Eeejits!

[David Wright]

Shame, the Red's had to call off their display TWICE at Kemble today, due to
airspace breaches by other aircraft. First time caused a little bit of a gap
mid-display, second time seemed pretty terminal.

First time I've personally seen this happen, although I'm sure not the first
ever.

D.

[Greg]

Post by David Wright
First time I've personally seen this happen, although I'm sure not the first
ever.

Definitely not the first, IIRC it happened at Elvington not so long ago when
a flock of idiots in microlights did it.

Greg

[Peter Twydell]

Post by David Wright
Shame, the Red's had to call off their display TWICE at Kemble today, due to
airspace breaches by other aircraft. First time caused a little bit of a gap
mid-display, second time seemed pretty terminal.
First time I've personally seen this happen, although I'm sure not the first
ever.
D.

You beat me to it with the post. I was VERY pissed off, along with
thousands of others. The last two Reds shows I saw were not the full
display, die to cloudbase and ATC restrictions, so I thought there was
going to be the whole thing at last..

What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

[David Wright]

Post by Peter Twydell
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

I supposed it depends if they can be traced - I seem to recall the last time
it happened eagle eyed public with cameras were able to ID the culprit, and
they got a fine. This time around, there didn't seem to be anything
visible - but Red 1 seemed to mention it as he came back over the hedges
from afar, which is out of sight of the crowd line.

No doubt if they didn't get the reg, they'll get away with it.

D.

[Stephen]

Post by David Wright

Post by Peter Twydell
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

I supposed it depends if they can be traced - I seem to recall the last time

They have more facilities at their disposal to catch the culprit than just
relying on someone spotting them.

I fly gliders at Aston Down which was within the Red Arrows TRA. Kemble
were on to us 15 min before the start of the TRA saying Brize Radar had a
contact* above Aston Down. This demonstrates that they are monitoring the
airspace by radar and not just relying on the leader's lookout. As the
radar is recorded they can rewind it and see where someone came from - which
is what they frequently do to investigate airproxes.

Stephen

* It was a glider, the pilot of which was well aware of the TRA and who
landed before the start.

[Peter]

Post by Stephen
They have more facilities at their disposal to catch the culprit than just
relying on someone spotting them.

Yes, they trace the aircraft with various radar facilities. The UK is
pretty well covered by radar, most of it not available as a service to
VFR traffic.

[Peter]

Post by Peter Twydell
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

The CAA will probably prosecute. They did that last year (or the one
before) on a pilot from Belgium, I think. He did the classic mistake
of having a planned flight but then he did a little local bit of
sightseeing and wondered off his planned route.

However, one can always say "there are no bad soldiers, only bad
officers". When I did my PPL in 2000/01 I was never taught how to get
notams. The CFI pinned a list to the school noticeboard, and the
instructor would look at it on the first flight that day. That's
useless for long flights.

Now we have www.ais.org.uk online, so today it's really easy to do
(the narrow route briefing especially is the one to use) but the great
majority of pilots will have never heard of it - unless they read the
various internet pilot forums, which I am sure most PPLs don't do. The
internet pilot information / weather scene isn't normally taught.

One gets the same issues with fuel planning. Students are taught to
rely on the written records back at the school, and not necessarily on
a physical fuel check.

If you get a good lawyer who is willing to drag the training business
involved through the dirt then you can get off and it's been done in
some high profile cases.

That's assuming he got his PPL(M) recently, of course. He might have
done it many years ago, and been flying outside the training system
for 10-20 years. Do microlights have a bi-annual check, where flight
planning is checked?

[Andy R]

Post by Peter

Post by Peter Twydell
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

The CAA will probably prosecute. They did that last year (or the one
before) on a pilot from Belgium, I think. He did the classic mistake
of having a planned flight but then he did a little local bit of
sightseeing and wondered off his planned route.

There but for the grace of God....

Post by Peter
However, one can always say "there are no bad soldiers, only bad
officers". When I did my PPL in 2000/01 I was never taught how to get
notams. The CFI pinned a list to the school noticeboard, and the
instructor would look at it on the first flight that day. That's
useless for long flights.
Now we have www.ais.org.uk online, so today it's really easy to do
(the narrow route briefing especially is the one to use) but the great
majority of pilots will have never heard of it - unless they read the
various internet pilot forums, which I am sure most PPLs don't do. The
internet pilot information / weather scene isn't normally taught.
One gets the same issues with fuel planning. Students are taught to
rely on the written records back at the school, and not necessarily on
a physical fuel check.

