Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1605099
Nick, I suspect that the battering they are getting on all sides on this might mean that they are actually talking to each other internally now. I have made it absolutely clear that I have no intention of stopping signing students out which they agreed with as did the Spanish CAA whose airspace the majority of our training that this could effect actually takes place. For everything else there is an SRG1100......
#1605107
I have 2 dogs....I have 2 leads for them. These have a plastic case containing a reel of~ 8 metres of thin cord lead, the distal end of which is clipped to the dog's collar.....so, you see, the dog can happily run across the road and play with the traffic or pretend to be a greyhound racing the neighbour's cat...... (i'm a bit slow on the lock-button that tends to abruptly curb these canine impulses :oops: ) But, I'm supervising them, aren't I?
Soloing students have no -such constraints. Their instructor can pre-brief the flight and off Studie goes. What they actually do, against what they were supposed to do, is down to a track-recording GPS, ATC and trust. Yep. It's largely a farce.
(Heard of a long-overdue Flex stude who didn't respond to the radio. returning Police Helicopter crew, asked if they'd seen such an aircraft, said "red one?" "yep"

"Ah, that might be the one hanging from the HT overhead pylons at XXX"
Subsequent replaying of the GPS showed a string of misdemeanours, aircraft written-off." training " finished! )
Supervised Solo appears, therefore, to be a farce, just like a dog with no lead(one of mine learned to chew through his, returned a half hour later, tired, happy and stinking of fox-crap :shock: )
As long as I've had an interest in GA, it's been the case that, without the piece of paper , you could only fly solo, under an instructor's authority. Strikes me as an onerous position to be in, as the poor fellow (or lady) has absolutely no control over what the authorised pilot who's just "passed" actually gets up to....they can only be reactive, even if equipped with a tracker, x-ray, long distance vision , and an A-Gradio that's on and being listened to.....The "pink-slip" equivalent is long overdue!


Incidentally, My instructor would not allow me to drive back from my successful test, as his insurance (he said!) only covered learners or qualified instructors, not newly- qualified drivers!
#1605122
you could only fly solo, under an instructor's authority. Strikes me as an onerous position to be in, as the poor fellow (or lady) has absolutely no control over what the authorised pilot who's just "passed" actually gets up to.


Is that any different to being sent off on a long X country with two away landings unsupervised, and actually not having passed the skill test either?
#1605127
Sounds like the way the S.A. CAA act in the weeks before an icao audit. Stop everything that moves in any pipeline and gold plate it whilst it has stopped, cancel anything that is not completely main stream. When is the uk's next easa audit (or perhaps it was last week)?
#1605129
cockney steve wrote:... Soloing students have no -such constraints. ...It's largely a farce. ..
As long as I've had an interest in GA, it's been the case that, without the piece of paper , you could only fly solo, under an instructor's authority. Strikes me as an onerous position to be in, as the poor fellow (or lady) has absolutely no control over what the authorised pilot who's just "passed" actually gets up to....they can only be reactive, even if equipped with a tracker, x-ray, long distance vision , and an A-Gradio that's on and being listened to.....The "pink-slip" equivalent is long overdue!

So it's better to give them that "piece of paper" and let them go and do what they want, rather than even speak to an instructor before flight? If people are going to be silly then you aren't going to legislate anyway.
cockney steve wrote:Incidentally, My instructor would not allow me to drive back from my successful test, as his insurance (he said!) only covered learners or qualified instructors, not newly- qualified drivers!
True in my experience, and saves the instructor money. So what's your beef?
#1605130
cockney steve wrote:
Incidentally, My instructor would not allow me to drive back from my successful test, as his insurance (he said!) only covered learners or qualified instructors, not newly- qualified drivers!


When I passed mine (first time on Fri 13th as well many years ago) my instructor would not let me drive back as he said your brain will not be in the right frame of mind to concentrate properly. I can fully understand the logic, I don't accept the insurance angle, although if any insurers read this it will become the norm....
Ian Melville liked this
#1605145
It is wholly unreasonable to bash the CAA about this!

Their current attitude is always to reduce regulatory burden where they can and to listen to reasoned comment from industry.

Doing a Violet Elizabeth won't get you anywhere - and quite rightly too!

Anyway, the point has been made and the Authority is attempting to solve the problem.
#1605150
Anyway, the point has been made and the Authority is attempting to solve the problem.


I really have no problem with it as I am not in the position of waiting for a licence. But it does make one wonder why an "attempt" has to be made to solve a very simple "problem" by letting the the examiner issue a temporary pilots licence with whatever restrictions deemed neccessary, it shouldn't be any more difficult to get a sensible person to knock up a form on-line if needed for examiners to download and issue on the day of passing , even put an expiry date if needed , whatever it's not rocket science.
cockney steve liked this
#1605157
There are two separate issues in this thread.

The original one is the recent problem of students being unable (apparently) to fly post Skills Test and exams even under instructor supervision. That is something that the CAA should most certainly be taken to task about, if accurate (as it seems to be) because it is illogical, unfair and a significant business issue to flying schools. This it seems is being resolved quite quickly. However, if the letter was an error, it is an error that should never have been made. If it wasn't an error then - again - the decision and change in policy should never have been made.

The second issue is the one about PPLs having to fly under supervision at all, after having passed the Skills Test and exams. This is a long-standing issue, and whilst the CAA can't be taken to task for it (and it is an EASA edict now anyway, AIUI), there is no reason not to complain about it given that it is not an inherently necessary restriction as other parts of the World show us. This is a longer term discussion, but there's nothing wrong in having it.

The two issues are related, despite being separate, and it's valid to talk about both in the same thread.
#1605237
Iceman wrote:.. CAA has now stated that no such non-training flights are now possible between your GFT and licence issue. ..


'licence issue' or 'licence receipt by pilot' ? There might be delays within CAA building(s) or with mail/courier services, but CAA might argue that physical licence must be in pilot's possession before new privileges are exercised.

[my timings, 1970:

16 Aug: GFT (C150, sleepy Stansted!) :)

I then immediately went overseas, for ~4 weeks, IIRC

18 Aug: PPL stamped at Board of Trade

PPL arrived by mail at home address while I was away

27 Sep: started flying Colts at Speke, initially refamilarisation (last flown as SPL Oct '69)

29 Sep: first passenger (father: he never volunteered to come up with me again :roll: ) ]
Flyin'Dutch' liked this