efato

EFATO - Turn back?

Has anybody else seen this web page on turnback manoeuvres?It basically claims that if PPL's are taught the right strategy to fly, they stand a good chance of making a successful turnback following EFATO. OK, we all know that the golden rule, at least in civil pilot training, is never turn back, but..... there are places where landing ahead is a pretty unattractive option (sea, woods, urban etc.). I've tried the turn as recommended on the web site (45 deg bank, ball in middle, close to stall as judged by stall warner) in a C150 (as an upper-air exercise). I typically lose 200 to 250ft for a 210deg heading change, and nothing bad has happened so far. I'm not planning to practice this low down, but if I were faced with a real EFATO at, say, 500ft agl with nowhere nice to land ahead, I think I would be tempted to try my hand.

I'd be interested to hear what you think. Reasoned answers rather than flaming preferred (flameproof pants in the wash ). It would be particularly interesting to hear from anyone who has turned back successfully following a real EFATO. I understand that RAF pilots get taught this method anyway, but the average skill level is obviously higher than in the PPL pilot population.

AD

------------------If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money

6th April 2000, 00:16 #2 (permalink)

212man Posts: n/a I have not

read the report, but have saved it to digest later.

However, I have contributed several times on other forums, on this topic and it is difficult to get reasoned response.

I was taught the turn back technique in the eighties while flying Bulldogs on a UAS ( sorry the UAS!). It

http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/possible.html

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/14073-efato-turn-back.html#post160156

http://www.pprune.org/160156-post2.html

was not taught as a matter of routine, but to those more advanced (able?) students whom the instructors felt comfortable teaching it to. The instructors were taught it formally and were tested on it during annual 'trappers' trips.

The first thing to bear in mind is that it is a pre-briefed decision, based on the upwind obstacle situation. It is not a robotic response. As I recall, the brief, if it were decided to include a turnback, would be along the lines of this;

"Engine failure up to 200', land straight ahead. Between 200 and 450', land within 30 degrees of runway heading. Above 450' turn back to the left/right (into any cross-wind)"

The aim is not to necessarily land on the reciprocal runway, but to arrive on the aerodrome, where rescue services are at hand, and ripping the wheels off may be a better option than arriving in the master bedroom of 23 Acacia avenue.

The technique was as follows (I recall)

Immediately lower the nose to maintain 80 KIAS (Vy) and simultaneously roll 45 degrees of bank in the pre-briefed direction.

Do the above using instruments to ensure accuracy, and stay on instruments.

Select inter flap and pull to just nibble the light buffet= max rate of turn for min energy loss.

After 90 degrees of turn, look out to assess likely landing area and concentrate

on the landing.

If time permits carry out shut down checks.

Initially the technique was practised at altitude, till perfected, then practised in anger at 450-500'. The lower DA made it easier, which helped.

A student doing this would be very current in aerobatics and spin (full, up to 8 turns) recovery, so would be well up to speed with handling the a/c close to the stall. This was aided by the fact that the stall warner was disabled to teach the student to really feel the true stages of stalling, rather than relying on a pathetic whining somewhat prematurely.

I would not recommend a PPL doing a turnback when confronted by a suprise EFATO and never having practised the

technique.

Fortunately, I never had to use it for real, but our CFI had occasion to when a student selected fuel to off in the climb out. He turned back from 350' and landed in some heather resulting in Cat 2 damage. The alternative would have been a forest. QED

[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 05 April 2000).]


BlueLine Posts: n/a Practicing with the engine throttled back is one thing,

the extra drag of a windmilling prop is another.

Many have tried turnbacks in the past and most of them have almost made it.

Statistically there have been less serious accidents to those who land straight ahead or to one side than those attempting turnbacks. From that point of view, teaching turnbacks to PPLs would be very unwise.


Gear up Shut up Posts: n/a There is also this report which is worth a read (

www.adventureair.com/pub/asp/8740-44.html )

Try it at a couple of thousand feet and time the glide

http://www.adventureair.com/pub/asp/8740-44.html





turn and note the height loss - if nothing else it proves to yourself so that your brain won't let the idea creep in at the time of crisis.


A Very Civil Pilot Posts: n/a Although never having tried it, I've heared of the steep

turn method and it's effectiveness in the right hands. sounds a useful thing to do, especially if straight ahead is a no-go, as many airfields have.


skywatcher Posts: n/a Careful guys. This is a very dodgy subject. The RAF are

taught it but as stated they tend to be a lot more current than some of us average punters. I have tried the turn back as part of an annual check at height and it worked well. However what the outcome would be if I were to try the same thing lower down with the added stress of a real EFATO doesn't leave much to the imagination. This is a good subject but the land ahead option with a little jinking must be the way ahead. Even our highly trained Air Force have had problems with turn backs.

------------------


Wheelon-Wheeloff. Posts: n/a The C.P. where I did my Instructors course found

himself with a cracked crankshaft shortly after take off with nothing but a housing estate ahead. He performed a Turn-Back getting it back into the field, albeit not on the runway, with both occupants walking away. He was ex-C.F.S. but has been out for years.

I can see it being a fine line and one I always thought was a definate no-no but my mind has been changed and I will be trying it out at height.

Partly because of above story and partly due to visiting a certain field in Kent today. It wasn't until 800' off R02 did I feel we would stand a chance of clearing the houses and preverbial Primary School!!


212man









Posts: n/a Nice to see a civilised discussion on the subject for a

change.

Ref the "impossible turn" article, I saw it published in PILOT a few years ago, and was intrigued by the figures and diagrams.

Basically whatever the numbers say, it can be done. Forget rate one after a couple of seconds of "what happened there?", it's got to be a very positive response to an anticipated problem. The key is to be prepared and in current practice on the a/c type. It certainly is not to be attempted by Mr '12 hours per year' following an EFATO on climb out one sunday morning whilst chatting to his pax with his thumb up his bum.

It was taught on the JP in the RAF because below about 1000', I think, the ejection seat was outside it's envelope in a glide, and therefore it was the only option.

Common sense should have the final say.

------------------Another day in paradise

[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 07 April 2000).]


Acker Demick Posts: n/a Thanks for some useful comments guys.

The report on Adventureair.com that Gear Up Shut Up refers to is pretty biased in the numbers assumed - the essence of the 45 deg bank turnback is that it has to be flown SLOWLY - i.e. as close to CLmax, and the stall, as you can. You can make the numbers look very unattractive if you assume the pilot will add a fat safety margin on speed. Holding a C150 in a 45 degree gliding turn, with the stall warner sounding gently, typically gives me about 60knots. Also, a starting height of 300ft agl is too low, I certainly would need to be very desperate to try from there! Good point someone made about the extra drag from a windmilling prop in a real EFATO.

It seems to me that the bottom line would be - only turnback if the only alternative is likely to be a life/limb threatening crash. However, in that rare event, the chances of survival must be improved if the pilot knows what the optimum strategy is - the chap who follows his/her untutored instincts and makes a



gentle rate 1 turn is doomed.

AD

------------------If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money


Wee Weasley Welshman Posts: n/a

I don´t teach it. I don´t practice it at low level. I was taught it on a UAS. I used to teach it on Motor Gliders. I had a partial engine failure (severe rough running, heavy vibration unable to maintain height, suspect stuck exhaust valves) and naturally the decent field was just dissapearing behind me. In front a busy golf course heavily wooded. I nibbled a turn through 180 degrees and limped back to base and the engine came back to normal operation on me after 30 seconds or so.

My position is that it would be wise for FI´s to be proficient in turnbacks and silently self brief for them. I am spoilt at the moment for fields to pop into but at my last base on one runway in certain conditions it would be turnback or doesn´t bear thinking about...

Nice that there has been no flaming on this one.

WWW


Hudson Posts: n/a Point Cook RAAF Base Date circa 1962. Turn-backs

practiced as a matter of course in Winjeels and Vampires. I was on subsequent Court of Inquiry when practice turn back from 400 ft resulted in incipient spin and heavy crash landing just inside the airfield fence. Aircraft caught fire on impact. Both instructor and student survived impact but burnt to death because canopy jammed. Fire crews watched helplessly. Circa 1960 now. Vampire crashed short of runway at East Sale following turn back. Unsure whether practice or real engine failure. Either way, both pilots killed on impact. I disliked teaching turn-backs but it was part of CFS syllabus. As far as I am concerned it was a flashy mascho manoeuvre which was never the subject of measured flight test by a qualified ETPS test pilot. Many times we undershot after practice turn back and had to salvage it with power hurriedly applied. Real bad news with sometimes 15 knot downwind landing.





Fine in theory and maybe handy to have it up your sleeve - but it is a potentially dangerous manoeuvre which is best left to discussions on these pages rather than practicing bleeding. I understand the RAAF CFS still practice the manoeuvre in PC9 and the Royal Flying Doctor Service also do it on proficiency and conversion flying on the PC12. Best of luck to them - but not for this little black duck...


2R Posts: n/a It can be done, at sixty degrees of bank, nose low

attitude for speed ,at 500 agl not for the uncurrent.Below 500agl it is best to land as slow as the aircraft will fly straight ahead .With a shoulder hareness on you should be able to crawl away,the aircraft will now blong to the insurance company.


mrfish Posts: n/a 2 cents worth from the military QFI stable.

Yes we teach it - but its strictly controlled, briefed and initiated.

Real case, windmilling prop, reaction times, over-controlling due stress, checks and r/t...not to mention the higher rate of descent (even after completing the turn back)

Its a good exercise to extend the cognative and psychomotor skills of students...but lets not forget the aim of an EFATO.

Save life...sod the aircraft.

Play with fire - get fingers burnt!Great thread, hope to see more of this type.


Ho Lee Prang Posts: n/a A couple of comments: There are a lot of factors at

play, so this is not a manoevre that should be considered by anyone who is not well trained, in practice, and level-headed. The factors are wind speed (no point in turning back if there is a strong headwind, which will turn into a strong tailwind, because 1) there is agreater chance of stall in the turn, 2) more height will be lost in the turn, 3) a landing (or crash) straight







ahead will be relatively slow, and 4) the tailwind landing will be fast.)The next factor is wing loading: the higher the wing loading the more dodgy the manoeuvre - powered gliders are best!Then there is height: At 2000 ft anyone can make a turn back. You might not make the field, though, and a fast downwind landing short of the field will be bad news, so the factor really is "height and distance". I reckon if you add all these postings up you end up with a pretty sensible and comprehensive summary of the prospects for a 180 EFATO turn.Best, maybe, to make the crosswind turn as quickly as you can!

Ho Lee


ShyTorque Posts: n/a If the vertical impact is surviveable the horizontal

needs to be also.

Consider a light aircraft that would touch down at 55 kts IAS. If there is a 15 kt wind on your unlucky day your "straight ahead" groundspeed will be 40 kts. A landing downwind would give you a groundspeed of 70 kts...I know which I would prefer, V squared and all that.

How often have you practised downwind landings on a runway, let alone elsewhere? Best you are certain of making a successful turn into a clear area for touchdown and the subsequent ground assisted deceleration. A fencepost between the legs will hurt at any speed...

Speaking as an ex-mil QFI previously required to practise these once a month..a turnback may always be considered but in reality it is a "no alternative" manoeuvre only. We were not allowed to fly these to touchdown in the Bulldog (although they were allowed in the Hawk for a "roller" only. Are they still? If not, someone will no doubt have stuffed one up. Didn't this result in a Hawk fatal at Chivenor?). I have flown some for practice that would, for real, no doubt have resulted in my not being in a position to recount the tale due to poor touchdown options...you can't always make the runway, just the airfield.

This is the reason for that old saying "nothing so useless as the runway behind you" and why we were all taught to use the the full length of it for departure.

------------------Fly safe!




Teroc Posts: n/a Excellent thread folks...and no flaming...nice one....

Lets not forget the fact that as well as all the above you could be turning back into a whole lot of trouble regarding guys commencing their take off rolls / rotations / landings etc, especially at a busy training aerodrome.

Teroc.


212man Posts: n/a I have seen several threads on this topic since

registering, and this is by far the most reasoned and sensible. Why can't they all be like this?

------------------Another day in paradise


out of touch in Aus Posts: n/a Had one at 300' once, after a full brf prior to T/O. The

time it took to discover that the failing was actualy with the A/C as opposed to the student was huge (compared to that avaliable), sub ground idle power for 16 seconds and still I didn't pull the handle. I like to think I would have, but the spool up was audible after about 10secs. The reality is that I'll never know. It's all well and good practising it at 300' far less 3000, the reality is far from similar. Bottom line, SHAR guy after throwing away the sea bird when asked when he decided to eject answered... 12 years ago. It's worth considering, I didn't.

19th April 2000, 15:41

#19 (permalink)

PapaSmurf Posts: n/a 212man's 4th paragraph sums it up as follows:

"It is a pre-briefed decision".

Quite rightly so. When I did my initial multi-engine training and was introduced to the concept of a pre take-off safety brief, one of the first things I remember thinking to myself was: "If it's good enough for two engine aeroplanes, why isn't it good









enough for one?" Why is it that no-one takes the time to emphasise the importance (and obvious benefits) of teaching students to conduct a pre take-off safety brief in any aeroplane, irrespective of number of engines?

If a pilot makes the effort to do so, he/she is already streets ahead of the crowd in being better prepared to deal with the worst case scenario if and when it eventually happens. I'm neither endorsing or dismissing the turn-around technique here. But if it is part of the take-off brief, i.e. "Will I or won't I" / "If I will, at what height will I do it" / "If not, what are my landing options ahead of the runway" etc - surely this is a more positive step in dealing with the situation.

20th April 2000, 01:49

#20 (permalink)

ShyTorque Posts: n/a PapaSmurf, Not sure where you are coming from! This was always mentioned

(during my time at any rate, up until 1992)in the RAF single-engined pre-takeoff safety brief, jet and piston. Perhaps you weren't flying with the right guys.

------------------

PFL Training and Rule 5

I see that AAIB have asked the CAA to look again at the effects of Rule 5 on training pilots for PFL's. This follows a recent AAIB bulletin which gives comments of an instructor who carried out a successful real forced landing.

Link [url=http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_027742.hcsp]

13th March 2004, 02:39

#2 (permalink)

Heliport Join Date: Mar 2000Location: UKPosts: 3,295

This link might be easier.AAIB Report

Interesting that the AAIB report says: Quote:

It is a widely held view in the flying training community that the CAA will take firm action against those who break the rule, regardless of whether the transgressors are doing so in a reckless fashion or inadvertently breaking the rule as part of a responsibly planned and realistically carried out training exercise.

The BA Flying Club instructor who was wrongly prosecuted a few years ago could confirm 'the widely held view' is accurate.

13th March 2004, 03:36 #3 (permalink)

BEagle Join Date: May 1999Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'Posts: 15,128

Tried to get them to include a statement exempting pilots practising forced landings under the supervision of an authorised instructor from Rule 5 last year.

Answer from the CAA legal fools was 'no'. PFLs are required to be demonstrated for licence issue, but are not considered 'normal aviation practice'. Which is

http://www.pprune.org/members/6981-beagle

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/122275-pfl-training-rule-5-a.html#post1223031


http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_027742.hcsp

http://www.pprune.org/members/30158-heliport





utter stupid, crass, banal nonsense!


Tinstaafl Join Date: Dec 1998Location: Escapee from Ultima ThulePosts: 2,699

You made me laugh with derision, Beagle. Directed agains the CAA, I mean. Not you.

Got to love the new-speak concept that something that is trained for, is a significant part of the training syllabus & time with practice events on most training flights, and is tested in nearly every s/e test - ISN'T normal aviation practice.

Bloody idiots.


homeguard Join Date: Nov 2003Location: nottsPosts: 590

Rule '5'

It is only an opinion that the CAA legal beagles (rockweilers) promote, not an established legal fact. I have, over and over again, witnessed CAA legal representatives try to convince the court that flight lower than 500' AGL is the issue, which it is clearly not. Not yet seen a Magistrate who fell for it either.