IMHO the problem here is the transition from student to PPL. When you're a
student the instructor's got his own licence to consider. He also flies the
same a/c day in, day out so knows the fuel burn and any idiosyncrasies.
When you turn up as a PPL you're going in relatively cold with little
support (the instructor doesn't get paid for helping you and in any case
he's probably busy) and you're expected to know everything necessary to plan
and conduct the flight.

Post by Peter
If you get a good lawyer who is willing to drag the training business
involved through the dirt then you can get off and it's been done in
some high profile cases.
That's assuming he got his PPL(M) recently, of course. He might have
done it many years ago, and been flying outside the training system
for 10-20 years. Do microlights have a bi-annual check, where flight
planning is checked?

Does anybody?

I'd imagine most people's 2 yearly flight with an instructor involves
general handling, PFLs etc. I combine mine with an IMC renewal to keep the
cost down. Apart from navex's on the PPL and IMC courses I don't s'pose
anybody gets any further flight planning instruction unless they ask.

When I learnt 20 years ago in the wilds of east Anglia flight planning by
the instructors was pretty poor. Decent met was a struggle to get, the AIP
was a struggle to keep up to date and notams were hit and miss but nobody
bothered because the airspace was (still is) mainly uncontrolled and you
could always get a decent service from one of the many military units who'd
tell you about temporary restrictions etc.

Nowadays flight planning's easy and, as you say, with all the information
readily available, there's no real excuse for screwing up big time. Having
the info at home also makes planning much easier, spreading everything out
on the dining room table and having uninterrupted internet access is
infinately preferable to scratching about for space in a flying club.

Rgds

Andy R

[Peter]

Post by Andy R
I'd imagine most people's 2 yearly flight with an instructor involves
general handling, PFLs etc. I combine mine with an IMC renewal to keep the
cost down. Apart from navex's on the PPL and IMC courses I don't s'pose
anybody gets any further flight planning instruction unless they ask.

A bit daft for the CAA to complain about infringements then, isn't it?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse but this is going much too far.

Especially given their tactic of getting a guilty plea by threatening
large costs if a NG plea is put in. The average pilot can't foot a 10k
bill, regardless of the rights or wrongs of it.

[Andy R]

Post by Peter

Post by Andy R
I'd imagine most people's 2 yearly flight with an instructor involves
general handling, PFLs etc. I combine mine with an IMC renewal to keep the
cost down. Apart from navex's on the PPL and IMC courses I don't s'pose
anybody gets any further flight planning instruction unless they ask.

A bit daft for the CAA to complain about infringements then, isn't it?

Not really, it's the same principle as driving, it's up to you to be aware
of changes to legislation. Rarely does anybody go out of their way to
contact every motorist.

Post by Peter
Ignorance of the law is no excuse but this is going much too far.
Especially given their tactic of getting a guilty plea by threatening
large costs if a NG plea is put in. The average pilot can't foot a 10k
bill, regardless of the rights or wrongs of it.

This is where it's desperately unfair. A similar gravity road traffic
offence would incurr a sensible fine and costs of maybe a few hundred quid.

Rgds

Andy R

[Peter]

Post by Andy R

Post by Peter
A bit daft for the CAA to complain about infringements then, isn't it?

Not really, it's the same principle as driving, it's up to you to be aware
of changes to legislation. Rarely does anybody go out of their way to
contact every motorist.

Not really comparable though. You can drive anywhere, no need to know
anything.

In flying, you have to check notams and it's obvious the process is
not taught properly, if at all. It's quite a specialised area, which
IMHO doesn't compare with anything else in normal life, where
ignorance of the law is no excuse and for good reasons.

[Peter Twydell]

Post by Peter Twydell

Post by David Wright
Shame, the Red's had to call off their display TWICE at Kemble today, due to
airspace breaches by other aircraft. First time caused a little bit of a gap
mid-display, second time seemed pretty terminal.
First time I've personally seen this happen, although I'm sure not the first
ever.
D.

You beat me to it with the post. I was VERY pissed off, along with
thousands of others. The last two Reds shows I saw were not the full
display, die to cloudbase and ATC restrictions, so I thought there was
going to be the whole thing at last..
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

Lots of interesting replies, but no-one's actually answered the question
yet!

