SEP revalidation and training flight question
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever there is wooly legislation, you will get a myriad of interpretations. Pilots will usually argue to the death that they are right in their personal versions.
In my eyes, the rules say one thing, but mean something else, therefore they are poorly written.
A club can set any rules it likes via the flying order book and when a member reads and signs it, they are agreeing to follow them. They are always as strict or stricter than anything laid down by the CAA. It's the same as an airline having it's own procedures.
I have always taken the duty of care element very seriously as an FI and as a CFI and in our club we FI's are the "police" to use a horrid analogy.
If you spot something dangerous happening, then I would expect it to be brought up and something done about it.
I don't know any flying club/school where this isn't the case.
Private owners are a different matter, but when the original AIC came out, there was an onus on there being an assessment and there was a suggested content to the flight, which I for one thought was a good idea.
What there needs to be is clarification about exactly what is expected, but any club that has any sort of decent standards will expect people to pass regular assesments. It is only sensible that these are combined with a flight for rating renewal as this then cuts the costs down for the PPL.
If someone isn't competent enough to pass a "mini LPC", then they shouldn't be flying without further training. End of story.
How else do we keep the skill level up without regular checks and assessments?
If it wasn't necessary, then why is it a requirement for airline pilots who fly far more regularily than any PPL? Or for Helicopter PPL's?
In my eyes, the rules say one thing, but mean something else, therefore they are poorly written.
A club can set any rules it likes via the flying order book and when a member reads and signs it, they are agreeing to follow them. They are always as strict or stricter than anything laid down by the CAA. It's the same as an airline having it's own procedures.
I have always taken the duty of care element very seriously as an FI and as a CFI and in our club we FI's are the "police" to use a horrid analogy.
If you spot something dangerous happening, then I would expect it to be brought up and something done about it.
I don't know any flying club/school where this isn't the case.
Private owners are a different matter, but when the original AIC came out, there was an onus on there being an assessment and there was a suggested content to the flight, which I for one thought was a good idea.
What there needs to be is clarification about exactly what is expected, but any club that has any sort of decent standards will expect people to pass regular assesments. It is only sensible that these are combined with a flight for rating renewal as this then cuts the costs down for the PPL.
If someone isn't competent enough to pass a "mini LPC", then they shouldn't be flying without further training. End of story.
How else do we keep the skill level up without regular checks and assessments?
If it wasn't necessary, then why is it a requirement for airline pilots who fly far more regularily than any PPL? Or for Helicopter PPL's?
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 24th Jun 2008 at 12:20.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course Flying Clubs have their own separate requirements - it is more often than not consequent upon insurance requirements than anything else I would suggest.
However, let's get back to the subject - this thread is about the SEP revalidation "Training Flight" requirement. It is not about whether the legislation should be different. It is certainly not about any individual's interpretation of what was intended (rather than what is actually required) and their personal need to "police" that hypothetical expectation.
I believe the JAR-FCL "Training Flight" should be logged as P u/t and the instructor should endorse (sign) the entry, simply to confirm that the flight took place. This fulfils the legal requirememt and I have seen nothing that requires anything more than this.
JD
However, let's get back to the subject - this thread is about the SEP revalidation "Training Flight" requirement. It is not about whether the legislation should be different. It is certainly not about any individual's interpretation of what was intended (rather than what is actually required) and their personal need to "police" that hypothetical expectation.
I believe the JAR-FCL "Training Flight" should be logged as P u/t and the instructor should endorse (sign) the entry, simply to confirm that the flight took place. This fulfils the legal requirememt and I have seen nothing that requires anything more than this.
JD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely correct. The flight MUST be logged as P/UT and it has to be endorsed by an FI.
P1CUS is only for use when on a successful flight test with an examiner, something that the "training flight" isn't.
P1CUS is only for use when on a successful flight test with an examiner, something that the "training flight" isn't.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I always use the training flight for the usual emergency drill practice and to try out new techniques, tips etc (pretty much the same as any flight I take with an FI).
I would have thought, however, that in terms of consumer law in the UK an FI would be on very dodgy ground if they undertake a 1 hour training flight for the purpose of revalidation but then refuse to sign off the flight (an inextricable part of the training service provision) while insisting that the flight cost be borne by the trainee.
In which case I guess the FI has discretion in not signing off the flight as long as the club (or whichever body is providing the service) is prepared to foot the bill for the flight.
The other effect that I notice with my own flying is that, when I am with an instructor I have a psychological tendency (which I have to conciously fight) to take less responsibility and care in certain phases of the flight on the basis that the instructor will pick me up on them anyway - this can inevitably lead to a level of performance comparatively below what I achieve when flying by myself or with passengers.
From the FI point of view this was often a demonstration of my worst standard of flying rather than my normal standard, thus a judgment of my overall skill level on the basis of a 1 hour flight could be very wide of the mark.
These days I actually believe I have control rather than just saying it.
Regards all, enq.
I would have thought, however, that in terms of consumer law in the UK an FI would be on very dodgy ground if they undertake a 1 hour training flight for the purpose of revalidation but then refuse to sign off the flight (an inextricable part of the training service provision) while insisting that the flight cost be borne by the trainee.
In which case I guess the FI has discretion in not signing off the flight as long as the club (or whichever body is providing the service) is prepared to foot the bill for the flight.
The other effect that I notice with my own flying is that, when I am with an instructor I have a psychological tendency (which I have to conciously fight) to take less responsibility and care in certain phases of the flight on the basis that the instructor will pick me up on them anyway - this can inevitably lead to a level of performance comparatively below what I achieve when flying by myself or with passengers.
From the FI point of view this was often a demonstration of my worst standard of flying rather than my normal standard, thus a judgment of my overall skill level on the basis of a 1 hour flight could be very wide of the mark.
These days I actually believe I have control rather than just saying it.
Regards all, enq.
SAS I applaud your efforts to set, and maintain, high standards at your club. I wish all clubs were like yours. I have been an instructor for 30 years, and , believe me I have seen pretty much all there is to see in the training world.As CFI you have the right to make whatever sensible rules you think fit, and make sure people abide by them, but if someone in your club asks 'what am I LEGALLY required to do to revalidate my JAA ppl?' what do you tell them?
MJ
MJ
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always just grabbed a copy of LASORS and shown them how to find the relevant section.
That also hopefully gives them a hint to read the book rather than automatically asking someone else who may or may not give them up to date information.
Owing to a small medical issue I'm out of the instructing game whilst the Doc's do their work, but I'm very happy to note that the standards at the clubs I was involved in have continued to stay high and to even get better.
enq, it would be very interesting to see a legal case where someone refused to sign off a flight where someone was quite blatantly below par. I have a feeling that commonsense would prevail, especially as the legislation is so open to interpretation.
That also hopefully gives them a hint to read the book rather than automatically asking someone else who may or may not give them up to date information.
Owing to a small medical issue I'm out of the instructing game whilst the Doc's do their work, but I'm very happy to note that the standards at the clubs I was involved in have continued to stay high and to even get better.
enq, it would be very interesting to see a legal case where someone refused to sign off a flight where someone was quite blatantly below par. I have a feeling that commonsense would prevail, especially as the legislation is so open to interpretation.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS, I think the case would be something along the lines of:
What service did you purchase?
A training flight for the purpose of revalidation, which includes an entry in my logbook, signed by an instructor together with the instructors licence number to show that the training had been undertaken.
Did you receive the service you paid for?
No, I received the training but the instructor then refused to sign my log book.
Why did the instructor refuse to sign the log book?
I don't know, I mean I flew into controlled airspace without permission, had a bit of a near miss with a hill & nearly managed to land on the A127 but it was certainly all good training from my point of view. Anyway, as the purpose of the flight was training and that was what I received I can't see why the instructor can't sign off my logbook.
Were you told that there were restrictions on the standard of your flying when you made the contract for the training flight?
No.
Were there any legal restrictions that prevented the instructor signing your log book.
Not to my knowledge, the relevant CAA reference documents merely mention a training flight, they do not define it.
The point of law is whether it was made clear before the flight that a certain standard had to be attained before the training flight was signed off. This standard would of course have to be objectively measurable (such as no barrel rolls below 500ft etc).
Regards, enq.
What service did you purchase?
A training flight for the purpose of revalidation, which includes an entry in my logbook, signed by an instructor together with the instructors licence number to show that the training had been undertaken.
Did you receive the service you paid for?
No, I received the training but the instructor then refused to sign my log book.
Why did the instructor refuse to sign the log book?
I don't know, I mean I flew into controlled airspace without permission, had a bit of a near miss with a hill & nearly managed to land on the A127 but it was certainly all good training from my point of view. Anyway, as the purpose of the flight was training and that was what I received I can't see why the instructor can't sign off my logbook.
Were you told that there were restrictions on the standard of your flying when you made the contract for the training flight?
No.
Were there any legal restrictions that prevented the instructor signing your log book.
Not to my knowledge, the relevant CAA reference documents merely mention a training flight, they do not define it.
The point of law is whether it was made clear before the flight that a certain standard had to be attained before the training flight was signed off. This standard would of course have to be objectively measurable (such as no barrel rolls below 500ft etc).
Regards, enq.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ha! Yes, that is a point isn't it!
No, I've always mentioned that it is just a recommendation not a requirement. Despite what it looks like. I don't always do a "mini LPC". I only do it if when I ask what they would like to do, the comment "I dunno, you choose" comes back at me. It is especially rare if I know them well and am aware of their capabilities.
For most members this sort of flight is irrelevant as you see them on a regular basis and know exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are, especially as you've normally had a hand in their training anyway.
It's when people wander in cold and start dictating to you, whilst being evasive about things such as logbooks and licences and currency. That's when the alarm bells start ringing. There's nothing you can put your finger on, but you can usually tell as soon as someone walks through the door what the standards demonstrated will be.
enq, as a student of the law. I'd love to have a case like that drop onto my lap. Especially if you ended up calling the CAA to clarify things. It wouldn't go anything like the way you've mentioned.
No, I've always mentioned that it is just a recommendation not a requirement. Despite what it looks like. I don't always do a "mini LPC". I only do it if when I ask what they would like to do, the comment "I dunno, you choose" comes back at me. It is especially rare if I know them well and am aware of their capabilities.
For most members this sort of flight is irrelevant as you see them on a regular basis and know exactly what their strengths and weaknesses are, especially as you've normally had a hand in their training anyway.
It's when people wander in cold and start dictating to you, whilst being evasive about things such as logbooks and licences and currency. That's when the alarm bells start ringing. There's nothing you can put your finger on, but you can usually tell as soon as someone walks through the door what the standards demonstrated will be.
enq, as a student of the law. I'd love to have a case like that drop onto my lap. Especially if you ended up calling the CAA to clarify things. It wouldn't go anything like the way you've mentioned.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This standard would of course have to be objectively measurable
"If this guy's next flight were with my kid as passenger, would I be happy? Yes - pass. No - decide what he's failed on."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically, Gertrude has it nailed. Mine is, would I be happy letting someone go flying with my Gran as a passenger?
No. Then no signature and then the immortal phrase "sue me".
No. Then no signature and then the immortal phrase "sue me".
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is of course that the amounts of money involved would put this into the small claims court.
Consumer law is fairly clear on the fact that if the consumer doesn't get what they paid for & it is not their fault then they don't pay.
It really revolves around the definition of a training flight (remember that the law tends to weigh on the side of the consumer rather than the profit making organisation) & whether any restrictions (such as standards attained) were communicated to and accepted by the consumer prior to delivery of the service.
This isn't really about flying - I agree that the flying community needs to do all it can to keep safety standards high - this is purely about whether you got what you thought you were paying for.
This could of course all be catered for by amending the booking T's & C's to allow FI discretion on sign off.
Alternatively, ending the flight before the hour is up is possible (as you say SAS, you know pretty early on whether you're with a pilot or future Darwin award nominee).
Regards, enq.
Consumer law is fairly clear on the fact that if the consumer doesn't get what they paid for & it is not their fault then they don't pay.
It really revolves around the definition of a training flight (remember that the law tends to weigh on the side of the consumer rather than the profit making organisation) & whether any restrictions (such as standards attained) were communicated to and accepted by the consumer prior to delivery of the service.
This isn't really about flying - I agree that the flying community needs to do all it can to keep safety standards high - this is purely about whether you got what you thought you were paying for.
This could of course all be catered for by amending the booking T's & C's to allow FI discretion on sign off.
Alternatively, ending the flight before the hour is up is possible (as you say SAS, you know pretty early on whether you're with a pilot or future Darwin award nominee).
Regards, enq.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this guy's next flight were with my kid as passenger, would I be happy? Yes - pass. No - decide what he's failed on
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again slowly - given that the actual, written legal requirements aren't quite good enough for you, how far do you think it's right for people to make up their own rules? If it's acceptable for people to gold-plate the legal and CAA requirements to their own standards, where do you draw the line.
As an example, let's look at an analogy.
I had a minor medical problem myself a while back. I'm wondering what my reaction would have been if I'd gone back to my AME and he informed me of the happy news that I now met the CAA medical standards in full, but he wasn't going to sign the medical because he and the partners in his practice liked to apply their own, higher standards and he didn't think I was quite up to them? They want me to go down the gym every week and knock off the alcohol for a month, then they'll reconsider. Just in the name of safety, of course. He once signed off someone who met the CAA standards, but they had were taken unwell at the controls a few weeks later, so they now take it upon themselves to be a bit more stringent. There are no, actual, written guidelines as such, it's just up to him. Funnily enough, he can often tell when someone first comes in the room and he sees from their appearance how they look after themselves that the alarm bells first start ringing. Oh, and by the way, don't bother asking another doctor for a second opinion as they've called around all the local AMEs and warned them about my case.
Do you think it would be right for the AME to gold-plate the legal requirements to increase the safety of my passengers like this, or should he just follow the CAA rules? If he's allowed to make up his own rules, how far should he be allowed to go? If he shouldn't make up his own rules, why should you?
As an example, let's look at an analogy.
