Are you really that pedantic or is LASORS not good enough for you?
Seriously, this is like arguing whether a metre is 100 cm or 3.28 feet.

We get a nice book from our friends in Gatwick to try and make sense of all the "regulations" as you put it, which to me makes it all very clear, but for some reason, it isn't good enough.

Instead of wasting time and bandwidth, why not e-mail the CAA and ask for a clarification. I'm very comfortable that what I have always done is pretty much standard across the industry and that no-one is losing out on anything.

If the regulator comes back and says something different, then I'll change.

I'll chuck it back at you. LASORS agrees with me, you go off and look through hundreds of pages of law and tell me where it says anything that disagrees with my interpretation, or where it says that LASORS is a work of fiction to be disregarded as we all see fit.

If you can, I'll buy you a pint.

Already did. The answer received from the CAA was that LASORS was a guide and if I wanted to view the law I was to read the ANO......

LASORS has no legal basis, it is the OPINION of one person in the CAA.

There is nothing in regulations that require you to do what you do.

That is only the point that we are trying to make. It is you that fails to recognise the fact and therefore leave yourself wide open.

The rules are very simple, any flight of 1hr or greater duration in the qualifying period as PUT meets the revalidation by experience requirements. There are no legal requirements for anything else, no required skills, no required assesment and no certification from an Instructor that they have met any standards.

The fact is that I agree with your sentiment just not your dogged determination to try and convince us your interpretation is the law.

LASORS is not written by a single person, nor can it be simply described as opinion. The editorial process will include the CAA lawyers reading through it.
They wouldn't let anything go into print unless it met certain criteria. Lawyers are funny about things like that. Their job is to minimise risk to their clients most of the time (for example, most newspapers have legal eagles on staff to check if stories are actionable) if the CAA published a book which purported to condense and explain the actual law and it wasn't spot on or defensible, then it would get any where near the printers.

They will always say "go and read the ANO" rather than give an opinion. Why? Because you are usually talking to a beauracrat who doesn't want to make a mistake in interpretation. If you could speak to one of the actual policy people who sat down and wrote this stuff, then you will likely get a very different answer.

The CAA are world leaders in ar*e covering. Do you really think they would publish a book like LASORS if it wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

We can argue all we like, but as I've already mentioned, all legislation is open to interpretation unless something is tested and a precedent is set. That's simply the nature of it.

I'm dogged in this, because I don't like being insulted when there is no justification. You may disagree with me and that is your right, but start being rude and you turn a discussion into a fight and I become a vicious little s*d with too much time on my hands.
One piece of advice, never start a row with someone who's currently on 40mg of extremely strong steroids every day. You've seen the "Incredible Hulk", think that without the green body paint (or muscles.......:().

Threatening to be aggressive make no difference to the simple fact that you are wrong.

LASORS is a guide not the law. SIMPLE. The ANO is the law simple.

So pick me a section from the ANO that backs your stance up and we can all admit you were right. Otherwise the only person you are making look stupid is your self. Your ego won't let you back down will it?

No, simply explaining my position and why I don't run away when people start chucking childish insults around instead of reasoned argument. I may be guilty of many things, but fortunately being a violent idiot isn't one fo them.
Do you expect me to be able to reach down a phone line to administer a good thrashing.........!! Let's be a bit sensible about that.

It is your opinion that LASORS isn't to be followed in the same way it is mine that it should be.

The ANO cannot possibly be written to cover every nuance, if it was it would tens of thousands of pages long and utterly unreadable.

Let me put it this way, do you refer to the highway code? Do you consider that to be "good enough"?

It isn't law either, but a book written by the DVLA to allow the general public access to the rules and regs in a manageable form.

Next time you get stopped by the police, try arguing that just because it is in the highway code it isn't law. In fact an awful lot of what is contained in the highway code doesn't appear in any legislation, but whilst you can't be prosecuted for failing to abide by the "code", there is the catch all offence of "driving without due care" which can be chucked at you even though what you may have done doesn't appear in the statute books, but does appear in the highway code book.

LASORS is exactly the same in my eyes. It is simply a book clarifying the law and making it more easily digestable and accessable for the general public. Having to refer to the ANO constantly is unwieldy and given that it can only be updated by act of parliament, having a book like LASORS makes life an awful lot simpler for all of us.

It has transformed things for me. I don't get asked anywhere near as many law questions anymore and if I am and I don't know the answer off the top of my head, it is far easier to delve into one book and get an answer.

An excellent publication, not perfect, but it makes life much easier than when we didn't have it.

LASORS might not be a legal document, but it is a reasonable 'code of conduct'.

In any case, the FEH requires that the instructor who conducts the 1 hr training flight shall sign the applicant's logbook and include his CAA reference no.