[Stephen]

Post by Peter Twydell
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

£3000 fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4582237.stm

Stephen

[David Wright]

Post by Stephen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4582237.stm

"Buuron's plane was later traced from several photographs taken by shocked
spectators at the event."

This is what I was referring to earlier - no radar references there.

D.

[Stephen]

Post by David Wright

Post by Stephen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4582237.stm

"Buuron's plane was later traced from several photographs taken by shocked
spectators at the event."
This is what I was referring to earlier - no radar references there.

Did I say there were? What I said was that, in my experience from
yesterday, they do use radar to protect the TRA - even if there is no radar
at the display venue. I didn't say that they used it to find the culprit in
this specific instance.

Stephen

[David Wright]

Post by Stephen
Did I say there were? What I said was that, in my experience from
yesterday, they do use radar to protect the TRA - even if there is no
radar at the display venue. I didn't say that they used it to find the
culprit in this specific instance.

My bad - wasn't meant to be a criticism, just that this was my recollection
of the facts from a previous event! Sorry.

D.

[Peter]

Post by Stephen

Post by Peter Twydell
What punishment is meted out to the dickhead pilots who perpetrate such
idiocy?

£3000 fine.

That's probably about the size of it, plus CAA costs of a few k on top
of that. The CAA costs go way up if the defendant pleads NG.

Please don't use the phrase "dickhead pilots". I can give you plenty
of examples of real dickhead pilots but we don't know if this one was
one of them.

I suggest you write to the CAA and ask them why

a) getting notams is often not taught in PPL training

b) getting notams via the internet (usually the best way) is almost
never taught in PPL training

c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

d) the use of GPS (by far the best way to navigate) is not taught in
the PPL at all, and is frowned upon by just about all the "official"
bodies.

Give it about 25 years and something might change :)

[Tim Ward]

Post by Peter
a) getting notams is often not taught in PPL training

I *was* taught.

Post by Peter
b) getting notams via the internet (usually the best way) is almost
never taught in PPL training

... but not that, as they weren't available via internet then. The club has
an internet terminal, as well as the day's notams printed out and pinned to
the notice board every day.

Post by Peter
c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

Oh Yes It Is. I wouldn't have got as far as the aircraft if I hadn't been
able to tell the instructor what notams were relevant that day.

Post by Peter
d) the use of GPS (by far the best way to navigate) is not taught in
the PPL at all, and is frowned upon by just about all the "official"
bodies.

Coo! - you can get GPSs that automagically download notams off air, and plot
them on their moving maps, without human intervention these days can you? -
that's an obvious use of the technology, but I hadn't realised all the
standards and interface issues had got sorted. Can you give us a model
number for a GPS box that has that feature?

[david]

I don't think it's got anything to do with being TAUGHT to get NOTAMS.
NOTAM format is a shambles and results in hundreds of errors in reading,
most of which do not come to anything.

I read NOTAMS till I'm sick of them every time I go to work, as does my
oppo, yet we still get caught out. How a PPL who might read them once a
month, or even once a week, is supposed to get to grips is byond me.
In this day and age to have NOTAMS so ridiculously abreviated and very
poorly presented ought to end in criminal procedings.

The same is true of so many aviation areas though. We now get our flight
plans from Jepp who present winds on route lik this "23059" which means that
at the level concerned the wind is from 230 at 59 kts. Not too bad you
might say. So what about "83004"?
Ah, well that means the wind speed exceeds 100 so you have to subtract 5
from the leading number and insert a '1' before the third! Hello?? Is
anyone with a brain aware this is 2001??

On a related note, did anyone see the Italian Tricolori, about ten years ago
at Boscombe airshow? Well THEY finsihed their show and then buggered off
straight thru SAM overhead, with nae'r a thought for the airspace
infringement!!

D

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Peter
a) getting notams is often not taught in PPL training

I *was* taught.

Post by Peter
b) getting notams via the internet (usually the best way) is almost
never taught in PPL training

... but not that, as they weren't available via internet then. The club
has an internet terminal, as well as the day's notams printed out and
pinned to the notice board every day.

Post by Peter
c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

Oh Yes It Is. I wouldn't have got as far as the aircraft if I hadn't been
able to tell the instructor what notams were relevant that day.

Post by Peter
d) the use of GPS (by far the best way to navigate) is not taught in
the PPL at all, and is frowned upon by just about all the "official"
bodies.

Coo! - you can get GPSs that automagically download notams off air, and
plot them on their moving maps, without human intervention these days can
you? - that's an obvious use of the technology, but I hadn't realised all
the standards and interface issues had got sorted. Can you give us a model
number for a GPS box that has that feature?
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

[Peter]

Post by david
I don't think it's got anything to do with being TAUGHT to get NOTAMS.
NOTAM format is a shambles and results in hundreds of errors in reading,
most of which do not come to anything.

The Narrow Route Briefing is the way to do this, but few people know
about it. It's also not useful for IFR traffic because one almost
never flies the filed route anyway.

Post by david
I read NOTAMS till I'm sick of them every time I go to work, as does my
oppo, yet we still get caught out. How a PPL who might read them once a
month, or even once a week, is supposed to get to grips is byond me.
In this day and age to have NOTAMS so ridiculously abreviated and very
poorly presented ought to end in criminal procedings.
The same is true of so many aviation areas though. We now get our flight
plans from Jepp who present winds on route lik this "23059" which means that
at the level concerned the wind is from 230 at 59 kts. Not too bad you
might say. So what about "83004"?
Ah, well that means the wind speed exceeds 100 so you have to subtract 5
from the leading number and insert a '1' before the third! Hello?? Is
anyone with a brain aware this is 2001??

The wonders of the telex network :)

I think that would be 230/140, yes? I did this stuff for the FAA IR;
they still use this in the USA. Doesn't seem right though.

[david]

Post by Peter

Post by david
might say. So what about "83004"?
Ah, well that means the wind speed exceeds 100 so you have to subtract 5
from the leading number and insert a '1' before the third! Hello?? Is
anyone with a brain aware this is 2001??

I think that would be 230/140, yes?

Oops, ought to read 8304.


He he. Almost...330 / 104. But thanks for just beautifully proving the
point!!

David <g>

[David Cartwright]

Post by david
I read NOTAMS till I'm sick of them every time I go to work, as does my
oppo, yet we still get caught out. How a PPL who might read them once a
month, or even once a week, is supposed to get to grips is byond me.
In this day and age to have NOTAMS so ridiculously abreviated and very
poorly presented ought to end in criminal procedings.

Couldn't agree more. The aviation information world needs to wake up and
realise that we're no longer limited to 75-letters-per-second telex links
and the like - not just for NOTAMS but also for TAFs, METARs and any other
stuff that's ridiculously abbreviated/encoded.

A couple of years back I set a question for a programming competition I ran
for a large IT firm - the task was to take a TAF and translate it into
English. One of the teams approached me afterwards and said: "That wasn't
exactly real-world, was it? I bet they don't really dish it out in this
hieroglyphic form these days". Ho hum.

D.

[Simon Hobson]

Post by david
I don't think it's got anything to do with being TAUGHT to get NOTAMS.
NOTAM format is a shambles and results in hundreds of errors in reading,
most of which do not come to anything.
I read NOTAMS till I'm sick of them every time I go to work, as does my
oppo, yet we still get caught out. How a PPL who might read them once a
month, or even once a week, is supposed to get to grips is byond me.
In this day and age to have NOTAMS so ridiculously abreviated and very
poorly presented ought to end in criminal procedings.

I agree, the utter crap that is allowed through should mean someone being
held criminally negligent. The number of notams that plotting tools like
NotamPlot can't handle tells you how bad the information is.

We regularly see notams that either don't give a location other than the
lat/long (I don't have a mental picture of the grid overlay) or use the name
of some obscure village that only locals will have heard of, unless you know
the area you will never know where the village of Little Trumpton is - so how
the hell do you know if you're going near it ?

It's time the CAA actually did something positive and mandated some better
standards for UK sourced notams. It CAN do it, there is no international
obligation that prevents it, all it has to do is set down standards and
reject any submissions that don't cut it.

For starters, they should all have sensible geographic coverage. What use is
a notam that covers the whole of the UK - as well as huge chunks of the
surrounding FIRs ?

What use are notams that don't actually convey any information ? My favourite
example is when one of the Bristol airports swapped frequency with another
airport. There were two notams :

Airport X. App frequency change from abc.de to klm.no, AIC blah applies.

Airport Y. Frequency change, AIC blah applies.

One was brief and informative - for most pilots it conveyed all the
information they need to know in just a few words. The other, IMHO should
have been rejected as not fit for purpose - again IMHO, both the person who
submitted it, and the person who accepted it should have been reprimanded for
it.

