JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dublinpilot
Your devils advocate point is interesting, so I guess the question is how many of those other proficiency checks or ratings can be undertaken with an instructor as opposed to an examiner?
If the answer is that examiners examine and instructors instruct, then your thesis would be disproved.
MJ
FL's opinion would be useful - I have no idea whether a pliot could successfully sue, my point being more based on the potential damage to reputation caused by 'no smoke without fire sentiment.'
Your devils advocate point is interesting, so I guess the question is how many of those other proficiency checks or ratings can be undertaken with an instructor as opposed to an examiner?
If the answer is that examiners examine and instructors instruct, then your thesis would be disproved.
MJ
FL's opinion would be useful - I have no idea whether a pliot could successfully sue, my point being more based on the potential damage to reputation caused by 'no smoke without fire sentiment.'
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydriller,
It all depends on what suits you.
As the holder of a JAA licence, you are entitled to exercise the privileges in aircraft registered in any JAA State.
Harmonisation means that you can meet the revalidation requirements in any member State.
However, most States have slightly different admin requirements.
Thus when approaching an examminer outside the UK for a signature on a UK licence, it is best if you have the appropriate form.
If this admin proves to be a pain in the donkey then one way round it is to change the State of Licence Issue to where you are resident. This may cost a few quid but it could save you in the long run.
When changing State of licence issue, JAR-FCL 1.070 applies.
Regards,
DFC
It all depends on what suits you.
As the holder of a JAA licence, you are entitled to exercise the privileges in aircraft registered in any JAA State.
Harmonisation means that you can meet the revalidation requirements in any member State.
However, most States have slightly different admin requirements.
Thus when approaching an examminer outside the UK for a signature on a UK licence, it is best if you have the appropriate form.
If this admin proves to be a pain in the donkey then one way round it is to change the State of Licence Issue to where you are resident. This may cost a few quid but it could save you in the long run.
When changing State of licence issue, JAR-FCL 1.070 applies.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God, don't let Flyer or Pilot at this, last time they tried to put it into sense it was totally wrong and we had to spend six months arguing "I know that's what the magazine said, but it is actually incorrect... No, I do know what I'm talking about."
I very much much doubt that somebody could succesfully sue an FI, after all they are pilot in command, it's rather difficult to affect the outcome of a flight if you aren't there. Unfortunately knowing some people like I do, it wouldn't surprise me if it was at least tried out. We have recently changed all our training records, so that there can be no ambiguity that the entire syllabus was taught, rather than the usual slap-dash instructor comments that the vast majority of us are guilty of on occasion (assuming that they are even done!).
I don't feel that many
In the vast majority of cases, this is often the only flying people actually do. Figures show that on average a PPL will only complete a further 50 Hrs of flying post licence issue!!
Occasionally it may be the case, but I suspect that is often down to poor planning (the oh sh*t my licence expires in 2 days scenario) than through any conspiracy by dis-honest FI's and schools.
To be honest most instructors would tell you that there probably isn't enough policing of the average PPL/aircraft owner. The average amount of flying the vast majority of PPL's do is not enough to keep current in a Fiesta, let alone an a/c of any type. It's not a crime or even anything to be ashamed of, it is just a fact of life.
The sooner everybody understands that these rules, however vague, are there for the benefit of us all and are making a difference to the overall standard. The posters on this board aren't really representative of the 'average PPL'. Most don't seem to think about flying between one flight and the next, so the 'rules' are to look after them rather than the more 'aviation minded' folks that are here.
I actually hate doing the biennial checks, simply because they are either boring or terrifying. Often I'd rather spend time in the circuit than do a 'test.' And believe me after teaching for a few years (days really!) circuits are stupeyfyingly dull.
I really wish that there weren't any 'advisory' issues, it just allows holes like all the above comments to be aired. My own views on it are already there for everybody to see, and I've never had any complaints or had to refuse to sign a logbook. In fact most of the time the 'testee' has come back having had an enjoyable flight and with alot more confidence in their own ability. Hands up those that can honestly say they regularily practise PFL's, Stalling etc. Most don't feel comfortable doing them without an instructor/safety blanket next to them. Now whether we'd be any more competent ourselves...!!
Dublinpilot, doing a pilots licence renewal is a bit different from CPD. No less serious, but as it is difficult to kill yourself and others whilst doing an audit (Mind you, I suppose if you find dodgy stuff on some companies...) so there needs to be tighter controls. I have to renew my instructors rating every 3 years and I fly fairly regularily! Professional pilots have always had to endure tests for their competance despite flying all day, everyday, why not everybody else then??
I very much much doubt that somebody could succesfully sue an FI, after all they are pilot in command, it's rather difficult to affect the outcome of a flight if you aren't there. Unfortunately knowing some people like I do, it wouldn't surprise me if it was at least tried out. We have recently changed all our training records, so that there can be no ambiguity that the entire syllabus was taught, rather than the usual slap-dash instructor comments that the vast majority of us are guilty of on occasion (assuming that they are even done!).
I don't feel that many
PPLs are suffering from over policing or even profiteering
Occasionally it may be the case, but I suspect that is often down to poor planning (the oh sh*t my licence expires in 2 days scenario) than through any conspiracy by dis-honest FI's and schools.
To be honest most instructors would tell you that there probably isn't enough policing of the average PPL/aircraft owner. The average amount of flying the vast majority of PPL's do is not enough to keep current in a Fiesta, let alone an a/c of any type. It's not a crime or even anything to be ashamed of, it is just a fact of life.
The sooner everybody understands that these rules, however vague, are there for the benefit of us all and are making a difference to the overall standard. The posters on this board aren't really representative of the 'average PPL'. Most don't seem to think about flying between one flight and the next, so the 'rules' are to look after them rather than the more 'aviation minded' folks that are here.
I actually hate doing the biennial checks, simply because they are either boring or terrifying. Often I'd rather spend time in the circuit than do a 'test.' And believe me after teaching for a few years (days really!) circuits are stupeyfyingly dull.
I really wish that there weren't any 'advisory' issues, it just allows holes like all the above comments to be aired. My own views on it are already there for everybody to see, and I've never had any complaints or had to refuse to sign a logbook. In fact most of the time the 'testee' has come back having had an enjoyable flight and with alot more confidence in their own ability. Hands up those that can honestly say they regularily practise PFL's, Stalling etc. Most don't feel comfortable doing them without an instructor/safety blanket next to them. Now whether we'd be any more competent ourselves...!!
Dublinpilot, doing a pilots licence renewal is a bit different from CPD. No less serious, but as it is difficult to kill yourself and others whilst doing an audit (Mind you, I suppose if you find dodgy stuff on some companies...) so there needs to be tighter controls. I have to renew my instructors rating every 3 years and I fly fairly regularily! Professional pilots have always had to endure tests for their competance despite flying all day, everyday, why not everybody else then??
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 18th Oct 2003 at 07:26.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Say Again
What you have posted seems pretty sensible to me, but you ask:
The argument that you have to make and sustain is why change after god knows how many years relying on C of E only.
The only reason the training flight was introduced was because of JAR - so what compelling change in the safety statistics demands a proficiency test now?
Your opinion that the average PPL is an accident waiting to happen may be a universal truth (I am sure that you have more experience than me due to your FI rating), but do the numbers justify a change?
A little like the railways situation which is started to be debated, there is a trade off between safety and price that is reflected in government transport policy and IMHO it's not for me or you or anyone else to try and alter this by back door methods (not that I am suggesting that you are doing so BTW.)
As parliament accepted the JARs, we have to assume that they used a reasonable amount of due diligence in ensuring that they were adequate for purpose.
It is the CAAs tinkering by issuing 'advisories' (looking and feeling like regulations) that causes the problems in my opinion. If they are really concerned, they should lobby the government for a formal change, after all they are in the perfect position to do this and then there would be no doubt.
What you have posted seems pretty sensible to me, but you ask:
Professional pilots have always had to endure tests for their competance despite flying all day, everyday, why not everybody else then??
The only reason the training flight was introduced was because of JAR - so what compelling change in the safety statistics demands a proficiency test now?
Your opinion that the average PPL is an accident waiting to happen may be a universal truth (I am sure that you have more experience than me due to your FI rating), but do the numbers justify a change?
A little like the railways situation which is started to be debated, there is a trade off between safety and price that is reflected in government transport policy and IMHO it's not for me or you or anyone else to try and alter this by back door methods (not that I am suggesting that you are doing so BTW.)
As parliament accepted the JARs, we have to assume that they used a reasonable amount of due diligence in ensuring that they were adequate for purpose.
It is the CAAs tinkering by issuing 'advisories' (looking and feeling like regulations) that causes the problems in my opinion. If they are really concerned, they should lobby the government for a formal change, after all they are in the perfect position to do this and then there would be no doubt.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G,
I think that SASlowly's wish for a review with clearer fail/pass criteria is based on the current situation which is clearly open for multiple interpretation, qed, I'd say.
