Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
#1697961
I gave up in 2015. Sold my last aeroplane, the fourth owned either solo or duel. The increasing complexity of regulation, licensing and airspace all played a part as did cost. I only aquired my PPL to satisfy a boyhood curiosity about aerobatics, which i loved immediately. The journey lasted longer than I ever imagined it would, all the way to medals at Advanced level in domestic comps. The joy was already slowly ebbing away when a great freind lost his life in an Aerobatic machine at my home airfield. Six months later I was no longer an aeroplane owner or even in my own mind a pilot. I would not have missed the experience for the world, but there were a lot of factors which made me happy to stop, I am suprised to find I hardly ever miss it, but I often wonder how i found the time to fly the modest 60-70 hours I averaged, fettle the aeroplane(s) constantly, organise maintenance, spares....et al. Having dreaded the day I may need / be forced to stop, it has been a relief to do it as a conciuos choice and find it unpainful. It was not just regulation, but fear of accidentaly making an admin mistake and being uninsured as a result was certainly one factor among many.
#1697970
I have always insisted on signing up nppl-ssea ratings for "lapl" pilots who have both licences and you would be surprised how many two years later are clearly only legal because I did so, and are clearly surprised when I point it out.
We seem to be screwed by a committee system of people who believe they know something about hobby pilots but in reality they probably only know something about instrument ratings or military flying.
2 scenarios for the committee who decided on lapl validity AFTER the schoolboy and historically proven mistake of making it rolling. Which is more likely???:
1) they carefully discussed matters and deliberately made it all 12 hours to be p1 (as opposed to 6 out of 12 with Sep) so there is less likelihood of a less than rich hobby pilot seeking instructor help, then added a training hour to make it all 13 not 12 (like sep), then knowingly made the 12 take offs and landings p1 so anyone having landing problems is less likely to seek help
2) someone who knew very little about grass roots flying was in an easa committee and said "Lapl? oh, make it the same as Sep, I think it is something like 12 hours p1 and a training hour, and I think there is something about 12 take offs and landings... just put that in words, we are due in the restaurant soon"
ls8pilot, T67M liked this
#1697973
Irv Lee wrote:....
2) someone who knew very little about grass roots flying was in an easa committee and said "Lapl? oh, make it the same as Sep, I think it is something like 12 hours p1 and a training hour, and I think there is something about 12 take offs and landings... just put that in words, we are due in the restaurant soon"


The LAPL(S) regs are even better for a laugh! The requirement for recency states "two flights with an instructor in the last 24 months", typically in practice this equates to two simulated winch failures (aka cable breaks), so about 3-4 mins flying time in total. I bet that's not what the LAPL committee had in mind, but luckily for us we have a fairly sensible sporting body and club structure which puts reasonable checks in place.
#1697994
Irv Lee wrote:I have always insisted on signing up nppl-ssea ratings for "lapl" pilots who have both licences and you would be surprised how many two years later are clearly only legal because I did so, and are clearly surprised when I point it out.


We read about "40% of LAPL holders I come across" and "you would be surprised at how many", but are never told how many? There is something very wrong if a pilot can't work out what is required to keep current on his licence and while it is easy to blame the complexity of the regulations, I suspect it has more to do with the lack of interest, to put it mildly, of the pilot, or the shortcomings of his training. Is that being too harsh?
JAFO liked this
#1697999
patowalker wrote: Is that being too harsh?


Yes

But the complex regulation is compounded by the lack of understanding of the people drafting same and by the lack of joined up knowledge of the people implimenting it or purporting to know the regulation.

Or maybe we are older, wiser, can see that there is a lot more regulation affecting aviation and appreciate it makes virtually bu££er all difference to the safety of a flight.
#1698002
Irv Lee wrote:We seem to be screwed by a committee system of people who believe they know something about hobby pilots but in reality they probably only know something about instrument ratings or military flying.


I don't agree. The lamentable quality of regulation that the EASA system pushes out affects other sectors just as badly as the hobby pilot. I think the problem is that working groups know too much about flying of all sorts, and not enough about what makes a good and effective regulation. Their output then goes to a committee that is ignorant of both but is allowed to make overnight changes.
#1698013
I Have been flying for a very long time, and a CRI for the past 10 years.
I had .945 privileges (?) added about 3 months ago.

Notwithstanding the rules (as discussed in this thread), I will not sign off an SEP for someone who pitches up asking for their 3-4 x 15 minute club currency checkout out flights to be considered as their 1 hour instructional flight.

I consider that I have a duty of care not to sign off and thereby (release / authorise / whatever), a pilot to fly, and perhaps carry passengers, unless I am personally satisfied that that pilot is safe to operate as pilot in command.

Likewise, even if I fly the full 1 hr instructional flight with a pilot, I will not append my signature if I feel that the pilot concerned is unsafe. (I have 2/ 3 things that I consider life threatening behaviours).

In these situations I will often ask the pilot whether they were happy with their flying? Or would they perhaps like to do a little more instruction so that they feel totally sharp and on top of their flying? In 99% of cases the pilot admits that they were not fully happy, and they welcomed the opportunity to do a little more instruction. I’ve only had two “students” who declined my invitation - whereupon I referred them to the CFI or another experienced examiner.
Bottom line is: I’m not going to sign off (and effectively authorise) any pilot that I think is unsafe.
kanga liked this
#1698015
patowalker wrote:We read about "40% of LAPL holders I come across" and "you would be surprised at how many", but are never told how many?

How do you expect this to come about? Ramp checks? I bet @Bathman is not exaggerating based on people he meets, I bet @SteveC has not invented a figure either.
There is something very wrong if a pilot can't work out what is required to keep current

Ah, now, getting there... but usually they are not primarily "pilots", they are workers or retirees who fly as a very occasional hobby. They don't have ops rooms to keep them informed, and I have lost count of the meetings where the assumption from senior officials is that hobby pilots pass through some flying club premises with some sort of chance to be intercepted by motivated instructors keen to explain the latest twist before they get to their aircraft. No one ever explained ratings to them back in 2000, the high up caa staff examiners knew what they were, so obviously Joe the Plumber would pick it up easily. LAPL validity came from ssea validity which was a copy/paste error in the ANO, and failed miserably in a five year live test, but no one told the CAA senior who went to easa to explain what a success it had been - months after it had been withdrawn and replaced with expiring ssea ratings.
I suspect it has more to do with the lack of interest

It Is a much more to do with completely indefensible illogical rules clearly designed by people who have no interest in anything but dominating in committees being unnecessarily forced on hobby pilots. JAR was voluntary. Like it? Convert to it! Just look what we lost there, especially with Brexit fears.
flybymike, Stu B liked this
#1698016
Irv Lee wrote:It Is a much more to do with completely indefensible illogical rules clearly designed by people who have no interest in anything but dominating in committees being unnecessarily forced on hobby pilots. JAR was voluntary. Like it? Convert to it! Just look what we lost there, especially with Brexit fears.


While I don't agree with your view of all regulators, I do agree that the current system could be much simpler. Right now it isn't, and while we can all rant about the detail, we shouldn't use it as an excuse to avoid understanding the requirements for our own licences/medicals/privileges.

Wouldn't it be more constructive if the 'I see X% of candidates inadvertently getting it wrong' posts were accompanied by a simple plain English explanation of what's often wrong and what's actually correct?

Ian
#1698020
I did once, in a response to an FCL email on a related subject, suggest that the CAA review the forum-developed table and if they agreed it was accurate and helpful to let them take control of it for general promulgation.

No response to that offer, but TBF why should there have been?

Still happy for that to happen, if it is considered accurate and useful.
G-BLEW liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7