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
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 prebriefed
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).]

6th April 2000, 04:15

#3 (permalink)

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.

6th April 2000, 15:59

#4 (permalink)

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
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.

#5 (permalink)

7th April 2000, 00:38

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.

#6 (permalink)

7th April 2000, 00:59

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.
------------------

7th April 2000, 03:50

#7 (permalink)

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!!

#8 (permalink)

7th April 2000, 05:02

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).]

#9 (permalink)

7th April 2000, 15:54

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

#10 (permalink)

8th April 2000, 22:56

Wee Weasley Welshman

Posts: n/a

I dont teach it. I dont 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 FIs 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 doesnt bear thinking about...
Nice that there has been no flaming on this one.
WWW

9th April 2000, 21:26

#11 (permalink)

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...

#12 (permalink)

10th April 2000, 13:15

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.

#13 (permalink)

10th April 2000, 20:15

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, overcontrolling 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.

15th April 2000, 19:24

Ho Lee Prang

#14 (permalink)

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

18th April 2000, 03:57

#15 (permalink)

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!

#16 (permalink)

18th April 2000, 13:44

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.

#17 (permalink)

18th April 2000, 16:43

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

19th April 2000, 01:14

#18 (permalink)

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

Heliport
Join Date: Mar
2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,295

#2 (permalink)

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.
#3 (permalink)

13th March 2004, 03:36

BEagle
Join Date: May 1999
Location: 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 utter
stupid, crass, banal nonsense!

#4 (permalink)

14th March 2004, 12:23

Tinstaafl
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from
Ultima Thule
Posts: 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.

#5 (permalink)

15th March 2004, 01:05

homeguard

Rule '5'

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

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!".

#6 (permalink)

15th March 2004, 05:25

MobiusTrip
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: A Barren
Featureless Wasteland
Posts: 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).
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

#7 (permalink)

15th March 2004, 15:10

Hare O Plane

Of course it's a bloody normal aviation procedure!

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location: UK
Posts: 13

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)

#8 (permalink)

15th March 2004, 15:33

homeguard

EFATO

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

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!

15th March 2004, 19:57

Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 36
Posts: 2,138

#9 (permalink)

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
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.

16th March 2004, 00:01

BlueLine
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 88

#10 (permalink)

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.

#11 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 04:44

homeguard

EFATO

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

In regard to the PFL, I agree.

As to the EFATO, Bluelines thoughts are jibberish!

#12 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 06:55

BEagle

Perhaps - but he does work for the CAA!

Join Date: May 1999

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

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!

#13 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 07:57

Field In Sight
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 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.

16th March 2004, 08:18

#14 (permalink)

Hare O Plane
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13

Perhaps we should upgrade our training fleets with RAD

ALTS guys!!!!
Be cheaper than the fine and admin fees!!!

#15 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 10:26

homeguard

EFATO

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

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
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.

#16 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 15:44

martinidoc
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon
Tyne UK
Age: 52
Posts: 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.
The CAA should work with the FTOs tp try and facilitate
this type of more realistic emergency training.

#17 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 16:05

FlyingForFun
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 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
-------------#18 (permalink)

16th March 2004, 17:01

Keygrip

Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 54
Posts: 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.
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.

#19 (permalink)

17th March 2004, 07:42

BlueLine

Homeguard

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: UK
Posts: 88

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.

17th March 2004, 07:51

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

#20 (permalink)

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 wellknown aviation lawyer revealed evn more colourful opinion
of the CAA's 'legal advisors'.....

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

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DNMM/UK
Age: 27
Posts: 266

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 reasons
Capt. manuvar

#2 (permalink)

7th April 2004, 17:36

FlyingForFun

Capt. M,

Why do it if it's not fun?

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.

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,677

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

7th April 2004, 18:15

Capt. Manuvar

#3 (permalink)

FFF
The dicussion isn't retricted to any group. I would like

Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: DNMM/UK
Age: 27
Posts: 266

7th April 2004, 21:32

skydriller
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 572

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 IR
INSTRUMENT 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
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

#4 (permalink)

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.

7th April 2004, 23:36

Dan Winterland
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 2,412

#5 (permalink)

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

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!