It would be hard to prove that the introduction of the flight reviews has done anything to improve safety. My gut feeling is that there will be those who would have benefitted from such a review have either decided to stop flying or gone the unapproved route i.e. fly without a licence.
FD
I think that SASlowly's wish for a review with clearer fail/pass criteria is based on the current situation which is clearly open for multiple interpretation, qed, I'd say.
It would be hard to prove that the introduction of the flight reviews has done anything to improve safety. My gut feeling is that there will be those who would have benefitted from such a review have either decided to stop flying or gone the unapproved route i.e. fly without a licence.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As FD says, I don't know of any research to see whether safety stats have improved. I only know about the standard of people with whom I fly with. I feel there has been a definate improvement overall. When the reg's came out initially and we had to do the first of these 'tests' (for want of a better word) I was pretty shocked by the standard of the vast majority of people who came through the door. Many had quite a few hours, but hadn't flown with an instructor or examiner for a number of years. When asked for basic manouevers such as stalling or PFL's it was invariably a complete shambles since they probably hadn't done these since getting their licence initially.
Nowadays and certainly in places I teach most schools have adopted the test method because that is the only direction we have had. It gives us something to work from and as it is there for all to see, it makes people practise said manouevers through out there flying, not just when they have to.
I will admit to some smoke and mirrors in the fact that we point people at the AIC and sometimes say that this is what MUST be done, but usually only if we don't know the person. If the pilot is well known and are regarded as competent then I would sometimes sign their book off when doing an IMC trip or the such rather than waste their money doing something that I already know that they can do to a good standard.
The law as such, does allow us some lee way, so in a way I'm loath to want it changed, but I also want it to be totally unambiguos to stop argument.
Nowadays and certainly in places I teach most schools have adopted the test method because that is the only direction we have had. It gives us something to work from and as it is there for all to see, it makes people practise said manouevers through out there flying, not just when they have to.
I will admit to some smoke and mirrors in the fact that we point people at the AIC and sometimes say that this is what MUST be done, but usually only if we don't know the person. If the pilot is well known and are regarded as competent then I would sometimes sign their book off when doing an IMC trip or the such rather than waste their money doing something that I already know that they can do to a good standard.
The law as such, does allow us some lee way, so in a way I'm loath to want it changed, but I also want it to be totally unambiguos to stop argument.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Sorry to be late in replying - you wrote
Well, I sent them an e-mail asking precisely that - they replied by saying read Lasors, chapter xyz. That clearly states ANY JAA FE can sign the licence. Trouble is they don't seem to have realised that the FE's of other countries don't know the UK admin procedures.
I wonder, would a UK FE sign the re-validation of a holder of a licence from another JAA country? That would put the cat among the pigeons, I'm sure.
Sorry to be late in replying - you wrote
What you need to do is telephone the CAA and ask them to post/fax/email the appropriate form with a covering letter confirming that they will accept the signature of any JAA FE from any country.
I wonder, would a UK FE sign the re-validation of a holder of a licence from another JAA country? That would put the cat among the pigeons, I'm sure.
After much discussion, at our Club we'll be standardising the 'who logs what' as follows:
SEP Re-validation LPC or renewal LST: FE is P1C, pilot is P1S. If unsuccessful, pilot is P u/t.
Annual Club check or 1 hr SEP trg flt: FI is P1C, pilot under supervision is P1S as he/she's merely carrying out a series of mutually agreed events within the privileges of his/her licence with the benefit of friendly advice from the FI. The pilot is not 'under training' for anything specific, neither is he/she under test. FI signs pilot's logbook to confirm that this was a satisfactory flight for the purpose of SEP revalidation by experience.
Exceptionally, if the FI is not happy with way the flight went, he/she should not sign the logbook as that's the CFE's guidance. Recommended training should be discussed and proposed (and copied to that miserable old git of a CFI); the pilot will not be allowed to fly as Commander on a Club aircraft until such 'recommended training' has been completed. The flights for recommended training will be flown with Instructor as P1C, pilot under training as PU/T.
In a nutshell, FE or FI is always Commander, other pilot is either acting under supervision (PIS) or under training (P u/t). The idea of the SEP trg flt is to help you stay safe, not to put you under duress. Treat it as a chance to brush up your skills.