While it is possible to carefully select the place over which a PFL is practised in order to not wind up the local folk or their animals, I think it would be difficult to argue that such a practice should be exempt Rule '5'. There is always somewhere without a; person, vehicle, vessle or structure (field boundary fences don't count nor does a person akip in the middle of a corn field)

However, to say that the much more postion specific drill of EFATO training being given to a pre-solo student must surely be in accordance with "normal aviation practice". Indeed much of a Pilots later training qualified or not will be in accordance with such a normal aviation practice. If ever the CAA attempt to proscecute a Pilot following a EFATO I'd like to witness the que of us just waiting outside the door of the court to cry simply, "of course it bloody is!".


MobiusTrip Join Date: Jan 2004Location: A Barren Featureless WastelandPosts: 106

Just guesting in here so please excuse the intrusion - but I am astonished by what I read. I've been out of GA for many many years so I don't have my finger on the pulse, but this interpretation of rule 5 thing sounds like an utter, crass failure of common sense. Is it a new JAR thing? I remember regularly doing PFLs for my PPL - and subsequently needing those skills in 'anger' further down the road (albeit not in a GA aircraft).

http://www.pprune.org/members/81475-mobiustrip



http://www.pprune.org/members/78877-homeguard



http://www.pprune.org/members/4150-tinstaafl



If the CAA decided to prosecute for an EFATO (sim) then, as has been said, things would get 'uncomfortable' for the CAA.

Yours in astonished dis-wonderment,

MT


Hare O Plane Join Date: Mar 2004Location: UKPosts: 13

Of course it's a bloody normal aviation procedure!

As long as we fly single engined aeroplanes, we run the risk of an EFATO or a failure at altitude. If the CAA rule that we have to demo it for licence issue then obviously they realise it could happen in the course of a "normal" flight (not simulated under test conditions) and as such we have to deal with and train students for it accordingly. That in my book means being realistic. The chances are if the engine quits on take off, it'll be <500' when it lets go.

But hey I know......... We'll teach pointless and unrealistic demo EFATOs at higher levels and protect our licences, just to keep the CAA legal beagles happy (only dogs I'd like to see taken to the vets)



EFATO

Should the CAA legal team get lucky with their latest job creation scheme then it won't only be SEP aircraft that are targeted!

If EFATO practice was considered not to be 'normal aviation practice', the principle would equally apply to MEP or any type or class that you may think of.

Remember the exemption from rule '5' only applies when taking off and approaching to land ..................... etc. in accordance with ............. etc. No mention of specific types. Just doing it at all would be a crime!

Whats the breakfast like in your local nick!


Send Clowns

Jet Blast Rat Join Date: Jan 2001Location: Sarfend-on-SeaAge: 36Posts: 2,138

If you ever have a problem with the CAA I would suggest contacting Tudor Owen, who posts as Flying Lawyer here. I seem to recall he has experience of defeating the Campaign Against Aviation on the issue. I also have a friend who is an expert witness and an instructor. I am sure he would produce an honest opinion on any case people have, taking into account

http://www.pprune.org/members/27066-send-clowns






http://www.pprune.org/members/85163-hare-o-plane



common aviation practice.

Has there been any formal, academic study of this aspect of the training requirement? Sounds a bit strange, as little work has been done in the area of aviation training as far as I can find (hence the groundschool courses of JAA are such junk. Did consider looking for funding for a PhD on the issue, but got a job instead) but such a study would clear up the issue, and probably hold some weight in a court.


BlueLine Join Date: Feb 2000Location: UKPosts: 88

Every now and again this thread appears and raises the issue of "normal aviation practice". The only reference to the latter in the ANO is with respect to one of the exemptions to Rule 5, which is for aircraft "landing and taking off" in accordance with normal aviation practice.

In the case of a PFL, the aircraft is deemed "not to be taking off" because the power has been deliberately reduced, and there is no intention of landing either; therefore it is outside the Rule 5 exemption.

The issue is not whether a PFL is or is not normal aviation practice, its whether it could reasonably be considered to be a "landing" or a "take-off" because that is what the exemption is for.

There is ample space to conduct PFL and EFATO training that avoids persons vehicles vessels etc by 500 ft, and still allows the aircraft to be flown sufficiently close the ground to determine the outcome. It may not be at the end of the runway, but does that really matter?

Rule 5 has been around for a long time, it is not affected by the JAA in any way. PFL and EFATO training are essential, they are syllabus items for the PPL and CPL and are tested in every SE prof check or skill test. They can be conducted without fear of prosecution however, it is the pilots responsibility to avoid the specified objects by 500 ft; that is not unreasonable.



EFATO

In regard to the PFL, I agree.

As to the EFATO, Bluelines thoughts are jibberish!







http://www.pprune.org/members/13246-blueline




Perhaps - but he does work for the CAA!

Conducting any part of an approved training syllabus should be considered 'normal aviation practice' and specific exemption from Rule 5 should be introduced to facilitate that.

Assessing the last 500' or so is essential. Which is why we had a 100' a.g.l. limit for practising PFLs in HM's Bulldogs!

The lowest level in the civil world is 1 molecule - so long as you aren'r within 500' of a person, vehicle, vessel or 'structure'. What constitutes a 'structure'? Do tell, blueline!


Field In Sight Join Date: May 2002Location: SalePosts: 234

I did a little bit of training a few years ago in Canada and I seem to remember that they had an exception for going lower than 500 ft during PFL's provided you were with an instructor.

Then again I had way to much "Moose Beer" whilst I was over there and my memory may be a little hazy.

FIS.


Hare O Plane Join Date: Mar 2004Location: UKPosts: 13

Perhaps we should upgrade our training fleets with RAD ALTS guys!!!!

Be cheaper than the fine and admin fees!!!



EFATO

A problem for those working at the CAA is that common sense is not allowed to be left switched on. They quite often do switch back to common sense during private conversations, however.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted following an EFATO? Anyone know?

Not that many years ago Eric Thurston from Stapleford Tawny was prosecuted by the CAA following a PFL conducted during a PPL Skill Test. He was initially found guilty by the Magistrates but successfully appealed.

The Jury found him not guilty and the Appeal Judge




http://www.pprune.org/members/85163-hare-o-plane



http://www.pprune.org/members/52605-field-in-sight




concurred with some very strong words to the CAA for bringing the prosecution in the first place. The judge found that there was no definition of 'structure' within the ANO or guidance as to what would be a reasonable defence in the case of flight too near to persons. He obviously considered that it was not clear cut. He made rulings in regard to the whole of Rule '5'.

If I remember it correctly; A boundary fence around a field would not for the purposes of the ANO be considered a 'structure'. A roadway is to be considered a structure i.e. it is there for the use of people and vehicles and they should be expected to be found there. With regard to persons, if an individual or say a courting couple were laid down in a field it would be reasonable to say that the Pilot couldn't know that, for it was not a place that people would normally be expected to be found.

The ANO did not prescribe flight below 500'. If a pilot was to be expected to always avoid flight within 500' of a vehicle or person, whatever the circumstances, the effect would inevitablely be that flight could not be undertaken without risk of prosecution when flying below 500', even when over open countryside and should a person without warning pop up. He reasoned that if Parliament had intended that no flight must take place below 500' they would have said so.

It would be helpful if Tudor sees this to have his more professional observations.


martinidoc Join Date: Aug 2001Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UKAge: 52Posts: 129

I would go slightly further (and slightly tangentially) and say that it should become normal practice during precautionary landings to actually land, (by agreement etc) in a suitable field.

We had an interesting dicsussion at the senior intsructors forum,at Cranwell last week about PPLs reluctance to perform precautionary landings. It was suggested that several weather related fatalities over the years might have been avoided if a precautionary landing had been carried out.

The problem is that for a PPL who will be as stressed as hell when he finds he cannot get back to his destination/base/divertion field will have an intense inertia to performing something he has never done before. His instinct will be to stick with the familiar and try at all costs to get back to a proper familiar airfield.

The only way tp overcome this inertia is for him to have previously actually landed in a field safely under controlled conditions. He is then much more likely to take the right decision in the stress of the situation.

http://www.pprune.org/members/36836-martinidoc



The CAA should work with the FTOs tp try and facilitate this type of more realistic emergency training.


FlyingForFun

Why do it if it's not fun? Join Date: Jul 2001Location: BournemouthPosts: 4,677

Quote:

It should become normal practice during precautionary landings to actually land

That's very interesting... and I can see the sense in what you're saying. But I don't know that I agree.

When I did my float-plane rating, I did actually land off of PFLs. Of course there's not much difference between a planned landing on an unprepared lake (which is what I did for most of the rest of the rating) and an unplanned landing on an unprepared lake, apart from the lack of power. Did I benefit from it? Well, not really.... there was certainly nothing lost by landing off of PFLs, but I don't think there was very much gained, either. The landing itself is no different to a planned glide-approach. And it's perfectly possible to see if you're going to make the field (or lake) without actually having to land, and to make appropriate corrections to your technique for next time.

As for doing the same on land - in a field, there are all kinds of invisible obstacles that may be lurking in the vegetation, waiting to cause damage to the aircraft - something which isn't going to happen at an airfield. I know you stressed that it would be done under controlled conditions.... but how? If you're going to pick a specific field that's been prepared in advance, it's no different to doing a glide-approach to an airfield. Part of the skill is in picking a suitable field, and that means having a number of fields to choose between - not all of which will be suitably prepared.

FFF--------------


Keygrip

Moderator Join Date: Mar 2003Location: Orlando, FloridaAge: 54Posts: 2,387

Martini - the airspace/airfield structure here in the USA often allows me to do PFL's into airfields (without warning to the victim - err, sorry - - student) - and providing a suitable touch down area is achieved then I feel some value has been gained.

Much to my disappointment though - a large number of schools here (both private and "academy" level) have a mandate that you will not land their aircraft on grass runways under any circumstances.

http://www.pprune.org/members/67368-keygrip



http://www.pprune.org/members/35502-flyingforfun



Short field and soft field take-offs being limited to 5<10 thousand feet tarmac runways. Makes a joke of the whole thing. The idea of a PFL to land into anywhere other than a fully prepared strip would be outrageous to the schools - and with the authorities requiring fire/ambulance cover within three minutes of the alarm being raised, I doubt you would fare well if you had an incident whilst doing as you suggest.

Trouble is - I full agree with you. There should be more landings.



Homeguard

In May 2000 BALPA conviened a meeting at the request of one of their members to discuss the issues relating to EFATO and Rule 5. It was attended by representitives from Gapan, AOPA and the CAA legal dept who gave their considered opinion, not fact, as you say.

At the end of the meeting the "jiberish" to which you refer was issued as a statement and published in a at least one GA magazine regarding EFATO and Rule 5.

I am not aware that anything has changed since that meeting other than the redrafting of Rule 5 in a simpler format.

Any proposed change to the content of Rule 5 would of course give the fraternity of complainers who live at the end of most runways, the opportunity they are looking for, to lobby support for even more stringent rules to prevent aviation all together.



There was considerable discussion regarding revisions to the low flying rules in 2003. I wrote:

I write with reference to the Letter Of Consultation on the proposed revision to Rule 5. The simplification of any aviation legislation is normally to be welcomed; however, the following points (paragraph references are as per the Proposed New Low Flying Rule) need to be addressed:

1. Sub-para (1)(a). Amend to 1000 ft as per ICAO. The 'glide clear' provision is entirely adequate for safety purposes; the reduction of 500 ft might make all the difference between scraping the cloud base and flying in safety in traditional UK weather.

2. Sub-para (2). Retain the 500 ft separation rule; teaching and practising essential flying training exercises







such as Engine Failure After Take-Off and Forced Landings With Power would be impossible if a 500 ft minimum height above ground rule were to be introduced unless yet further exemptions were also introduced.

3. Sub-para (3). Absolutely NOT!! The right to take-off and land at any site known to be used routinely for aeronautical pursuits must not be compromised by the presence of a nearby 'organised gathering'. Sub-para 3 should therefore be amended to read (amendments in italics):(3) An aircraft shall not be flown within 1000 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1000 persons.Sub-para (5) (b) should then be amended to read:(5) (b) paragraphs (2) and (3) when taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice;

4. The conduct of mandatory and entirely legitimate emergency training exercises has occasionally resulted in nugatory (and expensive) enforcement action by the Authority in response to allegations made by the public. This proposed revision of Rule 5 would perhaps provide an opportunity to introduce legal protection to FIs and student pilots teaching or practising approved emergency training exercises. Hence a new Sub-paragraph could be added to Sub-para (5) stating:

(An aircraft shall be exempt from compliance with: )

(m) paragraph (2) when being flown for the purpose of conducting routine emergency training with the prior approval of an authorised Flight Instructor. Such an amendment would give reasonable legal protection to the legitimate conduct of essential training exercises whilst maintaining protection for the general public from unauthorised low flying.

Sadly the CAA did not accept my view - and that of others - continuing to accept the stupid view of their legal people. That's not just my view, correspondence with a pretty well-known aviation lawyer revealed evn more colourful opinion of the CAA's 'legal advisors'.....

Join Date: Sep 2003Location: DNMM/UKAge: 27Posts: 266

If you could redesign the flight training sylabus........

There have been a lot of post on various forum that seem to indicate a general feeling that the new pilots are coming out with lower and lower standards. The current training system doesn't seem to produce candidates who are suitable or desirable to the airline industry.I've come to this forum because i think you chaps who work with the system. What I'm looking for is something along the following lines:- What do you think should be added/dropped to/from the current system?- how many hours do you think should be done at each

stage?If you think the current system "ain't broke", I would also like to here you reasonsCapt. manuvar


FlyingForFun


Capt. M,

You said: "The current training system doesn't seem to produce candidates who are suitable or desirable to the airline industry." Do you mean to imply that we should restrict the discussion purely to students who are going to go on to get an fATPL? Because my answer for those students might be very different to my answer as regards a prospective private pilot.

FFF-------------


Capt. Manuvar Join Date: Sep 2003Location: DNMM/UKAge: 27Posts: 266

FFFThe dicussion isn't retricted to any group. I would like to here what people think about both private and professional training.______________________________I'm only a PPL so I might be abit "niave" but this is what flight training should look like. I think training should be harder and be offered to less candidates. Majority of people who get licenses and ratings don't actually get to use them, so i don't think there will be a "shortage" of pilots and that the number of 'active' pilots will be reduced.PPL- 45hrs training , but should be harder. It should included 5 hrs complex trainsition and 3-5 hrs night training. I will reintroduce the 5hr IFR minimum. NAV should be done to a CPL standard and teach students how to combine different techniques instead of"VERY" STRUCTURED HOUR BUILDING- I would restict it to around 50 hrs (40 hrs XC). It should be more structured than the current system, e.g 1 long day VFR XC, 1 long night VFR XC, a minimum number of flights to controlled airports and in certain types of CAS, must etc.MULTI ENGINE RATING- i don't know much about this rating, but i'll propose 10 hrs if done as a stand alone and 6 hrs if combined with an IRINSTRUMENT RATING- 40hrs. I don't know much about this (I 've only got as far as the FAA Instrument written) CPL - 50-100 hrs. I think that the current system is more like an over-rated PPL. This is the aspect iof training that need the most work. I know i'll get shot down for this, but shouldn't an IR be a prerequisite for a CPL? Very few CPL jobs are VFR only. I think it should

http://www.pprune.org/members/75978-capt-manuvar

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/125835-if-you-could-redesign-flight-training-sylabus.html#post1285446





be about integrating VFR & IFR procedures, hence the 40 hr IR. It should integrate MCC and JOC, which can be done in fixed based sims.Every thing i've said here may be complete rubbish, due to my relative inexperience. That why i've posted here to here what you professional think. I don't think i'll make it though the system i've proposed but thats another story altogether Capt manuvar


skydriller Join Date: Apr 2003Location: Bordeaux, FrancePosts: 572

I only feel qualified to talk about the PPL part of the training as it is all I have done. Hope you dont mind the point of view of a fun PPLer.

The omissions in the PPL training to me are related to the type of place you do your training. In my case this was at a proffesional flying school at a large ATC Aerodrome.

I remember asking my instructor if we could go to a grass strip so I could see how it differed from hard surfaces and if we could actually do some short field take-offs/landings at a short airstips. I feel if I had not asked this then I would not have done it as part of my PPL training and the first time I would have done it would have been alone... I also asked if we could do more than just stalls, ie full spins - he actually said it was something he liked to do with students to give them the experience if they were OK with it.

