SEP revalidation and training flight question
Such routine training does NOT require a signature.
As has been stated repeatedly, the only signature which is needed is by the FI who conducts the 1 hr training flight you need if revalidating your SEP Class Rating by experience.
As has been stated repeatedly, the only signature which is needed is by the FI who conducts the 1 hr training flight you need if revalidating your SEP Class Rating by experience.
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Jun 2008 at 07:13.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out.
NOt required and you have no right to ask for any signature for routine training except for any training flight you specifically wish to use as part of your SEP Class Rating revalidation requirements.
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.
I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out.
NOt required and you have no right to ask for any signature for routine training except for any training flight you specifically wish to use as part of your SEP Class Rating revalidation requirements.
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.
As an Instructor if someone pays for my time for Instruction I think they have every right to ask that I sign the logbook as proof that the Instruction took place. If they then want to use that flight later for revalidation then they are perfectly at liberty to do so.
Is it little wonder that pilots prefer to go to independent Instructors for training rather than schools if this is the dogmatic and arrogant approach they face by school instructors.
Beagle
I have, so far, been unable to find any current general requrement for the instructor to countersign Put logbook entries on a routine basis, except that time so logged cannot be counted for the issue of a licence or rating, unless it is countersigned , either on an individual flight basis, or as a summary of a group of flights.
I can see absolutely no reason though, to refuse a signature if one is requested.
MJ
I have, so far, been unable to find any current general requrement for the instructor to countersign Put logbook entries on a routine basis, except that time so logged cannot be counted for the issue of a licence or rating, unless it is countersigned , either on an individual flight basis, or as a summary of a group of flights.
I can see absolutely no reason though, to refuse a signature if one is requested.
MJ
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do hope you have set up a Bose-x RTF as an "independant instructor".
Since you seem to like everything from the ANO, show us where it is a requirement to sign each flight as an FI or where it is even mentioned?
If you are signing flights willy nilly, do you sign them even where the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved? i.e when someone god awful has tried 15 different ways to break the aircraft in a single flight and showed no imporvement or interest in getting better.
You would still sign their logbook and think nothing more of it?
Would you suggest more training?
What would you do if they refused this offer, got their rating revalidated and a few days later hurt themselves or god forbid killed themself and others with them because they made mistakes that you had picked up, tried to rectify but failed to do so and then gave up and signed the form and logbook anway?
That would be interesting from a professional liability stand point. In the same way that training records are scrutinised after a fatal accident from a solo student and that you can be for the high jump if it is proven that you didn't sufficiently train the student in emergency procedures etc. before they were sent off solo.
I wonder how it would work given the fact that LASOR is explicit and whilst not law, it carries more weight than a blank bit of paper and a smart lawyer acting for an estate would be right on to it to try and prove that it was your fault that the pilot died.
All hypothetical, but having seen some cases like that (not aviation based) where someone who in reality had little to do with why some arrogant s*d killed themselves, gets nailed to the wall and smeared for all time. Horrid to watch. One chap later killed himself after he was found negligent after a sailing accident. Poor guy.
The 1hr training flight is about the only opportunity a lot of the time to try and help people.
It isn't about punishing them for being rusty or some power trip for an FI. It's about making sure that people have the required skill set to fly safely.
I can hear the howls of derision. "Who are you to make that judgement?" My answer would be. Get stuffed, who else is going to do it?
99.9% of the time, the flight is a formality, but as flying is about being prepared for problems, I like to have a plan to deal with that 0.1%.
Most people will undergo some form of training every year and if it falls within the time period and they are flying well, then I will sign their logbook as matter of course, usually without having to be asked and certainly without doing a seperate flight.
But there are a few people who won't see an FI apart from every couple of years. That isn't a problem, but it does mean the "training flight" takes on more of a formal basis as it is a different type of flight compared to the ones normally completed by the pilot.
This sometimes can cause problems as it can make people nervous. It gets percieved as a test and no amount of explanation that you are there to help not simply judge makes a difference.
