I think it’s a de facto result of the typical scenario: the customer turns up at a school to get the flight done, is paying them 50-100 whatever (or a couple of hundred or more if renting a plane from them) and the expectation is that he walks off with a signature.
Personally, I do that flight with a CRI friend and then walk along to an FE to sign the logbook. It’s the smoothest and cheapest way. I did ~350hrs during the previous 2 years so probably won’t kill anybody. And as with all checkrides etc I am sure everybody else does exactly the same. You don’t go looking for a new FI, FE, or (especially) an AME, ever 
Back on the topic, based on what everybody I know in France has told me in recent years, I am certain that this will never be challenged in France, because of local repercussions due to DGAC activity on the ground. The only possible legal challenge could come from some crowd-funded body whose funding and support are not visible. A flight sharing site could do it, but where will their money come from? A good barrister is about 10k for some homework and a day in court (I happen to know that). And you need to find one who is willing to get his hands dirty (I happen to know that, too). Special interest websites just don’t have that sort of money. Anybody can knock up a flight (cost) sharing website, and in the past just about everybody did knock up a “seat (cost) sharing” website. The barrier to entry is very low.
The more basic thing is that the “business” (since I am talking about a business model for the booking site) is limited to people who are familiar with GA travel, because you cannot just hang around with a PA28 because two big blokes with golf clubs will put you way over MTOW. And popping into turbulent IMC is going to scare most passengers for ever.
Then how many people will fly with strangers booked via a website? In the current climate….
I see this (advertised cost sharing) working to an extent which could revitalise GA, which is great. I just don’t see it working in a way where a money stream will develop, big enough for somebody to sit on it and skim a bit off the top.
There are also loads of other online options which will bite bits off around the edges of any business. For example the countless “Meetup” groups. Half the people on them are actually looking to meet somebody but they are great for arranging cost shared flights.
The instructor does not sign off that he was happy with the student’s performance. He signs off that the pilot was given instruction. I have no idea to what extent he has an obligation to do so.
Theoretically a pilot can just walk up to an instructor and ask him to do circuits for an hour in order to perfect his landings. That would count towards the revalidation, wouldn’t it? At least it used to although EASA I think is more specific about the contents of the revalidation requirements. I haven’t checked in a while, and everything is a moving target now.
Rwy20 said:
But relatively for a given A to B flight, GA will always have worse statistics than commercial air transport.
This is definitely true for flight hours and flight ratios, but is it also the same for passenger hours / passenger flight ratios?
I can’t recall seeing a study or statistic that was purely about passengers and excluded flights where there were no passengers. It will probably end up on the side of commercial airlines by a factor of ten or something, I just hadn’t seen the statistics broken out purely by passenger hours (excluding flights where there are no pax)
boscomantico wrote:
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
Aviathor wrote:
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.
boscomantico wrote:
Sure, as a last resort action that could work.
No – as a last resort, you send the relevant form to your competent authority to get the revalidation. This is how it did this last year. In fact, the CAA sent me a new print-out of the license with the updated validity date and charged me some 70 quid.
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)?
The CAA doesn’t – so why would an FE?
Theoretically a pilot can just walk up to an instructor and ask him to do circuits for an hour in order to perfect his landings. That would count towards the revalidation, wouldn’t it? At least it used to although EASA I think is more specific about the contents of the revalidation requirements. I haven’t checked in a while, and everything is a moving target now.
Definitely not in Austria. Austrocontrol publishes a detailed program for these flights. I suppose other CAA’s do the same.
Here is how it works in practice. Based on sample of one.
A somewhat un-current chap turns up for his training flight. We go out into the local area, a bit rusty, PFL needs a couple of goes to get even close to a field, and the approach back at base was too fast. All in all – didn’t need to intervene other than prompt verbally, but not great.
Debrief – "hey, that wasn’t great [in a bit more detail], how about we do some more tomorrow before you get your signature?
Another training flight sorted him to a more reasonable standard.
And this is the reality. The instructor instructs and advises, the sensible pilot listens. The case that a pilot, even after strong advice from the instructor, then proceeds to do the revalidation regardless and does not take further training is a bit theoretical.
What do the French themselves say about this?
I don’t know if this is representative of french pilots. But there have been several editorials in the french “Aviation et Pilote” magazine devoted to the question. At first they pointed out that the idea itself of a cost sharing site was seen as positive but said there may be some issues mostly related to the situation not sufficiently clear in their opinion as related to the law and assurance in case of an accident. They saw the question as an opposition between some young guys (the site founders) being involved with modern technology searching for application to aviation and a good enterprise spirit and some conservative (older pilots) guys that had seen pilots being prosecuted and being in trouble quite quickly whenever there were any problem with CAA or assurance.
It seemed that the magazine and the site guys discussed the evolution that was going on in the mean time as seen by both sides.
In their september edition finally A&P titles: A questionable decree
as related to the law and assurance in case of an accident
Did they identify anything specific? The pilot is PIC in accordance with his/her PPL privileges. The passengers are contributing IAW the law. How can there be an additional liability?
It seems to me that the DGAC (and possibly others lower down in the GA scene) have concerns which they don’t want to voice openly and in specific terms. We had the same issue with the UK AOPA mentoring scheme and the need for insurance there. In that case, the insurance was needed but for an entirely different purpose (protection for AOPA itself because they were qualifying the mentors, which is obviously “risky”) but nobody would admit it openly.
