JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify a thing or two on the original thread.
Have a read here:CAA Guidance
1. FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear from the outset and if this flight is part of training for some other training the FI must include items of general handling to fulfill the purpose of the training flight.
2. Where the aim of the training flight has been achieved the CRI/FI will sign the logbook, append his licence number and identify the entry by adding 'training flight'
3. Where the applicant clearly displays a weakness such that he cannot be considered 'solo safe' and this weakness can not be successfully resolved during the training flight, the FI shall not sign the logbook.
FD
IO540 You and I understand that but it seems that DFC has trouble with understanding the concept of sole manipulator of the controls, hence the question.
Have a read here:CAA Guidance
1. FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear from the outset and if this flight is part of training for some other training the FI must include items of general handling to fulfill the purpose of the training flight.
2. Where the aim of the training flight has been achieved the CRI/FI will sign the logbook, append his licence number and identify the entry by adding 'training flight'
3. Where the applicant clearly displays a weakness such that he cannot be considered 'solo safe' and this weakness can not be successfully resolved during the training flight, the FI shall not sign the logbook.
FD
IO540 You and I understand that but it seems that DFC has trouble with understanding the concept of sole manipulator of the controls, hence the question.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr DFC, I don't think you are supposed to let unqualified people use the controls if you do not hold an instructors rating.
As per usual BEagle has it just right. There is really no such thing as P1/s unless with an examiner. All flights with me (instructor) should be P/UT, especially the biennial check. It IS a checkout, in the same way that a new club member needs to be checked upon joining.
I treat it as a test and there is a definate pass and fail with me. If you are unsafe then I will NOT sign that the flight was a success. If anyone wishes to complain, then I will meet them outside with sleeves rolled up.
People seem to forget that instructors have PPL's best interests at heart. We don't actually want to see you smeared across the countryside, so if a bit of ego bashing is required so be it.
Why is it that there is this argy-bargy all the time. Surely PPL's should know what they have to do to revalidate in the same way I have to? Or is that me just being naive?
As per usual BEagle has it just right. There is really no such thing as P1/s unless with an examiner. All flights with me (instructor) should be P/UT, especially the biennial check. It IS a checkout, in the same way that a new club member needs to be checked upon joining.
I treat it as a test and there is a definate pass and fail with me. If you are unsafe then I will NOT sign that the flight was a success. If anyone wishes to complain, then I will meet them outside with sleeves rolled up.
People seem to forget that instructors have PPL's best interests at heart. We don't actually want to see you smeared across the countryside, so if a bit of ego bashing is required so be it.
Why is it that there is this argy-bargy all the time. Surely PPL's should know what they have to do to revalidate in the same way I have to? Or is that me just being naive?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASlowly and Beagle,
Can you show me anywhere the information which makes it clear for once and for all what the correct procedure is for these flights.
I am under the impression that as long as I have all the tickets required for the flight and it is just a checkout on a new type or club required refresher, I can log P1.
I may be mistaken but if so many instructors and examiners, some of them quite eminent, have been too over the years.
Every opportunity that arises to fly with an instructor is taken by me as I like to learn, none have insisted on logging flights as described and discussed here, as P1 for them and PUT for me.
FD
Can you show me anywhere the information which makes it clear for once and for all what the correct procedure is for these flights.
I am under the impression that as long as I have all the tickets required for the flight and it is just a checkout on a new type or club required refresher, I can log P1.
I may be mistaken but if so many instructors and examiners, some of them quite eminent, have been too over the years.
Every opportunity that arises to fly with an instructor is taken by me as I like to learn, none have insisted on logging flights as described and discussed here, as P1 for them and PUT for me.
FD
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will, I think fd's post really clarifies the whole thing. The link he gave quite clearly explains the CAA's position, regardless of what the JAA documents say.
Say again Slowly,
I don't see what the problem with letting someone else handle the controls is? I've never heard that you have to be an instructor to let someone handle the controls! Remember that a PPL is a licence to operate as pilot in command, not to act as operater of the controls.
dp
Say again Slowly,
I don't see what the problem with letting someone else handle the controls is? I've never heard that you have to be an instructor to let someone handle the controls! Remember that a PPL is a licence to operate as pilot in command, not to act as operater of the controls.
dp
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one hours flight is one hour of instruction. As before with me it tends to be according to the Pilots preferences. Luckly I have never had to refuse to sign a log book because the pilot is unsafe.