I can't help it if someone gets nervous before hand and then mucks it up. Anyone who knows me, will tell you that I can actually tell if people are wound up and I always do my best to make them as calm as possible. Chatting, stupid jokes, anything to try and make sure that their flying is as minimally affected by having an FI next to them. Explaining that it isn't a test also helps and that I'm only there to help them with any problems or questions.
However, you can only make a call on what you are presented with. As any examiner will tell you, sometimes you fly with someone who you know should walk a test, but nerves get to them. You can't pass them if they didn't fly well enough, even though it was just a temporary blip. It can happen with even the cuddliest and friendliest of examiners.
I would prefer an American style BFR, but that isn't what we have, so you do your best to marry up the requirements from LASORS, your own commonsense and the desires of the person sitting next to you.
It is the fault of the CAA that this discussion is even possible. It should be laid out in black and white with no chance to be misinterpreted, but as per usual we just have to muddle through as best we can, trying to keep everyone happy. That isn't always possible, but you do have to try.
Since you seem to like everything from the ANO, show us where it is a requirement to sign each flight as an FI or where it is even mentioned?
If you are signing flights willy nilly, do you sign them even where the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved? i.e when someone god awful has tried 15 different ways to break the aircraft in a single flight and showed no imporvement or interest in getting better.
You would still sign their logbook and think nothing more of it?
Would you suggest more training?
What would you do if they refused this offer, got their rating revalidated and a few days later hurt themselves or god forbid killed themself and others with them because they made mistakes that you had picked up, tried to rectify but failed to do so and then gave up and signed the form and logbook anway?
That would be interesting from a professional liability stand point. In the same way that training records are scrutinised after a fatal accident from a solo student and that you can be for the high jump if it is proven that you didn't sufficiently train the student in emergency procedures etc. before they were sent off solo.
I wonder how it would work given the fact that LASOR is explicit and whilst not law, it carries more weight than a blank bit of paper and a smart lawyer acting for an estate would be right on to it to try and prove that it was your fault that the pilot died.
All hypothetical, but having seen some cases like that (not aviation based) where someone who in reality had little to do with why some arrogant s*d killed themselves, gets nailed to the wall and smeared for all time. Horrid to watch. One chap later killed himself after he was found negligent after a sailing accident. Poor guy.
The 1hr training flight is about the only opportunity a lot of the time to try and help people.
It isn't about punishing them for being rusty or some power trip for an FI. It's about making sure that people have the required skill set to fly safely.
I can hear the howls of derision. "Who are you to make that judgement?" My answer would be. Get stuffed, who else is going to do it?
99.9% of the time, the flight is a formality, but as flying is about being prepared for problems, I like to have a plan to deal with that 0.1%.
Most people will undergo some form of training every year and if it falls within the time period and they are flying well, then I will sign their logbook as matter of course, usually without having to be asked and certainly without doing a seperate flight.
But there are a few people who won't see an FI apart from every couple of years. That isn't a problem, but it does mean the "training flight" takes on more of a formal basis as it is a different type of flight compared to the ones normally completed by the pilot.
This sometimes can cause problems as it can make people nervous. It gets percieved as a test and no amount of explanation that you are there to help not simply judge makes a difference.
I can't help it if someone gets nervous before hand and then mucks it up. Anyone who knows me, will tell you that I can actually tell if people are wound up and I always do my best to make them as calm as possible. Chatting, stupid jokes, anything to try and make sure that their flying is as minimally affected by having an FI next to them. Explaining that it isn't a test also helps and that I'm only there to help them with any problems or questions.
However, you can only make a call on what you are presented with. As any examiner will tell you, sometimes you fly with someone who you know should walk a test, but nerves get to them. You can't pass them if they didn't fly well enough, even though it was just a temporary blip. It can happen with even the cuddliest and friendliest of examiners.
I would prefer an American style BFR, but that isn't what we have, so you do your best to marry up the requirements from LASORS, your own commonsense and the desires of the person sitting next to you.
It is the fault of the CAA that this discussion is even possible. It should be laid out in black and white with no chance to be misinterpreted, but as per usual we just have to muddle through as best we can, trying to keep everyone happy. That isn't always possible, but you do have to try.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, SAS - a quick and simple question ...
