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.