[Dave W]

(With apologies to Edwin Starr for the thread title)

Elsewhere, I have been attempting to correct a misunderstanding (seen here a few times over the years) about when you can log "P2" in a UK single pilot aeroplane. (Answer, as we know: Almost never).

One of the resources I used to make the point was CAP804, and some handy tables in there; initially due to lack of time I only pointed at Part FCL and did not quote FCL.050.

The information was rejected, supposedly because CAP804 is now "For Reference Only", no longer (since April 2015) kept up-to-date and hence "only guidance" - the implication apparently being that any information in it cannot be held to be definitive.

Without digressing into the ins and outs of logging P2 (which is simply the example that drove the question), what do forumites see as the current value of CAP804?

Handy reference, or obsolete document?

If there is ever a question on the forums in the future where CAP804 could provide an answer, should we not do so and always go to Part.FCL or wherever?

[VRB_20kt]

It ought to be obsolete, but part FCL is so badly indexed on Internet search engines that it's nigh on impossible to find the section that you want. So yes, Part-FCL is the definitive document, but CAP804 is a half-decent proxy (although certain individuals seem to believe that even Part-FCL is only there for guidance!)

[Irv Lee]

Very handy to get a base position despite all the riders and was only chatting the other day with a cfi who really finds his week made far harder than it ought to be by lack of equivalent 2018 document

[David Wood]

It is just simply staggering that there isn't a logical, readable, indexed, succinct, up-to-date, single point of reference expressed in English (and not some sort of triple-negative, cross-referenced, ministry-of-mumble speak) that we can all refer to. It beggars belief.

We have to have rules, we all get that. And someone has to make them. But surely promulgating those rules in a useable form is part and parcel of the process of rule-making... Or else what are these people for?

Grrrrr. Deep breath. Grumpy mode off.

[Ben K]

I miss LASORS.

[patowalker]

I guess we can only be guided by this. The promised review obviously concluded that a replacement was not necessary and we now have to rely on the ANO, Part FCL and other guidance on the CAA website.

Handy reference, or obsolete document? Good question. Why is a document cancelled in 2016, because new EASA regulations made it obsolete, still available on the CAA website for reference?

[Dave W]

Because it is still quite handy as a readable(ish...) go-to first port in a storm reference source in the absence of anything else?

[allout]

So CAP 804 is for reference only ....
... so I use it for reference
... just like I use Part-FCL for reference
... & use the ANO for reference

(just said I used them; didn't say any of them were easy, or sensibly indexed)

[patowalker]

Because it is still quite handy as a readable(ish...) go-to first port in a storm reference source in the absence of anything else?

Yes, much clearer than anything else. But, for example, CAP 804 allows an exception on flying P2 in a single pilot aircraft which is not in the ANO or Part FCL. Is an exception mentioned in a cancelled document valid or not?

Probably not a good example, because that exception is "subject to prior agreement with the CAA", but you know what I mean.

[Balliol]

There is a lot of licensing stuff that is still in use, and the only source is CAP804. The CAA SSC will repeatedly refer you to it in a number of situations still as well!