digits_ wrote:
It doesn't. Section 3 and section 2 are completely separate. They are separate requirements that need to be fulfilled. The amount of progress checks in (2) can be different than the ones in (3).
Ok, lets carefully review then.
The holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating shall be under the supervision of the holder of a Class 1 or 2 Flight Instructor Rating, in the applicable category,
So far so good. We're all on the same page that class 4s must be supervised. Yes? Good.
Now the tricky part that some seem to not understand:
and shall submit for review to the supervising instructor the following:
(1) the training program for each student undergoing training by the holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating;
Easy enough, typically this will be covered by the FTU's syllabus the program that each of the class 4's will be following. One should note that no specific
paper is required there, though one could argue that point. But that's not what's being debated here.
(2) flight progress checks for each student at intervals to be specified by the supervising flight instructor, but at least once before the first solo flight and once before the flight test for issue of the pilot licence;
(3) a record of results on the form “Instructor’s Training Record While Under Direct Supervision”; and
So you're right in that the progress checks can be
more than the minimum as specified in (2) and if they are more then (3) specifies that the results of said checks must be recorded. The FIG provides a form on the last page that assumes a minimum record is being kept. Technically if the supervising instructor required more checks for a class 4 (most common would be instructors working in an integrated course) then they must make additions or changes to that form to reflect the "flight progress checks" as specified in (2). Lastly in addition to (2) and (3),
(4) the student’s pilot training record for each first solo flight and for each flight test recommendation for approval.
The students of course are the ones referred to in (2). (3) and (4) don't stand alone, other wise they make no sense. Technically speaking again, its why (2) and (3) end with semicolons, Your elementary school teacher was correct when she said that knowing about punctuation was going to matter in the future.
Most importantly redlaser is patently wrong in his view of the requirement for the additional paperwork. It is not specified anywhere in the CARs, or mentioned in the FIG. The only place where such paperwork might be legally required is if it was specified somewhere in the FTU's OM, which is possible, but unlikely and would be specific to that particular FTU.