SEP Re-validation LPC or renewal LST: FE is P1C, pilot is P1S. If unsuccessful, pilot is P u/t.
Annual Club check or 1 hr SEP trg flt: FI is P1C, pilot under supervision is P1S as he/she's merely carrying out a series of mutually agreed events within the privileges of his/her licence with the benefit of friendly advice from the FI. The pilot is not 'under training' for anything specific, neither is he/she under test. FI signs pilot's logbook to confirm that this was a satisfactory flight for the purpose of SEP revalidation by experience.
Exceptionally, if the FI is not happy with way the flight went, he/she should not sign the logbook as that's the CFE's guidance. Recommended training should be discussed and proposed (and copied to that miserable old git of a CFI); the pilot will not be allowed to fly as Commander on a Club aircraft until such 'recommended training' has been completed. The flights for recommended training will be flown with Instructor as P1C, pilot under training as PU/T.
In a nutshell, FE or FI is always Commander, other pilot is either acting under supervision (PIS) or under training (P u/t). The idea of the SEP trg flt is to help you stay safe, not to put you under duress. Treat it as a chance to brush up your skills.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle
This seems eminently sensible for a club. I guess that leaves the 'hot chestnut' of syndicates, where the governance is rather different
Flying Dutch
Quite so - therefore if I wished to play devils advocate, I could argue convincingly that the flight reviews may indeed have raised the standard, but that it was fit for purpose to begin with (thus no significant improvement in safety stats), therefore we have witnessed an expensive exercise for no real gain .... why should a test be introduced when even the training flight did not TANGIBLY improve safety?
And that is the attitude that is likely to build in the PPL community unless some common sense is shown (per BEagles last post) or the need for a test is properly established and enshrined into law.
Say Again
I do understand your wish for clarity and say again that I have sympathy with the instructor community for the present circumstances - I believe that ongoing training is important and as I have said in previous posts, do look forward to my FAA BFR - so my objections to the present fog are not base don defensiveness.
This seems eminently sensible for a club. I guess that leaves the 'hot chestnut' of syndicates, where the governance is rather different
Flying Dutch
It would be hard to prove that the introduction of the flight reviews has done anything to improve safety
And that is the attitude that is likely to build in the PPL community unless some common sense is shown (per BEagles last post) or the need for a test is properly established and enshrined into law.
Say Again
I do understand your wish for clarity and say again
that I have sympathy with the instructor community for the present circumstances - I believe that ongoing training is important and as I have said in previous posts, do look forward to my FAA BFR - so my objections to the present fog are not base don defensiveness.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 19th Oct 2003 at 02:58.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Have you obtained CAA authorisation for the proposed use of P1/S?
What you propose for a dual training flight is at odds with both the CAA's local requirements for the logging of flight time and also fails to comply with JAR-FCL requirements.
IMHO, instructors must not be persuaded to operate outside the JAA requirements simply because some pilots have a problem with flying in an aircraft unless they are P1.
Does this "problem" with being under instruction and logging the flight as such not display a poor attitude? If so then perhaps the instructors post flight comments should reflect that.
Is the UK the only country with this "problem"?
Or is this simpy people having a problem with paying for a flight when they are not P1?
What price safety?
Regards,
DFC
Have you obtained CAA authorisation for the proposed use of P1/S?
What you propose for a dual training flight is at odds with both the CAA's local requirements for the logging of flight time and also fails to comply with JAR-FCL requirements.
IMHO, instructors must not be persuaded to operate outside the JAA requirements simply because some pilots have a problem with flying in an aircraft unless they are P1.
Does this "problem" with being under instruction and logging the flight as such not display a poor attitude? If so then perhaps the instructors post flight comments should reflect that.
Is the UK the only country with this "problem"?
Or is this simpy people having a problem with paying for a flight when they are not P1?
What price safety?
Regards,
DFC
Q: "Have you obtained CAA authorisation for the proposed use of P1/S?"
A: Not needed. A chap in SRG confirmed that."
"What you propose for a dual training flight is at odds with both the CAA's local requirements for the logging of flight time and also fails to comply with JAR-FCL requirements."
A: Wrong! Read JAR-FCL carefully and you'll find NO reference to any 'dual' requirement.
"IMHO, instructors must not be persuaded to operate outside the JAA requirements simply because some pilots have a problem with flying in an aircraft unless they are P1."
A: The FIs are not so persuaded. All the Examiner should be checking is that a 1 hr 'training flight' took place and that the FI conducting it certified accordingly. They're NOT REQUIRED to pass comment on how a pilot logged the flight, as long as it wasn't as 'Commander', because what is logged in a personal log book is personal. Look at the JAR logging table and you'll find that it's only a guide in any case.
Q: "Does this "problem" with being under instruction and logging the flight as such not display a poor attitude? If so then perhaps the instructors post flight comments should reflect that."
A: Not worthy of a response.
Q: "Is the UK the only country with this "problem"? Or is this simpy people having a problem with paying for a flight when they are not P1?"
A: The so-called problem doesn't exist.
Q: "What price safety?"
A: Meaning what? It's the training which matters, not the log book.
Regards,
And to you.
A: Not needed. A chap in SRG confirmed that."
"What you propose for a dual training flight is at odds with both the CAA's local requirements for the logging of flight time and also fails to comply with JAR-FCL requirements."
A: Wrong! Read JAR-FCL carefully and you'll find NO reference to any 'dual' requirement.
"IMHO, instructors must not be persuaded to operate outside the JAA requirements simply because some pilots have a problem with flying in an aircraft unless they are P1."
A: The FIs are not so persuaded. All the Examiner should be checking is that a 1 hr 'training flight' took place and that the FI conducting it certified accordingly. They're NOT REQUIRED to pass comment on how a pilot logged the flight, as long as it wasn't as 'Commander', because what is logged in a personal log book is personal. Look at the JAR logging table and you'll find that it's only a guide in any case.
Q: "Does this "problem" with being under instruction and logging the flight as such not display a poor attitude? If so then perhaps the instructors post flight comments should reflect that."
A: Not worthy of a response.
Q: "Is the UK the only country with this "problem"? Or is this simpy people having a problem with paying for a flight when they are not P1?"
A: The so-called problem doesn't exist.
Q: "What price safety?"
A: Meaning what? It's the training which matters, not the log book.
Regards,
And to you.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I'm interested to know what your chap from the CAA calls a prior agreement. This quote is from LASORS and a previous post. (case J being a succesful test with an examiner.)
"Flight time as PIC US, apart from as specifically provided for
under Case J above, will only be allowable for the holder of a
PPL subject to the terms of a prior agreement with the CAA."
If it is another 'advisory' what on earth was the point of putting it in in the first place. I'm questioning it since our 'man from the ministry' was the one who raised this point in the first place. I had always used P1/S before. Is this a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing?? Or am I running around in circles here...
"Flight time as PIC US, apart from as specifically provided for
under Case J above, will only be allowable for the holder of a
PPL subject to the terms of a prior agreement with the CAA."
If it is another 'advisory' what on earth was the point of putting it in in the first place. I'm questioning it since our 'man from the ministry' was the one who raised this point in the first place. I had always used P1/S before. Is this a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing?? Or am I running around in circles here...
It's left hand and right hand in the usual CAA manner! But acceptance by common usage has evidently proved sufficient - and anyway, what if the holder isn't a PPL but an ATPL holder re-validating a SEP Class Rating?
As I said, it's the flight which matters, not how it's logged. The FI merely confirms that the content was satisfactory; the FE signs the re-validation form.
As I said, it's the flight which matters, not how it's logged. The FI merely confirms that the content was satisfactory; the FE signs the re-validation form.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's good enough for me. I was very surprised when I was told that originally and it has caused all sorts of unnecessary ructions and rows between instructors and PPL's with the different interpretations.
So if the CAA don't particularily care, then I don't think I will either. It's not exactly the most interesting argument in the world!!
I'd never thought about the ATPL revalidating, usually they are done by experience, but I was recently chatting to a 75 jockey who hasn't been near an SEP for over 10 years. Could be interesting!!
So if the CAA don't particularily care, then I don't think I will either. It's not exactly the most interesting argument in the world!!
I'd never thought about the ATPL revalidating, usually they are done by experience, but I was recently chatting to a 75 jockey who hasn't been near an SEP for over 10 years. Could be interesting!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was given an official CAA form the other day with the One hour's flight training broken down in a very structured manner.
I am told that from the 1st Sept I 'shall' complete one of these for it to count as the one hours flight instruction.
Is this true and has anyone else seen it
I am told that from the 1st Sept I 'shall' complete one of these for it to count as the one hours flight instruction.
Is this true and has anyone else seen it
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://chirp-aviation.co.uk/aviation/pdfs/gafb15.pdf
second page.
It seems that the powers that be are going to eventually produce something
Mr_fly i think your school are at it.
If there was a complete change in the rules I would have imagined that it would have been sent out with Septembers GASIL which all flying Instructors get sent.
Do you have the document number of the form you were given?
It should be down at the bottom somewhere.
MJ
second page.
It seems that the powers that be are going to eventually produce something
Mr_fly i think your school are at it.
If there was a complete change in the rules I would have imagined that it would have been sent out with Septembers GASIL which all flying Instructors get sent.
Do you have the document number of the form you were given?
It should be down at the bottom somewhere.
MJ
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
I was not commenting on the conduct of the flight with an instructor but how it is to be logged.
CAA policy:
P1/S only used in multi-pilot aircraft and in the case of a flight test which is successful.
JAA Regulation:
P1/S is a copilot acting as P1 under supervision of the Captain....thus multi pilot ops.
JAR-FCL 1.080(c)(5) is the regulation
That is why I said your proposal was at odds with current policy.
However, having spent some time considering the matter, I would propose the following to the CAA;
The flight must be an instructional flight
Thus the rules under which the flight operates require there to be two crew.....the pilot and the instructor.
When the regulations require two crew, one is Pilot in Command and the other is co-pilot. JAR-FCL 1.080
Under JAR-FCL 1.080(c)(5), 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.
The only question that remains is;
The method of supervision when PICUS must be acceptable to the Authority. Can it be taken that by definition, an instructor supervising a PPL is approved by the authority?
Regards,
DFC
I was not commenting on the conduct of the flight with an instructor but how it is to be logged.
CAA policy:
P1/S only used in multi-pilot aircraft and in the case of a flight test which is successful.
JAA Regulation:
P1/S is a copilot acting as P1 under supervision of the Captain....thus multi pilot ops.
JAR-FCL 1.080(c)(5) is the regulation
That is why I said your proposal was at odds with current policy.
However, having spent some time considering the matter, I would propose the following to the CAA;
The flight must be an instructional flight
Thus the rules under which the flight operates require there to be two crew.....the pilot and the instructor.
When the regulations require two crew, one is Pilot in Command and the other is co-pilot. JAR-FCL 1.080
Under JAR-FCL 1.080(c)(5), 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.
The only question that remains is;
The method of supervision when PICUS must be acceptable to the Authority. Can it be taken that by definition, an instructor supervising a PPL is approved by the authority?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the CAA really gives a toss who records what as long as only 1 person records PIC. They don't allow you to count any of the PICUS as PIC time anyway for licensing purposes in SPA.
And to most PPL's it is only really pampering there egos. If later on the CAA does take issue with the way that they have logged it there is not alot the PPL can do about it.
If the customer is a wannabie I am sure BEagle will take them to one side and explain the facts of life on how to avoid annoying FCL.
As its BEagle who will more than likely be signing there SEP revalidation its satisfies all concerned, customers do there 1 hr with an instructor and don't feel fleeced. The instructor logs PIC so they are happy. And Beagle knows the score so is willing to sign them off. Jobs a good one.
Now just to get the powers that be to produce a AIC along the lines of BEagles method. Then we can put this crap to bed.
No doudt after the CAA hands control over to the European authority when it becomes active it will all change anyway yet again.
MJ
And to most PPL's it is only really pampering there egos. If later on the CAA does take issue with the way that they have logged it there is not alot the PPL can do about it.
If the customer is a wannabie I am sure BEagle will take them to one side and explain the facts of life on how to avoid annoying FCL.
As its BEagle who will more than likely be signing there SEP revalidation its satisfies all concerned, customers do there 1 hr with an instructor and don't feel fleeced. The instructor logs PIC so they are happy. And Beagle knows the score so is willing to sign them off. Jobs a good one.
Now just to get the powers that be to produce a AIC along the lines of BEagles method. Then we can put this crap to bed.
No doudt after the CAA hands control over to the European authority when it becomes active it will all change anyway yet again.
MJ
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well today I have been looking at the new form for the SEP revalidation 1 hour with a Instructor flight.
The content of the flight has now been formalised with mandatory exercises. A few of them arn't actually even in the PPL test.
It comes into effect as of the first of Jan.
Looks like I will be getting my SEP revalidated on Dec 31st before the fun begins.
MJ
The content of the flight has now been formalised with mandatory exercises. A few of them arn't actually even in the PPL test.
It comes into effect as of the first of Jan.
Looks like I will be getting my SEP revalidated on Dec 31st before the fun begins.
MJ