NPPL re-val by experience.....
Sadly, many Examiners have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the revised ANO requirements of NPPL revalidations. They should reasonably be expected to keep themselves up to date by reading AICs, at the very least.
If someone wishes to be an Examiner, they should first look at their business case. Fleecing people for a few seconds with a pen is entirely unreasonable - and was actually prohibited in the pre-€urocracy days of BX examiners.
If someone wishes to be an Examiner, they should first look at their business case. Fleecing people for a few seconds with a pen is entirely unreasonable - and was actually prohibited in the pre-€urocracy days of BX examiners.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, of course, there is a fee to be paid to the CAA to be an examiner. How does an examiner earn that back? Not from the one hour's flying if done with another instructor/s!
Guidance from the CAA is that there should be no charge for signing certificate of experiences as it is a paperwork exercise. For the five minutes it takes to check the licence, logbook and sign an SRG1119 this is not an unreasonable position I think.
There is a lot of myth and rubbish around this. I know for example a friend who is in the CI was made to do another 1 hour with the CFI because he was told the hour with the Instructor had to be in the last 90 days even though I had 10 hours of dual with me 6 months earlier and was then charged £28 on top of this to have his licence signed.
A case for Regulation 6 action, perhaps?
Unless, of course, the local club rules required additional recency requirements.
I think we should start a $hit list of those FEs who charge for 5 minutes of pen time.
Unless, of course, the local club rules required additional recency requirements.
I think we should start a $hit list of those FEs who charge for 5 minutes of pen time.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK folks, time to take the tin hats off!
I only "suggested".
Of course, I am an examiner who doesn't get his ratings paid for by an employer!
The famous libel trial between the artist James Whistler and Oscar Wilde also comes to mind.
Whistler was asked how long it took him to 'knock off' The Falling Rocket. He said that it took him two days to paint it . He was then asked whether 200 guineas was not too high a price for only two days work. To this he replied that it was not too much for the 'knowledge of a lifetime'.
Perhaps since examiners don't get paid for signing revals, some don't take it seriously enough to spend a "lifetime" acquiring the knowledge to do it in a few minutes!
That might explain the lack of "professionalism".
As someone who runs his own business, it is amazing how much time and money people who are "employees" - ie don't have to pay their own and others' bills - think can be given at "no cost".
If I "gave away" half a day a week, I would be giving away my entire profit.
ps. I actually don't charge for revals, don't charge for advice when buying aircraft, don't charge for inspecting aircraft clubmembers are thinking of buying, don't charge for advice on where to fly, don't charge for petrol runs (spent more than 1700 on petrol in the last week for Fly-UK people and actually undercharged on 20l by 19p!), don't charge for the 40 phone calls on Sunday because of crap weather around Oban and the airfield there panicking..... etc etc.
Of course, that is don't charge "directly". Still need to pay the bills somehow. So last week a propective student whose instructor has had to leave his field for a few weeks and then will be abroad for a month or two came to see about flying here.
But my hourly training rate - at £20 an hour more than his absent instructor's - was too much.
Perhaps if I charged for all those things that are free, I could charge £20 an hour less.
Or should student pilots subsidise trained pilots who - often - don't read the AICs?
Discuss.
I only "suggested".
Of course, I am an examiner who doesn't get his ratings paid for by an employer!
The famous libel trial between the artist James Whistler and Oscar Wilde also comes to mind.
Whistler was asked how long it took him to 'knock off' The Falling Rocket. He said that it took him two days to paint it . He was then asked whether 200 guineas was not too high a price for only two days work. To this he replied that it was not too much for the 'knowledge of a lifetime'.
Perhaps since examiners don't get paid for signing revals, some don't take it seriously enough to spend a "lifetime" acquiring the knowledge to do it in a few minutes!
That might explain the lack of "professionalism".
As someone who runs his own business, it is amazing how much time and money people who are "employees" - ie don't have to pay their own and others' bills - think can be given at "no cost".
If I "gave away" half a day a week, I would be giving away my entire profit.
ps. I actually don't charge for revals, don't charge for advice when buying aircraft, don't charge for inspecting aircraft clubmembers are thinking of buying, don't charge for advice on where to fly, don't charge for petrol runs (spent more than 1700 on petrol in the last week for Fly-UK people and actually undercharged on 20l by 19p!), don't charge for the 40 phone calls on Sunday because of crap weather around Oban and the airfield there panicking..... etc etc.
Of course, that is don't charge "directly". Still need to pay the bills somehow. So last week a propective student whose instructor has had to leave his field for a few weeks and then will be abroad for a month or two came to see about flying here.
But my hourly training rate - at £20 an hour more than his absent instructor's - was too much.
Perhaps if I charged for all those things that are free, I could charge £20 an hour less.
Or should student pilots subsidise trained pilots who - often - don't read the AICs?
Discuss.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno, mate but you have gone off at a complete to tangent to the original question!!
The CAA stance on revalidation by experience is that it should not be charged. If an examiner does not like the fact that to be an examiner they have a responsibility to ensure they understand all of the standards then they should give up the authorisation and concentrate on something else. Being a professional and embracing the responsibilities of the role should have nothing to with money.
The CAA stance on revalidation by experience is that it should not be charged. If an examiner does not like the fact that to be an examiner they have a responsibility to ensure they understand all of the standards then they should give up the authorisation and concentrate on something else. Being a professional and embracing the responsibilities of the role should have nothing to with money.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told I had to pay £20 cash recently to be "signed off" by an examiner after I'd already completed my PPL SEP renewal flight with another instructor at the same club (this wasn't at Denham).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Perth & Kinross
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A further question for BEagle, please:-
I thought I had satisfied the transitional arrangement for revalidation but the exchanges with Crash1 have raised doubts (we are members of the same flying club). The gentleman who signed my Certificate of Revalidation was described as a 'Revalidation Examiner', but how do I verify that he is authorised so to sign? His number is of the form UK/R/nnnnnnC. (there is no problem with type qualification)
I have tried looking at the CAA website to see if I can find a description of the numbering system, but without success. I also tried to look at the NPPL website, but it seems to have disappeared at the moment.
Sorry to labour the point, but time is now short.
Lurker
I thought I had satisfied the transitional arrangement for revalidation but the exchanges with Crash1 have raised doubts (we are members of the same flying club). The gentleman who signed my Certificate of Revalidation was described as a 'Revalidation Examiner', but how do I verify that he is authorised so to sign? His number is of the form UK/R/nnnnnnC. (there is no problem with type qualification)
I have tried looking at the CAA website to see if I can find a description of the numbering system, but without success. I also tried to look at the NPPL website, but it seems to have disappeared at the moment.
Sorry to labour the point, but time is now short.
Lurker
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X, apologies for thread drift.
Gets my goat when "non-commercially minded" people - and that includes the CAA running the show - fail to understand that nothing's free in this world.
Equally, gets my goat when people - like the CAA, again - have a monopoly and work inefficiently and overchange. Like licence issue fees more than double the fee for a passport or driving licence. They are not operating commercially and competitively, they just charge what they like because they are a monopoly.
Now, good point about "how do you know if your examiner is actually an examiner".
You used to have R, GR and X ratings in microlights, for example. So one might be Xnnnnn or GRnnnnnn.
Now we have just got our licence number as a reference. So with my new FE authority, my number hasn't changed.
Gets my goat when "non-commercially minded" people - and that includes the CAA running the show - fail to understand that nothing's free in this world.
Equally, gets my goat when people - like the CAA, again - have a monopoly and work inefficiently and overchange. Like licence issue fees more than double the fee for a passport or driving licence. They are not operating commercially and competitively, they just charge what they like because they are a monopoly.
Now, good point about "how do you know if your examiner is actually an examiner".
You used to have R, GR and X ratings in microlights, for example. So one might be Xnnnnn or GRnnnnnn.
Now we have just got our licence number as a reference. So with my new FE authority, my number hasn't changed.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurker, to answer your question. An examiner uses their licence number along with the rating they are using in front of it at the time. CAA guidance is that you use the correct reference for the task at that time. So as an example, I am a revalidation examiner and a Class Rating examiner. If I were to sign your licence for revalidation by experience then I would put UK/R/xxxxxxx on the ratings page with no test date just an expiration date.
If we had done an LPC instead then the ratings page would have the test date and I would sign as UK/CRE/xxxxxxx. If a PPL FE had done the LPC then he would have signed UK/FE/xxxxxxx. In practice what a lot of people are in the habit of doing is just signing with the highest authority they hold. In the case of examiner levels above R then those levels have embedded R privileges as standard. It is only in more unusual circumstances where you would have someone hold 2 separate authority's. LAA full coaches are R examiners as part of the role, but many of us have different examiner ratings to go with the day job for example so end up with 2 separate authority's.
Generally the ones you see for revalidation are:
R
FE
CRE
Each examiner is given a written authority from the CAA which contains a list of what they are authorised to do, it is a page the same size as a licence page and most people keep them with the licence. If you wish you can ask the examiner to see the authority to check if it is current and appropriate for the level you are asking them to do.
Xrayalpha. I share your sentiment completely.
If we had done an LPC instead then the ratings page would have the test date and I would sign as UK/CRE/xxxxxxx. If a PPL FE had done the LPC then he would have signed UK/FE/xxxxxxx. In practice what a lot of people are in the habit of doing is just signing with the highest authority they hold. In the case of examiner levels above R then those levels have embedded R privileges as standard. It is only in more unusual circumstances where you would have someone hold 2 separate authority's. LAA full coaches are R examiners as part of the role, but many of us have different examiner ratings to go with the day job for example so end up with 2 separate authority's.
Generally the ones you see for revalidation are:
R
FE
CRE
Each examiner is given a written authority from the CAA which contains a list of what they are authorised to do, it is a page the same size as a licence page and most people keep them with the licence. If you wish you can ask the examiner to see the authority to check if it is current and appropriate for the level you are asking them to do.
Xrayalpha. I share your sentiment completely.
lurker06, if he was a R examiner, that's fine.
If by 'PPL SEP renewal flight' you mean your 1 hr flight with an instructor required as part of your SEP Class Rating revlidation by experience, then £20 cash for an Examiner's pen time is utterly unreasonable. Where was this? Did you get a receipt?
An 'instructor' cannot 'renew' anything. If an SEP Class Rating lapses, it can only be renewed by flying a Licensing Skill Test (not the PPL(A) Skill Test) with an Examiner.
The CAA, rightly or wrongly, is required to make a 6% profit. You can blame Thatcher for that. The staffing levels (at the working level, at least) are much less than they were some years ago. They do not work inefficiently, but if you want a good service rather than an adequate service, you have to pay the going wage rate..........
I was told I had to pay £20 cash recently to be "signed off" by an examiner after I'd already completed my PPL SEP renewal flight with another instructor
An 'instructor' cannot 'renew' anything. If an SEP Class Rating lapses, it can only be renewed by flying a Licensing Skill Test (not the PPL(A) Skill Test) with an Examiner.
The CAA, rightly or wrongly, is required to make a 6% profit. You can blame Thatcher for that. The staffing levels (at the working level, at least) are much less than they were some years ago. They do not work inefficiently, but if you want a good service rather than an adequate service, you have to pay the going wage rate..........
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checked up yesterday & the FI is in fact a Ground/Reval Examiner.
Tailwheel issue also resolved as was. NPPL legally requires differences training & logbook signoff. JAA PPL does not, it's a SEP, the pilot should be intelligent enough to find out where the wheels are.
Lurker 06
Check with CFI but all the instructors are Examiners as above, CFI is the only Flight Examiner (GST etc).
Go & have a word.
Tailwheel issue also resolved as was. NPPL legally requires differences training & logbook signoff. JAA PPL does not, it's a SEP, the pilot should be intelligent enough to find out where the wheels are.
Lurker 06
Check with CFI but all the instructors are Examiners as above, CFI is the only Flight Examiner (GST etc).
Go & have a word.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwheel issue also resolved as was. NPPL legally requires differences training & logbook signoff. JAA PPL does not, it's a SEP, the pilot should be intelligent enough to find out where the wheels are
Er no! Either NPPL or JAA PPL requires differences sign off for all of the 7 required differences training.
Tailwheel
SLPC
EFIS
Retract
Wobbly Prop
Turbo Charging
Pressurisation
Therefore unless your Instructor had differences training in his logbook or could claim currency and grandfather rights then he could not be PIC.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any comeback, I have name & number written down, who cares?
If it goes pear shaped it is your responsibility to have complied, shrugging your shoulders and pleading ignorance is no excuse. But it is your call.
It should be noted that when changing to different types,
or variants of types, that fall within the single-pilot singleengine
piston (SEP) class rating, the Differences Training
is specifically required to encompass particular ‘complex’
features with which the new type or variant may be
equipped. These features are:-
• Variable Pitch (VP) Propellers
• Retractable Undercarriage
• Turbo/Super-charged Engines
• Cabin Pressurisation
• Tail-Wheel
or variants of types, that fall within the single-pilot singleengine
piston (SEP) class rating, the Differences Training
is specifically required to encompass particular ‘complex’
features with which the new type or variant may be
equipped. These features are:-
• Variable Pitch (VP) Propellers
• Retractable Undercarriage
• Turbo/Super-charged Engines
• Cabin Pressurisation
• Tail-Wheel
Tell the 'very reputable FTO' to see Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL1.215.
You need to have complied with the requirements before the end of 30 Jun 2009 or your SSEA Class Rating will no longer be valid.
You need to have complied with the requirements before the end of 30 Jun 2009 or your SSEA Class Rating will no longer be valid.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle / BoseX.
I searched through all 221 pages of JAA FCL 1 last night & can find no reference to any apendix to 1.215, several to 1.240/260 etc. However there are references to "differences training required" in other parts of the JAA PPL text. This was on the CAA site.
I shall discuss this issue with our CFI & with his "boss".
If I require a GST because it's getting late, then I am going to have to be happy with that.
When one asks these specific questions of well qualified instructors/CFIs & gets an answer that seems perfectly reasonable, I don't think it should be necessary to read the entire ANO from cover to cover to check.
However!!!!!!!
Thank you for your advice, it has been listened to.
I searched through all 221 pages of JAA FCL 1 last night & can find no reference to any apendix to 1.215, several to 1.240/260 etc. However there are references to "differences training required" in other parts of the JAA PPL text. This was on the CAA site.
I shall discuss this issue with our CFI & with his "boss".
If I require a GST because it's getting late, then I am going to have to be happy with that.
When one asks these specific questions of well qualified instructors/CFIs & gets an answer that seems perfectly reasonable, I don't think it should be necessary to read the entire ANO from cover to cover to check.
However!!!!!!!
Thank you for your advice, it has been listened to.
I couldn't find the reference in the latest re-arrangment of JAR-FCL 1 either!
Nevertheless, the same table is reproduced in LASORS Section F Appendix B Table 1 (pdf page 285 of 684).
The CFE is away on leave at the moment and will reply to me with the definitive answer after he returns; however, another senior CAA Examiner commented:
Nevertheless, the same table is reproduced in LASORS Section F Appendix B Table 1 (pdf page 285 of 684).
The CFE is away on leave at the moment and will reply to me with the definitive answer after he returns; however, another senior CAA Examiner commented:
A 'training flight' implies the instructor acting in his normal capacity and so the flight is dual with the FI as captain. If that's the case then the FI would need to be qualified to act as PIC.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
A 'training flight' implies the instructor acting in his normal capacity and so the flight is dual with the FI as captain. If that's the case then the FI would need to be qualified to act as PIC.
Question is: Does the flight have to be the "entire flight" incl take off & landing or can the training start & end at pre-arranged points? Bearing in mind the "student" is still qualified to be PIC at this time <30 June.
It may be a question of "a flight" is considered just that, brakes off to brakes on.
If this is the case then all us taildraggers have to either find a taildragger instructor who are few & far between here, or spend lotsamoney on a flight in an a/c that is no longer current. Pushing forward on the yoke during takeoff might not go down too well!!
A 'training flight' implies the instructor acting in his normal capacity and so the flight is dual with the FI as captain. If that's the case then the FI would need to be qualified to act as PIC.
Question is: Does the flight have to be the "entire flight" incl take off & landing or can the training start & end at pre-arranged points? Bearing in mind the "student" is still qualified to be PIC at this time <30 June.
It may be a question of "a flight" is considered just that, brakes off to brakes on.
If this is the case then all us taildraggers have to either find a taildragger instructor who are few & far between here, or spend lotsamoney on a flight in an a/c that is no longer current. Pushing forward on the yoke during takeoff might not go down too well!!