you describe. The only documentation I have seen says you must have a 1hr + flight anotated as the 1 hour with an instructor.
And yes it was a renewal and I am more than happy with the different grades of examiner required to keep my ratings valid.
MJ
Because although common sense says its that way you describe. The only documentation I have seen says you must have a 1hr + flight anotated as the 1 hour with an instructor.
And yes it was a renewal and I am more than happy with the different grades of examiner required to keep my ratings valid.
MJ
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Examiners should get up to speed as well. The one who signed my last cert of experience royally ballsed it up, requiring letters to the CAA etc etc....
Ah well, wouldn't life be boring without JAR
Ah well, wouldn't life be boring without JAR
A point I made to the CAA only last week!
Re-validation and renewal requirements need to be as simple as possible; Examiners are usually paid for their work so their customers should expect a reasonable service, not just a signature on a peice of paper.
Re-validation and renewal requirements need to be as simple as possible; Examiners are usually paid for their work so their customers should expect a reasonable service, not just a signature on a peice of paper.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So that's cleared that up, then
It's not really up to the CAA - it's up to the JAA. They said
If they had meant 'complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor to a level that the instructor is satisfied with' then they would have said that! They didn't!
There is a big difference between a 'training flight' and a 'training flight that the instructor thinks is of a high enough standard'. I really enjoy going out for flights with instructors. I like improving my flying technique and getting feedback from more experienced pilots.
However I hate tests!
When I do go flying with an instructor usually it's to push myself. It's to do those things that I think I'm not that good at and to improve them. It's to try and overload myself.
A training flight is a learning experience for me and not an exercise in impressing an instructor.
It's not really up to the CAA - it's up to the JAA. They said
complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor
There is a big difference between a 'training flight' and a 'training flight that the instructor thinks is of a high enough standard'. I really enjoy going out for flights with instructors. I like improving my flying technique and getting feedback from more experienced pilots.
However I hate tests!
When I do go flying with an instructor usually it's to push myself. It's to do those things that I think I'm not that good at and to improve them. It's to try and overload myself.
A training flight is a learning experience for me and not an exercise in impressing an instructor.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry I find this is all a bit of a saga! 
One Hours flight instruction is one hours flight instruction....
Make it useful ask the Pilot what he is weak on? what does he want to practice? learn? or ask?.
If the flight has occured that is a fact. It is a pain to get it signed but the signature is merely a confirmation of fact, the flight did take place.
In life many things have to be signed for.
What is the problem. ( Forgotten my log book is the most common )
Have fun, practice, learn you are NOT being tested.
Any advice given is meant to be helpful and useful.
One Hours flight instruction is one hours flight instruction....
Make it useful ask the Pilot what he is weak on? what does he want to practice? learn? or ask?.
If the flight has occured that is a fact. It is a pain to get it signed but the signature is merely a confirmation of fact, the flight did take place.
In life many things have to be signed for.
What is the problem. ( Forgotten my log book is the most common )
Have fun, practice, learn you are NOT being tested.
Any advice given is meant to be helpful and useful.
Quite so.
Did one of these on Saturday; we had fun practising PFLs and then some cross-wind landings. The chap who needed the trip for re-validation chose the items to practise; we also had fun looking at certain local navigation features on the way home. All very laid-back and quite enjoyable; my feeling is those few barrack room lawyers who worry about whether they're allowed to log this as P1 are the sort of people who know their flying is pretty ropey and really need some formal recurrence training.
So:
1. You will fly this trip as P U/T
2. Your performance will need to be adequate.
3. If your performance isn't adequate, don't expect your logbook to be signed. Make a fuss about that and don't be surprised if the FI recommends to the CAA that your licence is suspended until you've flown another Proficiency Check with an Examiner.
It's your choice - good enough or not good enough.
Did one of these on Saturday; we had fun practising PFLs and then some cross-wind landings. The chap who needed the trip for re-validation chose the items to practise; we also had fun looking at certain local navigation features on the way home. All very laid-back and quite enjoyable; my feeling is those few barrack room lawyers who worry about whether they're allowed to log this as P1 are the sort of people who know their flying is pretty ropey and really need some formal recurrence training.
So:
1. You will fly this trip as P U/T
2. Your performance will need to be adequate.
3. If your performance isn't adequate, don't expect your logbook to be signed. Make a fuss about that and don't be surprised if the FI recommends to the CAA that your licence is suspended until you've flown another Proficiency Check with an Examiner.
