From here?
Peter wrote:
On a “club/rental” checkout, anybody can refuse anything Loads of bodies refuse a rental to someone who has not flown for 30 days, for example.
I have known FIs to refuse to sign off EASA bi-annuals here and require more training before they set their signature on the paper work
No, we don’t need additional rules, but we need the current ones (PPL Syllabus) followed and if necessarily adapted in order to provide better value for the same money. I think this is not a goal people will object to too much.
Under FAA rules, there is no PPL syllabus except for having performed certain cross countries, a few hours night flying and a few other broad guidelines. It makes no difference to the safety record. If the student passes the practical test, they have demonstrated the very most basic skills. They then have only a license to learn more themselves.
The idea that refined structure in private pilot training increases safety thereafter is fundamentally wrong. Safety in flying is enhanced by an attitude that you must learn and prepare yourself, it is nobody else’s responsibility, and by an understanding that you have not been taught all you may need to know. It is the initiative of the pilot in learning and preparing for a given flight that matters most, and one successful flight at a time the pilot gains ability.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
I have known FIs to refuse to sign off EASA bi-annuals here and require more training before they set their signature on the paper work
That is an interesting legal situation. Most refresher training should go on until the instructor feels that the pilot has the necessary competence. Refresher training for the revalidation of SEP is an exception in that part-FCL simply states that one hour of refresher training is required, There is no provision for demanding more.
Refresher training for the revalidation of SEP is an exception in that part-FCL simply states that one hour of refresher training is required, There is no provision for demanding more.
I’m not sure where the concept of a mandatory two hours with an instructor arose first, in the US it was some time in the early ‘70s IIRC, but under FAA rules it is explicitly NOT a test, with NO effect on the status of one’s pilot certificate. The early ‘70s idea that has never changed was only to mandate a little training periodically as a kind of feel good thing, not to maintain pilot skills at e.g. the level of practical test standard or any other standard.
Having said that, in the real world an instructor doesn’t have to sign anything he doesn’t want to sign including a pilot’s logbook for a flight review. In that way there is a kind of informal standard so it’s best that the pilot and instructor agree on the ground rules before agreeing to conduct a flight review.
Silvaire wrote:
Under FAA rules, there is no PPL syllabus except for having performed certain cross countries, a few hours night flying and a few other broad guidelines.
Well, as you say, a few cross countries and night flying, that is more than required for the EASA PPL. And I doubt that anyone would be written off for the PPL checkride if he had only ever flown at 2000 ft or below and within a few NM of their homestead. I found the US schools pretty hands on and to the point when training with them. And the Orals which go before the checkride are pretty good as well. The fact alone that there is night flying required (which is a separate rating in EASA-FCL) sais a lot.
Silvaire wrote:
The idea that refined structure in private pilot training increases safety thereafter is fundamentally wrong. Safety in flying is enhanced by an attitude that you must learn and prepare yourself, it is nobody else’s responsibility, and by an understanding that you have not been taught all you may need to know. It is the initiative of the pilot in learning and preparing for a given flight that matters most, and one successful flight at a time the pilot gains ability.
I think once again it’s difficult to compare. Many FI’s in the US are usually pretty fresh themselves and on the way to their 1500 hrs to get their ATPL. So they are quite up to speed. Lots of FI’s here are folks who have been teaching for a very long time and never flew anything serious, nor had the ambition.
Well, as you say, a few cross countries and night flying, that is more than required for the EASA PPL. And I doubt that anyone would be written off for the PPL checkride if he had only ever flown at 2000 ft or below and within a few NM of their homestead. I found the US schools pretty hands on and to the point when training with them. And the Orals which go before the checkride are pretty good as well. The fact alone that there is night flying required (which is a separate rating in EASA-FCL) says a lot.
My understanding was that there are defined lesson plans for PPL training in e.g. the UK, the summation of which forms a schools syllabus. There is regardless no such thing for an FAA private pilot certificate, with the exception of requiring a solo cross county and some night dual it is largely left up to the instructor how he prepares the student to pass the oral and practical tests. And by the way, a student can take the FAA practical test in a non-electrical aircraft with no radio.
Of course FAA pilot pilot training is effective, it’s been developed over many thousands of students and over many years. The point there is that a detailed syllabus for private pilot training has proven to add no value, and changing mandated nuances of how private pilots are trained therefore won’t have any effect on safety either. What will have an effect is making sure students understand that their PPL training is NOT all they need to know to fly anywhere, any time. They will instead need to prepare themselves for many flights individually, to slowly expand their individual envelope.
As an aside, in my area you could not get a private certificate without climbing from near sea level to say 5000 feet on most flights away from the airport, and for typical cross countries the student would be climbing to 7500 feet.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That is an interesting legal situation. Most refresher training should go on until the instructor feels that the pilot has the necessary competence. Refresher training for the revalidation of SEP is an exception in that part-FCL simply states that one hour of refresher training is required, There is no provision for demanding more.
The class rating is not formally revalidated by the training flight but by entering the endorsement into the pilots license, for which the training flight is a requirement (among others). There is no legal way a pilot could force the instructor to do so. And even if someone tried, this would probably mean the end of their happy flying days in a club (and probably even commercial flight school) context.
For LAPL, there is nothing to write on license, it’s signature on 1h PUT and rolling currency that matters
For PPL, an instructor has to sign pilot logbook after 1h PUT, however, an FCL945 can of course refuse to endorse SEP on license
Now here is the fun part,
None of this is relevant to this topic: one can do SEP sign-off tasting aerobatics or tail-wheels then go fly SR20 into a hill
Thomas_R wrote:
There is no legal way a pilot could force the instructor to do so.
Actually there is. An instructor may or may not be authorised by his/her competent authority to him/herself enter the endorsement in the pilot’s license, but if (s)he is, then (s)he has an obligation to do so.
FCL.945 Obligations for instructors
Upon completion of the training flight for the revalidation of an SEP or TMG class rating in accordance with FCL.740.A(b)(1) and only in the event of fulfilment of all the other revalidation criteria required by FCL.740.A(b)(1) the instructor shall endorse the applicant’s licence with the new expiry date of the rating or certificate, if specifically authorised for that purpose by the competent authority responsible for the applicant’s licence
Note the word “shall”.
only in the event of fulfilment of all the other revalidation criteria required by FCL.740.A(b)(1) the instructor shall endorse the applicant’s licence with the new expiry date of the rating or certificate.
Note the word “shall”
Conducting legal proceedings while standing on the ramp is probably not the best approach IMO.
It would be a lot better to agree beforehand with the instructor on HIS ground rules and find them mutually acceptable than to try, doubtless ineffectually given the inability to force anything, to pry a logbook entry out of him by quoting the word “shall” in relation to the above revalidation requirement. Without some mutual understanding if the instructor didn’t like your flying, he’ll probably walk away regardless.
Your objective is to get the signature without hassles.