I know the spin issue is a recurring one and been done to death, but I think my other point is valid because although we need to study performance tables etc for written exams and learn the short field technique, it isnt quite the same doing it from a 1800mx30m runway as seeing it in practice from a short grass strip....

And finally.... GPS is the best thing to happen to GA since , well, ever....why is it not taught in here. On a trip to the US, the instructor checking me out couldnt believe I didnt have one, and would be flying around using old fashioned mk 1 eyeball nav techniques. he insisted I borrow his back up hand held unit and spent his own time over a beer or two that evening teaching me how to use it. He converted me, and I now have a

very nice Garmin 196.

Regards, SD.


Dan Winterland My ideal syllabus would have 4 hours IF, the slow flight

http://www.pprune.org/members/2724-dan-winterland



http://www.pprune.org/members/69555-skydriller



Join Date: Jun 2001Location: Fragrant HarbourPosts: 2,412

bit would see introduction of incipient spinning (note incipient , not full), a bit more nav, at least another hour of PFLs and the nav test would be separated from the skills test as a 2:30 long test is too much at that stage.

If done sensibly, it could be done in the 45 hours, or maybe even in 40.

And if those of you who have been private flying for over 20 years think these proposals sound familiar, you might be right!


I Fly Join Date: Apr 2001Location: Camden, NSW, AustraliaPosts: 273

All the posts here want more and 'harder' training. I applaud that. There is a very simple solution to that. Come to my flying school and tell me what extra or 'harder' training you want and I'll give it to you. I'll do all that for the normal hourly rate. The syllabus only spells out the minimum the regulator thinks is required. There is no maximum limit. Perhaps I have the wrong kind of students? But. A lot of my students can't see the reason why they have to do this or that and why the accuracies are as they are.


shortstripper Join Date: Sep 2003Location: Chichester, EnglandAge: 43Posts: 1,014

Capt. Manuvar

Is this post for real? I guess it is and it's certainly an interesting one. But as to your suggestions ... I respectfully say to you that they are the biggest load of poppycock I've heard in ages!

Just exactly who should be "offered" this harder training? do you mean those who want it, and so some sort of two tiered PPL? or do you mean to simply keep out the great unwashed (ie no formal educational qualifications or financially challenged)? Both of these would be ludicrously hard to administer and grossly elitist.

I'm all for improving standards but to simply make things harder and more geared toward commercial at PPL level is simply way OTT. Ok Let's say the average student PPL gives up flying shortly after qualifying, or as you say gets ratings but never uses them. So what? Not everybody may have the same motivations that obviously drive you. Why shouldn't Jo Bloggs get his PPL just because he wanted to see if he could? so what if he does an IMC but never intends to fly IFR?

Other points you suggest ...

Nav to CPL standard for PPL ... do you seriously want

http://www.pprune.org/members/76368-shortstripper



http://www.pprune.org/members/31276-i-fly



to send a student pilot off on a 300 NM jaunt before he has qualified and done a few shorter trips to build confidence?

5 hrs complex training ... why? He/she may only want to fly simple aircraft.

3-5 hours night ... OK that one I'd accept as a good idea

5 hours IFR training .... hmmm do you mean IFR or instrument training? IFR, ok but again really not needed at PPL if there is no desire by the candidate to go any further than daytime VFR. Instrument training ... dodgy to introduce instrument "training" at PPL level esp if only 5 hrs. A couple of hours of instrument "appreciation" is one thing, but to have a new PPL think he/she is OK to fly on instruments because he/she has had "training" is inviting disaster!

IR before CPL? You may think there are few CPL's that don't need IR to work ... you'd be wrong. Just a couple of examples would be ag pilots and display pilots. IR may be desirable but you'd be doing them no favours by making it a prerequisite to CPL.

I'm not trying to deliberately shoot you down in flames for your suggestions, but I do think you are rather assuming others are motivated to fly for the same reasons as you (ie.. to become airline pilots). They are not! I really don't see why the PPL should be made harder to obtain, all that would do is further reduce the number of people taking up flying. Perhaps that is what you want? Quality of training and standards are a separate issue. Making something "harder" to obtain doesn't always improve these, in fact sometimes it can reduce them

SS

PPL too so I'm not in a position to comment on CPL training.


FlyingForFun


Personally, I think shortstripper hit the nail on the head when he said: Quote:

I do think you are rather assuming others are motivated to fly for the same reasons.... They are not!

There are so many different reasons for wanting to fly, and for each of these reasons there should be a different syllabus. I can't see any way of enforcing this




legally, so I would leave the legal requirements as they are, but if I were the CFI of a flying school I would offer lots of add-ons and variations. And I would talk to my prospective students about these add-ons before they started their training so they could get a realistic idea of how much time and money it would take to get them to where they want to be.

For some people, the challenge of either going solo or getting the PPL is everthing. Once they've reached that stage, they have achieved there aims, and we'll only see them very rarely after that.

Then you've got people who are interested in what I call fun flying - classic aircraft, aerobatics, etc. A large portion (maybe even all) of their PPL should be on a taildragger, with lots of emphasis on strip flying, ded reckoning and so on. (Who wants to spend hours learning to use a VOR when you're going to spend your flying career in aircraft without so much as a battery, let alone a VOR.)

I would guess that a large portion of PPL-holders are spam-canners - no desire to fly a "difficult" aircraft, nor to get to important business meetings by air, but they'd like to fly somewhere for lunch on a sunny Sunday afternoon. So let's give them the tools to be able to do this confidently and safely. And that means SD's suggestion of teaching them how to use nav-aids properly..... including GPS.

The business flyer, who actually wants to get somewhere with his aircraft, will need a night qualification with his PPL, as well as a thorough understanding of nav-aids, auto-pilot, and so on. He will be going on to do an IMC rating as soon as possible, so spending more time on instrument awareness during his PPL will benefit him. A complex checkout will also have a big benefit, as long as he will have a complex aircraft available to him later on.

As for the commercial student..... airline flying techniques are so different to anything that can be achieved in a light aircraft that I can't see any point in trying to tailor the course specifically towards that. We'll save that for his first type-rating, and instead, during the PPL, concentrate on the techniques needed for the CPL (but also give him enough other tools to be able to hour-build safely).

FFF--------------


DFC Join Date: Mar 2002

Nice try at trying to reduce the number of people competing with you for that airline job...you must have the money to pay for all this extra training so you

http://www.pprune.org/members/48383-dfc



Location: EurolandPosts: 2,161

simply...price them out of the market!

The training system I believe is just fine as it is. It has a balance between providing the training to meet the sport / recreational flyer while at the same time meting the requirements of those progressing to professional flying.

Standards vary greatly because the system is provided by humans and unfortunately, in many cases the persuit of profit can outshine the persuit of standards.

However, when talking about professional standards, you only have to hang round the clubroom at a UK outfit when the pilot who looks smart, operates safely and plans everything fully before executing as professional as possible a flight.....and you will see many pilots (instructors included) making jibes about that person. In short professional operation of something simple like a C150 in the UK is seen as unusual when the opposite should be true.

While a student recently planned a crosscountry, a passing PPL eroute to his twin remarked to his lady friend that "we don't need to do that stuff because we have expensive electonics to tell us where to go".

In short, the pilot who sets and keeps to weather minima, plans thoroughly even the shortest flight and isn't slow to turn back or divert, calculates a weight and balance always, calculates mass and balance always, claculates mass and performance always, uses some form of PLOG always, calculates the fuel requirement always and doen't simply fill the tanks, makes reports when things are not up to standard or when any incident occurs.....is seldom seen at a flying club in the UK.....but isn't that what every professional pilot does every time?

Perhaps it is simply attitudes that need to be changed.

Regards,

DFC



The problem with the current system is that new pilots are unable to do much with their licenses, especially PPLs. Most people learn to fly for more than one reason. On the PPL side of things new pilots can only comfortably fly simple aircraft, do simple manuevres and fly short cross country flights in relatively good visibility.On the CPL side of things, would you agree that new pilots are capable of carrying out the priviledges of their licenses comfortably? WHy is there the 500/700




hr rule?All I'm saying is that more can be done in the 45/200-250hrs of training. You only have to look at the military training system.DFCYou've asked a very good question. I can barely afford to pay for the current system. One the PPL side of things, the training industry is trying to ditch the elitist image by attracting a less affluent clientelle. Unfortunately most of these people can not afford to fly the number of hrs needed to maintain proficiency or enjoy the full benefits of a PPL. In order to be a comfortable PPL in the UK extra training is needed in addition to the PPL training. So in the end of the day there wouldn't be much of an effect on the number of active and proficient pilots, even though the number of people with PPLs on their mantlepieces will. The only benefactor of the current sytem are the schools. I'm just trying to shift the balance to the pilots, nothing wrong with that, is there?The bottomline is flying is expensive and take that

from one of the poorest men in the UK Capt. M



You have a very blinkered view on things cap'n ...

With a PPL you are not "that" limited? for example, you can ...

Fly around the world!Fly a Spitfire, Mustang or even a Hawker Hunter!Fly aero's to unlimited standard.Get an IR rating.

Hardly "simple aircraft, simple manouvers, short cross countries or even good viz"???

500-700 is purely a measure of experience not necassarily competance ... now the 700hr self improver route has gone there is no "rule"?

You can fly perfectly comfortably in the UK with no extra training ... it just depends what you want to do or fly?

As a farm worker with five kiddies ... believe me, you have no monopoly on be slightly impoverished. You simply have to learn how to get around the "system". Once you do, you'll find that you can fly far more cheaply than you or your mates would ever imagine

Open your eyes old chap and you'll see a whole lot of

life is out there for the taking




SS


Send Clowns


Quote:

On the PPL side of things new pilots can only comfortably fly simple aircraft, do simple manuevres and fly short cross country flights in relatively good visibility

While this is very true, Capt, that is the limitation of the course length. 45 hours is a little more than required by some, but about right or insufficient for many to learn the exercises already included. The military training system has a 65-hour SEP course, for pilots of certain aptitude and even they are under some pressure (I know, I have passed it).

You may have already heard the PPL described as a "licence to learn", and I would always encourage pilots to think that they never stop learning and developing their skills. All these other abilities you feel a pilot requires should gradually come as the pilot gently expands his* abilities, on his own or with an instructor. On the other hand I recently helped teach a PPL student who had bought his own aircraft and intended to use it to its full capability. We did far more ambitious exercises than are really required by the PPL course, and went much further afield. I taught him the best way to operate the aircraft, including flying higher than most PPLs when weather does not constrain the flight and use of autopilot to ease workload on long trips. This is always an option for the more ambitious student who can afford it. To include this in the PPL course and test is not required and would only make the licence even more expensive to acquire.

*(masculine pronoun used for convenience only!)



I don't intend for this to turn into a slanging match. all I've asked is for your views on what needs changing. I might be inexperienced but from talking to fellow pilots and my personal experiences I think that the current system has a lot of flaws.The fact of the matter is there are very few, if any new PPLs who can fly spitfires/around the world/aerobatics/etc in the real world.As Sendclowns has rightly pointed out, the PPL is a license to learn, but isn't it possible to make it a lot more than that. The current system is inadequate for pilots who for example wish to fly for business.All I'm saying as a CUSTOMER (who is always right )







is that I would prefer a system that allows me to do a lot more.Shortstripper,I don't know if you're an aircraft owner, but i doubt you would let the average PPL anywhere near your aircraft if you were one.Most new lorry drivers today will find themselves at the controls of a top of the line 44-tonner on their first job. the same applies to train/bus drivers. My car driving test was much harder than my PPL skills test, and that doesn't do much for my confidence as a pilot. Training programs in any industry or field are supposed to give you most if not all the skills required to do the job, that can't be acquired through experience. It's no secret that the airline industry is not content with the quality of new CPLs. The ICAO has proposed the new co-pilot license. these are signs the the current system is flawed. What suprises me is that a new CPL can be allowed to do 6 TOs and landing in a multi-million £ Jet after 'only' 40hrs in the sim, yet they cannot be allowed to fly PA34s with passengers IFR. I just refuse to believe that more training can't be included in the curent 45/200hrs or that the current system is adequate.Capt. M


Charlie Zulu Join Date: Jun 2002Location: Stirling, UKAge: 32Posts: 715

Operating as a crew under IFR in a multi million pound B737 is probably a lot easier (relatively day to day) than operating a PA34 as a single pilot under IFR in the thick of a UK winter with icing, winds etc all conspiring against you, with maybe a very very very simple autopilot (may be u/s) bouncing around in the dark night sky fully encapsulated within thousands of feet of cumulous clouds and not a chance to get to VMC on top conditions. Quite often with the single pilot IFR work you're also flight planning, working out the fuel load, the weight and balance without anyone in operations to back you up.

Personally I believe, and our own beloved CAA believe, that operating under these conditions is very hard work and that is why they impose a 700 hour rule before one can fly single pilot IFR commercially.

When you say why do the 500/700 rule exist? Well that is the FAA system I believe you're thinking about... 500 hours for single pilot vmc work and 700 for IFR work... if I remember correctly. We (UK CAA) only have the 700 rule.

The airlines do take low hour CPL/IR pilots, but as there are a load of fully qualified jet type rated people around they'll take them first...

http://www.pprune.org/members/53392-charlie-zulu



Oh and if the Business person obtaining a PPL would like to fly for business then they'd buy a really nice de-iced twin with lots of instrument and systems redundancy and also train for a full Instrument Rating (either FAA or JAA)... that way they'll have the *same* IR as any airline pilot does...

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.


Send Clowns


Captain I think you are mistaking the idea of a PPL. A PPL is for private flying. It also allows a pilot to fly on personal business, though the cost must be borne by the individual, at least on an equal basis with everyone on board. If you wish to fly beyond the privileges of a PPL, or beyond your capabilities at licence issue (and it is to your great credit that you recognise that the capabilities of a new PPL holder are more restricting than the statutary limitations of licence privileges) then you can pay for extra training. I know no schools that would refuse to provide some. On the other hand someone who simply wants to fly to the Isle of Wight every couple of weeks (as one of our students does) should not have to pay for extra training!

For business use you are looking at a CPL. There is a reason that 200 hours total time and an extra 25 hours flight training plus an awful lot of groundschool are required for the holding a CPL. That reason is exactly what you are talking about: you can do a whole lot more with it, and are expected to be able to cope much better with a broader range of situations. Quote:

It's no secret that the airline industry is not content with the quality of new CPLs. The ICAO has proposed the new co-pilot license. these are signs the the current system is flawed. What suprises me is that a new CPL can be allowed to do 6 TOs and landing in a multi-million £ Jet after 'only' 40hrs in the sim, yet they cannot be allowed to fly PA34s with passengers IFR.

It may be no secret to you, but it seems to be a secret to those of us that actually work in commercial flight training. The proposed co-pilot's licence would actually be of a lesser standard than the current CPL/IR, and would not allow all the privileges.

If you really knew enough about flying to go waving these random criticisms of the flight training system in a forum full of people in the business then you would realise how much harder single-pilot instrument flying is than multi-crew. Notice that many commercial operators have AOCs which in fact restrict them to




pilots with more than 1000 hours for single-pilot ops.


FlyingForFun


CZ,

We do have a 500hr rule under JARs. The reference is JAR-OPS 1, page 1-N-3 (page 129 of the linked document), rule 1.960: Quote:

(a) An operator shall ensure that:

(1) A Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) holder does not operate as a commander of an aeroplane certified in the Aeroplane Flight Manual for single pilot operations unless:

(i) When conducting passenger carrying operations under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) outside a radius of 50nm from an aerodrom of departure, the pilot has a minimum of 500 hours total flight time on aeroplanes or holds a valid Instrument Rating

FFF---------------


DRJAD Join Date: Sep 2002Location: Almost ScotlandPosts: 303

Certainly I would see the PPL as a licence to learn.

My contribution to the debate would be that the initial part of the course (however that be defined) should contain enough material and assessment to ensure that the eventual PPL graduate has the ability and has the basis of knowledge and deductive reasoning skills to be able to go on and learn more.

