PPL revalidation flight - refusal to sign logbook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toppers
Sorry, but you are missing the point.
This is not a test and the instructor is not an examiner.
If bi-annual testing is being introduced, then it should be done transparently and properly; what we have now is a dogs dinner.
BTW, I do not agree with your very sweepingly general upbeat assessement of flying instructors, you might talk to a few airline training captains (15 thousand plus hour guys) and get their view as to the typical ability/knowledge of the entrant first officers, many of whom are ex hours building flying instructors; you might find it interesting. (please note that I am not judging your instructor, who sounds as if he added value for you.)
The best instructor I have ever experienced had 18,000 hours and was a jet captain who also flew light aircraft; Now I learned about flying from him!
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]
Sorry, but you are missing the point.
This is not a test and the instructor is not an examiner.
If bi-annual testing is being introduced, then it should be done transparently and properly; what we have now is a dogs dinner.
BTW, I do not agree with your very sweepingly general upbeat assessement of flying instructors, you might talk to a few airline training captains (15 thousand plus hour guys) and get their view as to the typical ability/knowledge of the entrant first officers, many of whom are ex hours building flying instructors; you might find it interesting. (please note that I am not judging your instructor, who sounds as if he added value for you.)
The best instructor I have ever experienced had 18,000 hours and was a jet captain who also flew light aircraft; Now I learned about flying from him!
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK - New boy here not even started regular training for PPL(a). It is my understanding that the flight was not a test but a required check ride. The instructor thinks the pilot is not up to the job and won't sign the log book. Easy resolution either get better or find an instructor with lower standards. Why would he not sign the log book (or did I miss that?). Would he let you pal fly one of the club aircarft? IMHO any instructor is trying to ensure a consistent level of ability in the air - some 18,000 hours characters may certainly fly well but during an "under instruction" flight they must adhere to the same standards as all. Sorry if my lack of hours causes a different thought process.
------------------
Stop that oscillation!
------------------
Stop that oscillation!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread is ongoing on the instructor forum as well. It was pointed out that if you weren't current and wanted to fly a club aircraft you would first have to fly with an instructor. Yes! And if that instructor wasn't happy with your flying he wouldn't allow you to fly solo. Correct?
So whats the difference? Its the same idea.
Some one said that instructors aren't trained to examine! I beg to differ. How does your instructor know when you're realy for the skill test? Because he knows the standard required and that is the knowledge, amongs other things, you need to examine. I am an examiner so I know a little about it.
Final 3 greens - You must of had some bad instructors, either that or you're flying around with a very BIG head. There are instructors out there with varying capablities and experience isn't always the yard stick to measure them against.
------------------
AP
[This message has been edited by Airprox (edited 29 June 2001).]
So whats the difference? Its the same idea.
Some one said that instructors aren't trained to examine! I beg to differ. How does your instructor know when you're realy for the skill test? Because he knows the standard required and that is the knowledge, amongs other things, you need to examine. I am an examiner so I know a little about it.
Final 3 greens - You must of had some bad instructors, either that or you're flying around with a very BIG head. There are instructors out there with varying capablities and experience isn't always the yard stick to measure them against.
------------------
AP
[This message has been edited by Airprox (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As the poster of the original thread (rope?) I’d like to make a few further comments. The suggestion that anyone, whose skills an instructor is not happy with, is trying to find a back door method to keep flying IS NOT MINE; likewise the comments about would you let your grannie/uncle/dog fly with someone like this are very sensible BUT NOT RELEVANT HERE; also the suggestion I’m trying to uphold the position of anyone who may have had an argument with an instructor IS NONSENSE.
This situation was mentioned (I wish to hell I hadn’t) simply to indicate that what amounted to a “fail” had started a discussion about “has a test been introduced by a back door method?”
As far as I can see (correct me if wrong) the CAA website mentions only a “training flight”. Now in my own case, this training flight was carried out by an instructor (not an examiner), at the end of which he signed my logbook. The CFI (an examiner) then filled out CAA form LPC/SPA (parts one and two). Section 3 of this form is headed “notification of completion”. While admittedly is does not say “pass”, the next section is headed “notification of failure”. Three lines further on is “class rating: pass/fail” with on mine the “pass” ticked. Now as a layman I associate a pass/fail outcome with a test, not a training session.
The rest of section 3 relates to the actual flight (a/c type, timings, etc) with a space at the bottom entitled “signature of examiner” (not instructor) again reinforcing the notion of a test. On mine the CFI has signed. Now while a lawyer might argue it does not explicitly say so, a layman would assume the person signing here had carried out the flight detailed immediately above. In my case this was not so.
Moving on to part two of the LPC/SPA form, this is a detailed record of the elements making up the flight. Again it says “result” then “pass/fail” where again pass is ticked. Below this is again “signature of examiner” which from the layout of the form again appears to indicate the person who carried out the flight although in my case it is again signed by the CFI whereas it was an instructor who carried out the flight.
The concern about signing of the logbook fades into insignificance when an actual form indicating the outcome of a test is required to be submitted to the CAA. Or is this so cobbled-together an inappropriate form is being used? Or is the wrong form being used in our area?
Again clarification is genuinely sought and apologies for being long-winded. This is being posted on both Instructor’s and PPL’s forums.
This situation was mentioned (I wish to hell I hadn’t) simply to indicate that what amounted to a “fail” had started a discussion about “has a test been introduced by a back door method?”
As far as I can see (correct me if wrong) the CAA website mentions only a “training flight”. Now in my own case, this training flight was carried out by an instructor (not an examiner), at the end of which he signed my logbook. The CFI (an examiner) then filled out CAA form LPC/SPA (parts one and two). Section 3 of this form is headed “notification of completion”. While admittedly is does not say “pass”, the next section is headed “notification of failure”. Three lines further on is “class rating: pass/fail” with on mine the “pass” ticked. Now as a layman I associate a pass/fail outcome with a test, not a training session.
The rest of section 3 relates to the actual flight (a/c type, timings, etc) with a space at the bottom entitled “signature of examiner” (not instructor) again reinforcing the notion of a test. On mine the CFI has signed. Now while a lawyer might argue it does not explicitly say so, a layman would assume the person signing here had carried out the flight detailed immediately above. In my case this was not so.
Moving on to part two of the LPC/SPA form, this is a detailed record of the elements making up the flight. Again it says “result” then “pass/fail” where again pass is ticked. Below this is again “signature of examiner” which from the layout of the form again appears to indicate the person who carried out the flight although in my case it is again signed by the CFI whereas it was an instructor who carried out the flight.
The concern about signing of the logbook fades into insignificance when an actual form indicating the outcome of a test is required to be submitted to the CAA. Or is this so cobbled-together an inappropriate form is being used? Or is the wrong form being used in our area?
Again clarification is genuinely sought and apologies for being long-winded. This is being posted on both Instructor’s and PPL’s forums.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airprox
Please read my mail again. I did not say that I had suffered from any bad instruction, but made two points:
1 That I did not agree with Toppers sweeping generalization and a supporting reason why not - quoting third parties who I believe are qualified to have opinions. I am not suggesting that all instructors are bad, but Toppers post did rather imply the opposite
and
2 That the best instruction I ever had was from the person mentioned (and it was)
If you choose to infer that I have a big head, that is your perrogative, but I really do not understand how you can reach this conclusion rationally.
I would also like to support macintosh's newly raised concerns about creeping regulation. I prefer transparency and openess - if air safety will benefit from bi annual TESTS then fine, but let's be open and honest about it and get some proper rules into place.
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]
Please read my mail again. I did not say that I had suffered from any bad instruction, but made two points:
1 That I did not agree with Toppers sweeping generalization and a supporting reason why not - quoting third parties who I believe are qualified to have opinions. I am not suggesting that all instructors are bad, but Toppers post did rather imply the opposite
and
2 That the best instruction I ever had was from the person mentioned (and it was)
If you choose to infer that I have a big head, that is your perrogative, but I really do not understand how you can reach this conclusion rationally.
I would also like to support macintosh's newly raised concerns about creeping regulation. I prefer transparency and openess - if air safety will benefit from bi annual TESTS then fine, but let's be open and honest about it and get some proper rules into place.
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
WHHOOOOOOAAAAAAHHHHH......BBOOYYYYYSSSS!!!!!!
3 Greens, I was not suggesting anything in my last post about whether or not instructors are "good" or "bad". I have full repect for what they do and was merely giving my personal account of my "check-ride".
All I am saying is that I know it is not a test and if you don't treat it like one from the outset, it won't feel like one when you are on it.
What are we all so afraid of? Does every Private Pilot think there is nothing more we can learn from an fully qualified instructor?
I'm not saying that I agree with the latest rules and regs (the annual hours minima is still far too low), all I am suggesting is that when we keep reading "another bad weekend for GA" on these threads, the check-ride can only be a good thing and perhaps those that are so afraid of it should ask themselves why.
3 Greens, I was not suggesting anything in my last post about whether or not instructors are "good" or "bad". I have full repect for what they do and was merely giving my personal account of my "check-ride".
All I am saying is that I know it is not a test and if you don't treat it like one from the outset, it won't feel like one when you are on it.
What are we all so afraid of? Does every Private Pilot think there is nothing more we can learn from an fully qualified instructor?
I'm not saying that I agree with the latest rules and regs (the annual hours minima is still far too low), all I am suggesting is that when we keep reading "another bad weekend for GA" on these threads, the check-ride can only be a good thing and perhaps those that are so afraid of it should ask themselves why.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, and by the way 3 Greens, your post in the Instructors Forum about your IMC training hour just goes to show how little you know about this subject.
You might find a quick chat with an instructor at your local club would tidy up a few of your questions and you would see that "rating" training is quite separate from PPL training.
You might find a quick chat with an instructor at your local club would tidy up a few of your questions and you would see that "rating" training is quite separate from PPL training.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Toppers
Let's not get personal, this is an important issue. If I have upset you with my postings, then please accept my full apologies. This post is very long as I would like to explain my reasoning openly.
Just let's be very clear about what JAR actually says. The JAA website URL is http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/toc00000464.htm.
__________________________________________
Extract from JAR-FCL 1.245 - Type and Class Ratings - Validity, Revalidation and Renewal
"(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:
(i) within the three months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check with an authorised examiner on either a single-engine piston aeroplane (land) or a touring motor glider; or
(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."
____________________________________________
You will see that (B) does not specify what content the training flight should contain (so the IMC flight would count) and also allows "any other proficiency check or skill for a class or type rating" to replace the training flight.
My beef here is not about the need to maintain safety levels (that goes without saying), but about the way that JAR has been implemented - e.g. see BEagle's last comment on the Instructors forum!
If you read the extract from JAR-FCL 1.245 again, it is crystal clear that the instructional flight is not a proficiency test nor is it to be conducted by an examiner; nor is content mandated. So why has the CAA issued advice to FI's guiding them on content and suggesting that they refuse to sign the logbook if they are unhappy with the standards achieved in the training flight? (please note that I am NOT suggesting any malicious intent by the CAA, but I think that this well intentioned action is unhelpful)
Some people (including some FIs) have expressed discomfort about this because they feel that it is introducing an unofficial test by unapproved examiners. I am one of these people.
The point of the original thread was not whether the PPL was safe or not, but whether the instructors stance was in line with JAR.
My point is that situation is a mess and requires resolution. Self regulation within clubs and groups has handled these sort of situations for years (e.g. you don't fly until the check pilot is satisfied), but this new situation is not self regulation.
If a skills/proficiency check with an *examiner* every two years would help aviation safety, then I have no problem with that(especially bearing in mind the accident figures recently); I undergo regular instructional flights (e.g. am doing an hour with an FI today to sharpen up) and have nothing to fear from a GFT (sorry, skills test!)
Having got that out of the way, let me say that I completely agree with your comments about approaching this instructional flight as a learning exercise; if you look at my earlier posting about the FAA BFR, that is precisely how it is done and very valuable it is too.
The pilot is encouraged to raise areas of concern and these are then worked upon in a very positive way. Also, let's not forget that the FAA BFR also includes an hour's ground review (of key FARs etc) and this has been equally beneficial in my experience - e.g. when did any of us last look at our air law text books? (assuming that they are up to date.)
I believe that this "learning experience" was the spirit of the JAR and I am very concerned that it appears to creeping into a pass/fail test, to be conducted by people who are not approved examiners. So I believe that either JAR-FCL 1.245 needs to be worded in a more detailled way to ensure that appropriate and consistent refresher training is given or a skills test should be introduced, so that everybody knows exactly what is required and can prepare for it.
Finally on the point of instructors, I agree there is much to be learned from many (even another experienced PPL can observe helpfully from the RHS), but I want to be examined by a qualified examiner; fair enough?
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 30 June 2001).]
Let's not get personal, this is an important issue. If I have upset you with my postings, then please accept my full apologies. This post is very long as I would like to explain my reasoning openly.
Just let's be very clear about what JAR actually says. The JAA website URL is http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/toc00000464.htm.
__________________________________________
Extract from JAR-FCL 1.245 - Type and Class Ratings - Validity, Revalidation and Renewal
"(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:
(i) within the three months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check with an authorised examiner on either a single-engine piston aeroplane (land) or a touring motor glider; or
(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."
____________________________________________
You will see that (B) does not specify what content the training flight should contain (so the IMC flight would count) and also allows "any other proficiency check or skill for a class or type rating" to replace the training flight.
My beef here is not about the need to maintain safety levels (that goes without saying), but about the way that JAR has been implemented - e.g. see BEagle's last comment on the Instructors forum!
If you read the extract from JAR-FCL 1.245 again, it is crystal clear that the instructional flight is not a proficiency test nor is it to be conducted by an examiner; nor is content mandated. So why has the CAA issued advice to FI's guiding them on content and suggesting that they refuse to sign the logbook if they are unhappy with the standards achieved in the training flight? (please note that I am NOT suggesting any malicious intent by the CAA, but I think that this well intentioned action is unhelpful)
Some people (including some FIs) have expressed discomfort about this because they feel that it is introducing an unofficial test by unapproved examiners. I am one of these people.
The point of the original thread was not whether the PPL was safe or not, but whether the instructors stance was in line with JAR.
My point is that situation is a mess and requires resolution. Self regulation within clubs and groups has handled these sort of situations for years (e.g. you don't fly until the check pilot is satisfied), but this new situation is not self regulation.
If a skills/proficiency check with an *examiner* every two years would help aviation safety, then I have no problem with that(especially bearing in mind the accident figures recently); I undergo regular instructional flights (e.g. am doing an hour with an FI today to sharpen up) and have nothing to fear from a GFT (sorry, skills test!)
Having got that out of the way, let me say that I completely agree with your comments about approaching this instructional flight as a learning exercise; if you look at my earlier posting about the FAA BFR, that is precisely how it is done and very valuable it is too.
The pilot is encouraged to raise areas of concern and these are then worked upon in a very positive way. Also, let's not forget that the FAA BFR also includes an hour's ground review (of key FARs etc) and this has been equally beneficial in my experience - e.g. when did any of us last look at our air law text books? (assuming that they are up to date.)
I believe that this "learning experience" was the spirit of the JAR and I am very concerned that it appears to creeping into a pass/fail test, to be conducted by people who are not approved examiners. So I believe that either JAR-FCL 1.245 needs to be worded in a more detailled way to ensure that appropriate and consistent refresher training is given or a skills test should be introduced, so that everybody knows exactly what is required and can prepare for it.
Finally on the point of instructors, I agree there is much to be learned from many (even another experienced PPL can observe helpfully from the RHS), but I want to be examined by a qualified examiner; fair enough?
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 30 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
if a pilot is not up to speed on the check flight, they should not be allowed to operate until satisfactory..it goes for everyone, that is the nature of the game,even instructors get assessed regularly, if they fail they can no longer teach...there is always a safety aspect to the fun..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes - the 'training flight' only has a RECOMMENDED content. So a PPL holder could indeed ask for a signature from the FI conducting a 1hr IMC training flight - or a 'training' flight to somewhere nice for lunch for that matter! However, if the content didn't follow the CAA's recommendation, would the LPC SPA be signed by an Examiner? Under law, I guess it should be.
The only way out of this mess is to introduce a biennial proficiency check with a FE. Somehow I can't see that being terribly popular - even if it would be a cheaper option for most!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 30 June 2001).]
The only way out of this mess is to introduce a biennial proficiency check with a FE. Somehow I can't see that being terribly popular - even if it would be a cheaper option for most!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 30 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle
I am coming around to your way of thinking.
Much better to have a bi-annual proficiency test with an examiner than the present position.
After all, there is no need to be afraid of a regular proficiency test with known content and standards, but every reason to be be concerned about an uncertain and ambiguous position.
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 01 July 2001).]
I am coming around to your way of thinking.
Much better to have a bi-annual proficiency test with an examiner than the present position.
After all, there is no need to be afraid of a regular proficiency test with known content and standards, but every reason to be be concerned about an uncertain and ambiguous position.
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 01 July 2001).]