Am I unusual in actually enjoying these flights?
If I really felt the pilot was unsafe and required further training a comment as somebody else suggested next to the signature would be sensible.
It would take a brave man to fly and explain to the insurance company why he ignored the written suggestion further training was required.
That puts the ball in the Pilots court, but I have never been there.
It has to be remembered that that there is,
a) The signature in the log-book
b) The bi-annual form that now needs to be sent in
Also I suspect it would be a brave examiner to sign the form after seeing any comments in a logbook unless further training had been undertaken.
Am I unusual in actually enjoying these flights?
If I really felt the pilot was unsafe and required further training a comment as somebody else suggested next to the signature would be sensible.
It would take a brave man to fly and explain to the insurance company why he ignored the written suggestion further training was required.
That puts the ball in the Pilots court, but I have never been there.
It has to be remembered that that there is,
a) The signature in the log-book
b) The bi-annual form that now needs to be sent in
Also I suspect it would be a brave examiner to sign the form after seeing any comments in a logbook unless further training had been undertaken.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyinDutch,
I don't know how friendly you and your friend George are or how you turn George on but if you are the only person in the aircraft with George and he gets turned on I can safely say that you did all the manipulation.
Clubcheckouts are not required for licensing requirments they are required to satisfy the insurance and club rules requirements.
With a PPL and SEP rating you can fly any SEP for private use. A flying club may require you to have 100 hours P1 before doing a checkout in an Arrow. If you want to fly that arrow, you must comply with the club rules. Same goes for the checkout.....there must be a reason. Perhaps the club rules should also clearly show the fact that on such a flight the instructor is P1. No arguments then.
If it is a club, then as a member you have the ability to influence change if you think it is required.
SAS,
One can allow anyone fly the aircraft on a private flight. One can even let go of the controls for hours on end. However, the pilot in command is responsible for the consequences.
Regards,
DFC
I don't know how friendly you and your friend George are or how you turn George on but if you are the only person in the aircraft with George and he gets turned on I can safely say that you did all the manipulation.
Clubcheckouts are not required for licensing requirments they are required to satisfy the insurance and club rules requirements.
With a PPL and SEP rating you can fly any SEP for private use. A flying club may require you to have 100 hours P1 before doing a checkout in an Arrow. If you want to fly that arrow, you must comply with the club rules. Same goes for the checkout.....there must be a reason. Perhaps the club rules should also clearly show the fact that on such a flight the instructor is P1. No arguments then.
If it is a club, then as a member you have the ability to influence change if you think it is required.
SAS,
One can allow anyone fly the aircraft on a private flight. One can even let go of the controls for hours on end. However, the pilot in command is responsible for the consequences.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
I see what you are saying but so far not a reference to a CAA/JAA document which states that for the purpose of the flights discussed here you can only log that as PUT rather than P1.
FD
PS: Probably my lack of humour but thought your reference to 'George' was only moderately funny. My 2 1/2 year old daughter tells better jokes!
I see what you are saying but so far not a reference to a CAA/JAA document which states that for the purpose of the flights discussed here you can only log that as PUT rather than P1.
FD
PS: Probably my lack of humour but thought your reference to 'George' was only moderately funny. My 2 1/2 year old daughter tells better jokes!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being responsible for the consequences is one thing, but how likely is it that an insurance company would pay out if an unqualified person was at the controls... As it wouldn't be a training flight I would find it highly questionable.
I have had too many people do unexpected and scary things to me in aircraft to think that somebody not trained or experienced in watching for this would be able to react and rectify a problem before the sh*t hit the fan. (I am not talking about cruising along, but t/o and landing) Since I've been instructing, the people who have come closest to scaring me have not been students, but generally people with licences. You do expect some level of competancy with a ticket, but time and time again I seem to be proved wrong.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very good pilots in the PPL world, but there are also some absolute shockers. The ones who fall into this category are usually the people who bitch and moan about topics such as this one.
I'll get clarification about who's allowed to handle the controls if no instructor is present and if someone can post a link about I'd be grateful. I'm pretty certain about it tho' especially as I once had my backside handed to me after admitting that I had done this.(mind you it was in a heli so it could be different.) I'm sure I should be able to quote chapter and verse on this, so I am remiss having to resort to the books.
Whether it is legal or not, it still isn't a particularily sensible idea, how many know how to give a good pre-flight brief on effects of controls? Mind you saying that I kow a few instructors who fall into that category!
