SEP revalidation and training flight question
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you really that pedantic or is LASORS not good enough for you?
Seriously, this is like arguing whether a metre is 100 cm or 3.28 feet.
We get a nice book from our friends in Gatwick to try and make sense of all the "regulations" as you put it, which to me makes it all very clear, but for some reason, it isn't good enough.
Instead of wasting time and bandwidth, why not e-mail the CAA and ask for a clarification. I'm very comfortable that what I have always done is pretty much standard across the industry and that no-one is losing out on anything.
If the regulator comes back and says something different, then I'll change.
I'll chuck it back at you. LASORS agrees with me, you go off and look through hundreds of pages of law and tell me where it says anything that disagrees with my interpretation, or where it says that LASORS is a work of fiction to be disregarded as we all see fit.
If you can, I'll buy you a pint.
Seriously, this is like arguing whether a metre is 100 cm or 3.28 feet.
We get a nice book from our friends in Gatwick to try and make sense of all the "regulations" as you put it, which to me makes it all very clear, but for some reason, it isn't good enough.
Instead of wasting time and bandwidth, why not e-mail the CAA and ask for a clarification. I'm very comfortable that what I have always done is pretty much standard across the industry and that no-one is losing out on anything.
If the regulator comes back and says something different, then I'll change.
I'll chuck it back at you. LASORS agrees with me, you go off and look through hundreds of pages of law and tell me where it says anything that disagrees with my interpretation, or where it says that LASORS is a work of fiction to be disregarded as we all see fit.
If you can, I'll buy you a pint.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already did. The answer received from the CAA was that LASORS was a guide and if I wanted to view the law I was to read the ANO......
LASORS has no legal basis, it is the OPINION of one person in the CAA.
There is nothing in regulations that require you to do what you do.
That is only the point that we are trying to make. It is you that fails to recognise the fact and therefore leave yourself wide open.
The rules are very simple, any flight of 1hr or greater duration in the qualifying period as PUT meets the revalidation by experience requirements. There are no legal requirements for anything else, no required skills, no required assesment and no certification from an Instructor that they have met any standards.
The fact is that I agree with your sentiment just not your dogged determination to try and convince us your interpretation is the law.
LASORS has no legal basis, it is the OPINION of one person in the CAA.
There is nothing in regulations that require you to do what you do.
That is only the point that we are trying to make. It is you that fails to recognise the fact and therefore leave yourself wide open.
The rules are very simple, any flight of 1hr or greater duration in the qualifying period as PUT meets the revalidation by experience requirements. There are no legal requirements for anything else, no required skills, no required assesment and no certification from an Instructor that they have met any standards.
The fact is that I agree with your sentiment just not your dogged determination to try and convince us your interpretation is the law.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LASORS is not written by a single person, nor can it be simply described as opinion. The editorial process will include the CAA lawyers reading through it.
They wouldn't let anything go into print unless it met certain criteria. Lawyers are funny about things like that. Their job is to minimise risk to their clients most of the time (for example, most newspapers have legal eagles on staff to check if stories are actionable) if the CAA published a book which purported to condense and explain the actual law and it wasn't spot on or defensible, then it would get any where near the printers.
They will always say "go and read the ANO" rather than give an opinion. Why? Because you are usually talking to a beauracrat who doesn't want to make a mistake in interpretation. If you could speak to one of the actual policy people who sat down and wrote this stuff, then you will likely get a very different answer.
The CAA are world leaders in ar*e covering. Do you really think they would publish a book like LASORS if it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
We can argue all we like, but as I've already mentioned, all legislation is open to interpretation unless something is tested and a precedent is set. That's simply the nature of it.
I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......
).
They wouldn't let anything go into print unless it met certain criteria. Lawyers are funny about things like that. Their job is to minimise risk to their clients most of the time (for example, most newspapers have legal eagles on staff to check if stories are actionable) if the CAA published a book which purported to condense and explain the actual law and it wasn't spot on or defensible, then it would get any where near the printers.