You fly as FI for an hour with someone as a revalidation "training flight" but (for reasons best known to yourself) you decide it is a "test", that they have failed and you therefore decline to sign their logbook.
In these circumstances, how would you suggest you should each record the flight in your respective logbooks?
JD
PS I'm going flying now - there's plenty of lift in the air today ...
You fly as FI for an hour with someone as a revalidation "training flight" but (for reasons best known to yourself) you decide it is a "test", that they have failed and you therefore decline to sign their logbook.
In these circumstances, how would you suggest you should each record the flight in your respective logbooks?
JD
PS I'm going flying now - there's plenty of lift in the air today ...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it would still be a training flight, just one that hasn't reached it's aim. So it would still be P/UT for them and P1 for me.
You could annotate the flight as "unsatisfactory" if you wanted to be a complete ar*e, but I simply wouldn't sign the logbook or put my licence number against it.
You can't be forced into signing anything you don't wish to. Especially as you are supposed to be signing to say that something has been achieved, when it hasn't.
And no signature or licence number means no revalidation, unless the signature gets forged.
Enjoy your flight.
You could annotate the flight as "unsatisfactory" if you wanted to be a complete ar*e, but I simply wouldn't sign the logbook or put my licence number against it.
You can't be forced into signing anything you don't wish to. Especially as you are supposed to be signing to say that something has been achieved, when it hasn't.
And no signature or licence number means no revalidation, unless the signature gets forged.
Enjoy your flight.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For ab-inito. I don't think so. You need an OCP number for when the PPL application is sent away. Something you don't have as an "independant instructor" unless you are an RTF yourself. You used to be able to set yourself up as one easily, but now you need airside accessable facilities which obviously cost a fair bit when you make the application.
SRG1175 is the form to apply for one.
SRG1175 is the form to apply for one.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For ab-inito. I don't think so. You need an OCP number for when the PPL application is sent away. Something you don't have as an "independant instructor" unless you are an RTF yourself. You used to be able to set yourself up as one easily, but now you need airside accessable facilities which obviously cost a fair bit when you make the application.
SRG1175 is the form to apply for one.
SRG1175 is the form to apply for one.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you do if they refused this offer, got their rating revalidated and a few days later hurt themselves or god forbid killed themself and others with them because they made mistakes that you had picked up, tried to rectify but failed to do so and then gave up and signed the form and logbook anway?
If on the other hand they are revalidating by TEST with an FE then fair enough.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EA, I know where you are coming from, but that simply isn't good enough for me. I will not sit back and let someone who isn't competent carry on and cause problems for themself or others, if all I need to do is woork with them for a while. I'd do it for free if that was the issue.
Flight safety is more important than someones ego.
That's not being an arrogant sky god, that's being a sensible person, who actually has the well being of the person involved at heart.
I couldn't in all conscience sit back and watch as I knew someone was highly likely to smash themselves up.
It also doesn't fit in with the advice in LASORS.
However, for the final time. I'm not talking about the vast majority of PPL holders, but the sort of idiot who gives all of us who fly light aircraft a bad name.
How can I spot them? You show me an FI who's being doing this for a few years and I'll show you someone with a sixth sense!
Flight safety is more important than someones ego.
That's not being an arrogant sky god, that's being a sensible person, who actually has the well being of the person involved at heart.
I couldn't in all conscience sit back and watch as I knew someone was highly likely to smash themselves up.
It also doesn't fit in with the advice in LASORS.
However, for the final time. I'm not talking about the vast majority of PPL holders, but the sort of idiot who gives all of us who fly light aircraft a bad name.
How can I spot them? You show me an FI who's being doing this for a few years and I'll show you someone with a sixth sense!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is normally the time I'd use to "do something different" and if that route is gone, then there doesn't seem much point in the flight as far as I am concerned, other than to waste money.
