JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAA 'Training Flight' seems to becoming an exam!
The 'Training Flight' that is specified in JAR-FCL 1.245(c) somehow seems to becoming a test! There is nothing in either the ANO or in JAR-FCL that says it can be. It would appear that some instructors try to turn this into an exam by refusing to sign your log book to indicate that the training flight took place, however is there actually a requirement for them to sign it? If you look at the form you send off (here) this is what the examiner has to check:-
I have loads of flight that are evidence of sufficient training for my night and IMC rating that are not signed off and the other 11 hours required for revalidation will not be signed off either. It is difficult to see how my own log book is sufficient evidence for these flights but not for a one hour training flight. Is there anything wrong with oneself writing in the log book that a training flight took place and putting the instructors name against it - and perhaps signing it yourself (with your own name of course)?
If by Experience the examiner shall ensure that the applicant presents logbook evidence of all flights claimed for a revalidation by Experience.
Just get whoever conducted one of your night/IMC training flights (as long as it was > 1 hr) countersigned in the 'Remarks' column - they DO count for the purpose of re-validation in lieu of the 'dual training flight'.
No you can't put the FIs name in and sign it yourself.
No you can't put the FIs name in and sign it yourself.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest that you look at AIC 127/1999 (White 378). It is a training flight but you do have to satisfy the instructor as to your ability.
You would not expect an instructor to send a student solo if he was not up to it. Equally you should not expect to get a signature just for being in the same aircraft as the instructor.
Edit to add that night and IMC "training" will not count. It has to be the test/check (see item 1.3 ii) although it does not say that it has to be a pass
You would not expect an instructor to send a student solo if he was not up to it. Equally you should not expect to get a signature just for being in the same aircraft as the instructor.
Edit to add that night and IMC "training" will not count. It has to be the test/check (see item 1.3 ii) although it does not say that it has to be a pass
I use this flight to do the usual stalling, steep turns, PFL, EFATO, a bit of slow flight, spiral dives, unusal attitudes, possibly an electrical fire in the air drill and back for a couple of circuits.
I then point out any weakness and sign the appropriate areas with '1 hours flight as per JAR-FCL'.
I sign it as them completing the JAR-FCL requirement, not as a level of competence (although a quite word would be said).
I then point out any weakness and sign the appropriate areas with '1 hours flight as per JAR-FCL'.
I sign it as them completing the JAR-FCL requirement, not as a level of competence (although a quite word would be said).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIC 127/1999 (White 378) is purely advisory. It's the CAA saying "A bit of advice - if I were you I'd do these things". The law, as enshrined in the Air Navigation Order only states that:-
and paragraph 1.245(c)(1) of JAR–FCL 1 states
There is nothing in the law that states the training flight has to contain anything specific and certainly there is nothing that says it can be 'failed'. Also note that there is nothing in there about it being 'signed off' in the logbook - it just has to be taken.
Now, I'm not arguing what should and shouldn’t be in the flight - I enjoy going out with an instructor from time to time, practising all the stuff that I don't do that regularly and getting feedback from a much more experienced pilot. However, instructors are instructors; they are not examiners and if this were intended to be an exam the people who made the law would have said so.
For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall on singleengine piston aeroplanes (land) and/or touring motor gliders satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph 1.245(c)(1) of JAR–FCL 1.
1) All single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings (land) and all touring motor glider's ratings - Revalidation. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall on single-engine piston aeroplanes (land) and/or touring motor gliders:
(ii) within 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating :
A) complete 12 hours of [flight time in the class including] 6 hours of pilot-in-command time and 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
(B) complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor. This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test for a class or type rating.
(ii) within 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating :
A) complete 12 hours of [flight time in the class including] 6 hours of pilot-in-command time and 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
(B) complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor. This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test for a class or type rating.
Now, I'm not arguing what should and shouldn’t be in the flight - I enjoy going out with an instructor from time to time, practising all the stuff that I don't do that regularly and getting feedback from a much more experienced pilot. However, instructors are instructors; they are not examiners and if this were intended to be an exam the people who made the law would have said so.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you do 50 hrs training with an FAA Instructor, pass an FAA ME CPL IR with an FAA examiner, you still need 1 hr with a JAA Instructor. Yet you can let your JAA licence lapse and still fly on your foreign certificate....mad init?
There is no mandatory content for the 'dual training flight'. So yes, a 1 hr IMC training session will suffice - just get the FI to sign it for you.
There is so much nonsense spouted about whether the FI should sign your logbook if he/she isn't happy with your performance. If that was the case, don't be surprised if the FI refuses to sign. Attempt to lean on the FI and you may find that the FI will notify the CAA and suggest that your licence is suspended until you've proved your competence to an Examiner with a LPC.
There is so much nonsense spouted about whether the FI should sign your logbook if he/she isn't happy with your performance. If that was the case, don't be surprised if the FI refuses to sign. Attempt to lean on the FI and you may find that the FI will notify the CAA and suggest that your licence is suspended until you've proved your competence to an Examiner with a LPC.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where in the law i.e. where in the ANO or JAR-FCL is there a requirement that it be signed in your log book? The only requirement that I can see is that the training flight took place.
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
I really can't see what all the fuss is about.
If an instructor told me that I wasn't safe, I would listen to what he was saying - regardless of whether I thought he was legally in a position to refuse to sign my paperwork, this guy is concerned for my safety, and I want to know what he's concerned about so I can put it right. Once the problem is sorted out, I'll start worrying about the paperwork.
FFF
---------------
If an instructor told me that I wasn't safe, I would listen to what he was saying - regardless of whether I thought he was legally in a position to refuse to sign my paperwork, this guy is concerned for my safety, and I want to know what he's concerned about so I can put it right. Once the problem is sorted out, I'll start worrying about the paperwork.
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the fuss is because he has a significant amount of time with instructors towards both night rating and imc rating, but because he never thought he'd need it, he never asked them for a signiture in his log book. And now, they possibly won't sign it, not because he isn't safe, but because he hasn't done the "check out" which normally preceeds the signiture?
And to be honest I can see his point. No one should have a problem if someone refuses to sign your log book because they don't think you are safe. If you disagree with them, then find another unconnected instructor. If they too won't sign it for you, then you really know you have a problem. But if they won't sign it because you haven't done the quasi skills test, (but have done other training with yo, and think you are safe), then that's something else entirely.
dp
And to be honest I can see his point. No one should have a problem if someone refuses to sign your log book because they don't think you are safe. If you disagree with them, then find another unconnected instructor. If they too won't sign it for you, then you really know you have a problem. But if they won't sign it because you haven't done the quasi skills test, (but have done other training with yo, and think you are safe), then that's something else entirely.
dp
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware, all training entered in a log book must be certified by the relevant instructor. My current interpretation of this is that I sign every entry in the log book at the end of each flight.
In older times, on completion fo a course, the CFI signed the log book to certify that the entries were correct.
Thus by one of the above means, in order to obtain an IMC or night qualification, ther must be some signature to certify the training.
When I complete the 1 hour training with a pilot, we have a proper debrief of the flight over a nice cup of tea.
I am very mindfull that the minimum standard I look for is that of a brand new PPL holder regardless of how many thousands of hours the pilot has.
Provided that the operation is safe and the safe outcome of every manoeuvere is never in doubt (even if it is a little sloppy), I have no problem signing the logbook.
However, if the overall performance is so poor that safety is not ensured , I give the pilot the option of my either not signing the entry (we discuss how to improve the flying and book a further flight) or I make a full and frank comment in the logbook of what I considered the displayed standard to be and sign that comment. I don't care which the pilot chooses it is totally up to them.
It is in no way a test.......it is a training flight. However, if we all think back to our training days......when we did not meet the standard for progression, our instructor made a comment in the training notes which made this clear and we did the same exercise again....and again until we demonstrated the minimum standard.......it wasn't a test.......it was training.
Now that we are PPL holders do we consider ourselves above the requirement to train???
If an instructor signs a logbook after an unsafe performance without recording any adverse comments then any posible benifits (to other airspace users) from the flight are lost.
Having seen lots of flying this summer by qualified pilots which were well below the minimum standard for a PPL, perhaps we need the insurance companies in Europe to follow more closely the US system whereby the insurance company makes check flights mandatory and rewards safe competent pilots with lower premiums while those reported for unsafe flying on a regular basis get a reminder in the one place they pay attention to - their bank account.
Regards,
DFC
In older times, on completion fo a course, the CFI signed the log book to certify that the entries were correct.
Thus by one of the above means, in order to obtain an IMC or night qualification, ther must be some signature to certify the training.
When I complete the 1 hour training with a pilot, we have a proper debrief of the flight over a nice cup of tea.
I am very mindfull that the minimum standard I look for is that of a brand new PPL holder regardless of how many thousands of hours the pilot has.
Provided that the operation is safe and the safe outcome of every manoeuvere is never in doubt (even if it is a little sloppy), I have no problem signing the logbook.
However, if the overall performance is so poor that safety is not ensured , I give the pilot the option of my either not signing the entry (we discuss how to improve the flying and book a further flight) or I make a full and frank comment in the logbook of what I considered the displayed standard to be and sign that comment. I don't care which the pilot chooses it is totally up to them.
It is in no way a test.......it is a training flight. However, if we all think back to our training days......when we did not meet the standard for progression, our instructor made a comment in the training notes which made this clear and we did the same exercise again....and again until we demonstrated the minimum standard.......it wasn't a test.......it was training.
Now that we are PPL holders do we consider ourselves above the requirement to train???
If an instructor signs a logbook after an unsafe performance without recording any adverse comments then any posible benifits (to other airspace users) from the flight are lost.
Having seen lots of flying this summer by qualified pilots which were well below the minimum standard for a PPL, perhaps we need the insurance companies in Europe to follow more closely the US system whereby the insurance company makes check flights mandatory and rewards safe competent pilots with lower premiums while those reported for unsafe flying on a regular basis get a reminder in the one place they pay attention to - their bank account.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't think this one hour with an Instructor should be with an Instructor.
There is no set pieces to do. And the whole standard is being rested on FI's who have had no instruction or guidelines formally issued on what is to be expected.
There is already a problem with PE getting enough work testing PPL's to justify the examiner rating. Let them do the flights they know whats allowable and have been trained to do it. Set the cost at 20 quid and standards will be maintained and we won't loose ppl examiners through economic reasons.
MJ
And as an Instructor I have just looked at my logbook and yes you have guessed it no flight signed off as one hour with an Instructor. Lets hope that if i get caught the fact that i had just sat a IR renewal with the examiner who signed my SEP counts.
There is no set pieces to do. And the whole standard is being rested on FI's who have had no instruction or guidelines formally issued on what is to be expected.
There is already a problem with PE getting enough work testing PPL's to justify the examiner rating. Let them do the flights they know whats allowable and have been trained to do it. Set the cost at 20 quid and standards will be maintained and we won't loose ppl examiners through economic reasons.
MJ
And as an Instructor I have just looked at my logbook and yes you have guessed it no flight signed off as one hour with an Instructor. Lets hope that if i get caught the fact that i had just sat a IR renewal with the examiner who signed my SEP counts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuss is about the huge amount of confusion around at the moment - primarily caused by the CAA issuing a very badly worded AIC 127/1999 (White 378).
Clearly it should be well documented what is required to revalidate a Certificate of Experience. The current situation where what is required is decided by individual instructors and Joe Pilot has no way of knowing what that is, is clearly unacceptable.
I can see the benefits of continued instruction however that isn't the point. The point is that is should be well documented and well understood what is required for a Certificate of Experience and currently that is not the case.
Clearly it should be well documented what is required to revalidate a Certificate of Experience. The current situation where what is required is decided by individual instructors and Joe Pilot has no way of knowing what that is, is clearly unacceptable.
I can see the benefits of continued instruction however that isn't the point. The point is that is should be well documented and well understood what is required for a Certificate of Experience and currently that is not the case.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock,
Instructors are well trained in deciding when a pilot has reached the standard required for the issue of a PPL. That is when they send the student forward to the Examminer for test.
As an instructor, you know that as far as the CAA are concerned, the IR renewal counts.
As for clear information on the requirements. The answer must be to read then direct from JAR-FCL.
Every other country in Europe seems to cope well. How is it that in the UK, people claim to have problems undertanding the requirements when provided with a copy of JAR-FCL, plus an AIC from the CAA explaining the situation, plus a book called LASORS which also explains the requirements.
IMHO, people often simply invent problems when they can't be bothered.
Every current current instructor has made a declaration that they have read and understood the JARs. How come so many calim at a later date not to understand them or misquote them ???
Rant over!
Regards,
DFC
Instructors are well trained in deciding when a pilot has reached the standard required for the issue of a PPL. That is when they send the student forward to the Examminer for test.
As an instructor, you know that as far as the CAA are concerned, the IR renewal counts.
As for clear information on the requirements. The answer must be to read then direct from JAR-FCL.
Every other country in Europe seems to cope well. How is it that in the UK, people claim to have problems undertanding the requirements when provided with a copy of JAR-FCL, plus an AIC from the CAA explaining the situation, plus a book called LASORS which also explains the requirements.
IMHO, people often simply invent problems when they can't be bothered.
Every current current instructor has made a declaration that they have read and understood the JARs. How come so many calim at a later date not to understand them or misquote them ???
Rant over!
Regards,
DFC
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't that straightforward. I personally have encountered or heard of instructors doing the following:-
1) Instructor asks pilot what they should do, and is quite happy to fly to another airfield for lunch - after all, all it says is one hour with an instructor.
2) Pilot told that there are specific things you have to do, virtually a mini-skills test, but that it wasn't a test.
3) Pilot is told by an instructor/examiner that there was no requirement to sign the log book, but then finding out that another examiner wouldn't accept that flight for renewal, since there was no proff of what it was.
4) Pilot told by a very experienced instructor that their particular school had decided not to sign log books if the student wasn't up to scratch - after all, what would the legal position be if they did and the student did something stupid and had an accident...duty of care and all that.
If there's this amount of confusion, then something is not as clear as it should be.
1) Instructor asks pilot what they should do, and is quite happy to fly to another airfield for lunch - after all, all it says is one hour with an instructor.
2) Pilot told that there are specific things you have to do, virtually a mini-skills test, but that it wasn't a test.
3) Pilot is told by an instructor/examiner that there was no requirement to sign the log book, but then finding out that another examiner wouldn't accept that flight for renewal, since there was no proff of what it was.
4) Pilot told by a very experienced instructor that their particular school had decided not to sign log books if the student wasn't up to scratch - after all, what would the legal position be if they did and the student did something stupid and had an accident...duty of care and all that.
If there's this amount of confusion, then something is not as clear as it should be.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DFC
were do you get that idea?? here in Germany it is chaos!!! the problem is, we don't learn from the mistakes/experiences in the other countries because we don't hear about them or don't bother to check it out. I am sooooo relieved to find out that you all have the same problems as we do. We had the further complication of the regulations having to be translated into German, in part being wrongly translated!! At least you didn't have that problem! 
About that training flight:
1) same uncertainties here. We say that an instructor cannot refuse to sign, as the flight took place, no matter how good or bad it was
2) it must signed in the log book... how else can a pilot proove it took place? putting the instructors name in there yourself is no acceptable documentation if being checked; and somewhere in the FCL it's mentioned... don't ask me where...
3) here, too, there are no definite rules about what that training flight ist to contain... it's all up to the instructor. I like to play "dumb guest" and just observe what the pilot does... then give him advice about what he could do better or what wasn't good... and if I feel it necessary, I show him a thing or two
4) question: can the hour be "interrupted" by a landing at another field? I say, why not! I did one flight where we flew to another field... the first leg was 52 minutes, return was about 45 min... the authority wasn't going to accept it because it wasn't 60 min. on one stretch!!
Westy
Every other country in Europe seems to cope well. How is it that in the UK, people claim to have problems undertanding the requirements when provided with a copy of JAR-FCL, plus an AIC from the CAA explaining the situation, plus a book called LASORS which also explains the requirements.
About that training flight:
1) same uncertainties here. We say that an instructor cannot refuse to sign, as the flight took place, no matter how good or bad it was
2) it must signed in the log book... how else can a pilot proove it took place? putting the instructors name in there yourself is no acceptable documentation if being checked; and somewhere in the FCL it's mentioned... don't ask me where...
3) here, too, there are no definite rules about what that training flight ist to contain... it's all up to the instructor. I like to play "dumb guest" and just observe what the pilot does... then give him advice about what he could do better or what wasn't good... and if I feel it necessary, I show him a thing or two
4) question: can the hour be "interrupted" by a landing at another field? I say, why not! I did one flight where we flew to another field... the first leg was 52 minutes, return was about 45 min... the authority wasn't going to accept it because it wasn't 60 min. on one stretch!!
Westy
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IR renewal dosn't count unless the Instructor/examiner actually signs the log book as per that bit of paper. And as we were in a twin for the renewal I think we were pushing it calling it a SEP test.
And during my FIC there was no mention of what the standard was meant to be. Although I presume I am getting it right with 16 PPL's behind me with 100% pass rate.
But i still think its a crap setup just now with 30% instructors going over board 60% doing it the way I presume the CAA wanted it. And 10% who would sign anything for 1 more hour in thier log book and a pint in the bar.
MJ
And during my FIC there was no mention of what the standard was meant to be. Although I presume I am getting it right with 16 PPL's behind me with 100% pass rate.
But i still think its a crap setup just now with 30% instructors going over board 60% doing it the way I presume the CAA wanted it. And 10% who would sign anything for 1 more hour in thier log book and a pint in the bar.
MJ
A 'dual training flight' would need signing for; however, your IR renewal (or did you mean re-validation) would have sufficient documentary proof for whichever Examiner re-validates your SEP Class rating. And remember that an 'instructor' cannot revalidate or renew an IR.....
As you're an instructor, you really should get up to speed on such things. Because others will be looking to you for guidance.
As you're an instructor, you really should get up to speed on such things. Because others will be looking to you for guidance.