They will always say "go and read the ANO" rather than give an opinion. Why? Because you are usually talking to a beauracrat who doesn't want to make a mistake in interpretation. If you could speak to one of the actual policy people who sat down and wrote this stuff, then you will likely get a very different answer.
The CAA are world leaders in ar*e covering. Do you really think they would publish a book like LASORS if it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?
We can argue all we like, but as I've already mentioned, all legislation is open to interpretation unless something is tested and a precedent is set. That's simply the nature of it.
I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......
).
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......).
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......).
LASORS is a guide not the law. SIMPLE. The ANO is the law simple.
So pick me a section from the ANO that backs your stance up and we can all admit you were right. Otherwise the only person you are making look stupid is your self. Your ego won't let you back down will it?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, simply explaining my position and why I don't run away when people start chucking childish insults around instead of reasoned argument. I may be guilty of many things, but fortunately being a violent idiot isn't one fo them.
Do you expect me to be able to reach down a phone line to administer a good thrashing.........!! Let's be a bit sensible about that.
It is your opinion that LASORS isn't to be followed in the same way it is mine that it should be.
The ANO cannot possibly be written to cover every nuance, if it was it would tens of thousands of pages long and utterly unreadable.
Let me put it this way, do you refer to the highway code? Do you consider that to be "good enough"?
It isn't law either, but a book written by the DVLA to allow the general public access to the rules and regs in a manageable form.
Next time you get stopped by the police, try arguing that just because it is in the highway code it isn't law. In fact an awful lot of what is contained in the highway code doesn't appear in any legislation, but whilst you can't be prosecuted for failing to abide by the "code", there is the catch all offence of "driving without due care" which can be chucked at you even though what you may have done doesn't appear in the statute books, but does appear in the highway code book.
LASORS is exactly the same in my eyes. It is simply a book clarifying the law and making it more easily digestable and accessable for the general public. Having to refer to the ANO constantly is unwieldy and given that it can only be updated by act of parliament, having a book like LASORS makes life an awful lot simpler for all of us.
It has transformed things for me. I don't get asked anywhere near as many law questions anymore and if I am and I don't know the answer off the top of my head, it is far easier to delve into one book and get an answer.
An excellent publication, not perfect, but it makes life much easier than when we didn't have it.
Do you expect me to be able to reach down a phone line to administer a good thrashing.........!! Let's be a bit sensible about that.
It is your opinion that LASORS isn't to be followed in the same way it is mine that it should be.
The ANO cannot possibly be written to cover every nuance, if it was it would tens of thousands of pages long and utterly unreadable.
Let me put it this way, do you refer to the highway code? Do you consider that to be "good enough"?
It isn't law either, but a book written by the DVLA to allow the general public access to the rules and regs in a manageable form.
Next time you get stopped by the police, try arguing that just because it is in the highway code it isn't law. In fact an awful lot of what is contained in the highway code doesn't appear in any legislation, but whilst you can't be prosecuted for failing to abide by the "code", there is the catch all offence of "driving without due care" which can be chucked at you even though what you may have done doesn't appear in the statute books, but does appear in the highway code book.
LASORS is exactly the same in my eyes. It is simply a book clarifying the law and making it more easily digestable and accessable for the general public. Having to refer to the ANO constantly is unwieldy and given that it can only be updated by act of parliament, having a book like LASORS makes life an awful lot simpler for all of us.
It has transformed things for me. I don't get asked anywhere near as many law questions anymore and if I am and I don't know the answer off the top of my head, it is far easier to delve into one book and get an answer.
An excellent publication, not perfect, but it makes life much easier than when we didn't have it.
LASORS might not be a legal document, but it is a reasonable 'code of conduct'.
In any case, the FEH requires that the instructor who conducts the 1 hr training flight shall sign the applicant's logbook and include his CAA reference no.
If a FE signs a revalidation which is not supported by such a signed entry, he has failed to follow the CFE's requirements and has, therefore, not acted in accordance with his authorisation.
