JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok its a form issued in Sept 2003 which has anumber 1157.
The back ground is that the local examiner says that he has been sent this form by the CAA and all SEP renewals have to run to this form.
It looks very similar to a OPC check and has manditory items.
title: SPA,skill test and Prof check.
To be honest i hope i am talking complete ballocks and thrugh this thread I can get him not to make us use this form.
MJ
The back ground is that the local examiner says that he has been sent this form by the CAA and all SEP renewals have to run to this form.
It looks very similar to a OPC check and has manditory items.
title: SPA,skill test and Prof check.
To be honest i hope i am talking complete ballocks and thrugh this thread I can get him not to make us use this form.
MJ
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock.
Can you clarify your statements?
Initially you stated that the new form was for revalidation flights. You now say that the form is for renewal/proficiency checks by an examiner.
As the revalidation flight is a training flight by an Instructor and the Renewal/proficiency check has to be carried out by an examiner there are different requirements.
Renewal/proficiency check is required if you fail to meet revalidation by experience requirements or if you wish to revalidate by check with an examiner.
Revalidation flight is as stated above training flight with an instructor.
If the form is for the renewal of ratings then it will not necessarily apply to revalidation training flights.
I have certainly heard nothing about this new form although I am a CRI and undertake revalidation flights with candidates.
(Added later)
Have now checked the form on the CAA web site.
Form 1157 is the examiner's schedule and check list for the Skills test for issue of a Class rating and also applies to renewal/proficiency tests should you wish to revalidate your rating by test rather than by experience. It also applies if you let your rating lapse.
This form does not apply to the SEP revalidation training flight undertaken by an Instructor although both the PFA and BGA use a similar form with certain Mandatory items.
This form has been in existance in previous versions since the inception of the JAR requirements and, to my knowledge, there has been no change to the SEP revalidation flight requirements.
Form 1157 does apply to IFR rating revalidation hence this may be what your examiner was referring to (this has been the situation since the inception of JAR as stated above).
Both this form and the LPC/SPA form were updated at the beginning of 2003 hence 1157 is the current version.
Can you clarify your statements?
Initially you stated that the new form was for revalidation flights. You now say that the form is for renewal/proficiency checks by an examiner.
As the revalidation flight is a training flight by an Instructor and the Renewal/proficiency check has to be carried out by an examiner there are different requirements.
Renewal/proficiency check is required if you fail to meet revalidation by experience requirements or if you wish to revalidate by check with an examiner.
Revalidation flight is as stated above training flight with an instructor.
If the form is for the renewal of ratings then it will not necessarily apply to revalidation training flights.
I have certainly heard nothing about this new form although I am a CRI and undertake revalidation flights with candidates.
(Added later)
Have now checked the form on the CAA web site.
Form 1157 is the examiner's schedule and check list for the Skills test for issue of a Class rating and also applies to renewal/proficiency tests should you wish to revalidate your rating by test rather than by experience. It also applies if you let your rating lapse.
This form does not apply to the SEP revalidation training flight undertaken by an Instructor although both the PFA and BGA use a similar form with certain Mandatory items.
This form has been in existance in previous versions since the inception of the JAR requirements and, to my knowledge, there has been no change to the SEP revalidation flight requirements.
Form 1157 does apply to IFR rating revalidation hence this may be what your examiner was referring to (this has been the situation since the inception of JAR as stated above).
Both this form and the LPC/SPA form were updated at the beginning of 2003 hence 1157 is the current version.
Last edited by jgs43; 20th Nov 2003 at 15:04.
There is NO official CAA form for the Dual Training Flight; neither is there any mandatory content for such a flight nor does there need to be. Form SRG\1157 is entitled "SPA, SKILL TEST AND PROFICIENCY CHECK SCHEDULE – EXAMINER’S RECORD" and is only to be used by Flight Examiners to record the items tested for re-validation or renewal purposes. The Applicant sends a Form SRG\1119 "ADDITIONAL AEROPLANE TYPE/CLASS RATING - SINGLE/MULTI PILOT AND REVALIDATION/RENEWAL OF UK/JAA TYPE/CLASS AND OR INSTRUMENT RATING (AEROPLANE ) – APPLICATION" to the CAA when the FE has completed the check, the FE keeps a 1157 purely for his/her own record purposes.
