The MCC Course might be rather a challenge ...


JD
:)

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

What a clever comment. How can I learn to be as funny and perceptive as you?

Judging someone based on an internet bulletin board........Seriously, that is very sad. So imagine what my opinion of someone who thinks chucking insults is a valid form of debate.

BRL, time for a padlock I reckon if this is the level the discussion has reached.

Well, by getting off the soap box and just doing things by the book rather than writing your own? That is of course just my subjective opinion. ;)

Well I thought it was very funny, Jumbo . . .

Anyway, I have to revalidate before the end of next January. What I thought was a simple task of going flying for an hour with an instructor has now taken on significantly greater emphasis than I previously anticipated. Better steel myself to the possibility of the instructor throwing my logbook back in my face, telling me I'm a danger to everyone in the air and on the ground, and calling every instructor in the SE of England about my incompetence.

Well if you are bad enough, then yep. Expect the worst. Though it might be better if I rang each and every FI and Examiner in the UK and then also rang the CAA to have your licence revoked.

I might even do the same for every other pilot you've ever met, just to be on the safe side.

That'll cover it. No hang on, why don't I just e-mail the government and get them to ban any non-professional flying. That should keep us all safe.................:rolleyes:

Not actually sure if you're joking or not . . . .

Having earnt my living from flight instruction and GA for the first 5 years of my career what do you think....................

Alert ! alert ! megalomaniac sciolist at large ...


JD
:):)

You'd better believe it. As I sit here typing my minions are already tracking you, to ensure that the CAA are aware of your inability to have a polite conversation.

That should ensure at least a months worth of extra CRM courses for you before your next duty.

Or am I just taking the mick as a "pretender to knowledge". Seriously I haven't laughed as much for ages. To be called a fake on a website by someone calling themself "Jumbo Driver". Brilliant!

It really is true though, the level of posting on Pprune really has dropped through the floor in the past few years. No wonder so many people avoid the place like the plague.

Just a small waste of bandwidth going on here don't you think?

Is it actually possible to earn a living for 5 years as an instructor?

You said it ... :ok:


JD
:)

Just Mike, only just...........

Say again slowly is 100% right on this one, and I'm only coming back to the thread to support him. I raised two issues in the past, RT standards, and one re the UK invasion of LFAT. I was accused of whinging and being pedantic.
I have never had a problem with any of the many "inst dual" flights, or reval/renewal tests I have conducted. My priority is always to help people continue flying or come back to flying, and close to their original PPL standard. Is that unreasonable? As for LASORS, yes it is guidance but what else is there? And it is provided as the main source of CAA info. Can you imagine if during a court case a defence was " I take no notice of LASORS, it's only for guidance and anyway I disagree with the guy who wrote it" !

pembroke, you are absolutely right that an instructor should be there to "help people continue flying or come back to flying". Yes, indeed LASORS is there for guidance - but the caveat must be that it is only guidance.

Without wishing to re-open the topic again (which I think has been rather beaten to death here), there are places - and the paragraph on the revalidation "Training Flight" is a prime example - where LASORS actually becomes misinformation, that is to say when it acts as a vehicle for imparting opinions, rather than indexing legislative fact. That is a great shame because it serves to devalue an otherwise sensible reference document.

In your hypothetical Court Case, imagine the prosecution asking "you say it says so in LASORS - I see, and what exactly then is the legal basis for your actions?" You then need to refer to the actual legislation - where would you be then?

I have no wish to re-open the "flood-gates" but I thought your valid point needed a response.


JD
:)


PS Were you a FEEP ?

Oh dear. I think we are getting carried away here and missing the point. The fact is that ANY training flight of at least an hour with a Flight Instructor in the last 12 months of Class Rating validity counts towards revalidation. It doesn't matter if the instructor knew that it was going to be used for that purpose or not. It's routine that instructors sign people's logbooks after training flights or after a series of flights to certify that the entry/entries are correct, and that is all that is required.

MJ

Ps. the answer to the original question is Put. Its not a training flight if you log it as anything else.

As a small point since people keep mentioning hypothetical court cases that have never and will never occur......

All law is subject to review, clarification and interpretation. If it wasn't then most lawyers wouldn't have much to do.

I had dinner with one of the senior partners from my law firm this evening and we discussed this situation. Both of us had the same opinion.(Though to be fair hers is far more valid than mine, seeing as I'm an ex-law student, not an equity partner in a massive law firm!) Whilst the legislation doesn't mention the training flight directly, the fact that there is a publication such as LASORS written by the same organisation who enforce and write the rules we are supposed to follow, then the opinion in LASORS is something that can be taken as more than mere guidance. It is a recommendation of course and can be ignorned if you wish, however if you were to follow it to the letter and with the interpretation that I see, then you would be well within your rights to do so and certainly would not leave yourself open to any legal problems.

You could of course go after the CAA for producing a document that you may feel doesn't accurately reflect what you think it should and may I offer you my best wishes if you wish to do so. However, the individual FI or school choosing to follow the guidance laid down are totally within their rights to do so.

But obviously the barrack room lawyers on here know better. Especially as we've all passed air law. That makes you an expert in legal matters doesn't it..................

FI's also don't routinely sign logbooks, especially since the 1 hour training flight came in in 2001. A CFI will do so at the end of a training course before the book is sent off to the CAA for licence or rating issue to certify that the logbook contains true and accurate figures, but it is not done after every flight by an individual FI. Your records will be annotated with flight times and excercise numbers along with comments about the conduct of the flight and what has or hasn't been completed.

So what's to stop someone doing , for instance, a Night Qualification and then, retrospectively, using one of those flights to qualify for revalidation?

MJ

The log book would be signed or stamped by the CFI to show a completed training course, not an individual flight.

However, there is nothing to stop one of the flights being used as the "training flight." I certainly would have no issue with that, it's just that the logbook would need to be annotated to meet the requirements.

Not something that would be done as a matter of course unless asked for, though I certainly ask people when their SEP rating runs out so if we can meet the requirements as I see them in a "normal" training flight, then that would be sensible rather than wasting a members money and time doing an unnecessary and seperate flight when with just a signature you can fulfil the requirements as long as the student has flown to a decent standard, which would usually be a formality if you've done something like a night rating course with them.

There you go again, what annotation? What requirements?

ANY flight of 1hr or greater with an Instructor counts as the flight towards the revalidation requirements. When are you going to get it into your head that their is no requirement to write anything in the pilots logbook apart from your signature and CAA reference number to confirm that a dual flight took place.

To answer machJump CORRECTLY, yes any of the DUAL sessions from the night rating as long as they were greater than 1hr would count towards revalidation.

I sign every students log book that carries my name as pilot in command. If you do a flight with an Instructor that is a dual flight make sure you ask that they sign. As an examiner I check the logbook for the last dual flight greater than 1hr, that the required number of hours have been flown for revalidation by experience and that the licence is valid. I then sign in the correct space and send the SRG1119 to the CAA.

You actually brought this subject into the real world :8 ? What were you thinking?

This presumably is after you objectively summed up both sides of the argument :} ?

That is your assumption, based on the fact that no one on here has owned up to having legal experience & / or qualifications other than yourself := - This, however, merely means that we do not all feel the need to validate our opinions by mentioning our professional qualifications :*

Honestly SAS, I'd quit while you're behind :E .

Morning All, enq.

My legal experience is limited to a year at law school and working for a law firm for a couple of years. Hardly anything to write home about! I just wanted to get the opinion of someone I know and trust, just in case I am doing something wrong. Which it seems I'm not.

Bose, the annotation I mentioned IS the signature and licence number. I don't sign logbooks unless there is a reason for it, such as for the "training flight". All other signatures for training courses are dealt with by the use of a stamp and signature at the end of a course as I've already mentioned.

Signing every line of a logbook makes it look awfully messy and is simply unnecessary. All entries are checked against records to ensure that they match up, in goes the stamp and off goes the book to either the Belgrano or to the examiner to sign the form.

A simple process really and one that seems to work fairly well in a busy club environment. As you fly with individuals more, a different system may work better for you. This one works well for me and how we do things. No-one has ever complained and there has never been an issue of any kind, whereas I have seen plenty of mistakes where logbooks have become overcrowded with signatures (especially for people who have flown in the states a lot) where signatures have appeared on the wrong lines, are unreadable or they simply take up so much space that the comment box hasn't got room to annotate what the flight was for.

I think the way we do it, is far more elegant, but horses for courses.

SAS
Sorry, I had to get some sleep last night!
Can I take it then, that you will revalidate a Class Rating on the basis of ANY training flight of at least an hour, so long as it is signed by the instructor, or does it have to be annotated as having been for the specific purpose of revalidation?

MJ

If someone comes to me with a logbook signed by another FI and the hours for renewal, then yes, of course I will sign the form. The other FI has signed the book, it isn't for me to start refusing revalidations just because I didn't sign the log book or do the flight myself.

Personally, I annotate with the phrase "Training flight" and my licence number and signature, just to ensure there isn't any issue.

SAS, no such thing as 'hours for renewal'! You do, of course, mean Rating revalidation.

Otherwise I agree entirely.

Absolutely BEagle!:eek:

That's what happens when you are away from it for a while!

To jumbo driver, yes I was a FEEP. To Mach Jump, when I sign the SRG\1119 for revalidation, I will always check that the "inst dual flight" was for purpose of revalidation, and would expect the FI to annotate as such. If a PPL presented a flight where an instructor was simply in the seat for the 1hr , albeit PIC ,what is the point of such a flight? Surely it is a chance to go a small way to maintaining PPL standards, and is recieved in this spirit by most PPL's and instructors.

There is another way of completing the requirements for revalidation - a rating renewal. I follow this course by renewing my IMC rating; kills 2 birds with one stone...

Presumably FI renewal would do the same job, though my next would take me outside the current period.

TheOddOne

Beagle/SAS
I agree too, looks like were substantially on the same side after all.:ok:

Pembroke
The point is that it satisfies the minimum requirement for revalidation in that a flight must be an hour or more, and signed by the instructor.

Odd One
I dont think your FI reval. Flt Test will do it. Only TR, CR, IR, or IMC tests count

MJ

Ps. what's a FEEP?:confused:

Flight engineer entry to pilot training (BA)

oh i see:cool:

Thought you might have been ... one of the select few - well done! :ok:

Whatever the point of the flight, it will still fulfil the requirement for revalidation under JAR-FCL.


JD
:)

At the risk of fanning the embers, having been refused a signature, how, if at all, does Mr. Dangerous log the flight in his logbook?

MJ

He should log it as P u/t as it was training - what else?


JD
:)

But you expect to be able to call around every examiner you know and ask them not to sign the licence revalidation on your say so?

You are indeed a sky god.

Jumbo
Yes, thats what I thought at first, but it doesn't count as Put if it doesnt have a countersignature:confused:

Bose
:= You're so naughty! Was all thet expensive CRM training wasted?;)

MJ

MJ, it was still a training flight, even if your FI refuses to sign your logbook.

We are rather going round in circles now - I would maintain the FI should sign the logbook simply to confirm the flight took place. He is not "signing you off", he is simply confirming that the flight happened - he was P1, after all - why shouldn't he sign?

You see how complicated it becomes if an FI acts "ultra vires" and tries to place his own interpretation on what is otherwise a simple clear revalidation requirement?


JD
:)

Bose, I've made my position very clear. If you want to carry on with pathetic jibes, then go ahead. All you're doing is making yourself look like a bell.

Jumbo
I agree entirely!

It just makes me :mad: cross when the CAA come up with these half baked elaborations.

MJ

As I said earlier, let the CAA make it clear to instructors, that in signing the log book, they are simply confirming that the flight took place, and that in so doing, they are not making any statement as to the competence of the pilot.

There can then be no justifiable reason whatsoever for a signature to be witheld.

No mate, your contradiction of your own assertions and persistence on insisting that you are correct is making you look like one.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment I don't agree with your dogged insistence that you are right. As others have said, quit while you are behind as you continue to undermine yourself with every post and trying to deflect attention to me just makes you look worse.

If you really do think you are right and the REGULATIONS support you then prove it to us. Put up or shut up is the term.