I had a minor medical problem myself a while back. I'm wondering what my reaction would have been if I'd gone back to my AME and he informed me of the happy news that I now met the CAA medical standards in full, but he wasn't going to sign the medical because he and the partners in his practice liked to apply their own, higher standards and he didn't think I was quite up to them? They want me to go down the gym every week and knock off the alcohol for a month, then they'll reconsider. Just in the name of safety, of course. He once signed off someone who met the CAA standards, but they had were taken unwell at the controls a few weeks later, so they now take it upon themselves to be a bit more stringent. There are no, actual, written guidelines as such, it's just up to him. Funnily enough, he can often tell when someone first comes in the room and he sees from their appearance how they look after themselves that the alarm bells first start ringing. Oh, and by the way, don't bother asking another doctor for a second opinion as they've called around all the local AMEs and warned them about my case.
Do you think it would be right for the AME to gold-plate the legal requirements to increase the safety of my passengers like this, or should he just follow the CAA rules? If he's allowed to make up his own rules, how far should he be allowed to go? If he shouldn't make up his own rules, why should you?
Last edited by Wrong Stuff; 24th Jun 2008 at 18:15.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A totally different situation and a very flawed analogy. Medical rules are well laid down and if the AME didn't think you were fit enough to meet the standards, then they would be right to refuse you and refer you elsewhere to be reassessed formally.
They would be using their professional discretion. An FI refusing to sign your logbook because you are a blatant danger to yourself and others is doing the same thing.
As the rules are so open to interpretation, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing what I see as "best practise." If the law was written properly and said exactly what it meant, then I would follow it, but as it isn't, we have to muddle by the best way we can and do our utmost to keep our customers safe. If that means going beyond the letter of the law. So be it. You as a member sign the flying order book and if you don't accept it, then join another club.
If you don't measure up, then you have to be pretty shonky and why would you want to share airspace with people who are quite frankly a menace?
I don't and this is a very, very rare occurance fortunately as most people are either pretty good, or realise what their limitations are and are open to doing things properly.
They would be using their professional discretion. An FI refusing to sign your logbook because you are a blatant danger to yourself and others is doing the same thing.
As the rules are so open to interpretation, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing what I see as "best practise." If the law was written properly and said exactly what it meant, then I would follow it, but as it isn't, we have to muddle by the best way we can and do our utmost to keep our customers safe. If that means going beyond the letter of the law. So be it. You as a member sign the flying order book and if you don't accept it, then join another club.
If you don't measure up, then you have to be pretty shonky and why would you want to share airspace with people who are quite frankly a menace?
I don't and this is a very, very rare occurance fortunately as most people are either pretty good, or realise what their limitations are and are open to doing things properly.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Say Again Slowly.
What would you recommend if the AME mistakenly thinks clearly stated rules are fuzzy and insists on mis-applying his or her own interpretation in the belief that it's best practice?
What would you recommend if the AME mistakenly thinks clearly stated rules are fuzzy and insists on mis-applying his or her own interpretation in the belief that it's best practice?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, it is a flawed analogy. From what I understand the medical rules are very specific. You either fit into it or not.
So in that case there is no "fuzziness".
There is no mistaken belief here, the rules aren't clear. There are recommendations for the content of the 1 hour flight and some could easily argue that a "recommendation" from the regulator is tantamount to an instruction.
So in that case there is no "fuzziness".
There is no mistaken belief here, the rules aren't clear. There are recommendations for the content of the 1 hour flight and some could easily argue that a "recommendation" from the regulator is tantamount to an instruction.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
This is the extract from LASORS 2008 and does not really justify the 'test' or proficiency aspects in any way. When this requirement was introduced there was an element of 'test' which was quickly removed. Not quickly enough perhaps? There is a huge amount of information on timescales etc but only this on 'instructional flight' - largely because the CAA wanted an element of test - but there was no justification in the requirements and hence this fudge.
Most people will have no difficulty with proficiency training. But when you pay for a revalidation and someone refuses to give in - without any justification within the rules - then the issues begin
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.
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.
This is the extract from LASORS 2008 and does not really justify the 'test' or proficiency aspects in any way. When this requirement was introduced there was an element of 'test' which was quickly removed. Not quickly enough perhaps? There is a huge amount of information on timescales etc but only this on 'instructional flight' - largely because the CAA wanted an element of test - but there was no justification in the requirements and hence this fudge.
Most people will have no difficulty with proficiency training. But when you pay for a revalidation and someone refuses to give in - without any justification within the rules - then the issues begin
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Say Again Slowly, if the original very clear rules for our AME were confused by some unclear statement within a CAA document intended for a general readership, you'd expect the AME no longer to follow the clear rules contained within the legislation to which he is supposed to work, but to try to somehow incorporate this fuzzy statement into his medical assessment as he sees fit?