It's your choice - good enough or not good enough.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoi Beagle:
Why?
Of course and if not I take it that you will recommend remedial training.
Agree that this would be the sensible thing to do but that is not within your remit according to 'the rules'
The amount of noise generated by those needing to undergo checkrides is usually directly proportional to the need thereof so can agree with the gist of your post in that respect.
However think that 'punters' can expect to get a fair crack of the whip too. That means that you will have to play ball too and stick to the rules. Not just interpret them in a passion suiting your needs.
For some of us here an extra hour here or there is neither there nor here but there are plenty of folks that have to be frugal.
Don't think that they are served by the attitude that it is best to agree with 'The Instructor' or else.
FD
1. You will fly this trip as P U/T
2. Your performance will need to be adequate
3. If your performance isn't adequate, don't expect your logbook to be signed.
The amount of noise generated by those needing to undergo checkrides is usually directly proportional to the need thereof so can agree with the gist of your post in that respect.
However think that 'punters' can expect to get a fair crack of the whip too. That means that you will have to play ball too and stick to the rules. Not just interpret them in a passion suiting your needs.
For some of us here an extra hour here or there is neither there nor here but there are plenty of folks that have to be frugal.
Don't think that they are served by the attitude that it is best to agree with 'The Instructor' or else.
FD
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm a bit confused about this.
The content of the hour's instruction isn't specified, right?
So it doesn't have to be anything that looks like a "check ride", no matter how desirable we might think such a thing, right?
So, for example, if one has, just for fun, an hour's training in mountain flying, or in how to land on skis, or instrument approaches, or a more complex aircraft, or night flying, or one of any number of other things that aren't part of the basic PPL syllabus and wouldn't be included in a PPL check ride, then that counts, right, provided the instructor has signed the log book to confirm that the instruction took place?
The content of the hour's instruction isn't specified, right?
So it doesn't have to be anything that looks like a "check ride", no matter how desirable we might think such a thing, right?
So, for example, if one has, just for fun, an hour's training in mountain flying, or in how to land on skis, or instrument approaches, or a more complex aircraft, or night flying, or one of any number of other things that aren't part of the basic PPL syllabus and wouldn't be included in a PPL check ride, then that counts, right, provided the instructor has signed the log book to confirm that the instruction took place?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
you are correct
... in which case the instructor doesn't necessarily know at the time the flight is conducted that it even is a PPL revalidation flight, yes? He might think you've just been having an hour's play on a multi-engined plane for fun, and eleven months later you can decide that this was the "hour's flight with an intsructor", yes?
So it certainly seems to be the case that the instructor has no say at all over what should be included in the flight, if s/he doesn't even know at the time that that's what the flight and log book signature are going used for some time next year!!
So, a month before your PPL expires, you look back through your log book for the last eleven months, and if you've done an hour's training at any point on pretty well anything to do with an aeroplane then that's done. Otherwise rent something different, exotic, whatever, for a hour and get someone to show you how to fly it.
I don't see what people are getting worked up about. I'm quite happy to do something like that once every two years and book the time as Pu/t.
... in which case the instructor doesn't necessarily know at the time the flight is conducted that it even is a PPL revalidation flight, yes? He might think you've just been having an hour's play on a multi-engined plane for fun, and eleven months later you can decide that this was the "hour's flight with an intsructor", yes?
So it certainly seems to be the case that the instructor has no say at all over what should be included in the flight, if s/he doesn't even know at the time that that's what the flight and log book signature are going used for some time next year!!
So, a month before your PPL expires, you look back through your log book for the last eleven months, and if you've done an hour's training at any point on pretty well anything to do with an aeroplane then that's done. Otherwise rent something different, exotic, whatever, for a hour and get someone to show you how to fly it.
I don't see what people are getting worked up about. I'm quite happy to do something like that once every two years and book the time as Pu/t.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock,
As BEagle said, the IR renewal will be recorded in your licence.
JAR-FCL 1. 245 is where the requirements are.
Basically, it must be a flight (singular) completed in the last 12 months, the duration must be at least 1 hour and the flight may be replaced by any proficiency check or skill test.
The contents are indeed up to the instructor however, JAR-FCL and the CAA's AIC make suggestions as to suitable topics.
If the flight took place then indeed the instructor must sign the logbook. However, if the instructor considers it appropriate, the standard displayed during the flight should also be recorded in the log book even if it is something like "further training required".
Personally, I say to the pilot...."you need some brush-up training. I can put a record in your logbook of your current standard or I can leave that blank and sign the entry where you demonstrate a safe standard."
Of course the Instructor is P1......how else can he a) Tell the pilot to demonstrate x, y or z or more importantly, b) take control without any argument if the standard displayed is dangerous. If it isn't "dual" then it isn't a training flight.
Regards,
DFC
As BEagle said, the IR renewal will be recorded in your licence.
JAR-FCL 1. 245 is where the requirements are.
Basically, it must be a flight (singular) completed in the last 12 months, the duration must be at least 1 hour and the flight may be replaced by any proficiency check or skill test.
The contents are indeed up to the instructor however, JAR-FCL and the CAA's AIC make suggestions as to suitable topics.
If the flight took place then indeed the instructor must sign the logbook. However, if the instructor considers it appropriate, the standard displayed during the flight should also be recorded in the log book even if it is something like "further training required".
Personally, I say to the pilot...."you need some brush-up training. I can put a record in your logbook of your current standard or I can leave that blank and sign the entry where you demonstrate a safe standard."
Of course the Instructor is P1......how else can he a) Tell the pilot to demonstrate x, y or z or more importantly, b) take control without any argument if the standard displayed is dangerous. If it isn't "dual" then it isn't a training flight.
Regards,
DFC
GtW - it would be very unwise for anyone to fly any trip without knowing the objective.
Any 'punter' flying a dual training flight with me will do it as P U/T. Don't like that? Find someone else. But if I'm asked to sign your re-validation form 'by experience', I'll require evidence of a real 'dual training flight' with a FI. Not a trip with you having claimed 'P1' and no clue as to the content. So, present me with that and you'll probably have to fly a re-validation LPC....
Any 'punter' flying a dual training flight with me will do it as P U/T. Don't like that? Find someone else. But if I'm asked to sign your re-validation form 'by experience', I'll require evidence of a real 'dual training flight' with a FI. Not a trip with you having claimed 'P1' and no clue as to the content. So, present me with that and you'll probably have to fly a re-validation LPC....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
That is a bit against general accepted practice isn't it?
I have done many checks over the years with many different instructors and it is normal practice that if I am the 'sole manipulator of the controls' I log that time as P1.
I don't understand where you are coming from.
FD
That is a bit against general accepted practice isn't it?
I have done many checks over the years with many different instructors and it is normal practice that if I am the 'sole manipulator of the controls' I log that time as P1.
I don't understand where you are coming from.
FD
Last edited by Flyin'Dutch'; 6th Oct 2003 at 17:11.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRaining Flight
True - when having a check ride I always book it as P1 myself
But as far as the 1 hour training flight goes, I was told I had to book it as P2 or PU/T.
Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is with that, except if you are a bit tight with hours - in any event, it counts towards the 12 hours during the year.
Do other pilots feel ashamed these days of putting hours in the P2 column?? and why?
But as far as the 1 hour training flight goes, I was told I had to book it as P2 or PU/T.
Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is with that, except if you are a bit tight with hours - in any event, it counts towards the 12 hours during the year.
Do other pilots feel ashamed these days of putting hours in the P2 column?? and why?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhhhhhh.....
Well unless you fly something which requires 2 crew operations, you actually are wrong to log P2.
I don't care 2 hoots what people book it as, but equally would like to understand why some instructors are so keen to log this as P1, which they are not when it is a flight as per the rules.
FD
Well unless you fly something which requires 2 crew operations, you actually are wrong to log P2.
I don't care 2 hoots what people book it as, but equally would like to understand why some instructors are so keen to log this as P1, which they are not when it is a flight as per the rules.
FD
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
GtW - it would be very unwise for anyone to fly any trip without knowing the objective.
Any 'punter' flying a dual training flight with me will do it as P U/T. Don't like that? Find someone else. But if I'm asked to sign your re-validation form 'by experience', I'll require evidence of a real 'dual training flight' with a FI. Not a trip with you having claimed 'P1' and no clue as to the content. So, present me with that and you'll probably have to fly a re-validation LPC....
Any 'punter' flying a dual training flight with me will do it as P U/T. Don't like that? Find someone else. But if I'm asked to sign your re-validation form 'by experience', I'll require evidence of a real 'dual training flight' with a FI. Not a trip with you having claimed 'P1' and no clue as to the content. So, present me with that and you'll probably have to fly a re-validation LPC....
What I meant was, supposing that in the normal course of one's flying one happens to have had a flying lesson, which one has booked as Pu/t, being, say, learning how to fly a new type of aircraft (a flight with a known objective - learning a new type). Or, say, a holiday flight (where you're on holiday somewhere interesting, book a four seater and an instructor, put a couple of your kids in the back and go for a joy ride - that's a perfectly legal flying lesson) (a flight with a known objective - looking at the scenery).
Towards the end of the second year one then looks back over one's log book, finds this flight, and decides, perfectly legally, that this counts as the "flight with the instructor" for revalidation.
As far as I can see there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and an examiner refusing to sign the revalidation form just because at the time of the training flight neither party knew that the flight was going to be the revalidation "flight with an instructor" is wrong.
I think your remark about "no clue as to the content" is wrong - you don't need a clue, all you need is an instructor's signature in the log book (well, OK, plus his magic instructor's number, but they all put that in anyway if you ask them to sign a log book).
No need to put an 'Instructor's number' (whatever that is) for a routine dual trip - that's some Spam habit. But the 'dual training flight' must be annotated 'satisfactory' to count.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude,
I agree totally.
BEagle,
I always put in the instructor number so that there is no doubt regarding the qualifications of the instructor. As far as I am aware, it must be a JAA instructor. i.e. an FAA instructor doesn't count.
However, IMHO, there is no requirement for the word "satisfactory" to be entered. Provided that there is no mention of unsatisfactory performance then I would not have a problem. As I said previously, I note any unsatisfactory performance where the pilot insists on a signature.
As to the P1 or Dual issue, I commented above. However, in relation to the "Sole manipulator of the controls", one must remember that there is no legal requirement for the "sole manipulator of the controls" to hold any qualification.
A simple example of this is...........You are not an instructor but your child has a talent for flying and you encourage the development of the talent by bringing them along on as many flights as possible. Despite being only 15, they have over the past two years improved to the point where they can complete all the flight without you having to assist and you both look forward to the child's 16th birthday when weather permitting, they will complete the first SOLO.
The child completes all the flying on a flight from A to B. They are the sole manipulator of the controls. They have no qualification and it is not an instructional flight.
You, the parent are Pilot in command (P1)....you are responsible for the safety of the flight
The child can not log any of the time......they are not under instruction.
You can not count the take-off or landing towards the 90 day rule because you did not complete them.....your child did!!!
Just an example to show that "sole manipulator of the controls" simply means the person that pushed and pulled the stick without any help.
Regards,
DFC
I agree totally.
BEagle,
I always put in the instructor number so that there is no doubt regarding the qualifications of the instructor. As far as I am aware, it must be a JAA instructor. i.e. an FAA instructor doesn't count.
However, IMHO, there is no requirement for the word "satisfactory" to be entered. Provided that there is no mention of unsatisfactory performance then I would not have a problem. As I said previously, I note any unsatisfactory performance where the pilot insists on a signature.
As to the P1 or Dual issue, I commented above. However, in relation to the "Sole manipulator of the controls", one must remember that there is no legal requirement for the "sole manipulator of the controls" to hold any qualification.
A simple example of this is...........You are not an instructor but your child has a talent for flying and you encourage the development of the talent by bringing them along on as many flights as possible. Despite being only 15, they have over the past two years improved to the point where they can complete all the flight without you having to assist and you both look forward to the child's 16th birthday when weather permitting, they will complete the first SOLO.
The child completes all the flying on a flight from A to B. They are the sole manipulator of the controls. They have no qualification and it is not an instructional flight.
You, the parent are Pilot in command (P1)....you are responsible for the safety of the flight
The child can not log any of the time......they are not under instruction.
You can not count the take-off or landing towards the 90 day rule because you did not complete them.....your child did!!!
Just an example to show that "sole manipulator of the controls" simply means the person that pushed and pulled the stick without any help.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If on autopilot, you are still in charge of the aircraft. You need to be in fact; autopilots do fail (mine had failed several times in 12 months, in a pretty drastic fashion).