So my question is, does PEC actually feature in the 'rules' anywhere or is it just found in textbooks and classrooms?
It is an FTO invention, done to improve the pass rates on the IRT 
One could also argue that the shagged altimeters in common use can't be quite relied on for the 200ft. But on an N-reg you have a mandatory 2-yearly altimeter check.
If you look at a Jepp plate depicting a standard ILS, and there are no other factors (e.g. terrain) the DH will be 200ft AAL.
When sat on the ground, my altimeters consistently display around 50' less than they should (per airfield elevation) when I set a QNH that I'm passed
I am not sure but probably that altimeter would fail the FAA altimeter test.
Where I am based at least, the training establishment doesn't like people who do this. They want you to learn only from them, not push your boundaries, and they view anyone with an independent opinion who backs their own judgement over institutional dogma as a dangerous maverick.
Where I fly from, it is encouraged for PPL students to fly with others, especially if they cant see light at the end of the tunnel and wonder whether a PPL is worth it. We have one person who has been to France with me, Iceland with someone else (also in a PA28), and probably has more hours as a passenger than a student. However, if any fly with me, I tell them that flying is more enjoyable once you have the license, and luxuries like the SkyDemon, GNS430 and the autopilot are somethign they will just have to wait for :-)
I can understand schools not wanting post-PPL's teaching their student non-standard procedures or installing bad habits though, so I never attempt to teach anything, other than that flying can be relaxing and enjoyable once you are comfortable with the environment.
I know EXACTLY what Peter is talking about and I think it is one of GA's main problems. It frustrated every single Student i know, including me, my wife and some of my best friends.
PiperArcher, I don't think it's especially that they don't want us near students or newly-qualified PPLs, more that they are very anal about information sources being 'official', generally discourage attempting anything one hasn't attempted before, and view independent thought as dangerous.
A couple of sample informal discussions in the clubhouse. Not real, but typical of what you might hear. The instructor could be one of several.
Instructor: "Well the forecast for Exeter is SCT010, so you should be ok with your 500' absolute minimum for the ILS." Me: "Well technically I think the legal DH for me on that approach is actually 200'. But yes, it does look well within limits." Instructor: "You need to be careful." Me (thought only): "Well I am going flying, so that's kind of a given..."
Instructor: "So you're going to launch after all. Cloud looks a bit low and the weather code on the whiteboard is red, what's the plan?" Me: "Punch through this layer and get on top. Looks like the tops are about 3,000ft." Instructor: "Has an instructor reported that back over the radio?" Me: "No, that's from the Skew-T balloon launch data this morning. Very obvious temp/dew point separation at around 3,000ft based on the current QNH". Instructor: "That's not official, you shouldn't rely on that." Me: "Well, in the very unlikely event that it is solid IMC up to 10,000ft then I can always turn back. The base here is high enough for a cloud break". Instructor: "You know, the IMCr is really just for emergencies..."
DH is easy, and also easily done from memory if you remember the system minima for each approach type, so that you don't fly the NDB approach down to 250ft because of a low OCA...
Don't forget the visibility calculation, though...
Required RVR/visibility (m) = [(DH/MDH (ft) × 0,3048)/tan alpha] – length of approach lights (m)
In practice, you use a simple table, of course...
IMC-rated, this is a non-issue as your licence limit is 1800m visibility, which is good enough for a DH of 550ft so you see the approach lights when you break out of cloud.
Even with my minimal interactions with UK FTOs, I've overheard similar conversations (which make me despair). It even happens in US FTO (the part-141 places full of people on the airline track, who are only interested in building hours). I think it's an unfortunate consequence of most of the instructors in these organizations having about 100% of their experience purely in the flight training environment.
While I learned that freelance instructors are allowed in Europe, they still have to be attached to an FTO and can't (say) give me instruction in my own aircraft (generally). I have to wonder if these instructors only get to instruct if they only follow the orthodoxy of the FTO (in other words, are they really independent?)
I have to wonder if these instructors only get to instruct if they only follow the orthodoxy of the FTO (in other words, are they really independent?)
Im my experience they get paid so little that they love bad mouthing the FTO they work for
I think it's an unfortunate consequence of most of the instructors in these organizations having about 100% of their experience purely in the flight training environment.
Spot on. At the school where I [now used to] teach, only the CFI had any real experience other than training ab-initio PPL - and he was ex-military, so not exactly touring...
On the other hand, as instructor one has many occasions to see stupendous displays of bad judgement by aircraft hirers. And one I started doing training flights for SEP rating revalidation or hire checks, I quickly realised that for many pilots, the day they got their PPL was the peak of their performance, not the beginning of a long improvement.
So some of the caution that we see at schools is just them being conservative in the light of variable pilot quality.
I have to wonder if these instructors only get to instruct if they only follow the orthodoxy of the FTO (in other words, are they really independent?)
It depends on the ATO.
For the ab-initio-training, any instructor will have to use the syllabus as laid out in the approved manual, which can be quite tight and even include having standard navigation routes for the cross-country training, and precise weather limitations for training depending on exercise etc.
For any training that is not "for the issue of a licence or rating", there normally is no syllabus. If you want to, say, learn how to fly RNAV approaches, practice short field technique, learn flying in mountainous areas, or just do some general training, anything goes, although probably the CFI or head of training would want to know what is going on. But that training does not require an ATO, anyway.
In the UK, it is easy to get training on your own aircraft - the school only has to notify the CAA that the aircraft is used for training, and if it is N-Reg, you will need approval for "Aerial Work" by the DOT, which is normally granted to the owner.
The school I trained at was happy with BYOA ("bring your own aircraft") - one of my students bought an Arrow right after first solo and we finished his PPL in that.
PiperArcher, I don't think it's especially that they don't want us near students or newly-qualified PPLs, more that they are very anal about information sources being 'official', generally discourage attempting anything one hasn't attempted before, and view independent thought as dangerous.
I read your scenario with interest, and it would be very limiting to ones ability to develop. Where I fly from you need a signoff to fly a club aircraft from instructors post-PPL, but if you have a reasoned argument (like yours), then you would generally get the signoff. Maybe other places are stricter, but not necessarily safer. At the end of the day its their insurance they are protecting I guess. . But if you fly your own aircraft, then its pretty much up to you what you do, and as long as you do it safely, thats where you can begin to use more modern and real world assessment techniques :-)
I read your scenario with interest, and it would be very limiting to ones ability to develop. Where I fly from you need a signoff to fly a club aircraft from instructors post-PPL, but if you have a reasoned argument (like yours), then you would generally get the signoff. Maybe other places are stricter, but not necessarily safer. At the end of the day its their insurance they are protecting I guess. . But if you fly your own aircraft, then its pretty much up to you what you do, and as long as you do it safely, thats where you can begin to use more modern and real world assessment techniques :-)
Well it is the same at my place, pretty much. In theory the flying order book says that any landaway in a club aircraft needs the approval of an instructor, but in reality anyone who isn't a very recently-qualified PPL doesn't bother asking as long as it isn't going abroad or overnight.
There's also a relatively complex (not totally incomprehensible, but too much for me to remember without looking) matrix of who's allowed to fly club aircraft and how far away in various 'colour code' weather conditions, based upon whether you have an IMCr or not. If you want to do more that what the matrix/colour code says you're allowed, then you need an instructor's permission.
Of course now I'm flying my own (shared) aircraft none of this matters. But I did have cause to fly a club aircraft recently, and having planned the mission I then found myself thinking "oh crikey, are the ops desk going to let me take the plane?"
If you do everything they say and don't do your own planning, research, learning, exploring, etc. then it is very limiting to one's development as a pilot. There are some perfectly competent (and young-ish) aviators who are not progressing beyond £200 burger runs to the same old destinations simply because they don't quite realise that they need to manage the whole learning process themselves and that the club is not the only source of information.
