Whenever there is wooly legislation, you will get a myriad of interpretations. Pilots will usually argue to the death that they are right in their personal versions.

In my eyes, the rules say one thing, but mean something else, therefore they are poorly written.

A club can set any rules it likes via the flying order book and when a member reads and signs it, they are agreeing to follow them. They are always as strict or stricter than anything laid down by the CAA. It's the same as an airline having it's own procedures.

I have always taken the duty of care element very seriously as an FI and as a CFI and in our club we FI's are the "police" to use a horrid analogy.

If you spot something dangerous happening, then I would expect it to be brought up and something done about it.

I don't know any flying club/school where this isn't the case.

Private owners are a different matter, but when the original AIC came out, there was an onus on there being an assessment and there was a suggested content to the flight, which I for one thought was a good idea.

What there needs to be is clarification about exactly what is expected, but any club that has any sort of decent standards will expect people to pass regular assesments. It is only sensible that these are combined with a flight for rating renewal as this then cuts the costs down for the PPL.

If someone isn't competent enough to pass a "mini LPC", then they shouldn't be flying without further training. End of story.

How else do we keep the skill level up without regular checks and assessments?

If it wasn't necessary, then why is it a requirement for airline pilots who fly far more regularily than any PPL? Or for Helicopter PPL's?

Of course Flying Clubs have their own separate requirements - it is more often than not consequent upon insurance requirements than anything else I would suggest.

However, let's get back to the subject - this thread is about the SEP revalidation "Training Flight" requirement. It is not about whether the legislation should be different. It is certainly not about any individual's interpretation of what was intended (rather than what is actually required) and their personal need to "police" that hypothetical expectation.

I believe the JAR-FCL "Training Flight" should be logged as P u/t and the instructor should endorse (sign) the entry, simply to confirm that the flight took place. This fulfils the legal requirememt and I have seen nothing that requires anything more than this.


JD
:)

Absolutely correct. The flight MUST be logged as P/UT and it has to be endorsed by an FI.

P1CUS is only for use when on a successful flight test with an examiner, something that the "training flight" isn't.

Personally, I always use the training flight for the usual emergency drill practice and to try out new techniques, tips etc (pretty much the same as any flight I take with an FI).

I would have thought, however, that in terms of consumer law in the UK an FI would be on very dodgy ground if they undertake a 1 hour training flight for the purpose of revalidation but then refuse to sign off the flight (an inextricable part of the training service provision) while insisting that the flight cost be borne by the trainee.

In which case I guess the FI has discretion in not signing off the flight as long as the club (or whichever body is providing the service) is prepared to foot the bill for the flight.

The other effect that I notice with my own flying is that, when I am with an instructor I have a psychological tendency (which I have to conciously fight) to take less responsibility and care in certain phases of the flight on the basis that the instructor will pick me up on them anyway - this can inevitably lead to a level of performance comparatively below what I achieve when flying by myself or with passengers.

From the FI point of view this was often a demonstration of my worst standard of flying rather than my normal standard, thus a judgment of my overall skill level on the basis of a 1 hour flight could be very wide of the mark.

These days I actually believe I have control rather than just saying it.

Regards all, enq.

SAS I applaud your efforts to set, and maintain, high standards at your club. I wish all clubs were like yours. I have been an instructor for 30 years, and , believe me I have seen pretty much all there is to see in the training world.As CFI you have the right to make whatever sensible rules you think fit, and make sure people abide by them, but if someone in your club asks 'what am I LEGALLY required to do to revalidate my JAA ppl?' what do you tell them?

MJ

I've always just grabbed a copy of LASORS and shown them how to find the relevant section.

That also hopefully gives them a hint to read the book rather than automatically asking someone else who may or may not give them up to date information.

Owing to a small medical issue I'm out of the instructing game whilst the Doc's do their work, but I'm very happy to note that the standards at the clubs I was involved in have continued to stay high and to even get better.

enq, it would be very interesting to see a legal case where someone refused to sign off a flight where someone was quite blatantly below par. I have a feeling that commonsense would prevail, especially as the legislation is so open to interpretation.

I hope you are objective enough to tell them to disregard the section on "The Training Flight", as it has no basis in legislation ...


JD
;)

SAS, I think the case would be something along the lines of:

What service did you purchase?

A training flight for the purpose of revalidation, which includes an entry in my logbook, signed by an instructor together with the instructors licence number to show that the training had been undertaken.

Did you receive the service you paid for?

No, I received the training but the instructor then refused to sign my log book.

Why did the instructor refuse to sign the log book?

I don't know, I mean I flew into controlled airspace without permission, had a bit of a near miss with a hill & nearly managed to land on the A127 but it was certainly all good training from my point of view. Anyway, as the purpose of the flight was training and that was what I received I can't see why the instructor can't sign off my logbook.

Were you told that there were restrictions on the standard of your flying when you made the contract for the training flight?

No.

Were there any legal restrictions that prevented the instructor signing your log book.

Not to my knowledge, the relevant CAA reference documents merely mention a training flight, they do not define it.

The point of law is whether it was made clear before the flight that a certain standard had to be attained before the training flight was signed off. This standard would of course have to be objectively measurable (such as no barrel rolls below 500ft etc).

Regards, enq.

Ha ha! Yes, that is a point isn't it!

No, I've always mentioned that it is just a recommendation not a requirement. Despite what it looks like. I don't always do a "mini LPC". I only do it if when I ask what they would like to do, the comment "I dunno, you choose" comes back at me. It is especially rare if I know them well and am aware of their capabilities.

For most members this sort of flight is irrelevant as you see them on a regular basis and know exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are, especially as you've normally had a hand in their training anyway.

It's when people wander in cold and start dictating to you, whilst being evasive about things such as logbooks and licences and currency. That's when the alarm bells start ringing. There's nothing you can put your finger on, but you can usually tell as soon as someone walks through the door what the standards demonstrated will be.

enq, as a student of the law. I'd love to have a case like that drop onto my lap. Especially if you ended up calling the CAA to clarify things. It wouldn't go anything like the way you've mentioned.

Wot, like it is for examiners conducting flight tests?

"If this guy's next flight were with my kid as passenger, would I be happy? Yes - pass. No - decide what he's failed on."

Basically, Gertrude has it nailed. Mine is, would I be happy letting someone go flying with my Gran as a passenger?

No. Then no signature and then the immortal phrase "sue me".;)

The problem is of course that the amounts of money involved would put this into the small claims court.

Consumer law is fairly clear on the fact that if the consumer doesn't get what they paid for & it is not their fault then they don't pay.

It really revolves around the definition of a training flight (remember that the law tends to weigh on the side of the consumer rather than the profit making organisation) & whether any restrictions (such as standards attained) were communicated to and accepted by the consumer prior to delivery of the service.

This isn't really about flying - I agree that the flying community needs to do all it can to keep safety standards high - this is purely about whether you got what you thought you were paying for.

This could of course all be catered for by amending the booking T's & C's to allow FI discretion on sign off.

Alternatively, ending the flight before the hour is up is possible (as you say SAS, you know pretty early on whether you're with a pilot or future Darwin award nominee).

Regards, enq.

Can you refuse to sign a log book just because someone has the ginger hair gene? :E

Only if you are from Glasgow and support Rangers................................:ugh:

Say again slowly - given that the actual, written legal requirements aren't quite good enough for you, how far do you think it's right for people to make up their own rules? If it's acceptable for people to gold-plate the legal and CAA requirements to their own standards, where do you draw the line.

As an example, let's look at an analogy.

I had a minor medical problem myself a while back. I'm wondering what my reaction would have been if I'd gone back to my AME and he informed me of the happy news that I now met the CAA medical standards in full, but he wasn't going to sign the medical because he and the partners in his practice liked to apply their own, higher standards and he didn't think I was quite up to them? They want me to go down the gym every week and knock off the alcohol for a month, then they'll reconsider. Just in the name of safety, of course. He once signed off someone who met the CAA standards, but they had were taken unwell at the controls a few weeks later, so they now take it upon themselves to be a bit more stringent. There are no, actual, written guidelines as such, it's just up to him. Funnily enough, he can often tell when someone first comes in the room and he sees from their appearance how they look after themselves that the alarm bells first start ringing. Oh, and by the way, don't bother asking another doctor for a second opinion as they've called around all the local AMEs and warned them about my case.

Do you think it would be right for the AME to gold-plate the legal requirements to increase the safety of my passengers like this, or should he just follow the CAA rules? If he's allowed to make up his own rules, how far should he be allowed to go? If he shouldn't make up his own rules, why should you?