Here endeth todays rant !

[Peter]

Post by Simon Hobson
I agree, the utter crap that is allowed through should mean someone being
held criminally negligent. The number of notams that plotting tools like
NotamPlot can't handle tells you how bad the information is.

I don't disagree but I would argue that a great attraction of flying
is to be able to go abroad, and if the UK notam feed was cleaned up
but foreign ones were left as they were (which is the very best
scenario) then the pilot would still have to learn to read when they
venture abroad.

But there is no prospect of the UK feed being changed. There are
several categories of contributors and they just churn out the stuff.

Post by Simon Hobson
We regularly see notams that either don't give a location other than the
lat/long (I don't have a mental picture of the grid overlay) or use the name
of some obscure village that only locals will have heard of, unless you know
the area you will never know where the village of Little Trumpton is - so how
the hell do you know if you're going near it ?

For every VFR bimbler who will ask for lat/long or a navaid there will
be half a dozen who will vigorously demand "Little Trumpton" :)

Post by Simon Hobson
It's time the CAA actually did something positive and mandated some better
standards for UK sourced notams. It CAN do it, there is no international
obligation that prevents it, all it has to do is set down standards and
reject any submissions that don't cut it.

The CAA is now finished - except as an EASA *enforcement* body. They
are quite fond of telling people that, too.

Post by Simon Hobson
For starters, they should all have sensible geographic coverage. What use is
a notam that covers the whole of the UK - as well as huge chunks of the
surrounding FIRs ?

A large part of the problem is that the coverage of a notam is
specified by a circle. If your route intersects that circle, it gets
picked up. This is really stupid; a lot of areas are not circles and
the circle has to be big enough to enclose the whole object.

Algorithms that can detect if a line intersects an arbitrary shape
have been around since the earliest days of AI in the 1960s.

Post by Simon Hobson
What use are notams that don't actually convey any information ? My favourite
example is when one of the Bristol airports swapped frequency with another
Airport X. App frequency change from abc.de to klm.no, AIC blah applies.
Airport Y. Frequency change, AIC blah applies.

I think referring to an AIC or AIP for any meaning is stupid because
few pilots will bother to look it up. The reference should be provided
(preferably as a URL) but the notam should contain all the relevant
info itself.

However, I blame the training business (and their syllabus) squarely
for this stuff. There is no problem getting and reading a narrow route
briefing from ais.org.uk and it is very rarely that one has to plot
coordinate lists. Such lists tend to feature in NAVW notams which can
be ignored; aerial activity can happen anywhere anyway. The only time
one *has* to plot out coordinate lists is when the area is restricted
or prohibited (or it's Prince Charles going to lunch so it's a temp
Class A) and that is very rare.

[Simon Hobson]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Peter
c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

Oh Yes It Is. I wouldn't have got as far as the aircraft if I hadn't been
able to tell the instructor what notams were relevant that day.

<mounts soapbox>

Repeat after me :

There is no biannual CHECK for a JAA SEP(Land) rating.

It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.

The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.

Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.

<climbs off soapbox>

[Mike Lindsay]

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Peter
c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

Oh Yes It Is. I wouldn't have got as far as the aircraft if I hadn't been
able to tell the instructor what notams were relevant that day.

<mounts soapbox>
There is no biannual CHECK for a JAA SEP(Land) rating.
It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.
The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.
Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.
<climbs off soapbox>

Er, maybe you cant fail it, but the instructor can refuse to sign the
documentation. Don't ask me how I know!

[Simon Hobson]

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by Simon Hobson
It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.
The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.
Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.
<climbs off soapbox>

Er, maybe you cant fail it, but the instructor can refuse to sign the
documentation. Don't ask me how I know!

No he cannot ! Actually, I don't believe he is required to sign your logbook
- the JAA regs don't require it IIRC. The only way I can think of to 'fail'
the instructional flight would be if the instructor thought you were so bad
that he took control, forbade you from touching the controls, and landed (ie
it ceased to be an instructional flight or lasted under an hour) !

The requirement (for revalidation by experience) is simple, in the 3 months
preceding expiry of your SEP (Land) rating, you present your logbook to an
examiner. He checks to see that you have 12 hours in the 12 months preceding
expiry, 6 of which must be PIC, and 1 hr of which must be under instruction.
Provided you have those hours, then he is required to sign off your rating
sheet plus the form that goes to the CAA. A consideration may change hands,
but that is a matter between you and the examiner, no money goes to the CAA.


Unfortunately there is still a load of old b***ocks spouted by people that
really should know better. Even more unfortunate is that some of it is in
print in a publication called LASORS which sometimes says what the CAA would
like the rules to be, not what they actually are.

[Mike Lindsay]

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by Simon Hobson
It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.
The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.
Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.
<climbs off soapbox>

Er, maybe you cant fail it, but the instructor can refuse to sign the
documentation. Don't ask me how I know!

No he cannot ! Actually, I don't believe he is required to sign your logbook
- the JAA regs don't require it IIRC. The only way I can think of to 'fail'
the instructional flight would be if the instructor thought you were so bad
that he took control, forbade you from touching the controls, and landed (ie
it ceased to be an instructional flight or lasted under an hour) !
The requirement (for revalidation by experience) is simple, in the 3 months
preceding expiry of your SEP (Land) rating, you present your logbook to an
examiner. He checks to see that you have 12 hours in the 12 months preceding
expiry, 6 of which must be PIC, and 1 hr of which must be under instruction.
Provided you have those hours, then he is required to sign off your rating
sheet plus the form that goes to the CAA. A consideration may change hands,
but that is a matter between you and the examiner, no money goes to the CAA.
Unfortunately there is still a load of old b***ocks spouted by people that
really should know better. Even more unfortunate is that some of it is in
print in a publication called LASORS which sometimes says what the CAA would
like the rules to be, not what they actually are.

I wish I'd known that at the time...

Actually, I consider the chap did me a favour. I was getting into some
really bad and sloppy habits, which I hope I have now corrected.

[Dave]

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by Mike Lindsay

Post by Simon Hobson
It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.
The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.
Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.
<climbs off soapbox>

Er, maybe you cant fail it, but the instructor can refuse to sign the
documentation. Don't ask me how I know!

No he cannot ! Actually, I don't believe he is required to sign your logbook
- the JAA regs don't require it IIRC. The only way I can think of to 'fail'
the instructional flight would be if the instructor thought you were so bad
that he took control, forbade you from touching the controls, and landed (ie
it ceased to be an instructional flight or lasted under an hour) !

... snipped
I've flown quite a few JAR instructional flights while wearing my
instructor's hat; the instructor CAN choose not to sign the logbook - I
have declined to sign only one log book. As I said before, the bod can
choose to do anything on the trip; the last one I was asked to do
consisted of a PFL, EFATO, spiral dive recovery and aerobatics.

When wearing my examiner's hat and being asked to revalidate an SEP
rating I look for evidence of the JAR instructional flight AND SIGNATURE
in the bods logbook, the date of this flight goes on the revalidation
form. No signature=no revalidation.

As a reminder for anyone that might still be concerned about what to do
if they don't have the instructional flight, or the hours, or the
take-offs and landings ... the licensing proficiency check (LPC) is very
straightforward and usually takes about 50-55 minutes, the downside is
that it has to be done with an examiner so there is a test fee (usually
about £75 but the aircraft is at the solo rate). If you let your rating
lapse you then fly a licensing skill test (LST) which is identical to an
LPC (don't ask!). The LST/LPC form is on the CAA site and describes the
test items.

Dave

[Simon Hobson]

Post by Dave
I've flown quite a few JAR instructional flights while wearing my
instructor's hat; the instructor CAN choose not to sign the logbook - I
have declined to sign only one log book. As I said before, the bod can
choose to do anything on the trip; the last one I was asked to do
consisted of a PFL, EFATO, spiral dive recovery and aerobatics.
When wearing my examiner's hat and being asked to revalidate an SEP
rating I look for evidence of the JAR instructional flight AND SIGNATURE
in the bods logbook, the date of this flight goes on the revalidation
form. No signature=no revalidation.

Then once again the CAA are requiring something over and above what the LAW
requires. If you refer to JAR FCL JAR­FCL 1.245 (c) (1) (ii) it says :

(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry of the rating complete 12
hours flight time in the [relevant] class including:
(A) 6 hours of pilot-in-command time;
(B) 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
(C) a training flight of at least one hour¹s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A).
This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test [ ].


Note that nowhere does it require the FI(a) or CRI(A) to 'sign off' the
flight, nor if you apply a logical thought process is there any sense in
requiring it. If you argue that you need the instructors signature to prove
that the flight was undertaken, then why do you not need signatures to prove
that the other 11 hours were actually flown, or that the required take-offs
and landings were performed ? You either accept the pilots log book as a
record of his/her flying, or you don't. If you don't trust the logbook, then
you can't accept any of the other entries in it without verification.

Should any of the required entries subsequently turn out to be false, then
the pilot would have been flying illegally and will be up s**t creek if
something happens and the CAA check the paperwork. In that respect, there is
a modicum of protection FOR THE PILOT if the instructor signs the logbook as
it would then be harder to say it was a false entry (should the instructor
fail to correctly record the flight in their logbook for example and the
brown stuff hits the fan at a later date).

Simon

[Peter]

Post by Simon Hobson
Then once again the CAA are requiring something over and above what the LAW
requires.

[snip]

The other side of this argument is that there *should* be an FAA-style
BFR which you *can* simply fail to pass.

It would be an opportunity (the only one, for many pilots) to bring
them up to date.

A lot of pilots, perhaps especially many of those who got their PPL
many years ago, operate from a farm strip, don't go anywhere near the
training environment, and fly low hours, keeping to the local area,
have lost a lot of knowledge, and equally importantly have never
gained some essential new knowledge (like using ais.org.uk and check
notams, etc)

Whether the average PPL-level instructor is capable of showing
somebody how to get onto the internet and do a narrow route briefing
for example, is a separate matter, but not doing so seems a missed
opportunity.

It's traditional for the CAA/JAA establishment to slag off the FAA
practices but I think they have got it right. Simplify the writtens to
the bare practical requirements, have an oral exam to prevent cheating
and make sure it has sunk in, and have a full checkride every 2 years.

[Simon Hobson]

Post by Peter

Post by Simon Hobson
Then once again the CAA are requiring something over and above what the LAW
requires.

[snip]
The other side of this argument is that there *should* be an FAA-style
BFR which you *can* simply fail to pass.

I don't disagree with that, though the thought of having to pass a test
doesn't exactly thrill me !

But that's a different matter, the law as currently written does not have any
element of pass or fail, and nor does it require any signature in the pilots
log book.

[Andy R]

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Peter
c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

Oh Yes It Is. I wouldn't have got as far as the aircraft if I hadn't been
able to tell the instructor what notams were relevant that day.

<mounts soapbox>
There is no biannual CHECK for a JAA SEP(Land) rating.
It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck......

Post by Simon Hobson
The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.
Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.

If the instructor thinks your flying is dismal he doesn't have to sign your
log book and at the end of the 24 months you can't fly any more. I simply
cannot see how this differs from a competency check (other than in name).

Rgds

Andy R

[Dave]

Post by Andy R

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Peter
c) getting notams (or indeed any aspect of navigation) is not among
the things which get checked when a pilot has his 2-year check with an
instructor

Oh Yes It Is. I wouldn't have got as far as the aircraft if I hadn't been
able to tell the instructor what notams were relevant that day.

<mounts soapbox>
There is no biannual CHECK for a JAA SEP(Land) rating.
It is NOT a check, it is NOT a test, it CANNOT be failed.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck......

Post by Simon Hobson
The requirement is for a one hour instructional flight. There is NO specified
requirements for what goes on in that hour, nothing more than a 1 hour flight
under instruction.
Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant of the rules (so you have to
ask how much else they don't know), or is trying to fleece you.

If the instructor thinks your flying is dismal he doesn't have to sign your
log book and at the end of the 24 months you can't fly any more. I simply
cannot see how this differs from a competency check (other than in name).
Rgds
Andy R

The format of the JAR instructional flight is freeform and the
Instructor is allowed to teach; it's rare to find major problems but
these can usually be dealt with during the flight. The format of an
LST/LPC is fixed and the Examiner is not allowed to (or supposed to) teach.
So it's possible for someone to have a dangerous lack of ability at
(say) flapless approaches or go-arounds but this may not be exposed on
the JAR instructional flight.
Met and NOTAM briefings should be covered in both categories.

Dave

[Mike K Smith]

Post by David Wright
Shame, the Red's had to call off their display TWICE at Kemble today, due to
airspace breaches by other aircraft. First time caused a little bit of a gap
mid-display, second time seemed pretty terminal.
First time I've personally seen this happen, although I'm sure not the first
ever.

So that's what happened. I was at the western end of the crowd-line, out
of range of the PA. I thought the display tailed off lamely.