If a FE signs a revalidation which is not supported by such a signed entry, he has failed to follow the CFE's requirements and has, therefore, not acted in accordance with his authorisation.

Presnt me with a logbook without such a signed entry and I would offer 2 alternatives:

Either 1. Go and fly a 1 hr training flight and have it 'signed off' by the FI.
Or 2. Fly a revalidation LPC.

And whereas a FI revalidation proficiency check will count towards SEP revalidation by experience in lieu of a 'training flight', a FE 'dummy skill test' won't......:rolleyes:

SAS. I am not disagreeing with you that LASORS is indeed a fine publication and is a great GUIDE for us as Instructors and Examiners.

I merely needling away at your dogged insistence that it is the regulations and it must be followed to the letter. I refer you to mine and others previous comments.

I am not trying to put my own interpretation on the rules. I just follow them in as written.

You only have to admit you were wrong and it will be at an end.

As an Instructor people expect you to give good advice and unless you admit that your interpretation is wrong where does that leave us all. After all if an Instructor can't get it right how is the average pilot going to?

Beagle, we are not arguing the fact that the Instructor should sign. It surprises me that SAS does not sign each flight. I certainly do and everyone else I know does the same thing.

When I read the passage in LASORS about the "training flight" I find it very easy to take from the paragraph that we as instructors should be assessing the skill level of the person we are flying with, then according to the paragraph we should "interject if necessary to improve on these".

If by the end of the flight, the standard has not got any better, then for me, the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved. After all, it is a training flight not a test, so if the aim of the training flight is to increase skill levels and that hasn't happened, then this section becomes relevant "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."

Why, because it says if the aim is achieved, then you sign, if it isn't, then you don't. I would far prefer it if that was made obvious, but I think the inference is very clear from that, otherwise why mention the phrase "where the aim is achieved"?

In the hundreds of logbooks I have seen, the only time I have noticed each training flight to be signed by an FI is for people who have flown in the States. I simply don't know anyone who signs after every flight, as I mentioned before it is messy and unnecessary. I have taught in schools in the South of England, the Midlands, Welsh Borders and up here in Scotland and not one CFI has insisted or even mentioned that I should sign a students logbook after each and every flight. The only time I've seen lots of signature like that is for P1/S in an airline environment.

There might be another reason for that :)

I'd like to think it was because of the increased awareness of the law thanks to LASORS, but you're right, it may well be down to my wit, charm and personality! Or lack of.

Either that or the fact that I haven't held a medical since September which tends to cut down the amount of time you spend at the airfield and therefore the chances of people buttonholing me for questions!

Mind you I am still getting at least a phone call a day from students and ex-students asking me questions, so I'm not that bad really!

I rest my case. :ok:

SAS,your remark about the ANO being "tens of thousands of pages long and utterly unreadable" is at least fairly accurate... ;)

(sic)

There is no requirement whatsoever for this in the UK at SPA level. I understand that it is an FAA requirement, so perhaps people who have attended FAA schools have brought the pointless habit back with them from the USA.

Apart from FE signatures and FI SEP revalidation training flight signatures, I wouldn't expect to see any other FIs' signatures in UK personal flying logbooks.

I really fail to see what value your comments add to this thread, bose-x....

Gentlemen, and/or ladies:ugh:

We have all had our say now, and it seems that neither side is going to persuade the other to change it's mind by the application of logical argument, nor by slinging insults at each other.

Perhaps we should accept that some are never going to come around to our point of view, and just let it go.

MJ

A typical conclusion to any debate that involves pilots then.........:rolleyes:

I'm still right though!

Likewise Beagle, so I guess we are even.... :ok:

I always get my logbook signed by the FI...for the very reason we're talking about. I don't care if the logbook looks messy or not, does it really matter? Besides as the customer paying the FI for their services, I think it is the least they can do to avoid any confusion later on.

If I happen to do a "club checkout" in month 13 of my 2 year period, it makes sense to get the logbook signed so you don't have to go back and do this extra 1 hr training flight.

Will an FAA BFR count for this 1 hr requirement I wonder? and if not, why not, seeing as there are established procedures for the FAA BFR which are not open to personal interpretation.....Maybe I'll fire one off to the CAA and ask, seeing as I end up doing an IPC every year and a BFR every two years anyway (through my choice)...

As a general principle, I never sign anything which does not require a signature. And just because a pilot pays to fly with an FI, he/she doesn't own that FI, so the view that being a 'customer' entitles you to have your logbook signed by the FI for any instructional flight is incorrect.

An FAA BFR would only count as a JAR-FCL training flight for the purposes of revalidation if conducted by an FI authorised under JAR-FCL, as I understand it.

No but as they have paid for the FI's time for that flight then don't you think that they deserve a signature to say the flight was indeed carried out with that FI and that the comments entered are correct? I certainly wouldn't log anything as PUT without a signature to say that the training had indeed been carried out. If they don't sign then I assume I am PIC right? ;)

I think it should be a requirement that all FI time is signed by the instructor, to avoid any possible confusion later on. Especially if the flight is for the purpose of the issue of or revalidation of a rating - which it could be ?

NOt required and you have no right to ask for any signature for routine training except for any training flight you specifically wish to use as part of your SEP Class Rating revalidation requirements.

The FI will be PIC on any training flight, unless he/she is flying as a passenger with another pilot operating as PIC. Irrespective of any signature.

Surely ALL training could count towards a rating or revalidation at some time in the future could it not? Therefore I always want a signature.

Such routine training does NOT require a signature.

As has been stated repeatedly, the only signature which is needed is by the FI who conducts the 1 hr training flight you need if revalidating your SEP Class Rating by experience.

Why am I not surprised that's your personal experience ... ? :ok:


JD
:)

No right to ask for a signature? That has to be one of the most arrogant things I have seen you write for a long time.

As an Instructor if someone pays for my time for Instruction I think they have every right to ask that I sign the logbook as proof that the Instruction took place. If they then want to use that flight later for revalidation then they are perfectly at liberty to do so.

Is it little wonder that pilots prefer to go to independent Instructors for training rather than schools if this is the dogmatic and arrogant approach they face by school instructors.
:ugh:

Beagle
I have, so far, been unable to find any current general requrement for the instructor to countersign Put logbook entries on a routine basis, except that time so logged cannot be counted for the issue of a licence or rating, unless it is countersigned , either on an individual flight basis, or as a summary of a group of flights.

I can see absolutely no reason though, to refuse a signature if one is requested.

MJ

I do hope you have set up a Bose-x RTF as an "independant instructor".

Since you seem to like everything from the ANO, show us where it is a requirement to sign each flight as an FI or where it is even mentioned?

If you are signing flights willy nilly, do you sign them even where the aim of the flight hasn't been achieved? i.e when someone god awful has tried 15 different ways to break the aircraft in a single flight and showed no imporvement or interest in getting better.
You would still sign their logbook and think nothing more of it?
Would you suggest more training?
What would you do if they refused this offer, got their rating revalidated and a few days later hurt themselves or god forbid killed themself and others with them because they made mistakes that you had picked up, tried to rectify but failed to do so and then gave up and signed the form and logbook anway?

That would be interesting from a professional liability stand point. In the same way that training records are scrutinised after a fatal accident from a solo student and that you can be for the high jump if it is proven that you didn't sufficiently train the student in emergency procedures etc. before they were sent off solo.

I wonder how it would work given the fact that LASOR is explicit and whilst not law, it carries more weight than a blank bit of paper and a smart lawyer acting for an estate would be right on to it to try and prove that it was your fault that the pilot died.

All hypothetical, but having seen some cases like that (not aviation based) where someone who in reality had little to do with why some arrogant s*d killed themselves, gets nailed to the wall and smeared for all time. Horrid to watch. One chap later killed himself after he was found negligent after a sailing accident. Poor guy.

The 1hr training flight is about the only opportunity a lot of the time to try and help people.
It isn't about punishing them for being rusty or some power trip for an FI. It's about making sure that people have the required skill set to fly safely.

I can hear the howls of derision. "Who are you to make that judgement?" My answer would be. Get stuffed, who else is going to do it?

99.9% of the time, the flight is a formality, but as flying is about being prepared for problems, I like to have a plan to deal with that 0.1%.

Most people will undergo some form of training every year and if it falls within the time period and they are flying well, then I will sign their logbook as matter of course, usually without having to be asked and certainly without doing a seperate flight.

But there are a few people who won't see an FI apart from every couple of years. That isn't a problem, but it does mean the "training flight" takes on more of a formal basis as it is a different type of flight compared to the ones normally completed by the pilot.

This sometimes can cause problems as it can make people nervous. It gets percieved as a test and no amount of explanation that you are there to help not simply judge makes a difference.

I can't help it if someone gets nervous before hand and then mucks it up. Anyone who knows me, will tell you that I can actually tell if people are wound up and I always do my best to make them as calm as possible. Chatting, stupid jokes, anything to try and make sure that their flying is as minimally affected by having an FI next to them. Explaining that it isn't a test also helps and that I'm only there to help them with any problems or questions.

However, you can only make a call on what you are presented with. As any examiner will tell you, sometimes you fly with someone who you know should walk a test, but nerves get to them. You can't pass them if they didn't fly well enough, even though it was just a temporary blip. It can happen with even the cuddliest and friendliest of examiners.

I would prefer an American style BFR, but that isn't what we have, so you do your best to marry up the requirements from LASORS, your own commonsense and the desires of the person sitting next to you.

It is the fault of the CAA that this discussion is even possible. It should be laid out in black and white with no chance to be misinterpreted, but as per usual we just have to muddle through as best we can, trying to keep everyone happy. That isn't always possible, but you do have to try.

OK, SAS - a quick and simple question ...

You fly as FI for an hour with someone as a revalidation "training flight" but (for reasons best known to yourself) you decide it is a "test", that they have failed and you therefore decline to sign their logbook.

In these circumstances, how would you suggest you should each record the flight in your respective logbooks?


JD
:)


PS I'm going flying now - there's plenty of lift in the air today ...

Well, it would still be a training flight, just one that hasn't reached it's aim. So it would still be P/UT for them and P1 for me.

You could annotate the flight as "unsatisfactory" if you wanted to be a complete ar*e, but I simply wouldn't sign the logbook or put my licence number against it.

You can't be forced into signing anything you don't wish to. Especially as you are supposed to be signing to say that something has been achieved, when it hasn't.

And no signature or licence number means no revalidation, unless the signature gets forged.

Enjoy your flight.

Another one of your made up regulations then?
:ugh:

For ab-inito. I don't think so. You need an OCP number for when the PPL application is sent away. Something you don't have as an "independant instructor" unless you are an RTF yourself. You used to be able to set yourself up as one easily, but now you need airside accessable facilities which obviously cost a fair bit when you make the application.

SRG1175 is the form to apply for one.

I am sorry you will have to point me to the post in this thread where we were talking about ab-initio training. And also explain to me how ab-intio relates to the SEP revalidation flight........

Tough luck...they are revalidating by "EXPERIENCE" not by test. If they have survived 12 hours on their own, and managed to get revalidated then obviously the CAA thinks this is good enough....

If on the other hand they are revalidating by TEST with an FE then fair enough.

EA, I know where you are coming from, but that simply isn't good enough for me. I will not sit back and let someone who isn't competent carry on and cause problems for themself or others, if all I need to do is woork with them for a while. I'd do it for free if that was the issue.

Flight safety is more important than someones ego.

That's not being an arrogant sky god, that's being a sensible person, who actually has the well being of the person involved at heart.

I couldn't in all conscience sit back and watch as I knew someone was highly likely to smash themselves up.

It also doesn't fit in with the advice in LASORS.

However, for the final time. I'm not talking about the vast majority of PPL holders, but the sort of idiot who gives all of us who fly light aircraft a bad name.

How can I spot them? You show me an FI who's being doing this for a few years and I'll show you someone with a sixth sense!

This is normally the time I'd use to "do something different" and if that route is gone, then there doesn't seem much point in the flight as far as I am concerned, other than to waste money.

I fly with FAA instructors several times per year at least, (my friend is one and we fly together in my plane a fair bit - for fun) but that time doesn't count, but the training is just as good. So for the "official" time I want to do something else other than steep turns, stalls, blah....

thats all ;)

There you go, now that wasn't hard was it? We have now gone from it being the law to being good advice and you coming over as more pragmatic in your desire to ensure safety. That's all I wanted.
:ok:

I haven't read the whole thread but

is not quite the whole story.

Regardless of whether a particular statement in LASORS is legally correct or not: if you rely on something in LASORS and then break the law, it is virtually impossible for the CAA to successfully prosecute you.

This has been discussed in another thread here recently.

The way it works is that a member of the public has a reasonable expectation of getting the correct information from a body like the CAA.

Even a letter from the CAA, containing completely incorrect information which you act on and then break the law, will make a prosecution impossible. This has been tested, too, because the CAA is not immune to having individuals inside it writing letters which are not authorised by the legal department and which somebody then relies on. I can think of one excellent example right away but won't post it publicly.

If you think about it, the law has to work this way, otherwise all correspondence (containing any advice or assurance whatsoever) emanating from any official body would be completely worthless.

It leads to the concept of "apparent authority" on which there is ample case law, and the current state AIUI is that pretty well anything appearing to come from an authoritative source inside the organisation can be relied on.

An interesting concept, IO540 - however I don't quite follow the reasoning because if two mutually contradictory statements come from the same "authoritative source", how then can that principle be applied?

In LASORS, there is also the caveat, which reads:

Nothing in this publication is meant to conflict with aviation legislation. Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive. The precise privileges of licences and ratings are set out in Schedule 8 of the Air Navigation Order (please refer to Section A, Appendix F).

JD
:)

That disclaimer wouldn't stand up in court if somebody had actually relied on something in LASORS - an official CAA publication.

That's before one gets to the way much of the ANO is worded - impenetrable to most.

... and what about my first question:


JD
:)

LASORS would be regarded as much more accessible. That's why it was published, after all!

Anyway, for some research, here is a starter:

Apparent authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia