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: