PPL revalidation flight - refusal to sign logbook
Guest
Posts: n/a
PPL revalidation flight - refusal to sign logbook
A friend at the flying club recently undertook a "training flight" (as defined in the regs) of one hour with an instructor, as required to revalidate a PPL where the holder meets the currency requirements. **Note - NOT the skill test which is required where currency reqiurements have not been met. The instructor was not entirely happy with the standard of flying and refused to sign the persons log book. Club discussion ensued. Our understanding is that the instructor must sign as he is simply confirming the training flight has been undertaken, and that he is not issuing a pass or fail. We believe his refusal has turned this into a test Naturally the CFI disagrees. Can anyone clarify.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Macintosh
Sorry I don't have an answer, but I do think you should post this on the Instructors forum as well. Now is just about the time it's all going to hot up.
The legislation seems to be a mess. The pragmatic view may well be that if an instructor is unhappy with the quality of a PPL's flying he has a responsibility to ground him.
But do the JARs intend to make evey instructor an examiner?
I hope this thread gets some serious attention.
Sorry I don't have an answer, but I do think you should post this on the Instructors forum as well. Now is just about the time it's all going to hot up.
The legislation seems to be a mess. The pragmatic view may well be that if an instructor is unhappy with the quality of a PPL's flying he has a responsibility to ground him.
But do the JARs intend to make evey instructor an examiner?
I hope this thread gets some serious attention.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Macintosh, this is going to be a potential problem with the new requirements coming into force. I do PFA BFR revalidations and our procedures are quite clear. If I carry out a BFR (as a PPL renewal with the normal currency requirements fulfilled) and feel that the person has not reached a suitable standard, the first course of action is to suggest further time, either then or at a mutually agreeable date. If this is not accepted, then I may refuse to sign the person's logbook. As a BFR coach, I have a responsibility to ensure that the person has received the required refresher training and has demonstrated their ability. If after the flight, they cannot do so, then it is wrong for me to sign. It is ambiguous because it must be viewed as a test of some description. In the States, where it has been in force for many years, it is simply that - a biennial skills test. Most of the time it is done in a relaxed and positive way in order to reinforce many of the things which naturally slip away with time - skills that is !
Guest
Posts: n/a
The instructor is completely within his/her rights not to sign. It is entirely at his/her discretion.
Don't bother writing to the CAA requesting clarification either. Seven weeks after writing to them on this subject I received a copy of GID33 but no answers to my questions.
Don't bother writing to the CAA requesting clarification either. Seven weeks after writing to them on this subject I received a copy of GID33 but no answers to my questions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I recently completed my hour long revalidation check with an instructor. I asked him (once he had signed me off) what his procedure would have been if my flying standard was not up to his expectations. His reply (which I thought was quite fair) was that he would have entered the hour as DUAL and suggested another date for the check in the near future. Can't get fairer than that really.
I must also say that it was a very useful hour and I can see why it has been brought into force.
I must also say that it was a very useful hour and I can see why it has been brought into force.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FAA BFR
I have done two BRFs (one on each coast) and both instructors have stressed that the flight review is not a test, but a review of the key FARs and also an opportunity to look at the flight envelope. In fact, I have been encouraged to contribute strongly to the agenda of the airwork.
I do not know what would have happened if I had flown badly, but the point is that a BFR is not set up as a pass/fail test, but a learning exercise.
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 28 June 2001).]
I have done two BRFs (one on each coast) and both instructors have stressed that the flight review is not a test, but a review of the key FARs and also an opportunity to look at the flight envelope. In fact, I have been encouraged to contribute strongly to the agenda of the airwork.
I do not know what would have happened if I had flown badly, but the point is that a BFR is not set up as a pass/fail test, but a learning exercise.
[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mac
Aren't you missing the point a bit here?
Isn't this like "It failed the MOT. Don't worry the old one doesn't run out until 2 weeks time"
Somebody with a vaild opinion has got worried about the ability of someone to fly safely. Why not sort that very important problem out?
Forget the semantics and the barrack-room legal arguments. Someone might get killed...
Aren't you missing the point a bit here?
Isn't this like "It failed the MOT. Don't worry the old one doesn't run out until 2 weeks time"
Somebody with a vaild opinion has got worried about the ability of someone to fly safely. Why not sort that very important problem out?
Forget the semantics and the barrack-room legal arguments. Someone might get killed...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twistedenginestarter, Very valid point, but who gets the power to take a licence off some body? An examiner? 2 examiners who have both agreed the flying standard is so low that the licence should be removed or the pilot grounded until futher notice?
Very hard one isn't it. As far as I know the only way to stop someone current flying is to pull their medical.
If I don't feel safe flying with someone I talk it though with them and suggest training. If as some do they think I'm wrong I will NOT sign their log book or licence and will inform the club CFI so they don't fly solo. If they are part of a group i's a bit harder but often there is a chairperson or co-ordinator who can ground them.
A bit messy isn't it!
------------------
AP
Very hard one isn't it. As far as I know the only way to stop someone current flying is to pull their medical.
If I don't feel safe flying with someone I talk it though with them and suggest training. If as some do they think I'm wrong I will NOT sign their log book or licence and will inform the club CFI so they don't fly solo. If they are part of a group i's a bit harder but often there is a chairperson or co-ordinator who can ground them.
A bit messy isn't it!
------------------
AP
Guest
Posts: n/a
I did a check flight with somebody a while ago, who expressed some doubts about aspects of my flying. So I booked an instructor, explained the perceived problem, and flew with him until he was fully happy with that aspect of my flying.
There's another way?
G
There's another way?
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
On roughly the same subject, and apologies if this has been asked before.
I understand that to revalidate the JAA-PPL you need to have done 12 hours (6 of which need to be solo)in the year before the licence expires, plus one hour (signed off)with an instructor.
My questions are:
When in the year before the licence expires does the hour with the instructor have to be flown?
Does the instructor have to be JAA certified to sign you off?
Thanks, SD.
I understand that to revalidate the JAA-PPL you need to have done 12 hours (6 of which need to be solo)in the year before the licence expires, plus one hour (signed off)with an instructor.
My questions are:
When in the year before the licence expires does the hour with the instructor have to be flown?
Does the instructor have to be JAA certified to sign you off?
Thanks, SD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've got more hours than many of the hours-building instructors around and think I can do a pretty good job of assessing what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to flying. Can I have the power to stop someone flying too please? 
(I hope not!)
twistedenginestarter wrote:
If I take my car in to a garage that's not qualified to do MOTs, with 6 months left to run on its present MOT certificate, I don't expect a single mechanic to rip up the certificate because he doesn't like the look of my exhaust.
There are two issues here. One is that instructors are qualified to teach but not necessarily qualified to examine. They should not be asked to make a judgement about whether a pilot meets the standard for a PPL. There's a perfectly well-established skills test for that, involving examiners who are "in the loop" when it comes to standards. It also has a well defined appeals process.
The other is that when the revision to the UK legislation was proposed, this "training flight with an instructor" was presented for consultation to the aviation community as just that -- a lesson, not a test. To change it into a test by the back door would be perfidious.
(I hope not!)twistedenginestarter wrote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Isn't this like "It failed the MOT. Don't worry the old one doesn't run out until 2 weeks time"
Somebody with a vaild opinion has got worried about the ability of someone to fly safely. Why not sort that very important problem out? </font>
Somebody with a vaild opinion has got worried about the ability of someone to fly safely. Why not sort that very important problem out? </font>
There are two issues here. One is that instructors are qualified to teach but not necessarily qualified to examine. They should not be asked to make a judgement about whether a pilot meets the standard for a PPL. There's a perfectly well-established skills test for that, involving examiners who are "in the loop" when it comes to standards. It also has a well defined appeals process.
The other is that when the revision to the UK legislation was proposed, this "training flight with an instructor" was presented for consultation to the aviation community as just that -- a lesson, not a test. To change it into a test by the back door would be perfidious.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Skydriller
You need to produce logbook evidence to an authorised examiner of having the 12 hours, including 6 hours PIC and at least 12 take-offs and landings. This experience must include a flight of at least one hour with an instructor (authorised in accordance with JAR-FCL to instruct for the JAR-FCL TMG or SEP rating as appropriate) for which the appropriate logbook entry has been countersigned by the flight instructor.
So, you can do your instructional flight at any time during the last 12 months of validity and the instructor must be JAA certified.
Cheers
Keith
[This message has been edited by Cahlibahn (edited 28 June 2001).]
You need to produce logbook evidence to an authorised examiner of having the 12 hours, including 6 hours PIC and at least 12 take-offs and landings. This experience must include a flight of at least one hour with an instructor (authorised in accordance with JAR-FCL to instruct for the JAR-FCL TMG or SEP rating as appropriate) for which the appropriate logbook entry has been countersigned by the flight instructor.
So, you can do your instructional flight at any time during the last 12 months of validity and the instructor must be JAA certified.
Cheers
Keith
[This message has been edited by Cahlibahn (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As the flip side of the coin, if having just got the relevant BFR sign off I do something stupid which causes some accident or other and it is deemed to be as a result of my poor piloting skills, can the victim sue the person who signed me off for damages. This responsibilty must be the other part of the ability to say yay or nay?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bookworm
If I take my car in the garage and the mechanic points out the brakes are on the point of failure, my first concern is not whether this contravenes the European Human Rights Act.
This thread was started by someone trying to defend his friend in an argument with the friend's club.
My point is, if he is a true friend, then persuade him to listen and not argue.
This is after all a Professional pilots bulletin board. Professional pilots have to accept constant assessment and the fact that it is their responsibility to correct their shortcomings.
If his friend thinks argy-bargy is the solution to criticism then maybe he should become a train driver.
If I take my car in the garage and the mechanic points out the brakes are on the point of failure, my first concern is not whether this contravenes the European Human Rights Act.
This thread was started by someone trying to defend his friend in an argument with the friend's club.
My point is, if he is a true friend, then persuade him to listen and not argue.
This is after all a Professional pilots bulletin board. Professional pilots have to accept constant assessment and the fact that it is their responsibility to correct their shortcomings.
If his friend thinks argy-bargy is the solution to criticism then maybe he should become a train driver.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twistedenginestarter
I agree with your attitude to air safety, but not your conclusion about this thread.
You are subjectively perceiving an implication that macintosh is defending his friend per se, but if you read his posting objectively, what he is asking is if the instructor should refuse to sign the logbook to say that the flight has taken place, as it is a training flight not a test.
The dissonance that you are feeling is driven by the system in place being highly ambiguous and unsatisfactory.
There are always many different perspectives in life. In a similar hypothetical situation, it could be argued that an instructor could be seeking to line his own pocket by insisting on unecessary remedial training in circumstances where there is a lot of "grey" over the roles and responsibilities of instructors offering these training flights.
Please note that I am not suggesting that this would ever happen, but have vague and ambiguous situations does open the door to many unpalatable situations.
What needs to happen is that the situation is made clearer. Until then, there will be more and more of these argy bargys and I don't see how it helps air safety, as the resonance to the PPL community will be that these instructional flights are threatening.
BTW, to agree with Bookworm, I did a club checkout a few years ago and the instructor demonstrating a PFL had difficulty maintaining +/- 5kias - even setting the stall warner off a couple of times. I am no hotshot, but I can do much better than that and would be concerned if this guy was judging my piloting ability with the ability to ground me.
[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).]
I agree with your attitude to air safety, but not your conclusion about this thread.
You are subjectively perceiving an implication that macintosh is defending his friend per se, but if you read his posting objectively, what he is asking is if the instructor should refuse to sign the logbook to say that the flight has taken place, as it is a training flight not a test.
The dissonance that you are feeling is driven by the system in place being highly ambiguous and unsatisfactory.
There are always many different perspectives in life. In a similar hypothetical situation, it could be argued that an instructor could be seeking to line his own pocket by insisting on unecessary remedial training in circumstances where there is a lot of "grey" over the roles and responsibilities of instructors offering these training flights.
Please note that I am not suggesting that this would ever happen, but have vague and ambiguous situations does open the door to many unpalatable situations.
What needs to happen is that the situation is made clearer. Until then, there will be more and more of these argy bargys and I don't see how it helps air safety, as the resonance to the PPL community will be that these instructional flights are threatening.
BTW, to agree with Bookworm, I did a club checkout a few years ago and the instructor demonstrating a PFL had difficulty maintaining +/- 5kias - even setting the stall warner off a couple of times. I am no hotshot, but I can do much better than that and would be concerned if this guy was judging my piloting ability with the ability to ground me.
[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
Aren't we all getting a bit wound up over this? Surely it's simple.... the instructor feeld safe and he signs you off. You make him nervous and he'll ask you to go up again and see if he feels safer that time.
Let's not underestimate the skills of our instructors, they may sometimes have less hours than a pilot they fly with but they've been trained to a far higher standard than the average PPL. (No I'm not an instructor either)
For what it's worth, I found talking through the way I pre-flight, communicate, rejoin etc with the instructor gives him the opportunity to suggest better/safer ways of doing things as you fly. Surely this is better than a silent hour when you really don't know what he's thinking and then being hit with bad news back at base.
Let's not underestimate the skills of our instructors, they may sometimes have less hours than a pilot they fly with but they've been trained to a far higher standard than the average PPL. (No I'm not an instructor either)
For what it's worth, I found talking through the way I pre-flight, communicate, rejoin etc with the instructor gives him the opportunity to suggest better/safer ways of doing things as you fly. Surely this is better than a silent hour when you really don't know what he's thinking and then being hit with bad news back at base.