SEP revalidation and training flight question
 

Folks, who can give me advice, please...

it must be 1 hour training flight, but how it comes into logbook: as PIC, PICUS or PUT, if I already have PPL, but fly with instructor as training flight for revalidation purpose?



PS @moderators sorry for second topic, maybe better to remove it from Prof Training topic?

PUT - then in remarks write "revalidation proficiency check".

sure? because proficiency check and training flight is very different things...
As I understand it, only if there is not enough hours experience in past 12 month exist, in that case proficiency check required, other way only training flight or ...?

Should be logged as PUT but the content can be anything you want from an hour of stalls and steep turns, to an hour of aerobatics.....Your choice, and don't let any instructor tell you otherwise....

Pu/t

FI is to annotate the 'Remarks' column with his/her licence number and signature 'if the applicant's performance was considered safe'.

The hour's training flight is not a 'revalidation proficiency check'; an SEP revalidation LPC must be conducted by a FE.

If the hour's training flight is conducted by a FI who happens to be a FE, then the applicant's licence may also be signed if all other revalidation by experience requirements have been met - but thanks to a CAA cock-up*, the signature should only be entered in the licence within the last 3 months of the validity period...:hmm:

* they confused the 'last 3 months LPC' requirement with the revalidation by experience requirement where either is used to revalidate for 2 years from the expiry date....

It is completely beyond my understanding why they do not undo this obvious cock up, such that all of the paperwork can be dealt with as a single exercise just as soon as the experience requirements and the instructor flight have been completed within the second year. This was certainly the case until the inadvertent rewrite of the rules. Are they just too proud to admit to a stupid mistake? :ugh:

Also PUT!
Just a point re Englishal, the "training flight content as defined in LASORS should include some general handling, at the discretion of the FI. (Previously this was part of the original AIC127/99 but that's now withdrawn.)

Well, a club can have its rules (such as requiring a PFL for example) ... of course if you don't like them you can do the hour with a non-club aircraft and a non-club instructor if you think it's worth the hassle.

No they can't. The 2 year training flight content is totally at the discretion of he student. As Instructors we can recommend content and if we see areas that need work point them out. But a club can't dictate what goes in the flight.

Or are you just happy to be walked over all the time?

Of course they can. It's their aeroplane and their instructor. They can choose what services they offer to sell. The punter can then choose whether to buy them or not. Same as any other "club rules", like weather minima stricter than the law requires or currency requirements stricter than the law requires.
Actually I have no objection to being asked to demonstrate a PFL once every two years! - of course if I'd done one the week before as part of another check ride I'd expect to be able to negotiate.

Sorry Gerturde, but you are wrong plain and simple.

ANY flight of 1hr or greater in the qualifying period will count as the flight required for revalidation by experience. A pilot can ask to fly around in circles for an hour, do aeros or just fly in a straight line. As long as the flight is logged as PUT it is job done. Show me an Instructor (according to the endless arguments on these forums) who is not going to log the time as Instructional and the pilot as PUT.

Once the hour is logged they may then have the licence signed by an examiner and that's it for the next 2 years.

When I do the 2 year flight and licence sign off I give the pilot the option of what they would like to do. If they have no idea I make suggestions which usually include general handling but if all they want to do is fly around in circles then I will respect the request. There used to be guidelines issued by the CAA but these were withdrawn.

I am not saying it is not sensible to make the most of the time by doing general handling but I respect the individuals right to free choice and don't support the pencil pushing nanny state. Perhaps some have spent to much time around government bureaucracy to recognize that individuals have free will and don't need decisions making for them......

Nope, I'm right, you're wrong.

A private enterprise can, in the absense of laws dictating otherwise, which we all agree there aren't any of in this case, choose for itself which services it does and doesn't wish to offer for sale.

If one of my customers wants me to do something that I don't feel like doing I can say no. If I want to buy a flight from a club which they don't offer they can say no. Simple as that.

I suspect that in purely commercial terms Gertrude is correct, in that the club can decide on what terms they wish to conduct their business , just as I do in my own business.

However, I am completely behind Bose's philosophy on this one. GA is already grossly overburdened by unnecessary regulation which is strangling the life out of the industry,and shortly it appears to be made even worse by compulsory six yearly tests, with no perecived safety benefit from all of this regulation whatsoever.

The recent CAA review of safety statistics following the introduction of the new JAA requirements for biennial instructor flights, 90 day rules etc clearly showed no benefit whatsoever from the increased regulation, just more cost and disincentive for those who have already been through the exam and test mill.

I am lucky enough to have an instructor /examiner who is happy to let me bore holes in the sky in my own aircraft once every two years with no requirement for anything else, and long may that continue to be the case until my own choice and not bureaucracy states otherwise.:ugh:

Yep absolutely right. But you are making up rules as to them being able to dictate what goes in the revalidation flight, which they can't.

You can count ANY flight of 1hr or more as the required flight. You show me a school that will refuse a 1hr training flight where the pilot just wishes to fly in a straight line for 30 minutes out and a straight line back as PUT. The signing of the licence is a separate issue and it is not down to the examiner signing the licence to investigate the flight, they just ensure the regs have been met. Pure and simple.

The problem is Bose, that once you tell them it is a revalidation flight , then they want to insist on all sorts of stuff, that as you rightly say, they have no right to insist upon.

Maybe best just to say that you want to do a one hour flight with an instructor for no particular purpose without "letting on " the actual purpose of the flight? The problem then of course, is that when you ask for a signature in the log book at the end of the flight, the instructor invokes their right to refuse ( the real reason being because they didnt know that what they really really really needed to do was to "test" you!)

Ever since this JAA instructor flight was introduced it has become ( with the exception a few liberated instructor /examiners like yourself) a back door means of introducing a biennial flight test.:rolleyes:

Most Clubs probably require an annual Club check.

Make sure it's at least 60 min and it will also satisfy the training flight requirement for revalidating by experience.

It really isn't worth flapping your handbags over...

flybymike, you asked:

To which the answer is, basically, 'YES'. If they kept having to admit they'd porked up some piece of €urocracy or other, then it would seemingly not reflect well on the 'competent authority' the CAA are supposed to represent.

It took nigh on 5 years to sort out their NPPL cock-ups, for example....:hmm:

flybymike,

I'd like to see chapter and verse where someone actually admits to having been made to to stick to a particular profile for a revalidation flight, instead of the 3rd party story handed over a pint in the pub. I don't know of ANYONE who has been coerced into a particular flight by a CRI/FI.

However, many people very sensibly combine it with a club/school 6-month check, which at our place has a written list of minimum requirements, including stalling and PFLs. Now, if a customer came to me and said 'I've done a 6-month check but now I want to do my revalidation flight and I want to do an hour of circuits/cross-country/land away somewhere/go and have a look at Felixtowe docks (yes, really!) then of course I'd oblige, happily.

NO-ONE is forced to do a 6-month check. It's just that if you want to hire from us, it's one of the rules, just like minimum hours if you take it away for a weekend, no unlicenced aerodromes without prior approval etc. To people who find all this a bit restrictive, I recommend joining one of the groups on our noticeboard. And before you ask, no we don't mind advertising them. The loss of hire business is compensated for by the friends that they bring with them who then learn to fly with us.

I get the impression that from the way LASORS is worded there is a large element of discretion attached to the 'requirements' for the training flight, anyway. Unless there actually is a syllabus written down by the CAA which FIs must follow for revalidation flights, in which case there are FIs breaking rules all over the place...? Can anyone clarify that?

I would think it professional for an instructor to perhaps suggest some exercises to carry out during the hour, and it might be prudent for the pilot to accept the advice, IF they agree it's necessary. After all, surely it's the responsibility of the pilot to ensure he is flying safely and is in good practice. There's a big difference between the revalidation flight and a school check flight, which has implications for insurance etc.

I did some unplanned diversions for my hour.

There is no set format for this flight as Bose says quite rightly (he should know ;)).....However, in practice this is not strictly true for the reasons GTW says.

I got bitten by this this year and it p*ssed me off. I phone up for an hour of tailwheel, as something different to pass off the 1 hr. Good experience for me, hopefully improve my general handling etc....