I have had too many people do unexpected and scary things to me in aircraft to think that somebody not trained or experienced in watching for this would be able to react and rectify a problem before the sh*t hit the fan. (I am not talking about cruising along, but t/o and landing) Since I've been instructing, the people who have come closest to scaring me have not been students, but generally people with licences. You do expect some level of competancy with a ticket, but time and time again I seem to be proved wrong.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very good pilots in the PPL world, but there are also some absolute shockers. The ones who fall into this category are usually the people who bitch and moan about topics such as this one.
I'll get clarification about who's allowed to handle the controls if no instructor is present and if someone can post a link about I'd be grateful. I'm pretty certain about it tho' especially as I once had my backside handed to me after admitting that I had done this.(mind you it was in a heli so it could be different.) I'm sure I should be able to quote chapter and verse on this, so I am remiss having to resort to the books.
Whether it is legal or not, it still isn't a particularily sensible idea, how many know how to give a good pre-flight brief on effects of controls? Mind you saying that I kow a few instructors who fall into that category!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on SASlowly, where is the chapter and verse on the P1/PUT issue.
On letting people 'have a go' I think nobody on here meant that they were letting non pilots fly take-offs or landings.
FD
On letting people 'have a go' I think nobody on here meant that they were letting non pilots fly take-offs or landings.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chapter and verse came from our last CAA inspection, it was mentioned that a lot (most)of people are not using the logging system correctly, myself included I hasten to add.
Most rules such as the one we are discussing are usually fairly black and white. At what point do you make the judgement that it is now unsafe for a non qualified person to be at the controls?
"Having a go" is not something I particularily approve of myself, but I don't really see the harm if under controlled circumstances. FD, I understand that the vast majority of people are very sensible and of course would not let someone have a play at any critical juncture, but rules are often not written for the majority of normal people to whom they are a matter of common sense. I am talking about the few idiots that actually try to teach others without the benefit of knowing what they themselves are doing.
How many of us have heard in a club house the 20hour students trying to wind up the new ones with tales of derring-do? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.......
I do seem to be on a soapbox here, but I am paranoid about not having anyone under my supervision injuring themselves or others (or worse). I have been to too many funerals of people who have died doing stupid things in aircraft and if my comments make somebody think a bit, then that's all I really care about.
I'm at the flying school tomorrow, so I'll get the books out. (I can't stand doing it on the internerd.)
Most rules such as the one we are discussing are usually fairly black and white. At what point do you make the judgement that it is now unsafe for a non qualified person to be at the controls?
"Having a go" is not something I particularily approve of myself, but I don't really see the harm if under controlled circumstances. FD, I understand that the vast majority of people are very sensible and of course would not let someone have a play at any critical juncture, but rules are often not written for the majority of normal people to whom they are a matter of common sense. I am talking about the few idiots that actually try to teach others without the benefit of knowing what they themselves are doing.
How many of us have heard in a club house the 20hour students trying to wind up the new ones with tales of derring-do? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.......
I do seem to be on a soapbox here, but I am paranoid about not having anyone under my supervision injuring themselves or others (or worse). I have been to too many funerals of people who have died doing stupid things in aircraft and if my comments make somebody think a bit, then that's all I really care about.
I'm at the flying school tomorrow, so I'll get the books out. (I can't stand doing it on the internerd.)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD,
There is no CAA or JAA document that prevents you from being pilot in command of an aircraft for which you hold the appropriate qualification.
However, on the "dual flight", the instructor must be the pilot in command in order for the instructional flight to take place.
We all agree that there can only be 1 pilot in command of a flight.
JAR-FCL 1.080 (c) Logging of time;
"iii) The holder of an instructor rating may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane."
So the instructor bags the P1 time.
If they did not then the flight would not count as an instructional flight.
Regards,
DFC
There is no CAA or JAA document that prevents you from being pilot in command of an aircraft for which you hold the appropriate qualification.
However, on the "dual flight", the instructor must be the pilot in command in order for the instructional flight to take place.
We all agree that there can only be 1 pilot in command of a flight.
JAR-FCL 1.080 (c) Logging of time;
"iii) The holder of an instructor rating may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he acts as an instructor in an aeroplane."
So the instructor bags the P1 time.
If they did not then the flight would not count as an instructional flight.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD no need to be sarcastic!
ANO Article 29: Instruction in flying.
(1) A person shall not give any instruction in flying to which this article applies unless:
(a) he holds a licence, granted or rendered valid under this Order or a JAA licence, entitling him to act as pilot in command of the aircraft for the purpose and in the circumstances under which the instruction is to be given; and
(b) his licence includes an instructor's rating entitling the holder to give the instruction.
Fairly black and white I think.
ANO Article 29: Instruction in flying.
(1) A person shall not give any instruction in flying to which this article applies unless:
(a) he holds a licence, granted or rendered valid under this Order or a JAA licence, entitling him to act as pilot in command of the aircraft for the purpose and in the circumstances under which the instruction is to be given; and
(b) his licence includes an instructor's rating entitling the holder to give the instruction.
Fairly black and white I think.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry SASlowly, I did not raise the issue on whether or not you could instruct people without having an instructors ticket.
I just wanted to know where you and Beagle find, in the regulations, that for the flights we were discussing here that the pilot logs PUT and the instructor P1.
So back to you.
FD
I just wanted to know where you and Beagle find, in the regulations, that for the flights we were discussing here that the pilot logs PUT and the instructor P1.
So back to you.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC has it in his earlier post,
Unless under examination, there can't be 2 captains on a flight. As instructors are invariably in command, then the student (PPL or otherwise) is always P/UT, not under supervision.
I have been getting this wrong for yonks and my old CFI (in all senses of the word!) sat all the FI's down and explained that we need to change our understanding. P1/s is reserved for tests all other times you are P/UT, including recency checks.
To be honest, unless you need the hours for a professional reason, who cares what they are logged as.
Unless under examination, there can't be 2 captains on a flight. As instructors are invariably in command, then the student (PPL or otherwise) is always P/UT, not under supervision.
I have been getting this wrong for yonks and my old CFI (in all senses of the word!) sat all the FI's down and explained that we need to change our understanding. P1/s is reserved for tests all other times you are P/UT, including recency checks.
To be honest, unless you need the hours for a professional reason, who cares what they are logged as.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASlowly,
I understand were you are coming from but that is not the way a lot of folks that I and others have flown with over the years have seen it or logged.
I wholeheartedly agree that in the end it does not matter 2 hoots who logs what.
Would just be nice to see somewhere which would lay this matter to rest and can be used as a reference.
I could not find it when looking on the CAA/JAA site and hoped you knew where to find it.
Not sure whether an instructor is always the pilot in command or has to be.
FD
I understand were you are coming from but that is not the way a lot of folks that I and others have flown with over the years have seen it or logged.
I wholeheartedly agree that in the end it does not matter 2 hoots who logs what.
Would just be nice to see somewhere which would lay this matter to rest and can be used as a reference.
I could not find it when looking on the CAA/JAA site and hoped you knew where to find it.
Not sure whether an instructor is always the pilot in command or has to be.
FD
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always understood that either the instructor logs P1 and the student P U/T, or the student logs P1 and the instructor doesn't log it (except in the rare and specific instances that P1S is allowed). I have loads of flights - club checkouts, dual flights that were club requirements (eg first time on the London heli-routes), and similar, where the instructor told me to log P1. The general understanding seems to be that if you have a PPL, and need to fly with an instructor just as a check, but you do all the flying and the instructor doesn't touch the controls, then it's P1. Now, I have no idea if this is right. But if it isn't, then numerous instructors in numerous different schools are getting it wrong. In which case, maybe there's just a teeny weeny bit of confusion around, don't you think?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf[/URL]
Recording of flight time P.37 LASORs.
However it does state:
PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision):
Provided that the method of supervision is
acceptable to the Authority, a co-pilot may log
as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all of
the duties and functions of PIC on that flight
were carried out, such that the intervention of
the PIC in the interest of safety was not
required.
Though I am not sure that I understand what method of supervision is acceptable to the CAA. I may be shooting my self in the foot here, but a quick straw poll earlier showed all other instructors agreed with the interpretation shown earlier.
I agree with Whirly that there is alot of confusion on this issue, but the instructor is always in command and as such should always log the P1 time. I am going to e-mail Cash And Aggro to get a clarification on what method of supervision is acceptable to the CAA. This does take time though so I don't expect an answer this week... But I want to clear this up once and for all as I'm starting to doubt my own take on this.
Recording of flight time P.37 LASORs.
However it does state:
PICUS (Pilot-in-command under supervision):
Provided that the method of supervision is
acceptable to the Authority, a co-pilot may log
as PIC flight time flown as PICUS, when all of
the duties and functions of PIC on that flight
were carried out, such that the intervention of
the PIC in the interest of safety was not
required.
Though I am not sure that I understand what method of supervision is acceptable to the CAA. I may be shooting my self in the foot here, but a quick straw poll earlier showed all other instructors agreed with the interpretation shown earlier.
I agree with Whirly that there is alot of confusion on this issue, but the instructor is always in command and as such should always log the P1 time. I am going to e-mail Cash And Aggro to get a clarification on what method of supervision is acceptable to the CAA. This does take time though so I don't expect an answer this week... But I want to clear this up once and for all as I'm starting to doubt my own take on this.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASlowly,
As I understand it, you can not be a "co-pilot" on a single-pilot aircraft. Therefore the rule that you quote is not relevant to GA.
Whirly said:
(Not picking specifically on Whirly here - others have said the same thing too.)
Let me give you the following hypothetical situation. Pilot A is flying with instructor B on a check-out. Half way through the flight, A does something dangerous, without any prior warning. B immediately says "I have control", takes over, and recovers safely.
Who logs P1? In this case, I think most people would agree that it was the instructor, B.
Now, the same scenario, except that the flight ends before A made whatever mistake it was that he made. Who logs P1 now? I would argue that it must be the instructor. The instructor was monitoring the progress of the flight, was able to take control if necessary, and (as we saw from the first scenario, although it didn't actually happen in the second scenario) was prepared to actually go ahead and take control should the need have arisen. It is quite clear that B is in charge, even if he never actually touches the controls.
This is, in my experience, the way most checkouts go - the instructor doesn't touch the controls, but is ready and prepared to do so if necessary.
Now, compare this to a flight where A decides to go and visit airport X for lunch. He phones up his instructor-friend B, and says "I'm going to X, do you want to come with?" In this case, B is not checking out A. I'm pretty sure that B would mention something if A was doing anything dangerous, but only in the same way that I expect all of us would mention something if we were flying right-hand-seat with a pilot friend and didn't like something we saw. B is not acting as an instructor, so in this case, A logs P1. But this scenario, although not unheard of, is quite rare.
This is my interpretation of the rules as they are currently written in LASORS. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a definitive and clear guide anywhere, and I'd be surprised if anyone is able to get a clear answer, in writing, out of the CAA.
FFF
-------------
As I understand it, you can not be a "co-pilot" on a single-pilot aircraft. Therefore the rule that you quote is not relevant to GA.
Whirly said:
The general understanding seems to be that if you have a PPL, and need to fly with an instructor just as a check, but you do all the flying and the instructor doesn't touch the controls, then it's P1
Let me give you the following hypothetical situation. Pilot A is flying with instructor B on a check-out. Half way through the flight, A does something dangerous, without any prior warning. B immediately says "I have control", takes over, and recovers safely.
Who logs P1? In this case, I think most people would agree that it was the instructor, B.
Now, the same scenario, except that the flight ends before A made whatever mistake it was that he made. Who logs P1 now? I would argue that it must be the instructor. The instructor was monitoring the progress of the flight, was able to take control if necessary, and (as we saw from the first scenario, although it didn't actually happen in the second scenario) was prepared to actually go ahead and take control should the need have arisen. It is quite clear that B is in charge, even if he never actually touches the controls.
This is, in my experience, the way most checkouts go - the instructor doesn't touch the controls, but is ready and prepared to do so if necessary.
Now, compare this to a flight where A decides to go and visit airport X for lunch. He phones up his instructor-friend B, and says "I'm going to X, do you want to come with?" In this case, B is not checking out A. I'm pretty sure that B would mention something if A was doing anything dangerous, but only in the same way that I expect all of us would mention something if we were flying right-hand-seat with a pilot friend and didn't like something we saw. B is not acting as an instructor, so in this case, A logs P1. But this scenario, although not unheard of, is quite rare.
This is my interpretation of the rules as they are currently written in LASORS. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a definitive and clear guide anywhere, and I'd be surprised if anyone is able to get a clear answer, in writing, out of the CAA.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in any case, if you are required to have a 1 hour training flight with an instructor for the purpose of revalidating your rating, then surely it follows that you are "under instruction", and therefore must log Pu/t?