These forms are for use by Flight Examiners only and are not appropriate for recording the ‘Dual Training Flight’. The current AIC recommends the flight content only, but spells out the administrative action required.
Suggest you print off a copy of AIC 127/1999 (White 378) and hand it to your CFI! If you register on www.ais.org.uk , you should be able to download it at http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W378.PDF .
These forms are for use by Flight Examiners only and are not appropriate for recording the ‘Dual Training Flight’. The current AIC recommends the flight content only, but spells out the administrative action required.
Suggest you print off a copy of AIC 127/1999 (White 378) and hand it to your CFI! If you register on www.ais.org.uk , you should be able to download it at http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W378.PDF .
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just going back to the PIC/US v P/UT discussion, I've just recived an e-mail from FCL about this (only took 1 1/2 months, must be a record!)
"Any licence holder flying a single pilot aircraft, or a student undertaking
a course of flying to obtain a PPL can only log PIC/US after a successful
flight test. All other entries should be P1 or PUT. The only other times
PIC/US can be entered is when a commercial pilot is flying a multi pilot
aircraft. The section of LASORS that you refered to in your email relates to
this multi pilot scenario."
Sounds pretty clear to me.
"Any licence holder flying a single pilot aircraft, or a student undertaking
a course of flying to obtain a PPL can only log PIC/US after a successful
flight test. All other entries should be P1 or PUT. The only other times
PIC/US can be entered is when a commercial pilot is flying a multi pilot
aircraft. The section of LASORS that you refered to in your email relates to
this multi pilot scenario."
Sounds pretty clear to me.
It isn't clear at all. JARs have no legal standing - hence the use of 'should' rather than 'shall' in the typically useless Belgrano response you received...
'Under supervision' means what it says - you fly under the supervision of the Commander. 'Under Training' means you're under training.
Why do these idiot Eurocrats find such a simple concept so difficult to comprehend?
'Under supervision' means what it says - you fly under the supervision of the Commander. 'Under Training' means you're under training.
Why do these idiot Eurocrats find such a simple concept so difficult to comprehend?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't often disagree with you BEagle, but I take it to read exactly what it says, unfortunately you are correct in that any decent legal person could drive holes through the terminology 'shall', 'must' and 'should' are a bit vague, but it is fairly clear (to me anyway) that the spirit of the rule (often as important in aviation as the wording) is as written. Most of JAR OPS1 is pretty vague and they are still finding big gaps to this day. It doesn't help when we all start bickering over the meaning of one word in an otherwise clear phrase.
Whether I agree that it is a sensible way of doing things is a very different matter.
Personally, I have used this way of logging hours for students and PPL's for a while and I shall continue until I get slapped by someone from the Belgrano. The only reason we use it is because it was mentioned in an inspection and I hate it when we get anything sent back from FCL for an oversight (A very rare occurance I'm glad to say.) especiall;y when it comes to the logging of time. I had enormous fun and games with them at one point due to my aussie logbook being in decimals for a U.K licence issue.
It is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup though isn't it!
Whether I agree that it is a sensible way of doing things is a very different matter.
Personally, I have used this way of logging hours for students and PPL's for a while and I shall continue until I get slapped by someone from the Belgrano. The only reason we use it is because it was mentioned in an inspection and I hate it when we get anything sent back from FCL for an oversight (A very rare occurance I'm glad to say.) especiall;y when it comes to the logging of time. I had enormous fun and games with them at one point due to my aussie logbook being in decimals for a U.K licence issue.
It is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup though isn't it!
They weren't arguments, they were facts!
Perhaps he needs a visit from a SRG inspector if he's so dimwitted that he refuses to face the fact that he's wrong.
Do you need putting in touch with a suitable person who might facilitate that...........??
Perhaps he needs a visit from a SRG inspector if he's so dimwitted that he refuses to face the fact that he's wrong.
Do you need putting in touch with a suitable person who might facilitate that...........??