8th April 2004, 06:34

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

#6 (permalink)

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.

#7 (permalink)

8th April 2004, 08:17

shortstripper

Capt. Manuvar

Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: Chichester,
England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,014

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 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.

#8 (permalink)

8th April 2004, 09:27

FlyingForFun

Personally, I think shortstripper hit the nail on the head

when he said:

Why do it if it's not fun?

Quote:

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,677

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 addons 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 hourbuild safely).
FFF
-------------8th April 2004, 12:44

DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,161

#9 (permalink)

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
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

13th April 2004, 20:44

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

#10 (permalink)

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 45/200250hrs of training. You only have to look at the military
training system.
DFC
You'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

#11 (permalink)

13th April 2004, 21:40

shortstripper

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

Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: Chichester,
England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,014

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

#12 (permalink)

14th April 2004, 12:25

Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 36
Posts: 2,138

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!)
14th April 2004, 17:49

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

#13 (permalink)

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 multimillion 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

#14 (permalink)

14th April 2004, 18:31

Charlie Zulu
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Stirling, UK
Age: 32
Posts: 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...
Oh and if the Business person obtaining a PPL would
like to fly for business then they'd buy a really nice deiced 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.

14th April 2004, 22:59

#15 (permalink)

Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 36
Posts: 2,138

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.
#16 (permalink)

15th April 2004, 09:20

FlyingForFun

CZ,

Why do it if it's not fun?

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:

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,677

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
--------------#17 (permalink)

15th April 2004, 10:04

DRJAD

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

Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303

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.

#18 (permalink)

15th April 2004, 10:48

shortstripper

Capt. Manuvar

Join Date: Sep 2003

Location: Chichester,
England
Age: 43
Posts: 1,014

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
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

#19 (permalink)

16th April 2004, 15:57

Charlie Zulu

Hi FlyingForFun,

Join Date: Jun 2002

Location: Stirling, UK
Age: 32
Posts: 715

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.

#20 (permalink)

17th April 2004, 09:12

Evo
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,663

Quote:

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

StrateandLevel

#2 (permalink)

Not sure which you regard as the "alternative" method.

The Dalton Computer was designed to be used Wind

Join Date: Jan 2000

Location: UK
Posts: 318

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.

#3 (permalink)

9th July 2003, 18:49

GT

BigEndBob,

Join Date: Oct 1998

Location: Northampton
Posts: 81

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.

#4 (permalink)

9th July 2003, 20:16

Mark 1

BigEndBob,

Join Date: Aug 2000

Location: Warwicks, UK
Posts: 652

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.

#5 (permalink)

9th July 2003, 21:14

juswonnafly
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 90

9th July 2003, 21:15

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

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

#6 (permalink)

john_tullamarine

While I agree that the "conventional" techniques are

the way to go, it is important to realise that wind up
Moderator
and wind down will give the same answer (provided
Join Date: Apr 2001
that the "unconventional" user keeps his or her cool) ...
Location: various places .....
ie there is no inherent error in using one technique as
Posts: 3,248
opposed to the alternative. Same applies for either
Dalton or Jepp styles of whizz wheel. This thread gives
a bit of explanation.

#7 (permalink)

10th July 2003, 01:20

pilotbear
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 48
Posts: 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.

10th July 2003, 06:49

BigEndBob
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 432

#8 (permalink)

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
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.

#9 (permalink)

15th July 2003, 07:41

BigEndBob
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 432

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.

#10 (permalink)

15th July 2003, 17:46

Flying Boat

BEB

Join Date: Aug 2000

Location: Around the world,
at present in Indonesia &
UK
Posts: 294

You need the CRP5 to answer the 3 or 4

compressability questions in ATPL Gen Nav.
Then the CRP1 is fine.
FB

16th July 2003, 05:36

BigEndBob

#11 (permalink)

When i did my ATPL you were allowed to use the

compressibilty table provided by CAA , is this still true?

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: uk
Posts: 432

16th July 2003, 06:24

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

19th July 2003, 20:07

destructor

#12 (permalink)

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.

#13 (permalink)

Draw the track and wind lines on the map know the

Join Date: May 2001

Location: west yorkshire
Posts: 11

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!

#14 (permalink)

23rd July 2003, 03:59

Pianorak
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 231

I started off doing wind-mark UP (method A in Trevor

Thom), but was persuaded to drop that and do windmark 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.

#15 (permalink)

23rd July 2003, 19:35

Obs cop
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 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

#16 (permalink)

23rd July 2003, 21:04

Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 36
Posts: 2,138

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 CRP5. 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.
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 CRP5, 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.

#17 (permalink)

24th July 2003, 01:32

pilotbear

Pianorak,

Join Date: Apr 1999

Location: all over the place
Age: 48
Posts: 425

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.

(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
speed
If 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

24th July 2003, 02:14

Pianorak
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 231

24th July 2003, 07:50

BigEndBob
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 432

24th July 2003, 23:16

Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 36
Posts: 2,138

#18 (permalink)

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.

#19 (permalink)

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).

#20 (permalink)

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 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 field
2 the lesson itself
3 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

QNH 1013
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 513

26th September 2004,

20:16

FlyingForFun

#2 (permalink)

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)

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

thoughts...

Why do it if it's not fun?

Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,677

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

26th September 2004,

23:37

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

#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.....

27th September 2004,

03:50

#5 (permalink)

Chuck Ellsworth

BEagle:

Join Date: Oct 2001

Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 1,581

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.

27th September 2004,

07:44

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

#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
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 Free
UK - Land of the fee

27th September 2004,

08:13

wobblyprop

#7 (permalink)

thanks for the responses guys. Going to have to break

out the tipex for the log book, i think.

Join Date: Jan 2001

Location: f015
Posts: 327

27th September 2004,

13:32

#8 (permalink)

WestWind1950

@ BEagle / Chuck,

Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Who cares? ;-)
Posts: 436

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
@ wobblyprop
Quote:

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?
Westy
27th September 2004,
15:43

Whirlybird

#9 (permalink)

The Original Whirly

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.

Join Date: Feb 1999

Location: Just W of TNT,
Peak District, UK
Posts: 4,081

As for who sits where, as far as I'm aware there is no

legal requirement for anyone to fly from any particular
seat.

27th September 2004,

15:54

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

#10 (permalink)
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

27th September 2004,

17:55

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

#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
required, anyway), ALAs or the defunct Training ALAs.
So, why does the UK bother?

27th September 2004,

19:14

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

#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!

28th September 2004,

01:21

#13 (permalink)

homeguard

The Unlicenced hop!

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

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!

28th September 2004,

12:43

DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,161

#14 (permalink)

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.

28th September 2004,

20:12

BlueLine
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 88

#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.

29th September 2004,

11:44

DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002

#16 (permalink)

There is no JAR requirement for the supervision

instructor to be present when supervision the FI(R).

Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,161

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

30th September 2004,

09:46

wobblyprop
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: f015
Posts: 327

#17 (permalink)

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.

30th September 2004,

19:08

#18 (permalink)

homeguard

Supervision

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

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

scubawasp
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: here
Posts: 164

#19 (permalink)

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!

#20 (permalink)

1st October 2004, 11:03

pondlife
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 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.

28th September 2004,

08:35

#2 (permalink)

homeguard

The last but one bit.

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: notts
Posts: 590

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.

28th September 2004,

12:27

#3 (permalink)

DFC

Even more common is -

Join Date: Mar 2002

Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,161

"G-ABCD Finals 27 Right"

Not so bad until one realises that the airfield has only
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

28th September 2004,

12:39

#4 (permalink)

MikeJeff

Fair comment Chuck,

Join Date: May 2003

Location: Sussex
Posts: 121

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!

28th September 2004,

14:02

#5 (permalink)

spitfire747

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

Join Date: Aug 2001

Location: Cardiff and
Portsmouth
Posts: 478

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 wun
three or tree
five or fife
incorrect use of RT is rife amongst the masses..

G-WARZ runway vacated, goodbye

29th September 2004,

00:18

BigEndBob
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 432

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

29th September 2004,

10:02

#7 (permalink)

BlueLine

Chuck,

Join Date: Feb 2000

Location: UK
Posts: 88

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

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

7th October 2004, 17:33

Send Clowns
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 36
Posts: 2,138

#8 (permalink)

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?

#9 (permalink)

Short final is not an official call! Final to 4nm, long final

from 4 nm to, I think, 8 nm.

#10 (permalink)

10th October 2004, 10:08

Chilli Monster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 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
#11 (permalink)

14th October 2004, 16:30

FullyFlapped
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 646

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" ...
FF

#12 (permalink)

15th October 2004, 11:34

NineForks
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 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

#13 (permalink)

15th October 2004, 14:00

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

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

#14 (permalink)

15th October 2004, 17:49

18greens
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 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.

16th October 2004, 03:00

#15 (permalink)

Big Pistons Forever

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!

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: West Coast
Canada
Posts: 198

16th October 2004, 09:04

#16 (permalink)

BEagle

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

Join Date: May 1999

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

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

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

20th October 2004, 01:00

BigEndBob
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 432

20th October 2004, 08:38

QNH 1013
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 513

#17 (permalink)

The foreword to CAP 413 says "recommended practice",

so i suppose anything goes. Probably because some of
Cap 413 deviates from ICAO.

#18 (permalink)

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.

26th October 2004, 02:36

Big Pistons Forever

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast
Canada
Posts: 198

#19 (permalink)

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.

#20 (permalink)

27th October 2004, 12:59

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

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"
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

#2 (permalink)

17th October 2005, 14:01

aztec25
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 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
Last edited by aztec25 : 17th October 2005 at 14:46.

#3 (permalink)

17th October 2005, 14:16

nick14
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: under a stone
Posts: 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

#4 (permalink)

17th October 2005, 21:38

DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,161

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

why bother.
Regards,
DFC

17th October 2005, 23:15

Gugnunc
Posts: n/a

#5 (permalink)

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

#6 (permalink)

18th October 2005, 06:19

aztec25

Private income? I wish!!

Join Date: Oct 2000

Location: UK
Posts: 63

18th October 2005, 20:04

porridge
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 304

19th October 2005, 00:10

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

#7 (permalink)

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?

#8 (permalink)

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
P.P.

#9 (permalink)

19th October 2005, 07:23

Noggin
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 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!

#10 (permalink)

19th October 2005, 16:39

Rivet gun

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

Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: England
Posts: 90

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.

#11 (permalink)

19th October 2005, 16:55

Bravo73

Rivet Gun,

Join Date: Jul 2002

Location: UK

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

Posts: 1,585

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

19th October 2005, 17:41

#12 (permalink)

unfazed

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

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: essex
Posts: 412

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

19th October 2005, 18:05

Gugnunc
Posts: n/a

31st October 2005, 08:25

unfazed

#13 (permalink)

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.

#14 (permalink)

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

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: essex
Posts: 412

31st October 2005, 15:19

RVR800
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 840

#15 (permalink)

In short there are a lot of people at the bottom of the

food
chain in this industry - There IS no shortage and never
will
be.

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?

#16 (permalink)

31st October 2005, 21:25

unfazed
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412

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 !!!

#17 (permalink)

1st November 2005, 11:48

Blackshift

Not Good Airline Material

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129

I hope to have the chance to fly full time at some point

- whether instructing or otherwise.
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?

#18 (permalink)

1st November 2005, 17:00

unfazed
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412

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 competition

4 - More stringent regulations and licensing / medical

costs
5 - More expensive to qualify
6- Exploitative attitude due to quick turnover of
instructors
Sad but true !

#19 (permalink)

1st November 2005, 17:12

Gugnunc

Unfazed -

Posts: n/a

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.......................

#20 (permalink)

5th November 2005, 16:11

Blackshift

Not Good Airline Material

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129

Unfazed,
From my recollection of first-year Economics, 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!!!!)

#2 (permalink)

13th July 2008, 17:41

parkfell

Might one possible explanation be that after

discussions with the CAA, this course of action was
reached, and thus avoiding a court appearance
where the outcome would result in a conviction?

de minimus non curat lex

Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 136

#3 (permalink)

13th July 2008, 20:01

ZeBedie

I guess you were looking at this bit:

Join Date: Jan 2007

Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 308

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.

#4 (permalink)

13th July 2008, 20:43

Smeagels Boyfriend Zebebebebeee

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: with smeagel
Posts: 99

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 doesnt hold
the requirements for licence issue (ie hes 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
cant take your licence/rating away" (punishment) but
then someone from PLD says, we are taking your
instructor rating stop instructing doesnt seem fair.
How far can they take this with professional licence
holders if they dont 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 its the
magistrates who deal with the case from there so
negociating at that point would be useless because the
magistrate probably doesnt know an awful lot about
aviation law! Please correct me or feel free to add or
set straight.

#5 (permalink)

13th July 2008, 20:58

DB6
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Forfar & Glasgow
Age: 46
Posts: 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.

#6 (permalink)

13th July 2008, 21:26

Whopity
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 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.

#7 (permalink)

14th July 2008, 10:51

Smeagels Boyfriend Whopity

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: with smeagel
Posts: 99

You sound quite knowledgable so i'm going to pick on

you if you don't mind.
Quote
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.
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 didnt buy a
copy and it wasnt that long.
That still doesnt explain why this chap was "set upon"
by PLD, and just exactly what powers they have. If the
CAA thought hed 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 its my go"
seems just a little unfair.
Last edited by Smeagels Boyfriend : 14th July 2008 at 11:04.

14th July 2008, 12:44

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

#8 (permalink)

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.

#9 (permalink)

14th July 2008, 14:22

Whopity
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,314

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

#10 (permalink)

14th July 2008, 19:31

Spitoon
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 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) 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 Authoritys 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 oral
representations in his representations under subparagraph (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 that
Council; 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 the
Authority 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 other
document incorporated by reference in a certificate of
airworthiness;
(c) apply where the Authority refuses to register or
cancels or amends the
registration of an aircraft or refuses to grant or validate,
grants or validates in
terms 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.

14th July 2008, 20:34

#11 (permalink)

Smeagels Boyfriend So ARE have looked at this poor chap and decided no
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: with smeagel
Posts: 99

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.

16th July 2008, 11:16

BristolScout
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 59
Posts: 111

18th July 2008, 07:02

StrateandLevel
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 318

28th July 2008, 20:20

N.HEALD
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plymouth
Age: 46

#12 (permalink)

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.

#13 (permalink)

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"!

#14 (permalink)

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

Posts: 5

infringing airspace because its an easy win

#15 (permalink)

29th July 2008, 11:05

olster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 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.

#16 (permalink)

30th July 2008, 13:35

Whopity

No luncheon vouchers at Gatwick!

Join Date: Oct 2004

Location: UK
Posts: 1,314

#17 (permalink)

31st July 2008, 09:22

BristolScout

Olster.

Join Date: Jul 2007

Location: West Britain
Age: 59
Posts: 111

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.

31st July 2008, 09:37

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

#18 (permalink)

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

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

#19 (permalink)

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

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

#20 (permalink)
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

26th July 2008, 05:21

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

#2 (permalink)

work hard and

become a
doctor

#3 (permalink)

26th July 2008, 06:26

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

26th July 2008, 10:03

Romeo India Xray

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 235

Quote:

It would only be a means to build hours

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

#4 (permalink)

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 bucketshop 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.

27th July 2008, 22:08

daria-ox
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171

#5 (permalink)

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.
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

#6 (permalink)

31st July 2008, 03:46

bartonfly88
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 20
Posts: 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/

#7 (permalink)

31st July 2008, 08:25

pipertommy
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Live near
Cardiff/from Loch lomond
Age: 33
Posts: 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.
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

Hours builders

Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 463

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

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

#9 (permalink)

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
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

#10 (permalink)

2nd August 2008, 03:33

bartonfly88

Yeah that sucks

Join Date: Jul 2008

Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 20
Posts: 6

#11 (permalink)

2nd August 2008, 07:35

BroomstickPilot

Good luck

Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 463

Good luck, pipertommy, sounds like you are going to be

one of the good guys.
Broomstick.

#12 (permalink)

9th August 2008, 00:40

iq450
Probationary PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NH
Posts: 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

9th August 2008, 07:54

#13 (permalink)

Whirlybird

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

The Original Whirly

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.

Join Date: Feb 1999

Location: Just W of TNT,
Peak District, UK
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!

9th August 2008, 12:09

daria-ox
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171

#14 (permalink)

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.

9th August 2008, 14:13

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

#15 (permalink)

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 thats
life!

#16 (permalink)

9th August 2008, 14:18

walbbj

My first job?

Join Date: Oct 2006

Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4

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 halfheartedly.

9th August 2008, 16:52

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

#17 (permalink)

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 preinstructing? 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 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.

#18 (permalink)

9th August 2008, 20:44

frontlefthamster

Bartonfly88,

Join Date: Dec 2007

Location: France
Posts: 226

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.

#19 (permalink)

9th August 2008, 22:28

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

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.

10th August 2008, 07:06

Badgeman
Join Date: Jul 2008

#20 (permalink)

See that's funny; I'm so into flying that I

love even teaching it although the
airlines are my ultimate goal, AND really,

Location: USA
Posts: 7

I am just building hours by CFI'ing. If I

have a student fail a check-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?

25th March 2008, 23:17

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

#2 (permalink)

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 actually

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

#3 (permalink)

25th March 2008, 23:46

Duchess_Driver
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fletcher Memorial
Home
Posts: 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!

26th March 2008, 02:28

Flyboater
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Powys
Posts: 8

26th March 2008, 13:53

LOHANG
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nr Keighley
Age: 28
Posts: 3

#4 (permalink)

malc4d
Their argument is that the fee is for the approach, not
just the landing.
TheOddOne
I understand the problem of some instructors abusing
the system, but my concern is for solo students, not
flights with an instructor aboard.

#5 (permalink)

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.

26th March 2008, 14:59

#6 (permalink)

PyroTek
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane,
Australia
Age: 18
Posts: 599

i'm lucky, doing circuits in my training at the moment,

our airfield doesn't have landing charges, only cheap
overnight parking charges

#7 (permalink)

26th March 2008, 16:41

Flyboater
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Powys
Posts: 8

malc4d
VFR approach during ab-initio training - go round from
finals.

#8 (permalink)

26th March 2008, 19:44

bjornhall
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 35
Posts: 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???

#9 (permalink)

26th March 2008, 20:04

RYR738_driver
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BHX
Posts: 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

#10 (permalink)

26th March 2008, 20:13

BigEndBob
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 432

Have worked at one school where one student has paid

over 1000 in landing fees alone.
Its ridiculus that a school can't negotiate a block fee.

#11 (permalink)

27th March 2008, 00:12

9v-SKA
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Singapore
Age: 18
Posts: 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.

#12 (permalink)

28th March 2008, 23:13

Flyboater
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Powys
Posts: 8

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 environment
Unfortunately there is not another airfield close by that
we could use for circuit/ landing training

#13 (permalink)

1st April 2008, 16:38

BigEndBob

Mind you not going around from a dodgy approach is

good practise for the commercial world!

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: uk
Posts: 432

#14 (permalink)

1st April 2008, 17:12

Pugilistic Animus
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No
Trangression Zone
Posts: 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

#15 (permalink)

1st April 2008, 20:25

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

Chirps Chirps Chirps Chirps

Everytime a student is clobbered for a landing fee on a

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.

#16 (permalink)

2nd April 2008, 16:55

Foxy Loxy
Luvverley!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: An HQ near
Newquay
Posts: 208

VFE
Quote:

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

#17 (permalink)

3rd April 2008, 18:30

Final 3 Greens
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Med
Posts: 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?

3rd April 2008, 18:46

bucket_and_spade
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 146

#18 (permalink)

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.

#19 (permalink)

3rd April 2008, 21:05

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

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.

#20 (permalink)

16th April 2008, 00:06

Mach Jump

Hi Three Greens

Join Date: May 2005

Location: yorkshire
Posts: 36

Neither trees, or the walls you find around fields count

as 'persons, vehicles, vessels or structures'.
MJ