AF wrote:
Surely that incident, plus the Egypt crash in the Med last year, along with a few others puts the number higher for Commercial than GA, no?
Maybe the absolute number, which is to be expected with 3.441 billion passengers carried globally per year (according to World Bank). But relatively for a given A to B flight, GA will always have worse statistics than commercial air transport. The real discussion is how to make passengers of flight sharing platforms aware of this risk (Wingly does this alright IMO) and at what point it would be justified for the state to intervene because the risk is judged too high. In my view, the DGAC clearly goes over the top and there is no way they can justify their rules with reason or data.
AF wrote:
proof can be found in the form of a commercial jet being voluntarily flown into a mountain with scores of people onboard
That was indeed very bad decision making by the said pilot. But that means people should fly more with private pilots, because we actually do it for fun and if we really want to crash it, we can have the planes without passengers just as well for this.
The cost sharing platforms say that the passengers will evaluate the pilot, but how can they?
There is a big liability issue (on the website owner) if they perform any pilot evaluation or vetting.
This was the problem facing the UK AOPA mentoring scheme. They in effect evaluate pilots, by requiring certain qualifications e.g. the AOPA Silver Wings (I cannot find the requirements on the AOPA site but there is plenty elsewhere on google from the time) and this required AOPA to take out insurance to protect itself. They never admitted this (an AOPA insider told me) and gave the impression that the insurance was for the mentor’s benefit. I did some research at the time with insurers and none could see any reason to protect the mentor. Obviously, so long as there is no question as to who is PIC, etc.
It has often been sad that an FI doing the one-hour training flight can (or is supposed to) refuse signing the revalidation of he is not satisfied with the performance of the pilot, but indeed, there doesn’t seem to be a regulation saying so.
I have never heard of the FI (or CRI) refusing to sign someone off.
I reckon the DGAC is trying to push the genie back into the bottle on what exactly constitutes advertising. What were the exact French rules before this? (sorry if I asked this Q before)
boscomantico wrote:
It has often been sad that an FI doing the one-hour training flight can (or is supposed to) refuse signing the revalidation of he is not satisfied with the performance of the pilot, but indeed, there doesn’t seem to be a regulation saying so.
Revalidation does not require any form of signature from the instructor that conducted the training flight. That seems to be an unfortunate misunderstanding of the rule. The version I have heard is that some instructors, if they are very unpleased with the performance, finishes the flight before block 1.0. That will make the flight invalid for the purpose of revalidation.
Fly310 wrote:
The version I have heard is that some instructors, if they are very unpleased with the performance, finishes the flight before block 1.0. That will make the flight invalid for the purpose of revalidation.
Unless the student convinces the same instructor to go up with him again after that flight, because now (and I think that was a change that was made not too long ago), you can also do the one hour over a maximum of three flights with the same instructor.
Yeah, but he can always refuse to fly. :)
Revalidation does not require any form of signature from the instructor that conducted the training flight
In practice it does, because, normally, the instructor you flew with must also sign the revalidation (extension of your class rating validity) on your license
Peter wrote:
It has often been sad that an FI doing the one-hour training flight can (or is supposed to) refuse signing the revalidation of he is not satisfied with the performance of the pilot, but indeed, there doesn’t seem to be a regulation saying so.
The instructor does not need to sign the revalidation. Any examiner can do so as long as you satisfy the 12/12/12 requirement and have had one hour of instruction.
Sure, as a last resort action that could work.
But the question I ask myself is: doesn’t the examiner (I am none) want to see some proof that the one hour flight with an instructor has taken place (not just the logbook entry by the pilot himself)?
Of course he does. Does the instructor have any choice but signing the students logbook for instruction given?
Confused. Where (in Part-FCL) is it written the an instructor is obliged to sign something in the pilot’s logbook after the one-hour training flight?