So I arrange everything and drive to the airfield 1.5 hrs (too crappy to get my plane out). I get there, we chat for a while and then when I mention it must be an hours flight "Ah, I'm not happy to let this flight count for a revalidation"......We have a discussion about it and he claims he'd be "helping me too much which goes against the idea of the training flight". The weather is too crappy for the usual stalls / steep turns etc., but the only difference with tailwheel is T/O and L/D. So as I've just driven 1.5 hours and I'm pissed off I did some tailwheel, less than an hour, and didn't get the revalidation flight. I went back the following week with my aeroplane, thinking I'll get it banged out in that, but no there is another problem, I brought the aeroplane docs with me but forgot one apparently and he didn't want to fly in my plane. So I almost told him to p*ss off and was on the edge of letting the JAR licence lapse and just using my FAA one but thought that AS I was there, and AS I'd just had my JAR medical which is now valid until 2012 I think, I may as well do it. So I had to rent one of their aeroplanes. It was good revision I suppose but nothing new.

This whold revalidation thing is a joke. Either the CAA should make it a FORMAL BFR or they should scrap the whole idea. They should also get rid of the requirement for an examiner to sign the paperwork. I'd suggest they make a formal flight of 1 hr duration, covering PFLs, Steep turns, etc., with an instructor sign off being good enough for the revalidation. Not being a member of a flying club this whole revalidation thing is far more hassle than if I were with a club, renting their aeroplanes....

Looks like the previous post is pretty close to "chapter and verse" for The odd one...;)

Surely this flight is,as the LASORS Sect F says, "a training flight to ascertain the skills and knowledge of the applicant". It is not unreasonable to ask about the technical aspects of any aircraft used and also ask for the aircraft docs and a load and balance calculation, particularly if the type is unfamiliar to the instructor.
My normal approach is always to ask if a pilot is in the last year of the two year validity period ,if someone joins our club and needs a checkout. You would be suprised how many pilots still don't understand the JAR system. I conduct several flights for non club members in a whole variety of aircraft, very much as the guest of the owner, albeit as P1.
Re the 1 hour dual flight,I would ask what their flying experience is and what they would find useful during the one hour flight. This is often one of the usual supects such as stall, incipient spin and PFL's etc. A lot of PPL's are reluctant to try these Ex's solo, so this is the only practice they will have in a two year period. The other topic is often "how the avionics work". It is much easier to talk through avionics with an instructor and learn to be confident in their use , than admitting to other pilots that they only know how to switch the box on, and rely on their GPS. (This scenario is often post PPL and moving on to a more advanced aircraft.)
Re the above , the instructor can always decline a flight if he/she thinks an important training item will be missed. Also after the flight the instructor can refuse to sign of any 1hr dual if he/she isn't satisfied with the standard of flying

Well, this is the bit that I don't agree with. You've booked a flight lesson, irrespective of its final purpose. You've had the lesson, the instructor was PIC and you were PUT. On what grounds can the instructor refuse to sign? After all, he's instructing, not examining.

And if the instructor refuses to sign, what goes in your logbook?

Mind you, I agree that that one hour training flight is best spent doing a good workout. Stalls, PFLs etc. And if the instructor is not happy, I don't mind a comment in the logbook or somewhere else "further training in XXX recommended". Also, if the flight doubles as a club check, I fully understand that on behalf of the club the instructor tells you that you are not to hire their aircraft until you've had more training in YYY. But for JAA revalidation, all that's required is a one-hour training flight. Nothing more nothing less..

I have a problem with rolling over and accepting made up rules to put it simply.

The more that we accept creep like this the greater the levels of unneeded regulation appear. If the CAA felt that we needed a 'test' every 2 years then they would change the regs and require. In just the same way that I renew my MEP and IR by test every year. Instructors who think think they have the right to impose rules where they see fit on contradiction to the regulator just do the industry a disservice and are one of the causes of decline in GA.

I prefer to give people the freedom of choice and what is interesting is that unfailingly we do the general handling stuff that they never practice on their own. But that is the result of freedom of choice not me imposing my rules on them. Believe it or not the vast majority of people are actually capable of making good choices on their own.

Perhaps the attitude of these schools and Instructors insisting on setting the rules and and contents is why I do many hundreds of hours of Instruction and hundreds of licence signings?

LASORS are not in themselves definitive legislation. As I see it, therefore, the requirements for revalidation are as required by JAR-FCL and JAR-FCL 1.245(c) states that:

(1) All single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings (land) and all touring motor glider’s ratings – Revalidation.
For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane (land) class ratings and/or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall:

(i) ... pass a proficiency check ... ; or

(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating complete 12 hours flight time in a single engine piston aeroplane or touring motor glider including:

(A) 6 hours of pilot-in-command time;
(B) 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test.

However, JAR-FCL does not appear to define "training flight" in this context.

It therefore brings into question the origin (and authority) of the paragraph in LASORS which reads:

The Training Flight

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.

If JAR-FCL does not define the "purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement", what status can this paragraph in LASORS have?


JD
:)

It is well know that LASORS is a mix of regulation and subjective opinion.

Indeed, bose-x, and I also very much concur with the sentiments expressed in your previous post, #24.

Perhaps the logical conclusion is that we should treat the LASORS paragraph entitled The Training Flight as no more than just editorial wishful thinking ...


JD
:)

you are quite right Jumbo, the ANO simply requires the Class Rating to be revalidated in acordance with JAR FCL1 and anything more is just CAA elaboration.:=
You dont have to tell the Flight Instructor the purpose of the instruction, and if he does an instructional flight with you, for any purpose, the logbook signature is simply to confirm that the flight took place, and that it was instruction.

MJ

Perhaps it would help if the CAA made it clear that in "signing off" a revalidation in the log book, the instructor was not in anyway testifying as to the ability of the pilot, but was simply making a statement to confirm that the actual flight took place. It may well be that instructors are nervous about accepting responsibility for signing off a pilot whom they consider for whatever reason to be unsafe, even though that is thoretically at least irrelevant to the actual purpose of the flight which is simply to impart training.

Bose's philosophy on this whole subject is exactly right, and refreshing to hear from someone who might otherwise have been assumed to be part of the instructor establishment.

What a lot of debate over something quite simple! (apart from the aforementioned CAA cock-up)

The training flight is an easy thing. Most PPL's do the absolute bare minimum of hours to stay legal and it is them this is aimed at. Most "club" flyers turn up for a couple of weeks every couple of years simply because they are going to run out of time.

So an FI is having to do a fair bit of retraining and the 1 hr flight is part of that process of getting them back up to speed.

For a PPL who carries on flying all year round and has a good level of currency, then the flight should be about what is best for the PPL, however I always want to see a certain minimum standard in things like EFATO, PFL etc. If I know the PPL has covered this previously, then I don't mind doing other stuff, from IMC work to tailwheel brush ups. The question is always asked, "what do you want to do?" If it is just flying in a straight line. I always get suspicious, but if it is meticulously planned and flown, then great, but I'll always chuck a couple of curve balls in just as an added test.

BUT and for me this is a big one. If I am unhappy about the standard shown, then I will not sign to say the flight took place and if pushed I'll sign the book, but with a comment that the standard reached wasn't good enough. There then follows a quick call to all the local examiners to ensure that the licence is not signed off until the retraining has been completed.

Before everyone jumps into high horses over this, remember one thing. I'm not signing because that someone is a danger to themselves and others, not because of some powertrip on my part. They need retraining and I will do my best to ensure they realise that.

With some of the hideous egos I've come across (usually allied to very mediocre skills) you almost have to put a gun to someones head to make them realise they aren't safe.

If you aren't prepared to stick up for your beliefs as an FI, then frankly you shouldn't be in the job. Our role is to help keep up standards, most of the time that is easy as the majority of people are very sensible, but there are some real idiots out there who give PPL's a bad name.

The CAA guidelines are quite clear as to whether or not the instructor should sign of the training flight.
"If the pilot is not up to the expected standard then the log book should not be signed but annotated as "requiring further training". What further training is required has to be agreed between the student and instructor."
Basically the log book can only be signed if the instructor considers the student/pilot to be of a satisfactory standard i.e. safe to continue flying.

You were doing great right up to the underlined part above. Who the hell do you think you are? The secret aviation police? I have never been so disgusted and embarrassed to be part of the Instructional fraternity in my entire life. It is a good job you are not in my area as I would have told you exactly what I thought when you called me.....

It IS NOT your job to call around everyone you know like some secret fraternity. Show me in the ANO where you are permitted to do so, show me anywhere under law or even the subjective LASORS where it is recomended. Utterly, utterly, disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Have you ever thought that it might have been your personality or teaching style that caused the candidate to perform poorly, or even just your subjective opinion. Of course not, you are an Instructor and therfore a Sky god....... :ugh::ugh:

jgs43,

Can you point me at the legislation which tells me that these are the criteria which apply when I undergo my revalidation Training Flight under JAR-FCL?


JD
:)

Forgive my intrusion here as I'm not an instructor:

Surely as an instructor you have a moral obligation and a duty of care to ensure that the person you are signing off is up to standard, how can you tell if they just fly in a straight line for mile on end? When I pay for the professional services of an instructor I want to get my moneys worth (I am Scottish after all!), I would want to demonstrate at the least an EFATO, PFL, stalls in various config's and one or two circuits.

bose me old fella. You haven't seen some of the standards I have. I haven't actually done this and it would take someone of extreme dangernosity to make me do it, but if you saw someone who was clearly a total menace and likely to cause an accident killing themselves and possibly others around them and you DIDN't do everything you could, then you my friend would be the embarrasment to the instructors fraternity.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't give two hoot about what the law said in this case. If someone is dangerous, then I will do something about it.

Judging "danger" in this case is far more than watching handling skills, it also encompasses how someone thinks about flying and all the associated knowledge.

In the 10 years I've been instructing, I've only met 2 people who have caused me to think like this. One I worked for weeks with to try and bring his attitude round. He was the sky god in this case, not me. Flying his own machine that was out of check, on an expired permit, no insurance, his licence had expired years before and he'd clearly never flown with anyone after passing his test years before. His handling skills were horrifying as well.

We had many a meeting about him between us all at the club. I was a relatively inexperienced FI at the time and all of us were in agreement in what we were doing. In fact it was the extremely experienced CFI who decided that "shopping him" would be the next step as all our other efforts were failing to get him to realise what he was doing was simply dangerous.

Eventually I seemed to get through to him and managed to bring him up to standard where we were all happy.

I treat this as a success as he was probably the most difficult student I've ever flown with, even though he'd had a licence for years.

The other refused to fly with any of us at the club after I'd told him I wouldn't sign his logbook. So he went off, got himself signed off by an FI at another club and then a few weeks later went off in awful conditions with his son on board and killed them both.

That has haunted me ever since. Could I have done more? If I'd have rung round and spoken to the other club with my fears, could the accident have been avoided?

So Bose, off the high horse please. It is an extreme move that I am prepared to make, but have never done it. If you had been put in a similar situation and you didn't do everything you could. How would you feel. Or do you not take your responsibilities as seriously as I do?

But the instructor is not "signing off" anybody, it is not a test ...

The legislation for revalidation simply requires a "Training Flight", there is no assessment required ...


JD
:)

But morally it is.

I hated it when it first came out as I felt as an FI we were expected to act as examiners, when we weren't trained or paid to do so, but having seen the gradual increase in standards because of having a pseudo test every couple of years, then I'm now for it, but I'd prefer a system of an LPC every couple of years such as you get with every other rating in flying.

If you fly an R22, then you need an LPC every year, if you fly 737 you need an LPC every year and an OPC every 6 months. MEP, every year. Why the difference with SEP? You can kill yourself just as easily in an SEP as in anything else.

Looks like a case of under-regulation here...

On the one hand the law only requires two things:
- A one-hour training flight which can be straight line with no actual training being done. Signed by the instructor only for "I did this training flight", not for "student has reached the required standard". May be annotated with "has not reached required standard" but this has no legal meaning whatsoever.
- The examiners signature which only verifies that the experience and training requirements have been met, based on logbook content. (And note: if your local examiner refuses to sign, you can always send the lot to the CAA who will then sign for a small fee.)
- Oh, and there's a "suggestion" in LASORS as to the content of the training flight but it's not law.

On the other hand, instructors and examiners have a "duty of care" or whatever you call it. In case of an owner-pilot, the instructor he flies with is perhaps the only person ever to see that the pilot is a danger to himself, his passengers and people on the ground, but has no legal means to do anything about it. Other than trying to convince the pilot of this.

In this respect the FAA BFR system seems to make more sense. You actually have to reach a certain standard before the instructor will sign you off. But this actually puts the instructor into a sort of examiners role, for which he might not be trained, and which might negatively influence the training aspect of the flight - student being afraid of trying out something and getting it wrong, thus failing the BFR, for instance.

And in any case both the FAA and JAA system doesn't stop an owner-pilot to go flying with an expired CofA/PTF and an expired or non-current license.

Personally, I would not mind seeing the FAA BFR system being copied here in JAA land, especially if that also removes some of the bureaucratic burden that we have now (five-year license renewal + fees for instance).

You miss the point entirely SAS...... :ugh:

You have appointed yourself judge jury and executioner. I suppose you consider yourself a benevolent dictator....

I have seen some shocking standards over time but gentle guidance and common sense works much better than the jack boot. You may never say it to the student but the fact that you have thought it and written it in public will be carried in your demeanour towards your students.

It is not OUR job to make up rules it is not even our job to enforce rules. Instructors are not aviation police.

You may think that you can blend morality into making up your own rules as some sort of validation for your methods.

The fact is that as Instructors we have the responsibility to teach and advise. If an individual chooses to ignore that advice that is the end of it. It is called free will. Once we start on the slippery road of taking away the free will of others where does democracy go?

Ringing around examiners and telling them not to sign is just despicable and an attempt at removing others freedom just because you don't like it.

Like I said before often the poor performance of a student can be down to the approach of the Instructor and someone who performs badly for you may perform perfectly for me and vice versa. If you don't like what you see, you tell them and let THEM choose. Most people that I have come across value the input you give them and will make their own arrangements to improve. They do not need you dictating to them.

Since when has a flying club been a democracy?

Don't try and equate society with a flying school, it just isn't the same.

If you don't want to enforce standards in your club, then that's up to you, but if you are happy with shoddy flying and dangerous pilots. Go ahead.

Whilst I don't like the police analogy, if FI's and examiners don't work together to "police" things, then who will?

Someone has to set the acceptable standard. Who better to do it than the people who's job it is to train and examine?

So if someone you trained or "signed off" went and killed themselves. You wouldn't feel the slightest bit of responsibility?

I understand some of what you are saying, Say again s l o w l y.

I have been used to being trained, converted, assessed, tested on a regular basis for over 30 years as an ATPL/IR - indeed I have also done some of the training, assessing and testing of colleagues during that time - and there is some logic in what you are saying.

However, the legislation for PPL revalidation under JAR-FCL does not require a test or an assessment - it requires a "Training Flight". As there is no assessment required, therefore there can be no PASS / FAIL. Clearly, as an instructor, you may wish to mention certain aspects of a licence holder's flying which are either excellent and beyond reproach or, alternatively, suggest some practice or improvement, but the legislation does not require you to do so.

If a PPL holder wants to practice or demonstrate a PFL, EFATO, stall, steep turn or whatever to the instructor on the "Training Flight", then of course he/she can do so and a good instructor will be happy to provide feedback - all pilots can benefit from this from time to time - nevertheless this is not a legal revalidation requirement.

It probably should be argued that there is a gap in the legislation here, in that JAR-FCL does not make clear the intention or purpose of the "Training Flight" in PPL revalidation. However, until or unless it does, I would suggest that you need to be very careful about your attitude as an instructor to this "Training Flight" requirement. There is obviously a Duty of Care upon a FI to seek to ensure that satisfactory standards are achieved wherever possible. However there is a fine line between competent professional guidance and seeking to impose penalties or restrictions that are beyond your responsibilities.

As a FI, you are not there to "police" and you should not try to "enforce". You, like everyone else, remain both responsible to and subservient to the legislation and not independent of it.


JD
:)