Presnt me with a logbook without such a signed entry and I would offer 2 alternatives:
Either 1. Go and fly a 1 hr training flight and have it 'signed off' by the FI.
Or 2. Fly a revalidation LPC.
And whereas a FI revalidation proficiency check will count towards SEP revalidation by experience in lieu of a 'training flight', a FE 'dummy skill test' won't......
In any case, the FEH requires that the instructor who conducts the 1 hr training flight shall sign the applicant's logbook and include his CAA reference no.
If a FE signs a revalidation which is not supported by such a signed entry, he has failed to follow the CFE's requirements and has, therefore, not acted in accordance with his authorisation.
Presnt me with a logbook without such a signed entry and I would offer 2 alternatives:
Either 1. Go and fly a 1 hr training flight and have it 'signed off' by the FI.
Or 2. Fly a revalidation LPC.
And whereas a FI revalidation proficiency check will count towards SEP revalidation by experience in lieu of a 'training flight', a FE 'dummy skill test' won't......
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS. I am not disagreeing with you that LASORS is indeed a fine publication and is a great GUIDE for us as Instructors and Examiners.
I merely needling away at your dogged insistence that it is the regulations and it must be followed to the letter. I refer you to mine and others previous comments.
I am not trying to put my own interpretation on the rules. I just follow them in as written.
You only have to admit you were wrong and it will be at an end.
As an Instructor people expect you to give good advice and unless you admit that your interpretation is wrong where does that leave us all. After all if an Instructor can't get it right how is the average pilot going to?
Beagle, we are not arguing the fact that the Instructor should sign. It surprises me that SAS does not sign each flight. I certainly do and everyone else I know does the same thing.
I merely needling away at your dogged insistence that it is the regulations and it must be followed to the letter. I refer you to mine and others previous comments.
The rules are very simple, any flight of 1hr or greater duration in the qualifying period as PUT meets the revalidation by experience requirements. There are no legal requirements for anything else, no required skills, no required assesment and no certification from an Instructor that they have met any standards.
You only have to admit you were wrong and it will be at an end.
As an Instructor people expect you to give good advice and unless you admit that your interpretation is wrong where does that leave us all. After all if an Instructor can't get it right how is the average pilot going to?
Beagle, we are not arguing the fact that the Instructor should sign. It surprises me that SAS does not sign each flight. I certainly do and everyone else I know does the same thing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I read the passage in LASORS about the "training flight" I find it very easy to take from the paragraph that we as instructors should be assessing the skill level of the person we are flying with, then according to the paragraph we should "interject if necessary to improve on these".
If by the end of the flight, the standard has not got any better, then for me, the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved. After all, it is a training flight not a test, so if the aim of the training flight is to increase skill levels and that hasn't happened, then this section becomes relevant "Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose."
Why, because it says if the aim is achieved, then you sign, if it isn't, then you don't. I would far prefer it if that was made obvious, but I think the inference is very clear from that, otherwise why mention the phrase "where the aim is achieved"?
In the hundreds of logbooks I have seen, the only time I have noticed each training flight to be signed by an FI is for people who have flown in the States. I simply don't know anyone who signs after every flight, as I mentioned before it is messy and unnecessary. I have taught in schools in the South of England, the Midlands, Welsh Borders and up here in Scotland and not one CFI has insisted or even mentioned that I should sign a students logbook after each and every flight. The only time I've seen lots of signature like that is for P1/S in an airline environment.
If by the end of the flight, the standard has not got any better, then for me, the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved. After all, it is a training flight not a test, so if the aim of the training flight is to increase skill levels and that hasn't happened, then this section becomes relevant "Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose."
Why, because it says if the aim is achieved, then you sign, if it isn't, then you don't. I would far prefer it if that was made obvious, but I think the inference is very clear from that, otherwise why mention the phrase "where the aim is achieved"?
In the hundreds of logbooks I have seen, the only time I have noticed each training flight to be signed by an FI is for people who have flown in the States. I simply don't know anyone who signs after every flight, as I mentioned before it is messy and unnecessary. I have taught in schools in the South of England, the Midlands, Welsh Borders and up here in Scotland and not one CFI has insisted or even mentioned that I should sign a students logbook after each and every flight. The only time I've seen lots of signature like that is for P1/S in an airline environment.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Say again slowly
It [LASORS] has transformed things for me. I don't get asked anywhere near as many law questions anymore
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to think it was because of the increased awareness of the law thanks to LASORS, but you're right, it may well be down to my wit, charm and personality! Or lack of.
Either that or the fact that I haven't held a medical since September which tends to cut down the amount of time you spend at the airfield and therefore the chances of people buttonholing me for questions!
Mind you I am still getting at least a phone call a day from students and ex-students asking me questions, so I'm not that bad really!
Either that or the fact that I haven't held a medical since September which tends to cut down the amount of time you spend at the airfield and therefore the chances of people buttonholing me for questions!
Mind you I am still getting at least a phone call a day from students and ex-students asking me questions, so I'm not that bad really!
It surprises me that SAS does not sign each flight. I certainly do and everyone else I know does the same thing.
There is no requirement whatsoever for this in the UK at SPA level. I understand that it is an FAA requirement, so perhaps people who have attended FAA schools have brought the pointless habit back with them from the USA.
Apart from FE signatures and FI SEP revalidation training flight signatures, I wouldn't expect to see any other FIs' signatures in UK personal flying logbooks.
I really fail to see what value your comments add to this thread, bose-x....
Gentlemen, and/or ladies
We have all had our say now, and it seems that neither side is going to persuade the other to change it's mind by the application of logical argument, nor by slinging insults at each other.
Perhaps we should accept that some are never going to come around to our point of view, and just let it go.
MJ
We have all had our say now, and it seems that neither side is going to persuade the other to change it's mind by the application of logical argument, nor by slinging insults at each other.
Perhaps we should accept that some are never going to come around to our point of view, and just let it go.
MJ
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always get my logbook signed by the FI...for the very reason we're talking about. I don't care if the logbook looks messy or not, does it really matter? Besides as the customer paying the FI for their services, I think it is the least they can do to avoid any confusion later on.
If I happen to do a "club checkout" in month 13 of my 2 year period, it makes sense to get the logbook signed so you don't have to go back and do this extra 1 hr training flight.
Will an FAA BFR count for this 1 hr requirement I wonder? and if not, why not, seeing as there are established procedures for the FAA BFR which are not open to personal interpretation.....Maybe I'll fire one off to the CAA and ask, seeing as I end up doing an IPC every year and a BFR every two years anyway (through my choice)...
If I happen to do a "club checkout" in month 13 of my 2 year period, it makes sense to get the logbook signed so you don't have to go back and do this extra 1 hr training flight.
Will an FAA BFR count for this 1 hr requirement I wonder? and if not, why not, seeing as there are established procedures for the FAA BFR which are not open to personal interpretation.....Maybe I'll fire one off to the CAA and ask, seeing as I end up doing an IPC every year and a BFR every two years anyway (through my choice)...
As a general principle, I never sign anything which does not require a signature. And just because a pilot pays to fly with an FI, he/she doesn't own that FI, so the view that being a 'customer' entitles you to have your logbook signed by the FI for any instructional flight is incorrect.
An FAA BFR would only count as a JAR-FCL training flight for the purposes of revalidation if conducted by an FI authorised under JAR-FCL, as I understand it.
An FAA BFR would only count as a JAR-FCL training flight for the purposes of revalidation if conducted by an FI authorised under JAR-FCL, as I understand it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he/she doesn't own that FI
I think it should be a requirement that all FI time is signed by the instructor, to avoid any possible confusion later on. Especially if the flight is for the purpose of the issue of or revalidation of a rating - which it could be ?
I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out.
The FI will be PIC on any training flight, unless he/she is flying as a passenger with another pilot operating as PIC. Irrespective of any signature.