I fly with FAA instructors several times per year at least, (my friend is one and we fly together in my plane a fair bit - for fun) but that time doesn't count, but the training is just as good. So for the "official" time I want to do something else other than steep turns, stalls, blah....
thats all
I fly with FAA instructors several times per year at least, (my friend is one and we fly together in my plane a fair bit - for fun) but that time doesn't count, but the training is just as good. So for the "official" time I want to do something else other than steep turns, stalls, blah....
thats all
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EA, I know where you are coming from, but that simply isn't good enough for me. I will not sit back and let someone who isn't competent carry on and cause problems for themself or others, if all I need to do is woork with them for a while. I'd do it for free if that was the issue.
Flight safety is more important than someones ego.
That's not being an arrogant sky god, that's being a sensible person, who actually has the well being of the person involved at heart.
I couldn't in all conscience sit back and watch as I knew someone was highly likely to smash themselves up.
It also doesn't fit in with the advice in LASORS.
However, for the final time. I'm not talking about the vast majority of PPL holders, but the sort of idiot who gives all of us who fly light aircraft a bad name.
How can I spot them? You show me an FI who's being doing this for a few years and I'll show you someone with a sixth sense!
Flight safety is more important than someones ego.
That's not being an arrogant sky god, that's being a sensible person, who actually has the well being of the person involved at heart.
I couldn't in all conscience sit back and watch as I knew someone was highly likely to smash themselves up.
It also doesn't fit in with the advice in LASORS.
However, for the final time. I'm not talking about the vast majority of PPL holders, but the sort of idiot who gives all of us who fly light aircraft a bad name.
How can I spot them? You show me an FI who's being doing this for a few years and I'll show you someone with a sixth sense!
There you go, now that wasn't hard was it? We have now gone from it being the law to being good advice and you coming over as more pragmatic in your desire to ensure safety. That's all I wanted.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the whole thread but
is not quite the whole story.
Regardless of whether a particular statement in LASORS is legally correct or not: if you rely on something in LASORS and then break the law, it is virtually impossible for the CAA to successfully prosecute you.
This has been discussed in another thread here recently.
The way it works is that a member of the public has a reasonable expectation of getting the correct information from a body like the CAA.
Even a letter from the CAA, containing completely incorrect information which you act on and then break the law, will make a prosecution impossible. This has been tested, too, because the CAA is not immune to having individuals inside it writing letters which are not authorised by the legal department and which somebody then relies on. I can think of one excellent example right away but won't post it publicly.
If you think about it, the law has to work this way, otherwise all correspondence (containing any advice or assurance whatsoever) emanating from any official body would be completely worthless.
It leads to the concept of "apparent authority" on which there is ample case law, and the current state AIUI is that pretty well anything appearing to come from an authoritative source inside the organisation can be relied on.
LASORS has no legal basis
Regardless of whether a particular statement in LASORS is legally correct or not: if you rely on something in LASORS and then break the law, it is virtually impossible for the CAA to successfully prosecute you.
This has been discussed in another thread here recently.
The way it works is that a member of the public has a reasonable expectation of getting the correct information from a body like the CAA.
Even a letter from the CAA, containing completely incorrect information which you act on and then break the law, will make a prosecution impossible. This has been tested, too, because the CAA is not immune to having individuals inside it writing letters which are not authorised by the legal department and which somebody then relies on. I can think of one excellent example right away but won't post it publicly.
If you think about it, the law has to work this way, otherwise all correspondence (containing any advice or assurance whatsoever) emanating from any official body would be completely worthless.
It leads to the concept of "apparent authority" on which there is ample case law, and the current state AIUI is that pretty well anything appearing to come from an authoritative source inside the organisation can be relied on.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In LASORS, there is also the caveat, which reads:
Nothing in this publication is meant to conflict with aviation legislation. Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive. The precise privileges of licences and ratings are set out in Schedule 8 of the Air Navigation Order (please refer to Section A, Appendix F).
JD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive
That's before one gets to the way much of the ANO is worded - impenetrable to most.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and what about my first question:
JD
An interesting concept, IO540 - however I don't quite follow the reasoning because if two mutually contradictory statements come from the same "authoritative source", how then can that principle be applied?
JD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LASORS would be regarded as much more accessible. That's why it was published, after all!
Anyway, for some research, here is a starter:
Apparent authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyway, for some research, here is a starter:
Apparent authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia