Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1664715
BirdsEyeView wrote:It might also be the rule of the aero club where the aircraft is based that the CFI (who is essentially the ops manager of the field) might wish to undertake a short check flight with the new group member. It is also a courtesy to the CFI as he/she is responsible for the safety of the field.


That's barmy. By that logic I should have a check flight with the CFI at every field I fly to. After all I'm flying there, and have the theoretical potential to become a safety issue.

A courtesy to the CFI? Just reinforces the silly 'teachers and schoolchildren' mentality that permeates a lot of the UK GA scene.
User avatar
By skydriller
#1664793
BirdsEyeView wrote:It might also be the rule of the aero club where the aircraft is based that the CFI (who is essentially the ops manager of the field) might wish to undertake a short check flight with the new group member. It is also a courtesy to the CFI as he/she is responsible for the safety of the field.


Do you really mean that generally?

A checkout to actually fly from a certain airfield is something i have only heard of at altiports and that requirement is nothing to do with the aeroclub, its a rule from the DGAC if you dont have a mountain rating. Leading on from that I suppose the owner of a particularly demanding private strip might want to demonstrate in his own aeroplane the best way into his strip, but I wouldnt class that as a checkout exactly...not sure how that would work in your own aeroplane (especially if a different type) and wanting to be based there - I guess you might want/agree to demonstrate you understood and can cope well as a courtesy, possibly demonstrating short field technique elsewhere first??

Regards. SD..
#1664799
I would say a PA 28 180 is a variant from a 140. I would certainly recommend going up with an instructor.
If nothing else isn’t it worth a brief on the avionics and particular foibles?
Instructors get schyte money. Help them out!
kanga liked this
#1664803
Wow. It does appear here that the GA pilot community is dead against anyone responsible for the safety of the airfield checking them out. How about being asked to produce your licence and medical cert? Perhaps you won't like gliding under BGA rules as most glider sites I know will want you to do a check flight if you brought your glider to 'their' site and/or requested membership. Come on guys, any aero club can impose any rules if the membership agrees. It does appear there are still many who view my comment as heresy. Makes a lot of sense to many - the silent majority perhaps :)
#1664811
Our strip, at 815 metres is longer than many 'established' airfields.

It does however have the quirk of a long stand of 10 metre high trees immediately alongside the approach and alongside the first 200metres of the southern edge of the strip.

They have begun to overgrow the grass in places and as it is the narrow end of our strip and gives rise to vicious curl-over when he wind is strong south westerly we have been known to include a couple of approaches into our strip by the local CFI when checking out low hours new members.

Wise precaution I'd say.

Peter :wink:
kanga liked this
#1664814
the CFI (who is essentially the ops manager of the field) might wish to undertake a short check flight with the new group member

Who would fund that, then...

In the UK the term 'CFI' is an 'appointment'. It is not a licensing qualification, neither does it necessarily reflect appropriate experience or capability. I have encountered 'CFIs' who I would not want in my group aeroplane.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1664817
BirdsEyeView wrote:Wow. It does appear here that the GA pilot community is dead against anyone responsible for the safety of the airfield checking them out. How about being asked to produce your licence and medical cert? Perhaps you won't like gliding under BGA rules as most glider sites I know will want you to do a check flight if you brought your glider to 'their' site and/or requested membership. Come on guys, any aero club can impose any rules if the membership agrees. It does appear there are still many who view my comment as heresy. Makes a lot of sense to many - the silent majority perhaps :)

Whilst they do exist, the number of GA airfields actually owned or controlled by the resident aeroclub is very much the minority, and thus would be unable to exercise the control you seem to think is a good idea. If they were to insist on doing what you say, it would rule out visitors, surely.

The way most airfields with sensitivities deal with this is to require a briefing via via phone beforehand, and most will publicise those anyway via the usual guides, the AIP, and their websites.

Private strips are a different matter, of course, where the owner may have good reasons for strictly vetting visitors or even discouraging them entirely.
PaulB liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1664827
PeteSpencer wrote: we have been known to include a couple of approaches into our strip by the local CFI when checking out low hours new members.


But that is your group suggesting this, not the CFI telling you you must do it...

BirdsEyeView wrote:Come on guys, any aero club can impose any rules if the membership agrees.


This is very different to what you said in the first post. An aeroclub can obviously impose any rule it likes (within the law) on memebership. Flying aeroclub aeroplanes my well require a checkout and this is what we are talking about here. You were talking about an airfield checkout - this is a different thing and so it has rightly been suggested this is unworkable except in the most extreme of cases.

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By kanga
#1664835
When I was still both flying and an Air Cadet instructor, and our syndicate had 2 aircraft so that I was not being too antisocial to take one away fror a whole week, whenever my Cadets had a Camp at a flying station I would ask to fly in for the week. This was sometimes allowed, sometimes not. It was ultimately Station Commander's decision (so could change between Camps at same Station if Staish changed), but decision was sometimes delegated to SATCO or OC Ops.

At one Station, permission decision was delegated to OC Ops (not a pilot). Permission was granted subject to written brief on arrival procedures (normal RAF, 'Initials' etc), despite there being no RAF movements nor ATC on Saturday of arrival, and no fixed-wing RAF flying during the Camp week. Then, first flight during week had to be with CFI of resident RAFFCA Club, in my aircraft, to be shown all local landmarks, followed by airborne demonstratiion that I understood procedures. Seemed reasonable to me: their airfield, their rules.
User avatar
By flyguy
#1665141
So I'm going to share what I suspect some people will view as being one extreme on this continuum. It's not exactly the same as people rent my aeroplanes rather than buying a share, but I think the underlying issue is the same; what is required to ensure that the pilot taking the aeroplane is safe so to do?

Many (but by no means all) of the people who rent our T67s have undertaken their aeros rating with us, and plan on flying themselves and often buddies off on aerobatic sorties. We make no apologies for the fact that we expect our renters to fly a full GFT profile before we allow them go solo. So that absolutely includes PFLs, EFATOs, all major emergencies, accurate normal/glide/flapless circuits, plus a range of airmanship and captaincy issues including diversions and landaways.

Recent accident history has too many examples of new renters/share purchasers who have effectively been 'waved through' without having to formally demonstrate their true ability. Having been on the other side many times, I have had 'checkers' tell me that I'm fine way too early in my opinion; I want to do pretty much everything the aeroplane CAN do with somebody who knows it before I'll take it solo. Everybody who trains with us knows that we expect very high standards; individuals who aren't happy with that are inevitably people we're happy not to work with.
JAFO, G-BLEW, Rob P and 3 others liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1665149
BirdsEyeView wrote:Wow. It does appear here that the GA pilot community is dead against anyone responsible for the safety of the airfield checking them out.


I don't think that it's that people are against it, just that a lot of people with a huge amount of experience have never heard of the sort of arrangement you suggest in your first post. It would be interesting to know where you have experienced the sort of requirements you suggest.
#1665157
As usual the comeback is "why don't you want to fly with an instructor?" asked in a way that implies a cavalier and unsafe attitude.

Fine if it's your field = your rules. But don't be surprised if not many choose to base themselves there or visit if you insist on personally checking out anyone who flies in. Thankfully the number of schools/clubs that actually control a field and can enforce this is small, not that I've ever found anywhere trying to do it.

CFI (in the UK) is just a job title. What irritates me is the suggestion that any pilot should have to show deference (or a particular courtesy) to that person as a result of the job they hold, extending as far as use of an airfield being conditional upon showing that deference. They are simply someone who holds a certain set of qualifications and a certain job, and someone who's professional services a pilot may or may not choose to engage. They are not an appointed overseer of all and sundry.

It's funny how people complain about declining participation in light GA and the struggle to attract customers, yet are always ready to talk down to those customers and tell them with a wagging finger that they should be spending more money on extra training requirements above and beyond the already-bloated regulatory system.

I've honestly never known a business quite like it. I'll file this idea alongside 'cross channel checkouts' and other such guff.
Talkdownman, Duo802, Shoestring Flyer and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By BirdsEyeView
#1665188
JAFO wrote:
BirdsEyeView wrote:Wow. It does appear here that the GA pilot community is dead against anyone responsible for the safety of the airfield checking them out.


I don't think that it's that people are against it, just that a lot of people with a huge amount of experience have never heard of the sort of arrangement you suggest in your first post. It would be interesting to know where you have experienced the sort of requirements you suggest.


@JAFO I have stated my opinion (like many others) in this thread. For my own privacy, I am not about to respond to that question - and neither should I in order to affirm the question's validity :)

Generally: To restate; my opinion is that a new group member MAY be required to have a check flight (with an instructor) either as a courtesy to the person responsible for the safety of the field and to its users, or to satisfy the group and/or its conditions. I don't have a problem with that, while others clearly do.

There appears to be a low opinion of CFIs from some; that is the impression I get reading back. Whatever they might think of the status or validity of a CFI or of his/her duties, I think all would agree that safety is paramount - although they are not well paid for such responsibility in addition to their training duties. Unfortunately, the rule breaker in GA exists, believing boundaries are for pushing against while claiming 'more experience than most'. I have met them - they are proud of themselves, and the perceived hierarchy of a CFI seemingly rubs them up the wrong way. I for one, would be very unhappy if my group aircraft were exposed to such, as they are often people who blur the difference between Risk and Hazard.

Just my opinion. My contribution to this topic. Thanks for reading :)