I quite agree that the amassing of experience post-PPL is in itself a learning process, but, in the absence of good skills learned during the PPL course, it becomes an empirical learning process. Consequently, it does not provide the maximum value to the pilot.

My feeling is that the current PPL syllabus, and its form of theoretical assessment (i.e. the MCQ ground examinations) insufficiently tests deductive reasoning.



Capt. Manuvar

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be offensive ... I have a tone that sometimes implies that I think? It's actually just a rather strange sense of humour

I missed the word "new" in your original post and took




http://www.pprune.org/members/57712-drjad



http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jars/443844.pdf




your it to mean that the PPL "persay" is very limited ... which it isn't.

The training and test for PPL is (I think) on the whole pretty adequate for what it is and yes a PPL is just like a new driving licence in that it's a licence to learn. There comes a point at which ANY training needs to be backed up by experience. If you made the PPL part too onerous, people would either give up or simply start to have problems consolidating all they have learned. As a non CPL I can't comment with authority, but I do sometimes wonder about this problem with fast track CPL training. Look at this in a real life senario ... for example, a mechanic used to learn his/her trade by doing an apprentiship over a long period of time. Now he/she can become a qualified mechanic much quicker by doing a short college course. No offence to new mechanics, but the "old" style types really knew and empathised with engines and other machinery ... not so the new style ones (in my experience anyway). This is just an example, but I hope you can see what I'm trying to say?

Actually I do have my own aeroplane, plus a share in a nice Falconar. A couple of the members are new PPL's and I have no problem with them flying the aircraft at all. It is the attitude of the person that counts. If you know your limitations and act/fly accordingly then a new PPL is absolutely fine. After all, many say your first solo is your technically your best flight. They could be right! You are fresh, well prepared, in good practice and very very aware of your limitations!

SS


Charlie Zulu Join Date: Jun 2002Location: Stirling, UKAge: 32Posts: 715

Hi FlyingForFun,

Apologies are in order for the thread. Sorry I didn't have a clue that JAR-OPS included a 500 hour rule.

Thanks for pointing that out to me and I'm sure I'll be learning about that in the ATPL distance learning course I've just enrolled on (awaiting module one in the post - very imminent).

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.


Evo Probationary PPRuNer

Quote:

http://www.pprune.org/members/57996-evo



http://www.pprune.org/members/53392-charlie-zulu



Join Date: Sep 2002Location: Chichester, UKPosts: 1,663

Actually I do have my own aeroplane, plus a share in a nice Falconar. A couple of the members are new PPL's and I have no problem with them flying the aircraft at all. It is the attitude of the person that counts.

That's a relief (I'm one of the new PPLs sharing the aeroplane with shortstripper )

As a PPL with no intention of going commercial I think the current PPL is generally good. I'd like to see the exams beefed up a little bit (although I recognise that I'm in a minority with that one) - not into mini-ATPLs, but there's an awful lot that a plain-vanilla PPL doesn't know. I'd also like Ex. 19 to be taken a bit more seriously, but maybe that was just a failing of my PPL - after doing an IMC I don't think that that the instrument work I did during my PPL would have been enough to get me out of trouble.

For me, by far the most useful flying i've done post-PPL has been FFF's "fun flying" - basic aerobatics and tailwheel. They're not for everybody so they couldn't be moved into the PPL, but i'd like to see both encouraged a bit more afterwards. Both are very good for confidence, skill - and enjoyment! However, clubs with nice aerobatic aeroplanes or tailwaggers are fairly rare, and, more importantly, good instructors are even rarer. I gave up on my first tailwheel checkout because the instructor had just got back into a taildragger for the first time in 40 years (Boeings in between) and couldn't teach it. Second time out was a much better instructor and much more successful

whizz wheel

Isn't it about time only one method was taught when using the reverse of the whizz wheel when finding groundspeed and drift and all the different methods shown in study books scrapped.

If the vector triangle solution is transfered from basic principles to the computer there is only one correct, straightforward method to arrive at an answer.All this fiddling about to make things fit using alternative methods only leads to confusion or lack of understanding of whats going on.I've lost count the number of Skill Test candidates on presenting their flight plan to find drifts applied in reverse, of incorrect value and Tas becomes groundspeed. (Notwithstanding these should be double checked by applying some logic).

Instructors are at fault, most don't understand the mechanics of vector triangle and pass on whatever they were shown/taught to their students.In Nav. exams you can always tell who as used the alternate methods the answers are always 1 degree or 1 knot out.

These alternate methods only exist to ensure that the wind vector arrow/line always ends up below the centre dot.

If whats going on was fully understood it doesn't matter where the line goes so

long as its logical and correct.

.....i will now retreat to my bunker.......SH

9th July 2003, 06:48 #2 (permalink)

StrateandLevel Join Date: Jan 2000Location: UKPosts: 318

Not sure which you regard as the "alternative" method. The Dalton Computer was designed to be used Wind DOWN. Most people who use Wind UP claim there is less fiddling rather than more however, it can lead to the wrong conclusion.

Personally I'd prefer the student to use Max drift and head/ tail components leaving the wheel in its box.


GT Join Date: Oct 1998Location: NorthamptonPosts: 81

BigEndBob,

For what it's worth, I agree with you entirely. However, I think you'll find that we are in the minority (which doesn't make us wrong!).

StrateandLevel,

I find myself in agreement with you as well. When I teach navigation I initially do so using max. drift etc., then progress onto the whizz wheel.

Regards, GT.


Mark 1 Join Date: Aug 2000Location: Warwicks, UKPosts: 652

BigEndBob,

I agree with you entirely. Wind dot up is the only logical way to do it.

I've shown students this method, drawn the vectors on for them and explained what I was doing, and they understood straight away.

I also managed to do all the exercises in the CPL exams this way with no problems whatsoever. I've yet to see a logically reasoned argument for wind dot down.

But they'll probably never use it again once they've qualified anyway.


juswonnafly I agree with S&L on this. I teach my studes max drift

http://www.pprune.org/members/7892-juswonnafly

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/95583-whizz-wheel.html#post923110


http://www.pprune.org/members/18914-mark-1



http://www.pprune.org/members/3036-gt



http://www.pprune.org/members/10347-strateandlevel



Join Date: Aug 1999Location: UKPosts: 90

method. The only ones who get lossed/confused are those who insist on using the whizzwheel!

JWF


john_tullamarine Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001Location: various places .....Posts: 3,248

While I agree that the "conventional" techniques are the way to go, it is important to realise that wind up and wind down will give the same answer (provided that the "unconventional" user keeps his or her cool) ... ie there is no inherent error in using one technique as opposed to the alternative. Same applies for either Dalton or Jepp styles of whizz wheel. This thread gives a bit of explanation.


pilotbear Join Date: Apr 1999Location: all over the placeAge: 48Posts: 425

I also use Max Drift for navigation with my people, it also helps them when diverting etc. as it can be done visually on the map with a wind vector arrow.I also visually estimate groundspeed for timings, i.e.If you have any tailwind within 60 deg of track divide distance by two for the time. (120kts g/s)If no h/w or t/w within 60 deg of track then take 2/3 of distance for your time. (90kts g/s)If you have any headwind within 60 deg of track then distance = time. (60kts g/s)This is at TAS cruise of 90 - 100 kts. You may say this is inaccurate, but how many PPLs can fly that accurately and how often is the wind correct?

It can be a little more complex/accurate if required but still easy to do visually or mentally.

The whizz wheel is good for more complex stuff if the person is interested but that is all in my humble

opinion. Not necessary for Mr PPL.

ps If I have to use the infernal device I draw direction arrows on the wind line >>> or <<< and direction lines on the track line >> or << then seeing the drift effect is easy whichever method you use.

Last edited by pilotbear : 10th July 2003 at 07:35.


BigEndBob Join Date: Jul 2003Location: ukPosts: 432

The thread that John refers to proves my point, these alternate methods have been created to make someones life easy.i.e. people teaching solutions to problems that few use other than to pass commercial exams, then forget. So poor ppl students have to suffer some cock handed

http://www.pprune.org/members/72445-bigendbob



http://www.pprune.org/members/6380-pilotbear



http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66361

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66361

http://www.pprune.org/members/31647-john_tullamarine



method to find the solution to the most common problem, finding drift and groundspeed.

Bravo..i applaued those that use methods,whatever they may be, to guesstimate what the final values should be. This holds the student in good stead for practise /real diversions (and later IMC holds. etc.).I am amazed how few students/candidates for test actually mark the wind arrow on their chart. After track this should be the next line drawn on the chart. How many times have i told a student to mark on the chart the wind vector before i go about explaining how to correct their errors.



Also from my ATPL study days i seem to remember the basic CRP-1 being more accurate than the CRP-5 because of the smaller speed a drift line spread. Could never understand why everybody dashed out to upgrade their computer for ATPL exams, because it had the compressibilty solving bit on it i suppose and its BIGGER.


Flying Boat Join Date: Aug 2000Location: Around the world, at present in Indonesia & UKPosts: 294

BEB

You need the CRP5 to answer the 3 or 4 compressability questions in ATPL Gen Nav.

Then the CRP1 is fine.

FB



When i did my ATPL you were allowed to use the compressibilty table provided by CAA , is this still true?


Flying Boat Join Date: Aug 2000Location: Around the world, at present in Indonesia & UKPosts: 294

Didn't see any Comp table, but did my Gen Nav in April, they still have a Sin & Cosine table, may be on the back.

We were taught how to do comp on the CRP5 as part of the course. I am doing JAR so it might be different now.

http://www.pprune.org/members/20093-flying-boat






http://www.pprune.org/members/20093-flying-boat







destructor Join Date: May 2001Location: west yorkshirePosts: 11

Draw the track and wind lines on the map know the max drift and lets go. I have yet to meet the MET man who can get the wind speed and direction right so why spend time with a whiss wheel for accuracy when the start figures are wrong anyway. To navigate learn the map/route use max drift calc and adjust!

23rd July 2003, 03:59 #14 (permalink)

Pianorak Join Date: May 2003Location: UKPosts: 231

I started off doing wind-mark UP (method A in Trevor Thom), but was persuaded to drop that and do wind-mark DOWN. Got rather confused and reverted to UP.But who is this Max Drift? Haven't come across him yet. Can you use Max D. to calculate HDG and GS? Will some kind soul please explain - have the nav exam coming up in couple of months’ time.


Obs cop Join Date: May 2003Location: MidlandsPosts: 347

The key with a dalton computer is basically to ignore it until there is a thorough understanding of the vector triangle.

I certainly found that once this was lodged in my thick skull, I could easily used either wind up or wind down at my discretion. Moreover, the whizz wheel/ max drift mental DR techniques are not there to be used individually. Each have their advantages and disavantages depending on the flight planned and subsequant execution of that flight.

IMHO

Obs cop


Send Clowns


The techniques for mental ded reconning are excellent, and all students should know them. I used to pre-flight plan without a flight computer pertfectly adequately.

BigEndBob

The CRP-1 is smaller and so less precise than the CRP-5. The CAA admit some of the JAA ATPL answers are unreasonably close together even for the latter, it would be impossible to distinguish the answers on a CRP-1. For practical navigation the CRP-1 is perfectly adequate, but do not confuse apparent greater accuracy with precision.




http://www.pprune.org/members/70494-obs-cop



http://www.pprune.org/members/70142-pianorak



http://www.pprune.org/members/32927-destructor



No compressibility tables are offered in the exam, and they are no longer taught on the course. The flight computer is the only realistic option.

The given answers are calculated using a Pooley's CRP-5, so the student would be wise to do likewise even without these other factors. Having used 4 different flight computers, now teaching ATPL General Navigation and Flight Planning I would say that the this is the best of these instruments I have come across.

ObsCop

I agree - I teach ATPL students the vector triangle first, as I learnt to navigate a ship/boat. I then transfer this to a CRP-5 (wind down)

Last edited by Send Clowns : 23rd July 2003 at 23:24.


pilotbear Join Date: Apr 1999Location: all over the placeAge: 48Posts: 425

Pianorak,

Max drift method of calcualting hdg and g/s is not accurate for the written exams but is good for actual nav and diversion planning.With the wind up/down argument, if you make the wind line an arrow showing the direction of the wind and remember that the TAS goes on the back of the arrow the concept is relatively easy either way. Read the hdg and g/s off the pointy end of your arrow.

Max drift:An aeroplane at a constant tas with a constant 90deg crosswind will always experience a maximum amount of drift.

calculation; windspeed/TAS X 60

i.e. 20kts/100kts X 60 = 12deg. write this on your map with a big wind arrow. The hdg is worked out as follows VISUALLY.

So, at 100kts tas this aircraft will drift 12deg with a 90deg xwind, so you steer 12deg into the wind.

How do you work it out if the wind is not 90deg off the track?

Use the watch face concept, (that is 15mins=1/4hr, 30mins=1/2hr etc)

so if the wind is 15deg off the track use 1/4 max drift, if 30deg use 1/2 max drift, if 45deg off use 3/4 max drift, if 60 or more off the nose use all the max drift to work out your heading.

http://www.pprune.org/members/6380-pilotbear



(in the right direction of course).

Use the same concept in reverse for g/s;(add or subtract from TAS, check visually on your map.If the wind is up to 30deg off the track use all the wind speedIf 45deg off the track use 3/4 of the windspeed, If 60deg or more use 1/2 the wind speed etc.

this can be as accurate as you want to make it and there is a cheap book that explains this well. 'Diversion

planning' by Martyn Smith


Pianorak Join Date: May 2003Location: UKPosts: 231

Thanks pilotbear Having just had a drink (couple of glasses of red wine) it makes perfect sense. . . However, may have to have recourse to Diversion Planning to hammer the message home completely.



Sendclowns....i seem to remember the fans lines being wider apart on the smaller CRP-1 because of the greater effect of drift on lower speeds.CRP-5 are closer together (therefore less accurate) because of the higher speeds that can be plotted on it. (But the exam questions never seem to require speeds behond those on the CRP-1).


Send Clowns


The CRP-1 and CRP-5 cover similar speed ranges. At lower speeds the CRP-5 has fewer drift lines than high speed, though this is a penalty not the benefit you suggest.

The width of spacing of the drift lines does not affect accuracy, and although it can affect precision closer drift lines can only increase precision, not reduce it. The width apart of the fan lines is basically determined by the drift experienced and the scale being used, i.e. is each drift line one or two degrees. Given that the correct answer to the same problem does not change, closer fan lines can only mean finer detail, i.e. going down from 2 degrees per line to 1 (from 100 kts slow side, 300 kts fast side on a CRP-5). These closer lines can only make the instrument more precise, not less!

In fact I believe the CRP-5 vector calculator side is pretty much a CRP-1 scaled up. Therefore the larger size must improve precision, as the eye can read it more easily and the pencil mark is thinner in







http://www.pprune.org/members/70142-pianorak



comparison.

I cannot see any way in which a CRP-5 can possibly be less accurate than a CRP-1.

logging instruction hours

I've been instructing on for the last few weekends now. I'm instructing from an unlicensed field by doing the touch and go at a close, licensed field.

Has anyone got some guidence about the logging the times. Should i put 3 different entries

1 journey to licensed field2 the lesson itself3 journey back to base

It occured to me that i'm going to have to have evidence to lift my restricted status at some point and don't want to have a hard time off the CAA.

26th September 2004, 17:54

#2 (permalink)

QNH 1013 Join Date: Oct 2000Location: EnglandPosts: 513

Can't help you with your specific question as all the airfields I train from are licensed, but another instructor (CFI actually) told me that a training flight only has to take-off from a licensed airfield. He said the landing airfield doesn't have to be licensed.I've not checked this because it doesn't apply to my flights, but if its true it could save you half of your inconvenience.


#3 (permalink)

FlyingForFun


A few "off-the-top-of-my-head" completely unofficail thoughts...

Every time I've done a flight with a touch-and-go at an airfield other than where I've set off from, I've logged it as one flight (it's only ever been in the USA, as I always have to stop to pay landing fees over here!). That includes my CPL skills test, when I did the circuits away from my home base, and the CAA didn't query it.

I don't see any reason why an instructional flight should be any different. However, it can't count as instruction until after the touch and go, so the instructional time must be less than the total time of the flight. So, as long as your logbook allows you to keep track of the instrucitonal time separate to the total time of the flight, I can't see why there'd be any problem logging it on just one line.

As I said, this is just my thoughts, please don't take it as official in any way!


http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/146187-logging-instruction-hours.html#post1538406


http://www.pprune.org/members/22896-qnh-1013



What I would be curious to know is how your students log the time.....

FFF------------------


#4 (permalink)


wobblyprop - ab-initio fight instruction may only be conucted from a licensed/government aerodrome. So the transit to the licensed aerodrome and recovery from same cannot be logged as instructional time, nor can you be paid for the time as they are private flights.

No doubt this makes your employer's enterprise more expensive to the customers.....


#5 (permalink)

Chuck Ellsworth Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Vancouver IslandPosts: 1,581

BEagle:

Once the airplane leaves a licensed airport and lands at an unlicensed one has it entered a time warp, or some black hole in space?

Thus making that flying experience invalid?

What a f.cked up world we live in.

Chuck E.


#6 (permalink)


Yes, Chuck, you're right. In the UK it is not lawful to conduct flight training for ab-initio PPL training ftom anything except a licensed or government aerodrome.

To 'license' an aerdrome is an expensive undertaking and the aerodrome operator has a host of CAA requirements to meet. So what some PPL organisations do is to operate from an unlicensed aerodrome, perform a toch-and-go at a convenient nearby licensed aerodrome, do the lesson, than the FI lands at the unlicensed aerodrome. The lesson is considered as the period from the touch-and-go at the licensed aerodrome (for which there will also be a landing fee - remember, this is the UK!) until the FI takes over for the landing..... It's a fiddle to get round the law - but it's a very stupid law.

The idea is to protect people from the unscrupulous




http://www.pprune.org/members/40306-chuck-ellsworth






operator who would operate from a muddy cow pasture with a shabby old spamcan and an ancient caravan (if that). But what is being sought now is a more commonsense approach with less black-and-white distinction between licensed and unlicensed aerodromes. Not a free-for-all, but approval to conduct particular forms of training from 'approved training sites' depending on their individual standards. But it isn't going to be an overnight change.

And don't forget that, whereas in the US an aerodrome is seen as a normal facility supported by local commerce and part of the national transport infrastructure, in the UK they're usually viewed as an annoyance to vociferous local noise campaigners - and such little aerodromes NEVER receive funding from local chambers of commerce or other supporting businesses.

US - Land of the FreeUK - Land of the fee


#7 (permalink)

wobblyprop Join Date: Jan 2001Location: f015Posts: 327

thanks for the responses guys. Going to have to break out the tipex for the log book, i think.


#8 (permalink)

WestWind1950 Join Date: Apr 2002Location: Who cares? ;-)Posts: 436

@ BEagle / Chuck,

the same is true in Germany, except that we don't have any "unlicenced fields", only one's restricted to certain types of aircraft. Even the smallest ultralight or glider field is licenced, but not necessarily for SEP'S etc. The school must designate to the authorities, which field it primary uses and get it approved. And if you want to save money on landing fees, you go to one that's cheaper.... the flight from your homebase will count since it is licenced (no cow-pasture fields here). Are fields are usually not supported by anyone, either

@ wobblypropQuote:

Going to have to break out the tipex for the log book

you better be careful... the CAA, or any other authority for that matter, is very allergic to tipex and another thing, if the flight from the unlicenced field cannot be considered a training flight.... eh, who is sitting left?

http://www.pprune.org/members/49497-westwind1950



http://www.pprune.org/members/25571-wobblyprop



Westy


#9 (permalink)

Whirlybird

The Original Whirly Join Date: Feb 1999Location: Just W of TNT, Peak District, UKPosts: 4,081

This thing about the CAA being allergic to tippex is a myth. My log book is covered in the stuff, and I've never had any problems.

As for who sits where, as far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement for anyone to fly from any particular seat.


#10 (permalink)

WestWind1950 Join Date: Apr 2002Location: Who cares? ;-)Posts: 436

Quote:

As for who sits where, as far as I'm aware there is no legal requirement for anyone to fly from any particular seat.

well, in Germany it is exactly defined in which seat the pic is to be in, if not specified in the planes manual (§2 LuftVO)

Westy

P.S. I always find it interesting how different the regulations are from country to country.... I don't expect European harmonisation to EVER happen too soon


#11 (permalink)


I've never understood the UKs restrictive policies. In Oz you're allowed to conduct any level of training from any type of airfield as long as the field is suitable for use by that aircraft. Oz has an advisory publication that give recommended dimensions incl. fly over areas, surface & approach/departure slopes etc. Of course the field must be long enough IAW the aircraft's performance charts.

Historically, these aircraft landing area (ALA) specs. were in the ANOs/AIP, with a slightly more restrictive version for training (called a training ALA). Some differences included shallower obstacle clear approach/departure gradients. The training ALA additional restrictions were dropped around ~10 or 15 years ago.

As far as I can find there is no difference in accident or injury rate between training at licenced aerodromes (which may or may not have a fire service. It's not




http://www.pprune.org/members/49497-westwind1950



http://www.pprune.org/members/24436-whirlybird



required, anyway), ALAs or the defunct Training ALAs.

So, why does the UK bother?


#12 (permalink)


Some very useful stuff here! Thanks, Westy. That'll be very useful in our work with the CAA.

How typical that our chums in Oz have a commonsense view on such things!


#13 (permalink)


The Unlicenced hop!

Public Transport dosn't specify cash but 'hire or reward'!

Take care. Someone must take benefit from the 'positioning flight' even if the student isn't charged cash.

Instructing is 'Arial Work' but the positioning legs may be construed as 'Public Transport' for 'hire or reward'. i.e. the Student as the passenger.

At the moment it would appear that no one wants to grasp that particular nettle, including the CAA, but it would only need an accident or a serious incident for the proverbial to hit the fan!


#14 (permalink)

DFC Join Date: Mar 2002Location: EurolandPosts: 2,161

I think the comment that started off this whole topic needs re-wording -

"The aircraft is based at abc which is unlicensed and when conducting training flights it operates to and from another airfield - DEF (which is the airfield notified to the CAA as the base field for RTF purposes) which is a licensed airfield. The student meets the instructor at abc and completes the pre-flight briefing before the instructor positions the aircraft to DEF. After completion of the flight at DEF, the instructor positions the aircraft back to abc."

Important points regarding the above -

The student is simply a passenger on the positioning flights but this does not prevent them "manipulating










the controls".

Two landings are required at the second field to start and end the training flight.

However, most importantly of all and at times overlooked - no circuit training is permitted at the unlicensed field.

The only thing I can assume is that this is a very quiet group/club operation where the extra expense of all those positioning flights and extra landing fees is less than the cost of basing the organisation at the licensed airfield (even if it is only from morning to night).

Regards,

DFC

PS - The JARs don't require a licensed airfield for training - they simply require that the field meets certain minimum appropriate standards. The UK CAA't method of checking suitability is simply to limit training to licensed airfields.

Perhaps the CAA needs a new muddy cow path inspection team - M-COP-IT.


#15 (permalink)


Another aspect you have not considered is that the FI(R) must be supervised by an instructor who is present at the point of take off and landing. If you transit to another arerodrome to commence training, an insurer may well deceide that the FI(R) is not supervised!

Last edited by BlueLine : 29th September 2004 at 09:49.


#16 (permalink)


There is no JAR requirement for the supervision instructor to be present when supervision the FI(R).

Don't think that is the requirement for the UK either since I have sen many FI(R) teaching dual crosscountry flights who land at another airfield.......and where is the supervising FI?

Supervision ad Observation are different things!

Regards,







DFC


#17 (permalink)

wobblyprop Join Date: Jan 2001Location: f015Posts: 327

My understanding is that the supervising instructor has to be contactable. Whether they are having a coffee in the club house or flying in the curcuit.

Fortunately for me, the licensed field I use is where I completed my FI course and they are happy to provide FI cover.


#18 (permalink)


Supervision

Refer; ANO Schedule 8, Part B

[para-phrased]

An AFI (I presume the old UK/AFI) may only instruct when an FI is present at the aerodrome of departure at the time the flying lesson commences and at the place of landing when the flying lesson ends. Nothing about intermediate landings that may take place as part of the lesson.

An FI(R) has no such restriction applied to them, therefore an FI is not required to be present. An FI(R) appears only to be restricted to the first solo bits! No telephone required eigther.

1st October 2004, 08:56 #19 (permalink)

scubawasp Join Date: Jan 2002Location: herePosts: 164

Strange, when I phoned the CAA FCL, they informed me that an FI must be present as under the AFI.

So those who are supervising the FI(R) on the end of a phone and not at the point of first departure, I suggest that you call the CAA and ASK THEN rather then just trying to interpert LASors to suit your own needs!

It would be unfortunate if any incident occured and YOU where not there!

If anyone else cares to phone the CAA and find out then please post this here as this should be sorted out so that no confusion reigns.

Then we can all worry about their students first solo!

http://www.pprune.org/members/44940-scubawasp






http://www.pprune.org/members/25571-wobblyprop




pondlife Join Date: Feb 2000Location: UKPosts: 38

I've not asked the CAA about this one but, out of interest, how many of you have telephoned the CAA about some point of regulation or licencing requirements and had different answers on different days.I've had this happen lots.

It seems to me that when we have to go to court to defend some action it will be the judge's interpretation that matters and not the opinion of whoever you happen to speak to at the CAA on a particular day.

If you want to use the "...but the CAA said..." argument in court then you'd need to be able to produce a letter from them. What one of them told you on the telephone one day would be worthless.

In the absence of a letter from the CAA, you may find that your interpretation of the regulations is just as trustworthy as a CAA bod's - possibly more so.If the point's been tested in court then I guess that the outcome of that would be the most reliable indicator of what would happen if you went to court. Most of the detail doesn't appear to have been tested though and I hope that most of it never is.

Can anyone tell me why the Brits turn finals?

I never could find out how many runways they are seeing and shure would like to know.


#2 (permalink)


The last but one bit.

The correct term is 'Final' which should be called once the aircraft is fully established, not during the turn, and when the pilot is satisfied that they are in a position to complete the approach to land.

However, the Brits are a creative lot and will always seek to vary from the norm upon every opportunity.


#3 (permalink)


Even more common is -

"G-ABCD Finals 27 Right"

Not so bad until one realises that the airfield has only


http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/146395-finals.html#post1540727





http://www.pprune.org/members/13070-pondlife



one strip (09/27) and the pilot is making an approach to that runway. Apparently the guy was referring to the circuit direction.........but does it matter when one is on final?

UK R/T is far superior to ICAO stuff....they even publish their own in depth manual........pity few pilots ever read it.

Regards,

DFC


#4 (permalink)

MikeJeff Join Date: May 2003Location: SussexPosts: 121

Fair comment Chuck,

However the argument is not relevant in the US where one doesn't need to call final as one has already been cleared to land, oftern 3 days before starting the flight in the first place!


#5 (permalink)

spitfire747 Join Date: Aug 2001Location: Cardiff and PortsmouthPosts: 478

Tower G-WARZ Final Runway 30.....

or due to sharp and close approaches here at cardiff for some flights (if tower know an instructor is flying)

Tower G-WARZ turning base to final, runway 30

RT goes the same for

one or wunthree or treefive or fife

incorrect use of RT is rife amongst the masses..

G-WARZ runway vacated, goodbye


#6 (permalink)


I seem to remember being cleared to land on a downwind call at Orlando executive, only to have a turbo prop pilot ask three times for the position of the one ahead, when he was also cleared to land. He being ahead of us on long final. Got to admit this can confuse us Brits who have it drummed into us to get clearance to land on final.




http://www.pprune.org/members/36516-spitfire747



http://www.pprune.org/members/70899-mikejeff



Also i think Icao use to suggest call final on the turn or was this a RAF requirement re the tighter circuit.


#7 (permalink)


Chuck,

Once an aircraft is established on FINAL it has a right of way, UK Rules of the Air 17 (6); no other aircraft may overtake or cut in front of it. Elsewhere in the circuit there is no such limitation.

The UK military call FINALS (plural, or the ROYAL WE) as they commence the base turn, based on the curved approach.

7th October 2004, 14:29 #8 (permalink)

Cool_Hand Join Date: Apr 2002Location: lots of different places....Posts: 117

Aren't there Long Final, Final and Short Final, therefore if you are on any one but short final you are in theory capable of at least two of them?


Send Clowns


Short final is not an official call! Final to 4nm, long final from 4 nm to, I think, 8 nm.


Chilli Monster Join Date: Oct 1999Location: UKPosts: 2,084

Quote:

Short final is not an official call!

Would you like to tell the French that where it's almost standard if you have traffic ahead

Chuck - not all brits say "Finals", and some of us hate it as much you do


FullyFlapped Join Date: May 2003Location: Yorkshire

I've heard "short final" used lots of times in the UK by ATC ... happened just two days ago to me at a regional airport, "Midland XXX, after the Cessna on short final line up and blah blah blah" ...

http://www.pprune.org/members/70255-fullyflapped



http://www.pprune.org/members/9048-chilli-monster






http://www.pprune.org/members/50142-cool_hand






Posts: 646

FF


NineForks Join Date: Oct 2004Location: UKPosts: 17

I believe the correct call for 'short final' etc should be with a reference to distance, e.g "After the Cessna on 1/2 mile final"..

Regards

9F



Hey Chuck, get into the spirit of it all. You could start calling 'upwinds', downwinds' & 'bases' too.


18greens Join Date: Jun 2001Location: EnglandPosts: 763

Short final is very useful as a hint for the person dithering on the runway to hurry up.

As is short short final.

I heard a story about a 737 landing fairly close behind a piper something. The 737 captain came on the radio advising the piper to vacate quickly because he wasn't going around and he didn't want to be wiping piper sh** off his windscreen.


Big Pistons Forever Join Date: Jan 2004Location: West Coast CanadaPosts: 198

Reminds me of sitting lined up on CYVR rwy 26 No 3 to go in a light twin. As I trundled out I could see the lights of a 747 on final. Quite impressive at dusk While impatiently waiting for the two guys ahead of me to get going I knew the jumbo was getting closer and closer As soon as the first cl of cleared for take off was out of the mouth of the controller I was off. He must have noticed this because he added " I bet you thought you were going to get squashed like a bug!


BEagle Join Date: May 1999

UK Mil: "Anytown, Hammer, Initial, Break to land."

US Mil: "Uh Anyville, uuh, Sir, Hammer is a, uuh, flight




http://www.pprune.org/members/81228-big-pistons-forever



http://www.pprune.org/members/34330-18greens






http://www.pprune.org/members/98295-nineforks



Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'Posts: 15,128

of 2 requestin' a uuh, high speed gear up low approach for a, uuh, tactical pitch to the closed"



The foreword to CAP 413 says "recommended practice", so i suppose anything goes. Probably because some of Cap 413 deviates from ICAO.


QNH 1013 Join Date: Oct 2000Location: EnglandPosts: 513

I am told this is from an Indian RT training manual and is given as an example of sloppy, non-standard, RT:

US Mil Pilot: Stove Pipe Five in the slot. Got ma Boots on an' laced. Ready to bounce and blow.

US Mil Controller: You' got the nod to hit the sod.


Big Pistons Forever Join Date: Jan 2004Location: West Coast CanadaPosts: 198

I always thought that the English ATC thing was pretty Anal. Unfortunately Canada is going the same way. The best controller at my home field (CYYJ) was recently fined $200 because when his tapes were audited he was deemed to use too many nonstandard words. ....Like "please"," thank you", and noted especially was the heinous " have a nice flight". Yet at the end of the day he pushes more tin than anybody else , has fun

and is always polite.



That's outrageous! Being fined for courtesy - whatever next..

Back when I was in the Mil, we were sometimes tasked with pretending to be a 'defector' aircraft. Such fun tying ATC up in knots - "A/c calling, squawk xxxx, re-call Scottish Mil on XXX.XX" was greeted with "NO UNDR'STAN". As was anything more complicated than a single question.....

Q. "What is your altitude"A. "Sjeven thousand metre"

Q. "Set QNH 1005 and descend to 4000 ft"A. "No undr'stan. What altimeter in millimetres"




http://www.pprune.org/members/81228-big-pistons-forever



http://www.pprune.org/members/22896-qnh-1013






Q. "Why do you wish to land in UK?"A. "We like your bluejeans, Beatles records and biro pens"

Q. "Why do you wish to defect"A. "No like Sovietski Soyuz. Only cabbage sandwiches to eat and Wodka to drink. We admire Iron Lady"

Q. "Do you have any women on board?"A. "If you knew Russki woman, you no ask such question. All are weighlifters or tractor drivers"

Career FI - Does the school care?

Hi,

I've done a few searches to make sure I'm not starting an old thread, and I've got some useful information on pay, conditions and the shortage of IR/CPL instructors.

However, I didn't manage to find any reference to a Flying School treating a career FI any different to an ATPL hour building FI prior to the big job. (For PPL instructing that is).

I've heard some moans from local students and the School top brass about no continuity with Instructors, and the hope that a "mature" instructor with no Airline ambitions would be a good thing for both the school and the students...but...

Would a school actually give preferential treatment in terms of selection/pay/conditions/permanent full time job to an older, local FI? Or, as there always seems to be a healthy supply of ATPL's, why bother?

cheers

Gugnunc


aztec25 Join Date: Oct 2000Location: UKPosts: 63

I'm hoping so myself, in fact I'm banking on it. I've turned 50 myself taught kids (11-18) for 13 years, adults for 4 years and run several educational businesses. I need a change of direction so building on the 250+ hours I've got as a PPL I'm taking a year out to give it a go.

Currently doing ATPL ground school with BGS and then will do (hopefully) FI and CPL training next spring. That might give me 10 years of instructing (not sure when you have to hang your boots up!)

It may all never happen and I may never get a job but I didn't want to look back in a few years time and think "I wish!"

Good luck!

AZ

http://www.pprune.org/members/22942-aztec25

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/194620-career-fi-does-school-care.html#post2153941


Last edited by aztec25 : 17th October 2005 at 14:46.


nick14 Join Date: Mar 2005Location: under a stonePosts: 529

I know for a fact that if you continue to keep youre medical u can go on instructing. One of the instructors where i gained my PPL, who examined me and is one of the best instructors i have flown with is 65!

Im going to become a career instructor because it is something i will love, being 17 that means i have about 50years of instructing in me!!

see you all at the top Nick



as there always seems to be a healthy supply of ATPL's, why bother.

Regards,

DFC


Gugnunc Posts: n/a

If it is all so short sighted, how (or why) do people become CPL/IR/ME instructors? Are they all retired airline pros?

Do the schools then rely on 250 hr ATPLS for PPL, and 10k+ hr 60+ yr ex V-Force ex Concorde jocks with large BA/Singapore/Emirates pensions to do the advanced stuff?

Nick/Az - good luck to you. I take it you have private incomes!

Gug


aztec25 Join Date: Oct 2000Location: UKPosts: 63

Private income? I wish!!




http://www.pprune.org/members/22942-aztec25








http://www.pprune.org/members/107963-nick14



porridge Join Date: Apr 2000Location: UKPosts: 304

Career FI - Does the school care? - in short no. Perhaps when the airlines are hiring and they are they are loosing a few instructors to them they may care a teeny weensy bit (or pretend to!), but when the situation returns to normal it is back business as usual.Ex Airline and RAF jocks in the main couldn't be bothered with it much - particularly if they have to work for the abysmal employers we do.Ex airline chappies are getting good jobs (and pay) doing type rating training on simulators so why would they bother with prancing about the sky in all weathers and week-ends for a bag of KP's finest in some beat out ancient C150?


P.Pilcher Join Date: Jul 2001Location: U.K.Posts: 586

Like just about every other price in this world, the price paid for instructing is governed by market forces. When the supply of cheap instructors dries up, then the wages will rise to maintain the supply!

Originally the instructor rating was used as a route to get the necessary hours/experience element of a CPL. Hence there were plenty of fresh new PPL instructors around all busily hour building but not instructing too well because of this. Then they introduced the BCPL in the hope that holders of this would either go commercial or instruct. Not a bit of it - instructing was still a route to get the necessary experience. Today is the same. Commercial jobs are hard to come by, so many get their CPL, then do an instructor course so that they can build cheap (free) hours to make themselves more attractive to a commercial employer.

Making a profit as a flying school is hard enough as it is, so all costs must be minimised - including the cost of instructors!On the helicopter side the situation is different. As a CPL(H) is not the start of a route to the airlines, there are fewer people around who hold the appropriate instructor ratings and the instructor fees are much more realistic.Years ago I used to have fun comparing my hourly fee as a fixed wing instructor, BX examiner, ATPL holder e.t.c. with my colleagues in other recreations. I discovered that my hourly rate was less than a basic horse riding instructor, a music (piano) teacher a driving instructor, a scuba diving instructor, a golf pro, a microlite instructor and (incredibly) a model helicopter flying instructor!

As others have said, you will do well if you have a private income but I made it a hobby for 25 years and enjoyed trying to do a good job. The satisfaction is there but until the flying instructor rating is no longer a route to an airline position, the fees paid will continue to be cr*p

http://www.pprune.org/members/36229-p-pilcher



http://www.pprune.org/members/14422-porridge

P.P.


Noggin Join Date: Oct 2000Location: UKPosts: 283

If you want to be a career instructer you should consider Microlights or Helicopters; they make more money, and are not competing with wannabe airline pilots who have always dominated the GroupA/SEP training world. Who said the self improver route was DEAD!


Rivet gun Join Date: Jun 2004Location: EnglandPosts: 90

I've never flown a helicopter, but they sound like fun.

So here's a hypothetical question. Suppose I decided to give up flying FW aircraft for a living and learn to fly helicopters, how many helicopter hours would I need (including training) before I could become a helicopter FI? Startng from ATPL(A) with lapsed FI rating.


Bravo73 Join Date: Jul 2002Location: UKPosts: 1,585

Rivet Gun,

250hrs (in helis) before you can start the FIC(H). 30hr course. Therefore 280ish before you can become an FI(H)(R).

Another few hoops to jump through, then you can get the (R) bit removed.

LASORS, as usual, has all the answers.

HTH,

Bravo73


unfazed Join Date: Feb 2005Location: essexPosts: 412

I don't think that most schools give a toss to be honest.

I have yet to find a school that has a training or development plan for instructors. They do not review flight instructor performance or monitor standardisation in any way whatsoever.

Oh but they are great at taking large amounts of cash off joe public and passing along peanuts to the instructor.

http://www.pprune.org/members/105569-unfazed



http://www.pprune.org/members/54439-bravo73



http://www.pprune.org/members/90514-rivet-gun



http://www.pprune.org/members/22257-noggin



Aviation is a bit of a joke until you secure a job with a "decent" airline (unfortunately they are a dyeing breed).


Gugnunc Posts: n/a

Do any school owners/managers wish to comment? It all seems to be very cut and dried that the schools operate a very opportunistic and short sighted policy.



Gungnuc - That long "silence" must be a "no comment"


RVR800 Join Date: Jan 2000Location: UKPosts: 840

In short there are a lot of people at the bottom of the foodchain in this industry - There IS no shortage and never willbe.

There is a plentiful supply of obsessive blokes willing to work for bugga all despite the fact that in this industry there is often no salary, no holiday pay, no insurance, little ongoing security, low wages, antisocial hours.....

Does that help?



RVR800 - Mrs Unfazed was just looking over my shoulder and felt the need to comment as follows (hands over keyboard to her indoors)......

You lot take the biscuit ! Imagine working long hours for little or no pay, then you come home and e-mail everybody to tell them how awful it all is, what is going on with your brains ? !!

.....I wouldn't normally post her comments but they made me laugh !!!

1st November 2005, 11:48 #17 (permalink)

Blackshift I hope to have the chance to fly full time at some point - whether instructing or otherwise.

http://www.pprune.org/members/14688-blackshift






http://www.pprune.org/members/11899-rvr800








Not Good Airline Material Join Date: Apr 2000Location: Airstrip OnePosts: 129

Seems to me that the only way someone of maturish years (I'm 40 now) can make a half-decent living in aviation is to get all the bells and whistles for CPL/Multi/IR training or shell-out megabucks for a type rating and take their chances.

In the meantime its part-time flight instruction only until the day that I acheive the above, or a bog standard FI can expect to earn at least as much as a bog standard driving instructor.

That surely wouldn't be too much to ask?



Blackshift - I understand your views and share the sentiment

You would think that a flying instructor could make a similar income as a driving instructor and that would be great. I suspect that the reason we can't is for some or all of the following:

1 - The weather !2 - Not as much demand 3 - Less competition4 - More stringent regulations and licensing / medical costs5 - More expensive to qualify6- Exploitative attitude due to quick turnover of instructors

Sad but true !


Gugnunc Posts: n/a

Unfazed -

Yup, the silence is deafening. I can understand the smaller club based schools having no margins to invest in the future, but I would have thought the larger Training companies would be able to think more strategically.

My apologies for applying sensible business philosophies learnt in other sectors to aviation.

I'll get my coat.......................

5th November 2005, 16:11 #20 (permalink)

Blackshift Unfazed,

From my recollection of first-year Economics,

http://www.pprune.org/members/14688-blackshift








Not Good Airline Material Join Date: Apr 2000Location: Airstrip OnePosts: 129

factors 3-5 should provide an upward pressure on instructors pay; 3 would increase the opportunity for profits from the customer without being undercut in the marketplace; 4 and 5 would tend to reduce supply and therefore increase the value of an instructor to an employer.

However these factors are undoubtedly outweighed by 1,2 and especially 6, which is the real problem within the industry.

There are probably a few out there who would probably pay for the opportunity of using an instructors job as a springboard for the airlines, and probably many who are in denial about the fact that, all things considered, they probably do.

The exploitative attitude therefore works both ways.

CAA Action and Prosecution

Was postioning to work today and whilst waiting for my airline and doing the usual trawl of the aviation publications in WH Smith i noticed an interesting article about a flying instructor in Pilot Magazine.

Basically there has been some sort of infringement of an ATZ (Panshanger i think) which was investigated by the CAA's enforcement department and not prosecuted. The instructor then got a letter from PLD telling him to stop instructing.

Now i'm at the FBO and bored so i thought i'd look into this abit more and found this [http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/755/CAAPro...esJune2005.pdf

Although it is a 2005 link it is the most recent i can find, and In the licence action section it says"Refusal, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence, certificate or approval may only be taken if the conduct of the person concerned is such that he does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence, certificate or approval."

This is just out of shear curiosity (honestly your honour) can PLD really just contact you and suspend your licence? Does this apply to ATPL holders who are flying commercially too if they mess up enough? Can't remember the outcome because i slept on the airline but what is going on, and why have PLD got involved?

Just shear curiosity (it wasn't me either i work for NJE!!!!)


parkfell

de minimus non curat lex

Might one possible explanation be that after discussions with the CAA, this course of action was reached, and thus avoiding a court appearance

http://www.pprune.org/members/26176-parkfell

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/334920-caa-action-prosecution.html#post4241453


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/755/CAAProsecutionsPolicyProceduresJune2005.pdf

http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4241026&noquote=1

Join Date: Feb 2001Location: sunny troonPosts: 136

where the outcome would result in a conviction?


ZeBedie Join Date: Jan 2007Location: I wish I knewPosts: 308

I guess you were looking at this bit:

Quote:

Licence Action

Licensing action cannot properly be taken in order to punish the licence holder. If the law has been broken, the offender can only be punished by the Courts after a prosecution. Refusal, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence, certificate or approval may only be taken if the conduct of the person concerned is such that he does not meet the criteria for holding such a licence, certificate or approval.


Smeagels Boyfriend Join Date: Oct 2005Location: with smeagelPosts: 99

Zebebebebeee

yes was looking at that bit, and applying that part of the CAA's own rules they couldn't take licensing action, ie remove his instructor rating unless he doesn´t hold the requirements for licence issue (ie he´s been telling porkies)

The reason i put this in rumours and news initially because i thought it may have wider implications for the pilot community as a whole. If the rules say "we can´t take your licence/rating away" (punishment) but then someone from PLD says, we are taking your instructor rating stop instructing doesn´t seem fair. How far can they take this with professional licence holders if they don´t seem to comply with rules they set out? Could it be removal of licence?

Parkfell

As i understand the prosecution process, the head of enforcement makes the decision to prosecute or not and then is passed along to the Lawyers to deal with. If the case subsequently goes to court it´s the magistrates who deal with the case from there so negociating at that point would be useless because the magistrate probably doesn´t know an awful lot about aviation law! Please correct me or feel free to add or set straight.

http://www.pprune.org/members/122982-smeagels-boyfriend




http://www.pprune.org/members/162774-zebedie






DB6 Join Date: Apr 1999Location: Forfar & GlasgowAge: 46Posts: 930

There may be more to it of course, but if the Pilot article is accurate the CAA would appear to have been way out of line - one chap in particular - and might just get hammered on this one.


Whopity Join Date: Oct 2004Location: UKPosts: 1,314

Quote:

The instructor then got a letter from PLD telling him to stop instructing.

Before any such action could be taken the person concerned would be invited for interview to be conducted by two pilots; the interviewee may take a friend or representative or, may decline the invitation. Unless there is a major safety issue, the above action is most unlikely. The CAA will only revoke a licence or rating if the holder is deemed an unsuitable person to hold the licence or rating; in most cases that would be the result of a court conviction.



WhopityYou sound quite knowledgable so i'm going to pick on you if you don't mind.

QuoteThe CAA will only revoke a licence or rating if the holder is deemed an unsuitable person to hold the licence or rating; in most cases that would be the result of a court conviction.

I do seem to remember something from the article saying he was interviewed by two people at Gatwick, but one of the two could see what had happened and basically brought the interview to an end. However that was after he was told to stop instructing (i think). If someone who has the article could enlighten me further, or even post the whole article i didn´t buy a copy and it wasn´t that long.

That still doesn´t explain why this chap was "set upon" by PLD, and just exactly what powers they have. If the CAA thought he´d been negligent shirly the enforcement dept had all the facts and would have prosecuted? For the CAA ARE dept to say "no mate your off the hook" then PLD say "right now it´s my go" seems just a little unfair.

Last edited by Smeagels Boyfriend : 14th July 2008 at 11:04.





http://www.pprune.org/members/99346-whopity



http://www.pprune.org/members/6331-db6







A and C Join Date: Jan 1999Location: north of barluPosts: 2,788

The CAA have a less than faultless record when it comes to prosecution of pilots and it would seem that in this case the lawers and enforcment did not fully understand the issue in question. Some might say that the CAA jummped the gun in this case and that compensation is due to the instructor in question for loss of income but I suspect that such an action would not be worth the shot & powder in terms of recoved money.

This case has a lot of the marks of another case a few years back when the CAA prosecuted an instructor for low flying (during EFATO trainning). This was an ill conceved action that seemed to have been taken because of the protests of a local anti aviation person who was smart enough to get the CAA legal department to do the dirty work.

The whole case fell apart when it turned out that the CAA witnesses could not agree if the offending aircraft was high or low wing, so if the witnesses could not agree on this how could that say that they had all been looking at the same aircraft?How the CAA got taken in by this fabrication by a bunch of local "antis" is still a sorce of amusment to me with the "the flying lawer" making the whole two day trial look like an episode of Rumpoe of the bailey.

All turned out well in this case but without well resorced defence the story could have been a disaster for the pilot in question.

For me the real issue here is that the CAA is more than willing to chase pilots for ill founded nif-naf & trivia but has yet to prosecute one person for smoking in an airliner toilet, I can't help trying to balance the public saftey issues between a light aircraft flying at slightly below 500ft during EFATO trainning and the results of an airliner having a cabin fire mid-Atlantic.

I can only conclude that prosecuting pilots is the easy way to keep a job in the very cushy if Aviation House.

Last edited by A and C : 15th July 2008 at 15:24.



Quote:

and just exactly what powers they have.

As the granter of the licence/rating they have the power to revoke it in the interest of safety however; to do so does require evidence. In my experience the




http://www.pprune.org/members/2127-a-and-c





number of prosecutions and actions against pilots are very low however they always attract attention and then the one sided stories emerge.


Spitoon Join Date: Apr 2002Location: EuropePosts: 1,930

Quote:

and just exactly what powers they have.

To be precise....

Article 27 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 sets out the basis on which the CAA will issue a personnel licence. The important bit is in para 1.

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the CAA shall grant licences, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, of any of the classes specified in Part A of Schedule 8 authorising the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, upon being satisfied that the applicant is:(a) a fit person to hold the licence; and(b) is qualified by reason of his knowledge, experience, competence, skill and physical and mental fitness to act in the capacity to which the licence relates;and for that purpose the applicant shall furnish such evidence and undergo such examinations and tests (including in particular medical examinations) and undertake such courses of training as the CAA may require of him.

There is clear legislation about what the CAA must do if it wishes to revoke or vary a licence and what rights of appeal the licence holder has. This is all set out in Regulation 6 of the Civil Aviathority Regulations 1991 which says:

(1) The functions conferred on the Authority by or under Air Navigation Orders with respect to:(a) registration of aircraft;(b) certification of operators of aircraft;(c) certification of airworthiness of aircraft;(d) noise certification;(e) certification of compliance with the requirements for the emission by aircraft engines of unburned hydrocarbons;(f) personnel licensing;(g) licensing of aerodromes;(h) validation of any certificate or licence;(i) approval of equipment and approval or authorisation of persons;(j) approval of schemes for the regulation of the flight times of aircraft crew;(k) receiving reports of reportable occurrences;(l) making air traffic directions;(m) making airspace policy directions;are hereby prescribed for the purposes of section 7(2)

http://www.pprune.org/members/50291-spitoon




of the Act.(2) Subject to paragraphs (8) and (9) of this regulation, a decision with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (1) of this regulation, being a decision to register, refuse to register, cancel or amend the registration of an aircraft or to grant, refuse to grant, validate, refuse to validate, revoke, suspend, vary or refuse to vary a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating, or make an air traffic direction or an airspace policy direction may be made on behalf of the Authority only by a member or employee of the Authority.(3) Subject to paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) of this regulation, where –(a) it is decided that it would be inexpedient in the public interest for an aircraft to be registered in the United Kingdom; or(b) an application for the grant, validation or variation of a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating has been refused or granted in terms other than those requested by the applicant;the Authority shall serve on the applicant a notice stating the reasons for the decision, and the applicant may within 14 days after the date of service of that notice request that the case be reviewed by the Authority.(4) Subject to paragraphs (8), (9) and (10) of this regulation, where it is proposed to –(a) cancel the registration of an aircraft on the grounds that it would be inexpedient in the public interest for it to continue to be registered in the United Kingdom; or(b) revoke, suspend or vary a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation, validation or rating or make an air traffic direction or an airspace policy direction under an Air Navigation Order otherwise than on the application of the holder;the Authority shall serve on the person concerned notice of the proposal together with the reasons for it, and the person concerned may within 14 days after the date of service of that notice, serve on the Authority a request that the case be decided by the Authority and not by any other person on its behalf.(5) Any person who has failed any test or examination which he is required to pass before he is granted or may exercise the privileges of a personnel licence may within 14 days after being notified of his failure, request that the Authority determine whether the test or examination was properly conducted.(6) (a) The function of deciding a case where such a request as is referred to in paragraph (3), (4) or (5) of this regulation has been duly served on the Authority is hereby prescribed for the purposes of section 7(1) of the Act: and for the purpose of making any decision in such a case a quorum of the Authority shall be one member.(b) The Authority shall sit with such technical assessors to advise it as the Authority may appoint, but the Authority shall not appoint as an assessor any person who participated in the decision or proposal or

in giving or assessing the test or examination which is to be the subject of the Authority’s decision.(7) Where a request under paragraph (3), (4) or (5) has been duly served, the Authority shall, before making a decision:(a) consider any representations which may have been served on it by the person concerned within 21 days after the date of service of the notice under that paragraph given by the Authority; and(b) where the person concerned has requested the opportunity to make oralrepresentations in his representations under sub-paragraph (a) above, afford him an opportunity to make such representations and consider them.(7A) (a) Where an oral hearing is held it shall be held in public except where the Authority is satisfied that, in the interests of morals, public order, national security, juveniles or the protection of the private lives of the parties a private hearing is required, or where it considers that publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.(b) The following persons shall be entitled to attend the hearing of an appeal,whether or not it is in private:(i) a member of the Council on Tribunals or of the Scottish Committee of thatCouncil; and(ii) any other person which the Authority, with the consent of the parties,permits to attend the hearing. (8) Nothing in this regulation shall:(a) prevent the Authority or any person authorised so to act on behalf of theAuthority from provisionally cancelling the registration of an aircraft or provisionally suspending or varying any certificate, licence, approval, authorisation, validation or rating granted or having effect under an Air Navigation Order or making a provisional air traffic direction pending inquiry into or consideration of the case;(b) apply to the variation of a flight manual, performance schedule or otherdocument incorporated by reference in a certificate of airworthiness;(c) apply where the Authority refuses to register or cancels or amends theregistration of an aircraft or refuses to grant or validate, grants or validates interms other than those requested by the applicant, revokes, suspends or varies a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating pursuant to a direction given by the Secretary of State.(9) Nothing in paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this regulation shall apply:(a) in respect of a medical certificate or certificate of test or experience relating to a personnel licence;(b) where pursuant to its duty under section 5 of the Act, the Authority refuses an application for the grant of an aerodrome licence or grants such an application

in terms other than those requested by the applicant or proposes to revoke, suspend or vary an aerodrome licence otherwise than on the application of the holder.(10) Nothing in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this regulation shall apply where the Authority –(a) refuses an application by the holder of an aerodrome licence for the substitution of an ordinary aerodrome licence for a public use aerodrome licence; or (b) proposes, otherwise than on the application of the licence holder, to substitute a public use aerodrome licence for an ordinary aerodrome licence.



So ARE have looked at this poor chap and decided no action, and from what was posted earlier PLD have now backed off. So one wonders which department might be next, and can this sort of event go through every department in the CAA for assessment? That's where the money go's then!

Also having read the very interesting last post what is the relevance of the CAA publishing my initial link as "guidance" if they can always fall back on the legislation to remove a holders licence?

Sorry for getting abit deep i find this sort of thing really interesting.


BristolScout Join Date: Jul 2007Location: West BritainAge: 59Posts: 111

It's a long time since I worked for the CAA in licensing. It was then called FCL and lived in Aviation House, Holborn so my observation may be out of date but the philosophy then was that the Authority loved a sinner come to repentance. So if someone did infringe the law and put his hands up there was usually no formal action taken beyond constructive advice and a warning letter placed on his record for a limited period. We did have the power to vary a person's licence by, for example, limiting the privileges until the pilot had re-sat the Air Law exam. I'm not suggesting the system was perfect but it did enable a graduated and proportional response to violations without invoking the majesty and expense of going to law. This was actually very pragmatic since the rights of appeal against the decisions of the Authority, contained in Section 6 of the ANO (the bit at the back which nobody ever reads) are considerable and time-consuming. Prosecution was always a last resort.




http://www.pprune.org/members/183915-bristolscout










StrateandLevel Join Date: Jan 2000Location: UKPosts: 318

Once upon a time the CAA employed Aviators; now it is managed by accountants and has managers who know bugger all about aviation; "Infesters in People" I think they call it"!


N.HEALD Join Date: Aug 2007Location: PlymouthAge: 46Posts: 5

Toothless bulldogs some would say, how many people that should be presecuted get away with things simply because the CAA fail to have the bottle to actually presecute when people flagrantly and deliberately break the rules, yet will prosecute someone for accidentally infringing airspace because its an easy win


olster Join Date: Dec 2006Location: ukPosts: 53

Michael O'Leary, mega unpopular head of Ryanair is absolutely spot on when it comes to his (very) un -pc assessment of BAA and in this case the CAA:they really are the most ineffectual of regulators.In this instance happy to run after a hapless and probably impoverished flying instructor but ready to roll over whenever an airline like say,easyJet wants to alter cap 371 for its own agenda.

The impression of the CAA as a bunch of time-servers hanging on for the pension and the luncheon vouchers is only too accurate unfortunately.



No luncheon vouchers at Gatwick!

31st July 2008, 09:22 #17 (permalink)

BristolScout Join Date: Jul 2007Location: West BritainAge: 59Posts: 111

Olster.

You're hugely wide of the mark. The CAA will, of course, respond appropriately to requests from airline operators but it does not automatically accede to requests, any more than it does from recreational pilots. I remember a time when they were within 24 hours of grounding a certain, well-known and respected airline which had used delaying tactics to avoid implementing a mandatory change.

Ryanair is an Irish airline and so not regulated by CAA.

http://www.pprune.org/members/183915-bristolscout






http://www.pprune.org/members/159702-olster



http://www.pprune.org/members/186311-n-heald



http://www.pprune.org/members/10347-strateandlevel







Personally, I though it very unprofessional and unreasonable of AOPA to print the name of the CAA investigator in the recent General Aviation article.

1st August 2008, 22:04

#19 (permalink)

2close Join Date: May 2004Location: Where men are men and the women even hairier!!Posts: 844

If you take a read of Regulation 6 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1991 it explains the CAA's powers when it comes to revoking, suspending, etc. personnel licences and also the appeal process.

The Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991

The Guidance Document

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/3/Reg6Guidance2006v2.pdf

2nd August 2008, 11:13

#20 (permalink)

TheOddOne Join Date: Sep 2004Location: Somewhere on the A303 twixt Cornwall and Denham...Age: 60Posts: 948

Quote:

Personally, I though it very unprofessional and unreasonable of AOPA to print the name of the CAA investigator in the recent General Aviation article.

BEagle,

Personally, I think it very unprofessional and unreasonable of the CAA to publish the name and address of every aircraft owner on the 'G' reg. Obviously the CAA think it appropriate for people's personal details to be bandied about so they can't really object when other people do the same, can they?

Just you try and find out the name and address of a car owner without good cause. They're certainly not available casually on a web-site.

TheOddOne

first Job?

Hi, I'm 19 and finishing up my CPl Next month, and trying to decide what I want to do after that. At my club the CFI only really trains people who he will eventualy hire, and it sounds like I can start training in september. So I'm wondering if any current or past instructors think of it as a first job? It would only be a means to build hours. A float rating is another one of my options.Any feedback will be appreciated.C

http://www.pprune.org/members/96400-theoddone



http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/3/Reg6Guidance2006v2.pdf

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19911672_en_3.htm#mdiv6

http://www.pprune.org/members/88761-2close










wigwamwilly Join Date: Jul 2008Location: Aberdeen & its crapAge: 36Posts: 10

work hard and become a doctor



Quote:

It would only be a means to build hours

Such dedication is hardly likely to endear you to other instructors or students...


Romeo India Xray Join Date: Dec 2007Location: RigaPosts: 235

There are two types of instructors .... those who love it and have a pride in what they do (passing on their skill and passion) .... and those who dont. Go to a bucket-shop school in the USA and you will see just how badly students learn under the supervision of instructors who are there to just build hours - sure a few of them are very good at it, but most have the kind of attitude that shows they would much rather be in a 146 than a 152.

My advce is dont become one of those depressed individuals, doing nothing but pushing up to your 1000 hour mark.

I know a guy who has recently completed an fATPL and landed dream job with only minimum hours, so it IS possible.

Be yourself, network like crazy, get involved in as much different aviation as possible, apply to everything and everyone and things should come together for you.


daria-ox Join Date: May 2008Location: LondonPosts: 171

Don't instruct just to build up your hours. Sorry but if that's the case then I have to say I feel sorry for your students. To be honest, I'm just doing my PPL while full time working, I work hard for every hour I fly and I wouldn't be really happy knowing that the instructor that is teaching does it just because he wants to build up his/her hours and get of this flying intructor job as soon as he/she can.

http://www.pprune.org/members/245228-daria-ox

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/336617-my-first-job.html#post4292801


http://www.pprune.org/members/209086-romeo-india-xray






http://www.pprune.org/members/267173-wigwamwilly







Do it because you want to get experience, you want to learn something new, something that in some way is going to change your attitude towards aviation. I have to say that becoming a flying instructor isn't that hard, but teaching a student is. I will love watching someone that I've teached become a professional pilot or instructor. I will love watching my student progress and learn new things, basically learn to fly just the way I did. It's amazing that I can show him/her what I went through to get there! It's a fact that also it will build up my hours but it's not only about that. It will be something I would really want to do.

At the moment, I found a way to do my training. I will finish my PPL, then take my time and enjoy myself while building up hours to progress to a CPL course and then FI. Maybe I will do the ATPL exams while building hours as sometime in the future I want to move to airlines but first of all, get experience on small aircrafts as a Instructor, then maybe move to charter company and few other companies and then when I will be really wanting to move to airlines I will complete the rest of the training from my saved money from being an instructor and not only

Just take my advice, don't become an instructor if your attitude is ' just to build up hours '. Because for me, you're just desperate to move to airlines and flying isn't all about that. Get some real flying experience before you move to big jets, by then you will have loads of hours and experience needed to be a great professional pilot


bartonfly88 Join Date: Jul 2008Location: Vancouver IslandAge: 20Posts: 6

I dont know aboput you but most the instructors I know do it to get the hours and experiance. The average instructor at my school it the for 2 years tops and then moves on. That doesn't make the bad instructors, I think they just have higher goals set for themselves. IN truth I will do it to get hours but im not just gunna sit in the plane with my thumb in my ass. I'll take it seriously just like every other job, and then move on in a couple of years/


pipertommy Join Date: May 2004Location: Live near Cardiff/from Loch lomondAge: 33Posts: 570

My own experience with instructors whilst training for both Private and Commercial licence is that if you are a professional pilot and passionate about flying, it makes no difference where your motivation to instruct comes from. Yes they may be building hours to move onwards, but they still want work to the standard of professional pilot.

http://www.pprune.org/members/89697-pipertommy



http://www.pprune.org/members/267176-bartonfly88





Its unfair to class a budding Airline pilot(or what ever direction they wish to head in) as not caring about the welfare of his/her students development as a priority.

PT

1st August 2008, 19:25 #8 (permalink)

BroomstickPilot Join Date: Apr 2002Location: Surrey, EnglandPosts: 463

Hours builders

Hi pipertommy,

Quote:

Its unfair to class a budding Airline pilot(or what ever direction they wish to head in) as not caring about the welfare of his/her students development as a priority.

Actually, not caring is only one of the undesirable characteristics one finds among the 'hours-builders'. A couple of years ago, when I was renewing a PPL I had not been able to use for over forty years (yes 40!), I found myself flying with a young man who just didn't have the emotional maturity to understand that one didn't have to be young, male and virile to be a capable pilot.

He plainly thought I was a silly old bat who ought to be sitting in an old folks home dribbling. He was most unpleasant to be with and his attitude affected his instructing style, which soon became one of bullying. I was too upset at the way I was being treated even to speak to the CFI about it, so I walked out of that club and never went back.

The trouble is that with FIs who only stay for a few months, by the time the club/FTO discover what damage they have done, they have left for better things and been replaced by yet another unknown quantity.

As for me, not only did I get my PPL back, I am now hard at work on my IMCR. And that instructor? Last I heard he was working for an airline. Good riddance from the instructing scene!

Broomstick.

1st August 2008, 20:45 #9 (permalink)

pipertommy Join Date: May 2004Location: Live near Cardiff/from Loch lomondAge: 33Posts: 570

Hi, I`m really sorry to hear that!! It should never happen, but I think it is probably, as you say, the attitude of the person rather than the path they are following.

I will be starting the FI course soon and yes I do want

http://www.pprune.org/members/89697-pipertommy



http://www.pprune.org/members/49281-broomstickpilot





to progress onto bizjet or airline job in the future. This does`nt mean I`m not interested in being the best instructor I can be!! With the students put first and treating them as I would expected to be treated.

Best of luck with the IMC its great sat on top of the clouds in the sunshine

PT

2nd August 2008, 03:33 #10 (permalink)

bartonfly88 Join Date: Jul 2008Location: Vancouver IslandAge: 20Posts: 6

Yeah that sucks

2nd August 2008, 07:35 #11 (permalink)

BroomstickPilot Join Date: Apr 2002Location: Surrey, EnglandPosts: 463

Good luck

Good luck, pipertommy, sounds like you are going to be one of the good guys.

Broomstick.

9th August 2008, 00:40 #12 (permalink)

iq450 Probationary PPRuNer Join Date: Aug 2008Location: NHPosts: 2

It's not for everyone

Not everyone can teach. Just because someone knows how to fly doesn't mean they have that gift.

I think good FI's should be exposed to many other FIs over the course of their training so they can see what works and what doesn't.

I've been lucky enough to be exposed to some world class FIs, and their genuine desire to help others always comes through.

IQ450


Whirlybird

The Original Whirly Join Date: Feb 1999Location: Just W of TNT, Peak District, UK

Thre's a problem here, or rather, several problems...

1) FIs aren't paid enough and don't have enough job security for many of them to stay in the job long - even if they want to.

http://www.pprune.org/members/24436-whirlybird



http://www.pprune.org/members/271485-iq450



http://www.pprune.org/members/49281-broomstickpilot



http://www.pprune.org/members/267176-bartonfly88







Posts: 4,081 2) The FI course teaches you very little about dealing with people or how to teach; most of it is about putting across specific flying exercises. At least, mine was.

3) A fair number of young people have a difficult time teaching older ones. that's one of the consequences of our ageist society. I daresay it works the other way round too - young instructors, do older students give you a hard time?

4) It's not fashionable to say it, or even think it, but female students are sometimes treated as though they'll obviously be hopeless and never make pilots. Note the 'sometimes'.

We need to sort out all of the above before complaining about hourbuilders!


daria-ox Join Date: May 2008Location: LondonPosts: 171

I know that a lot of people do instructing to build hours. I was in 4 schools on trial lesson, 2 of them were great because the instructors were really nice and had a good attitude, the other 2 clubs.. I will never get back there. The instructor was just sitting there no caring if that's my dream to become a pilot or if I'l ever make it. The other one said to me that it's not a good idea for a woman to become a pilot and I have to say, I was straight out of there and as the other he didn't give a damn about me.

I want to instruct because I would love watching someone I teach progressing to different levels of training and in the future I'll have the satisfaction that I teached a lot of students who became really good pilots. It's a fact that I'm also doing it to build up hours but to be honest, it's not about the hours. It's mainly about flying and teaching.


preduk Join Date: Mar 2007Location: UK.Posts: 690

Ah well... I'm going to be one of these instructors who "do it for the hours" not because I don't care about the students but because it's free flying and its a helpful step to the dream airline job.

I've flown with several instructors who are just in it for the hour building, one of them was a cracking instructor but was sadly moved away by Ryanair. I had another one who was a complete tw t although he was following the same route as Daria-Ox.

It doesn't really matter why they are instructing, it's their personality that counts the most. I've met guys from both sides some were great some were crap

http://www.pprune.org/members/169312-preduk



http://www.pprune.org/members/245228-daria-ox





thats life!


walbbj Join Date: Oct 2006Location: BournemouthPosts: 4

My first job?

If you only intend to instruct just to build hours, then I would suggest you tow gliders or drop parachutists. I have been flying now for 40 years and am still going strong...eighteen months left on my licence. I started as an instructor and put all my efforts into becoming a good instructor. In the meantime I studied by correspondence for the CPL/IR. I eventually landed an airline job after insructing for 3 years. My instructing experience and my enjoyment of it stood me in good stead in later years when I became a Line Trainer, Sim. instructor, then TRE/IRE, Check & Training Captain on various aircraft. I think instructing gives you a lot of experience and makes you more employable as an airline co-pilot if there is a choice between two candidates, one of whom hasn't been an instrucor. So, I would say go for it, but not half-heartedly.


VFE Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me. Join Date: May 2000Location: EnglandPosts: 1,569

After two years of instructing it still holds something new for me everyday - granted at times one feels like one may just be going through the motions but on the whole it's a great way to fly and earn money. People with little experience who look down upon instructing as some kind of second rate flying job really don't know enough yet to realise how much they don't yet know. For example: I recently visited an integrated flying school where many of the budding airline students had yet to solo in an aircraft however, the attitude of some was unbelievably arrogant. Their attitude was little short of insulting towards instructing as a noble occupation and I found myself sat chuckling into my pint wondering if I too had been like that pre-instructing? The answer was no. These kids must really get sunshine blown up their arses at these places from day one... I guess confidence is a key part of success but when confidence and ability are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum it can only ever lead to trouble...

Personally, the idea of having someone sat up front of an airliner who hasn't come up through the ranks of flying and more importantly instructing is very sobering - granted many do and many operate as co-pilots very well but I think back to what I knew and what I had experienced as a pilot when I rolled off the fATPL production line.... two totally different beasts. As an instructor of only two years now it proper amazes me how some inexperienced "wannabes" view

http://www.pprune.org/members/15999-vfe



http://www.pprune.org/members/154570-walbbj





instructing with self elevated mockery but you can't tell these people anything unless you have 4 golds bars across yer shoulders - very pitiful state of affairs and one wonders where the romantic awe and respect for flying has gone amongst some youngsters who see operating a fly-by-wire aircraft as the be-all and end-all of their aviation career.

You could be forgiven for thinking I say this to make myself feel better that I am an instructor and not an airline pilot but when I am flying an airliner my opinion will not change.

Instructing is extremely rewarding in every respect bar financial. Don't get so preoccupied walking through the woods that you fail to appreciate the trees. Speak to any airline pilot who instructed and many will tell you that their best flying days were as an instructor. I still instruct but will miss it enormously when that day arrives!

VFE.

Last edited by VFE : 9th August 2008 at 17:43.


frontlefthamster Join Date: Dec 2007Location: FrancePosts: 226

Bartonfly88,

Two decades, thousands of hours, many qualifications, and a life now in which I fly a fascinating variety of aircraft (heavy and light, jet and piston) in an exceedingly rare job, give me the freedom (and audacity) to reply to your original post as follows:

I fear you are another trainee prostitute. Trainee prostitutes have driven the profession to its present lacklustre position.

Please accept the advice earlier on, to go and train for a proper career (outside aviation), rather than starting so soon to demean yourself by entering into the 'I'm a first officer because I had money, and a minimum of ability' world.

Certainly, please don't dare end up one of those sad 'hour-building' instructors who blight the UK skies with their dismal ability, minimal interest, and dubious motivation. And I'd rather, as a professional pilot, that people simply didn't apply for jobs involving bonds, training costs to be paid, reduced terms and conditions in comparison to those already employed, etc.

In fact, Bartonfly, I think accountancy might be just

your calling.

http://www.pprune.org/members/207985-frontlefthamster






A tad harsh frontlefthamster. Although it's easy to understand the reasoning behind such a post I feel it slightly misdirected towards someone you perceive to be driving down the terms and conditions of existing commercial pilots and indeed those of the future. Sad fact is that the market has arrived at the present position through economic evolution and market forces which you will see reflected in most other professions, not just ours. People want to fly big aeroplanes and airlines know this. Gone are those halcyon days of guys earning their respect up through the ranks of aviation jobs, arriving at the hallowed position of First Officer at an age and understanding whereby they could contribute more than a mere ability to complete performance calculations and press FMS buttons.

As I said, one totally understands your point here, but feel it harsh to recommend someone give up their chosen career purely because the method of achieving their goal has changed over the years into something you and many others here, myself included, abhor. One person giving up will not change the system I am afraid to say.

A better way of addressing the issue highlighted by the original poster of this thread would be to advise they understand what being a flying instructor really means, and to value the importance of such a position on fellow aviation enthusiasts under their instruction and to themselves as a pilot. One trusts their FIC will install these points as it did many others here.

VFE.


Badgeman Join Date: Jul 2008Location: USAPosts: 7

See that's funny; I'm so into flying that I love even teaching it although the airlines are my ultimate goal, AND really, I am just building hours by CFI'ing. If I have a student fail a check-

http://www.pprune.org/members/266932-badgeman








ride, it's almost as if I did too. I hate it.

Student Go Rounds

We all tell our students to go round if there's anything about the approach that they're not happy with, don't we? At our regional airport (and probably many others) they will be charged a full landing fee for such a go round. Surely this could be detrimental to flight safety when the student is aware that such action will cost him/her an extra £25, (landing fee and flight time). Some will be tempted to continue the approach and landing, possibly with disastrous consequences.Should not the airport authorities regard this situation in the same way as weather/tech. diversions under the Strasser scheme, and waive the landing fee for that approach?


TheOddOne Join Date: Sep 2004Location: Somewhere on the A303 twixt Cornwall and Denham...Age: 60Posts: 948

Yes, of course we all teach go-around from any approach that might result in a less than satisfactory landing.

Have a read in the latest AOPA magazine ref. Shoreham's attitude to this.

Personally I agree that it is inappropriate to charge a landing fee for a go-round. Apparently Shoreham started doing it because some instructors were allegedly doing go-arounds so save landing fees when doing circuits.

At our aerodrome, based a/c pay a flat monthly fee which covers all use of the runway, whether simply departing or arriving, doing circuits, touch-and-goes, go-arounds or whatever. This I believe is a MUCH better way of organising things.

I would urge all school to negotiate a proper scheme rather than try and save money by not paying any 'aerodrome use' fee but only pay a 'per landing' charge.

There remains the contentios issue of visitor go-arounds. I guess some aerodrome managers might suspect that some unscrupulous school might visit another aerodrome to carry out circuits 'on the sly'. I don't think they're doing their students any favours by not

http://www.pprune.org/members/96400-theoddone

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/319678-student-go-rounds.html#post4002779



actually touching down - the flare and touch are surely such a vital part of flight.

TheOddOne


Duchess_Driver Join Date: Jan 2005Location: Fletcher Memorial HomePosts: 345

There is an airfield not too far away from us that I visit to give the student views of a different widths and lengths of runways. 3 * Touch and goes for the price of one landing.

Fair enough

(Not going to give the game away in case you all start to go there!)

This country isn't going mad, by the way, it already is!


Flyboater Join Date: Mar 2001Location: PowysPosts: 8

malc4d Their argument is that the fee is for the approach, not just the landing.

TheOddOneI understand the problem of some instructors abusing the system, but my concern is for solo students, not flights with an instructor aboard.


LOHANG Join Date: Mar 2008Location: Nr KeighleyAge: 28Posts: 3

At the moment I am in the middle of doing touch & go's at EGNM with Multiflight.

I have only got 14 hours in so far but the first session was spent at a field near Harrogate where I was shown how to configure the aircraft (C152) for the approach and used a long wall as the centerline got to around 50 ft above some trees then power on.

This was ideal as I learned very quickly and saved around £40 on fees that day.

Since then I have spent 3 1 hour sessions doing these for real at EGNM.


PyroTek

i'm lucky, doing circuits in my training at the moment, our airfield doesn't have landing charges, only cheap

http://www.pprune.org/members/196661-pyrotek



http://www.pprune.org/members/232256-lohang



http://www.pprune.org/members/28971-flyboater



http://www.pprune.org/members/104323-duchess_driver







Join Date: Oct 2007Location: Brisbane, AustraliaAge: 18Posts: 599

overnight parking charges



malc4dVFR approach during ab-initio training - go round from finals.


bjornhall Join Date: Mar 2007Location: Right hereAge: 35Posts: 306

Of course it matters if a go around is an extra £25. Not to every pilot, but to way too many...

To put that in perspective:

Where I fly (Sweden), a yearly fee of about €500 (for a Cessna 172, PA28 or similar) gives unlimited landings at almost every airport in the country, regardless of how many landings, touch and goes or takeoffs you do... The fee is paid by the flying club on a per aircraft basis and included in the club membership fee, so you pay practically nothing for your landings, no matter where you go. Still the level of service, as far as I know, is at least as good as for British airports.

Why in all the world do you agree to such outrageous

charges???


RYR738_driver Join Date: Jun 2006Location: BHXPosts: 9

Having just returned from our Fair Weather Flying base in Phoenix, AZ, i can certainly say the Americans have got GA right. I did 150+ landings (not all of them good but certainly walked away from all of them ) and didn't pay a single penny. It was even free to land at numerous Military Airfields aswell, such as Yuma Marine Corps sharing the runway with f18's. Contrast that to when I learnt to fly at Coventry, where we would hop over to Wellesbourne for circuit lessons as they offered the better landing rates!

AB


BigEndBob

Have worked at one school where one student has paid over £1000 in landing fees alone.




http://www.pprune.org/members/144634-ryr738_driver



http://www.pprune.org/members/170028-bjornhall










Join Date: Jul 2003Location: ukPosts: 432

Its ridiculus that a school can't negotiate a block fee.


9v-SKA Join Date: Jan 2008Location: SingaporeAge: 18Posts: 53

I'm currently training at Australia, Sydney Camden Airport. It seems that airports here don't even charge touch- and-goes, only full-stops are charged.



We used to pay an annual contract fee per aircraft. No problem, as the cost was factored into the aircraft hire rates. No such luxury now though. Since the airfield changed hands every landing/approach must be paid for, hence aircraft rate + landing/approach fee for every approach/landing. In the early stages of training this can become very expensive. Such a shame, because in every other respect our field is an excellent place to learn to fly. We totally accept that when we play with the big boys there will be times when we have to orbit or extend the circuit. All good training. and beneficial. Preparation for what will happen in the real world, outside the training environmentUnfortunately there is not another airfield close by that we could use for circuit/ landing training

1st April 2008, 16:38 #13 (permalink)


Mind you not going around from a dodgy approach is good practise for the commercial world!


Pugilistic Animus Join Date: Dec 2006Location: The No Trangression ZonePosts: 750

wow! that's a lot of money per landing I'm used to like $0--- $2.50---$5.00

but 25 lbs/ldg for GA


VFE Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all

Chirps Chirps Chirps Chirps

Everytime a student is clobbered for a landing fee on a




http://www.pprune.org/members/160551-pugilistic-animus









http://www.pprune.org/members/211486-9v-ska








a game to me. Join Date: May 2000Location: EnglandPosts: 1,569

go-around - report it! And the resultant safety implications! Something will soon be done about it - airports with FTO's resident have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to ensure that those aircraft can operate safely.

Do we want a Southend type scenario mk.II????

VFE.

2nd April 2008, 16:55 #16 (permalink)

Foxy Loxy

Luvverley! Join Date: Jun 2004Location: An HQ near NewquayPosts: 208

VFEQuote:

Do we want a Southend type scenario mk.II????

As this accident was discussed at great length on various forums on PPRuNe, I am sure you recall that go-around charges were completely irrelevant to what happened. I consider the question to be inappropriate in the context of this thread.

However, it is clear that it is an issue at some airports, and as such I agree entirely with the rest of your post.

Foxy

3rd April 2008, 18:30 #17 (permalink)

Final 3 Greens Join Date: Dec 2000Location: The MedPosts: 3,731

I have only got 14 hours in so far but the first session was spent at a field near Harrogate where I was shown how to configure the aircraft (C152) for the approach and used a long wall as the centerline got to around 50 ft above some trees then power on.

mmmmmmmmmmm, rule 5 anyone?


bucket_and_spade Join Date: Mar 2008Location: UKPosts: 146

There was no mention of persons, buildings, vessels or structures (unless you consider the wall a structure!) so as long as they could have landed clear if it all went quiet up front, they're still on good terms with the CAA!

B&S

Last edited by bucket_and_spade : 3rd April 2008 at 19:04.




http://www.pprune.org/members/232691-bucket_and_spade



http://www.pprune.org/members/24688-final-3-greens



http://www.pprune.org/members/90639-foxy-loxy








I am well aware of the causes that led to the Southend accident Foxy Loxy and unlike you do think it has relevance to this thread here because it is all about airports making money.

VFE.


Mach Jump Join Date: May 2005Location: yorkshirePosts: 36

Hi Three Greens

Neither trees, or the walls you find around fields count as 'persons, vehicles, vessels or structures'.

MJ

http://www.pprune.org/members/112265-mach-jump






efato

Documents

degrees of turn

max rate of turn

real efato

degrees of bank

degrees of runway heading

deg bank

successful turnback

turnback manoeuvres