Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
Dave W wrote:What's the desired result, I wonder, from publishing that SN?

It's not informative, it isn't in clear language, its tone is finger-wagging and it is non-specific.

People know that rules exist and that they should follow them. The problem seems to be confusion; many don't know what those rules are.

Could it have been suggested by an aaib report or even coroner? Anyone seen such a recommendation in a recent accident report (maybe on tmg?) Or maybe originating completely internally to get "something out" driven by incidents and no reason to suspect pilots will suddenly start to understand things better in the near future.
Dave W wrote:A formal signoff to move from high to low wing or vice-versa is proportionate? Really?

I am guessing that was something in a previous post not mine, but SA rules were any change of aircraft within sep required both log book sig and form to SA CAA both by SA instructor whether familiarisation or differences training. UK instructors never knew this so checked out immigrating SA ppls like they would an FAA ppl and let them loose. In case of incident in new aircraft, SA caa would have said "no sep new type form here signed by SA instructor, shouldn't be flying it".
“Rules are there for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”, is that the correct quote?

When I learned to fly; discipline as well as competency, and ability to control an aircraft was instilled in me.

I have checked out in many new to me aircraft, either with a competent instructor (rarely), or a person who was familiar with the type (most often).
I have also flown aircraft that are new to me, without any sort of check out, and no-one within range, or alive to tell me what I should do. I read as much as I could about the type, gone through the manuals, talked to experts. Gleaned as much information as possible.

Checking out on the Volmer wasn’t so easy, and it was off the water for the first flight! But I gleaned as much as possible and took everything in stages. I did not ‘just go for it’!

Proper training instils discipline in the future pilot to do what is correct.
Proper training also instils the ability to land at a proper attitude with finesse.
Proper training instils a proper attitude towards flying.

Group A allowed me to fly a lot of aircraft legally, but the discipline instilled in me meant that I approached each new type sensibly, and I got the required knowledge before flying them.
Now you have differences training for tailwheel because we can’t be trusted to go out and get it without regulation.
Differences training for constant speed propellers and retractable undercarriage...
I had to learn and speak my checks in the Cessna 150 before solo. Brakes, Undercarriage....... Propeller.....
It’s called AWARENESS.

If you are an unaware pilot, you qualify for a Darwin badge, just don’t get the award.

The incompetency of a few means more regulation for the many.
It’s undemocratic, and expensive.
flyingeeza, cockney steve, TopCat and 1 others liked this
MichaelP wrote:Slippery slope this type rating business.

What really needs to change is the quality of flight instruction in this country.

The reason why the operator wants five hours is because pilots land flat!

Why are pilots not taught to land properly?

So it comes down to training.

And there's the nutshell right there! I've flown as pax with some supposedly capable pilots and I agree fully.
Yes, seems CAA went quick after a TMG incident by someone without a TMG rating?

Personal opinion: inside a TMG there is a single engine pison, the only difference to SEP I am aware of is big wings may hit something while taxying other than that you can fly them on SPL(S) or PPL(TMG) but the aircraft should not care :D

Agree on familiarisation flights + logbook sign-offs, it does not hurt (appart from personal ego) to get another pair of eyes and some critics, so I am really happy to take as much as familiarisation training with anyone as long as I can log it P1 :D

But, as far as experience goes, I tend to know better than the guy by reading the POH by heart then things start to decay worse as time go on :evil:

What I am afraid of is if you start adding airfield familiarisations, club checks, 3 daylight and 1 night takeoff/landing to take passengers in each class, type, variant?

IMHO, if you judge that a SEP aircraft cannot be flown safely with the POH and current PPL holder, that aircraft should not have been certified in the first place, I don't feel that the other signoffs are that necessay: VP, RG, Turbo, Glass...I have some doubts about tailwheel landing and taxi tough :lol:
Last edited by BehyBill on Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have SLMG written on my licence. I guess you're telling me I can't fly a motor glider now without some additional tuition...

Prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL, the old Group A was separated into SEP and SLMG. All licences with Group A were re-issued with SEP and SLMG Class Ratings in Section XII of their new licences. However, in order to exercise the privileges of the SLMG class rating, you must have a SLMG Certificate of Test which was obtained by completing a SLMG General Skills Test and the associated stamp in your logbook. Many people misunderstood this, and decided that they could exercise SLMG privileges anyway, despite not having the required Certificate of Test. LASORS 2010 later confused matters further by stating that you could fly a SLMG exercising the privileges of your SEP class rating with SLMG differences...

Currently, in order to exercise privileges on SLMG you must hold the privilege in Section XII of your national licence and hold a current SLMG Certificate of Revalidation.

IMHO, if you judge that a SEP aircraft cannot be flown safely with the POH and current PPL holder, that aircraft should not have been certified in the first place, I don't feel that the other signoffs are that necessay: VP, RG, Turbo, Glass...I have some doubts about tailwheel landing and taxi tough

Unfortunately, there have been a large number of accidents, some serious, over the last few years which have been directly attributable to lack of skill or knowledge which would have been avoidable with appropriate familiarisation and/or differences training. I have been directly involved with the AAIB in the reports associated with a number of such incidents and accidents, and encourage all pilots to undertake appropriate training when converting onto new types via the LAA Pilot Coaching Scheme or with other suitably experienced instructors.

Whilst you may hold the appropriate differences, it is important to understand the specific requirements of your new aeroplane type. When familiarisation training is required, whether you undertake training with an instructor or choose to do this yourself is your choice under the regulations. Differences training is required to be completed with an instructor under both EASA and national regulations.

I have included some up-to-date guidance on the LAA website associated with required familiarisation and differences training found here:

All LAA coaches are either FI or CRI, and most have completed all differences themselves applicable to LAA types, so they can provide your differences training or familiarisation training on both EASA and non-EASA aeroplanes.

ianfallon, G-BLEW, BehyBill and 2 others liked this
Dave W wrote:A formal signoff

IMHO there is a need for a formal sense-check and sign-off somewhere in the CAA before pressing 'send' in order to stifle the penchant that seems to have developed for putting out edicts like this that add little, or confuse, or are impenetrably worded, or are just plain wrong. Recent examples have included:
- The 'no flying allowed until you have your licence in your hand' fiasco of last year.
- The recent Gipsy Major IN that told everyone about a well-known, ages-old issue and then offered a 'solution' that just does not exist.
- This Licence Privilege IN which, as has been pointed out, in effect merely says 'there are rules, follow them'.

In an earlier life I once employed someone specifically to run a final check on the messages being sent out to people in the field, in order to ensure that such messages might actually make sense to the recipient. We all suffer from a marked tendency to believe that because something makes sense to us when we wrote it, it will make sense to the recipient when he gets it. Often the first draft does not.

The acid tests are:
- Is the message really necessary. In other words, does it serve a purpose/fulfill a need, and do I need to say this?
- Is the content correct?
- Is the wording clear and unambiguous? Will he understand what I mean?
- Is it timely?

So, perhaps a grown-up within the CAA should be charged with the obligation to validate these sorts of edicts against such a set of acid tests before they go out in order to save time/trouble/embarassment. Maybe we could call him something like the Head of the GA Unit...
Bobcro liked this
How things change!.....The ATA had minimal training or guidance during the war, AIUI they promulgated their own "Pilot's guidance notes" for each said booklet and orf yer goes!.....Remarkably low Darwin Award figures and the Air Ministry seemed to keep their sticky-beaks out of worked. Flying is inherently risky. Grown-ups can assess the level of risk they're comfortable with and don't need big brother constantly checking if they've filled their nappy.
MichaelP, Nomad63, Nick and 1 others liked this