A totally different situation and a very flawed analogy. Medical rules are well laid down and if the AME didn't think you were fit enough to meet the standards, then they would be right to refuse you and refer you elsewhere to be reassessed formally.
They would be using their professional discretion. An FI refusing to sign your logbook because you are a blatant danger to yourself and others is doing the same thing.

As the rules are so open to interpretation, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing what I see as "best practise." If the law was written properly and said exactly what it meant, then I would follow it, but as it isn't, we have to muddle by the best way we can and do our utmost to keep our customers safe. If that means going beyond the letter of the law. So be it. You as a member sign the flying order book and if you don't accept it, then join another club.

If you don't measure up, then you have to be pretty shonky and why would you want to share airspace with people who are quite frankly a menace?

I don't and this is a very, very rare occurance fortunately as most people are either pretty good, or realise what their limitations are and are open to doing things properly.

Thanks Say Again Slowly.

What would you recommend if the AME mistakenly thinks clearly stated rules are fuzzy and insists on mis-applying his or her own interpretation in the belief that it's best practice?

Again, it is a flawed analogy. From what I understand the medical rules are very specific. You either fit into it or not.

So in that case there is no "fuzziness".

There is no mistaken belief here, the rules aren't clear. There are recommendations for the content of the 1 hour flight and some could easily argue that a "recommendation" from the regulator is tantamount to an instruction.

The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear
at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s
knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve
on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some
other training then the FI must select suitable items of
general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL
requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for
the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
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.

This is the extract from LASORS 2008 and does not really justify the 'test' or proficiency aspects in any way. When this requirement was introduced there was an element of 'test' which was quickly removed. Not quickly enough perhaps? There is a huge amount of information on timescales etc but only this on 'instructional flight' - largely because the CAA wanted an element of test - but there was no justification in the requirements and hence this fudge.

Most people will have no difficulty with proficiency training. But when you pay for a revalidation and someone refuses to give in - without any justification within the rules - then the issues begin

So, Say Again Slowly, if the original very clear rules for our AME were confused by some unclear statement within a CAA document intended for a general readership, you'd expect the AME no longer to follow the clear rules contained within the legislation to which he is supposed to work, but to try to somehow incorporate this fuzzy statement into his medical assessment as he sees fit?

You seem to want to continue with the AME analogy, despite it having utterly no relevance to a discussion about a PPL training flight.

So if you ascertain that the person you are flying with is utterly incapable. You just leave it at that? Aye right. Only an utter moron would think that an acceptable situation.

So if the aim of the flight is to ascertain the level of knowledge and skill and improve them, but you find these to be woeful and don't show improvement, then the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved.
Therefore, no sign off.

Where in the regulations does it state that "the function of the FI is to ascertain the applicants knowledge and skills?"

The FI is perfectly and legally at liberty to sit alongside the applicant for the whole flight like a lump of lard without ascertaining anything at all if he doesn't feel like it....

This is NOT A TEST!

(Incidentally, I think the medical analogy is perfectly valid.)

Directly from LASORS 2008 AGAIN......................

An FI could sit there and do nothing, but they shouldn't and would be very derelict in their duties if they did so.

They are being paid for the flight, so should offer some benefit to the person who's footing the bill.

Now some bright spark is going to jump in and say "but LASORS isn't legislation" and my answer to that would be. Yeah, whatever. The CAA don't publish it for fun. Take up any problems in interpreting the ANO, JAR-FCL etc. with them, not others who have far better things to do, such as trying to stop PPL's killing themselves.

What they've put in LASORS is good enough for me. It could be better, but compared to most of the legislation I've waded through in other areas of law, this is clear and concise and for those who are thinking about a legal challenge to a school, utterly defensible. Show a judge that passage and who wrote it and the case would be out of the door faster than you can shout "clear prop."

So, SAS, can I or can I not in your opinion opt for an hour of tailwheel or an hour of aerobatics to improve my skills for this 1 hr flight?

I appreciate flying clubs can do whatever they want, but I am not flying a flying club aeroplane or not a member of a flying club and don't want to fly their aeroplanes.

The way I see it is that it is worded so that I can do anything I like as long as I fly with a JAA FI once in the last 12 months for at least one hour, and if the FI tries to impose their rules then they are simply playing examiner when they shouldn't be.

The CAA's Flight Examiner Handbook clearly states that the FI who conducted the training flight must sign the logbook of the applicant and include his licence number if the flight was satisfactory.

An hour of aerobatics and tailwheel flying? Nothing wrong with that. But if the FI has to take control to stop you endangering the aeroplane or yourself, and if the instructor has to correct your poor RT or stop you infringing controlled airspace?

To be honest, there is no real issue. The only time I wouldn't sign would be if you were so utterly awful or overconfident that I had concerns about your ability to fly passnegers without risk to them. Is that very likely? Frankly, I doubt it. I've never heard of anyone ever having a 'training flight' NOT signed off.

And you most certainly would pay - unless, of course, the flight was in a Permit aeroplane whose Permit did not include use for flight instruction. The flight would then be entirely private. I've only done that once - but the applicant did pay for my fuel to drive to his aerodrome.

As I am certain you have more than 1,500hrs join us as an LAA coach and be paid within the CAA approved scheme for your expenses on permit aircraft.

In many ways they're very similar. Both the revalidation requirements and the medical requirements have been considered at length by committees of experts, who have consulted and debated the pros and cons of different measures and come up with clear requirements which have been written into law.

If the CAA decided to put in LASORS something like "The function of the medical examiner is to ascertain the applicant’s physical and mental health and fitness, and interject if necessary to improve on these." it would clearly be inappropriate for medical examiners to use this general statement as an excuse to start making up their own fitness or psychological tests and use them as a basis for passing or failure, even if they did think it helped them ascertain the physical and mental health of the applicant and weed out people they didn't think measured up.

For whatever reason, the regulators decided that a flight test was unnecessary, but a training flight was required for revalidation. That was what they specified in the legislation. As with the AME analogy, it is clearly inappropriate for flying instructors to override the decisions of the regulators in requiring some pseudo flight test with their own made-up pass/fail requirements, rather than carrying out the training flight specified in the regulations.

englishal, of course you can do aero's and tailwheel training. I've done it on many occasions for people doing their 1 hour flight. IMC as well. As long as I can get an idea of the competence of the person I'm sitting alongside, then frankly anything goes.

I will usually chuck in an emergency or two, but I'll generally do that on any flight.

As BEagle mentions, this is all a storm in a tea cup, there have been so few occasions where I haven't signed someones log book after the 1 hour flight that I can count them on the fingers of my hand. Apart from the two examples I've already mentioned, I've never had to refuse to sign anything as the PPL themself has realised they fall well below par and has asked for more training off their own back and acknowledged their own shortcomings.

The medical analogy is flawed because 1) there isn't a passage in LASORS saying the phrase "The function of the medical examiner is to ascertain the applicant’s physical and mental health and fitness, and interject if necessary to improve on these"
And 2) The medical examination requirements are laid down. More like a proper flight test with an examiner, where there is guidance about tolerances etc given to the examiner. Fall outside these tolerances and you can be failed, though most examiners use discretion and minor infractions are usually ignorned if the rest of the flight is of a sufficient standard.

The 1 hour training flight has no guidance other than the single statement in LASORS, a very different thing from anything an AME will do.

Such arrogance ...

You are not required to assess competence on a revalidation "Training Flight" - IT IS NOT A TEST! :ugh:

If you did that to me without briefing or my agreement on my "Training Flight", I'd land and offload you ... and without any payment!

LASORS is not authoritative - we have already established that.



JD
:)

PS Incidentally, I think the AME analogy is absolutely valid ...

Indeed JD

So why be so dogmatic with your continuing arguments? To massage your own ego about how you have power of life and death over 'mere' PPL's as you are an all powerful Instructor?

Likewise, as would I and I would expect any student of mine to do the same.

And again LASORS is not the law or regulations or even guidance from the CAA, it is a single persons subjective opinion.

I am sorry SAS but you have set your self up as the law and woebetitde anyone who does not meet your standards. I am afraid the AME analogy that you are arguing against is actually quite correct and no matter how much wriggling you do to try and get out of it you are quite simply wrong.

As Instructors we have a responsibility to follow the rules as set so that we set a good example to those that we teach. If we start to make up our own rules and interpretations of rules how do we set that good example? We have to practice what we preach. In persisting in this line of argument you have merely become a shining example of how to ignore the rules and regulations as written. So perhaps if you brought your licence to me for revalidation I might have to consider not signing as you have clearly demonstrated a penchant for ignoring the regulations. This would make me ask what else you are modifying to suit yourself. The training curriculum, weight and balance, performance?

Oh hang on, I can't do that as my examiner role for revalidation is merely to check that the paperwork is in order........

So LASORS isn't authorative? So let's just ignore it as a publication then. What rot.

What part of His function is to ascertain the applicant’s
knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve
on these. do you not understand? Simple commonsense gives us the hint that whilst it isn't called a test, that is what the CAA really want, but if they called it a test, then it would have to be done by an examiner not an FI.

You'd land and offload me. Really, how childish. So with the benefit of an instructor next to you, you get a chance to practise an manouvre you may not have performed for a while and pick up hints and tips. Do you think the aircraft will tell you in advance that it's about to have a failure of some description? Of course not. And you accuse me of arrogance. Oh how sweet is irony!

I also can't remember saying that I wouldn't brief the flight properly and mention the likelyhood of practice emergencies occuring at some point in the flight, or is your flying of such a low standard that you need to know exactly what will happen and when so that you can prepare yourself in advance?
Wouldn't it be better to be upto speed on everything, so when a real problem occurs, you have an idea of how to deal with it?

As the flight is about training, I like to introduce things that someone might not have seen before or thought of, so whilst they might not know what to do there and then, when we debrief we can have a discussion and they go away having learnt something new.

I will agree that the flight is not just a test, but there has to be some element of a test involved, such as a minimum standard or put even more simplly an ability for the person doing the flight to be able to perform certain tasks. It isn't black and white, but if you fly with someone who has no awareness, poor skills, ie are unable to fly at an assigned alt or heading, and can't perform basic manouvres such as a PFL or EFATO then you think I should just shut my mouth and sign the flight off?

If you think that is alright, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land and I'd be very suspicous about your own capabilities if you were that anti being asked to perform to a minimum standard. We're not talking about everyone being Ace Rimmer, just of a decent, safe level where they are unlikely to smear themselves across the countryside. Most of it comes down to the attitude of the pilot anyway and that you can tell from just having a chat before hand, the flight generally just confirms your inital thoughts.

To me it's clear what is sensible and what is written in LASORS. Again if you don't like it, then contact the CAA to change the guidance. FI's have enough to think about and do and really don't need hours of static from people about something that is so simple.

Why the big fuss anyway? If the rules were changed and you were asked to do an LPC every 12 months like every other class would it change much? Apart from putting even more people off flying all it would do is increase the standards not drop them.

The current system is flawed, but when you look at the thinking behind it, you can understand why it has been left wooly. For me, the CAA want a test, but know all it will do is put people off flying, so their revenues drop, so they fudge this where they want FI's to take on the burden of checking and testing, even though we aren't really trained to do so. This then puts you in conflict with the bolshier of PPL's who don't want to sit a "test". The vast majority of brown licence holders, couldn't give a monkeys, it's only a very vocal minority who whinge and they are whinging at the wrong people. FI's just do what they think is best for PPL and for the industry.
If you have a real issue with this, take it up with the regulator or with the CFI at the club, generally you'll simply be told to bog off and stop wasting time.

You may find a freelance FI like Bose who'll be happy to sit there and do nothing and get paid for it. You'll both be happy. He got his £30, you got a sign off for another 2 years, but doesn't that make an utter mockery of the system. Who has benefitted from that flight? No-one.

Once you have a licence you are still on a continual learning curve, why not use the opportunity every couple of years to find out where you are weak or strong and where you need to work on to become a better pilot? You can't do that if the FI beside you is just along for the ride and to fulfil a legal requirement.

Sorry SAS, I'll withdraw this.

I should have said "Such aggressive, barefaced, narrow-minded arrogance ..." :ugh:

After that outburst, I now seriously doubt your suitability to hold the FI rating - if indeed you do ...


JD
:)

breathtaking arrogance.

And this is really going to sting you..... I generally provide my services for free as I enjoy what I do. I also firmly believe the role of the Instructor is to guide and mentor not attempt to flatter our own egos about how clever and great aviators we are.

I don't disagree with your core sentiment that we are there to guide and improve. But there are many ways to skin a cat but setting yourself up as an authority figure with the power of life and death is not one of them.

There are many people on these forums who have flown the hour with me and had their licence revalidated. I challenge you to find one of them who will tell you I just sit there and do nothing. The difference between you and me I suspect is that I ASK what they want to do, follow the spirit of the regulation and view the flight as an opportunity to improve and not as a test that they can fail. The very nature if the flight is for them to have the opportunity to cock up and have gentle guidance to correct and improve things.

I am Pilot in Command, a responsibility that I take seriously, so there are not going to be any airspace busts, (we all know what happens to Instructors when this happens!). If the RT is poor then it is a learning opportunity and again if the pilot endangers the aircraft then it is a teaching opportunity not a pass or fail test. A good Instructor should leave the student feeling that they have learnt not been 'tested'.

I'll leave the insult throwing to you. It's always good to make up your mind on someone based on a single subject typed into an internet bulletin board...............As for me not being an FI. In a way you are right, as the CAA have deemed my medical fitness suspect. Something to do with chemotherapy not being a great boon to flight safety, but 10 years of being an FI and listening to the same old nonsense about things like this tends to get a bit wearing. I've had this very debate on Pprune on a regular basis since 2000.

It is a bit like herding cats. Your ego won't let you back down and nor will mine or the simple fact that I know I'm right! Whatever you write here, won't change anything. I've been doing this for years and I've never had a complaint about how I conduct training or checks and judging by the fact our club grew from one aircraft 4 years ago and now has hundreds of happy members, 2 bases and no-one has croaked it yet, then we must have done something right.

I would suggest that you actually read what I've written rather than just blasting through it ready to make a barb.

Bose, I don't remember ever saying I did have the "power of life or death" or somesuch other melodramatic nonsense. Our role is impart knowledge to students and others who want our services. That's what we get paid for. It just happens that occasionally something we do or say might stop someone doing something stupid.

I've had a few people come up to me and tell me that it was something that I told them that stopped them doing something that could have had dire consequences. If something I've done has helped to keep our members as safe as possible, then great. I want them to know everything I do and I often find myself learning as much from them as they do from me, which then helps the next person.

That is why I enjoy instructing as much as actually flying myself. It isn't arrogance to try and do it to the best of your abilities and if trying to set an acceptable standard and then enforcing it is arrogant, then fine tar me with that brush. However, you'll have to do the same to every FI I've ever met or worked with. Well, any of the decent ones anyway.

Nice to know you are helping to devalue our profession by working for free though. That really helps those who are trying to make a living out of teaching.

Oh B:uhoh:gger, When I revalidated last month I thought it was a suggestion rather than a strict order (240ish at 2500ishft).

I also wonder how you can judge the ultimate effectiveness of a PFL or EFATO without applying the "land & walk away" test.

Similiarly, was the stall poor airmanship or a bit of practice at unusual attitude recovery ?

I also left my revalidation flight until the last minute (I thought if push came to shove I could always do with a bit of IMC training - NO PFL or EFATO) but there are many more factors that could affect a pilot's performance in certain tasks, not least of which is the ubiquitous "bad day" that, without a sign off could potentially force a lot more cost on a PPL or even put them off revalidating (& therefore flying) altogether.

I would still go legal to recover my costs if I was refused a sign off (although obviously I would also address the airmanship issues, if any, that got me into the situation in the first place).

BTW is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Morning all, enq.

There's no need, the text in LASORS is quite clear already.

So you should make clear to the applicant the function of the instructor is:

i) To ascertain the applicant's knowledge and skills...

The FI looks at what the applicant is doing and forms an opinion on their level of ability.

ii) ...and interject if necessary to improve on these.

If necessary you tell them what they can do to improve their knowledge and skills.

Seems simple and straightforward. You look at what they're doing and tell them if they're doing something wrong. There's nothing about failing them for poor performance. There's nothing about carrying out a pseudo flight test. There's nothing about pretending the training flight didn't take place to force them to do a a bit more training at your discretion. You observe. You comment. You sign the logbook to confirm the flight took place.

Anything else you think it says is purely in your head.

I think after 4 pages we get the picture! Why is it that members of pprune seem so obsessed with arguing over rules and regulations? Is it a Pilot thing or do you all study the highway code with the same enthusiasm?!

I really should try and stop reading these forums, I always end up losing the will to live!:E

enq, it is very easy for an FI to know what is acceptable when it comes to general handling. We do it daily.

Personally, the primary aim in a PFL is of course to walk away and as long as that is achieved, then I couldn't give a fig how it is done, but a few thing I like to see are mayday call when appropriate, pax brief if time, an attempted restart if the failure isn't obvious and turning off of electrics and fuel before touchdown.

For example, what checks the person uses to achieve that, I don't care. I'm not there to change what someone is doing if it is safe and they are comfortable with it. We all have our own ways of doing things and no-one has the monopoly on the "only" way of doing something.

If they miss something, then I'll mention it in the debrief or after the excercise has been completed. ie when appropriate, but if the excercise has been completed to a good standard with only a few comments, then it's just a debrief item. If they make a complete horlicks of it and we'd have ended up buried in a hill or in a totally unsuitable position, then we'll climb back up and do it again.
If it falls to pieces again, then often I'll demonstrate one or talk them through what they are doing as they have another go, explaining all the way what is happening. In exactly the way I would do with a student.

If we have to spend 30 minutes to get it right, then so be it. It isn't a test, it's about getting the person upto standard if they aren't there already. As long as by the end of the flight, we've fixed the problem, that's all that matters.

I won't give up on someone just because they make a mistake or have gap in their knowledge, it's the incredibly rare situation where someone pitches up and flies so appallingly that a simple bit of tinkering won't work. Basically, they need a whole load more than one hour with an FI to bring them to anything like good enough, but these people are fortunately few and far between.

One or two mistakes doesn't make someone a bad pilot. I make them and I don't know anyone who doesn't, but if you fly with someone who is awful, but thinks they are the next Bob Hoover, that's when I get nervous.

It's what happens between the ears that I'm really interested in, not if someone is competent but makes the odd boo boo.

youngskywalker, I think it's a pilot thing. No wonder there are so few women involved in aviation when you have to deal with such spotterish arguments about stuff that really isn't that important. I was thinking about why I rarely post on this bit of Pprune anymore and I think I've got my answer!

SAS,

I guess, in the same way that you have experience in judging whether a PPL could be construed as a danger to themselves & others (& so presumably sectionable under the mental health act :ooh:) we lowly PPL's have had ample experience in assessing whether an instructor is performing satisfactorily during the training flight. :p

Personally I am used to being asked what specifically I would like to cover during my reval training flight (I tend to practice the emergency procedures as much as possible anyway so this is never a bone of contention) rather than being told (briefed) on what the flight will cover.

I would be particularly put out if I had to waste 15 mins flying time to demonstrate a PFL that I had been practicing for an hour the previous week (I have to say I would demonstrate the exercise but I wouldn't be happy about it, mainly because I could be spending the time constructively learning & revising other aspects of flying that would be of far more benefit).

Ultimately we will disagree on this subject ad infinitum :ugh: so we will just have to agree to reserve our respective defences (refusal to sign off V civil recovery action)

Still, it's been a stimulating, if somewhat pedantic debate so thank you :).

Regards, enq.

There's nothing lowly about being a PPL, just because I have a few thousand hours and an ATPL, it doesn't mean I'm ace of the base myself.

I would be amazed if anyone ever went down the road of trying to recover money if an FI refused a sign off. It's a situation I've only had to deal with once and since I've performed hundreds of these flights it's not something I'm ever likely to lose sleep over!

Arguing over semantics like this on here is really pretty sad, especially as if you read the replies properly, you'll notice a lot of similarities. Making sweeping statements about someone based on a few lines on the internet is also very silly.

Basically, I do exactly what you are used to when it comes to briefing and talking to PPL's before this flight, but as per usual high horses have been climbed upon and in the typical pilot way the whole argument is one of transmitting your own ego instead of actually reading, digesting and understanding the point the other person is trying to put across in a few words of text.

I used to wonder why my wife would roll her eyes when I started blathering on to another pilot, especially about GA flying and the PPL world, but having been away from it for a while and then to return to this level of debate. I now realise why she got so bored.

Especially when you've been having the same roundabout argument for 8 years.

Do I really want to return to teaching if this is the sort of nonsense that awaits me again, or shall I just return to flying and getting paid by an airline? :rolleyes: