Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1809463
Our current SoS was famously behind a red tape challenge several years ago which cut or simplified national regulations or processes but was unable to touch easa items. Any items on your list for something similar, but easing restrictions or adding skill sets now it is possible to do so?
Kick off:
1: National Licences restored to privileges to fly all aircraft their fcl equivalents can fly. Reason: No reason why pilots with national licences should not fly all aircraft they can and not have a needless iron curtain between them and many rental or syndicate aircraft.
2: Path nppl-ssea to PPL(sep) restored. Example reason: There is no reason why one member of the Europa club can do one-wheelies around Europe and another one cannot. There is also no reason not to have a logical safe and above all encouraging progression ladder from nppl-m to ppl-imc
3- a cloud rating for sep for skills development. Reason: skill and safety development for the vfr pilot who doesn't want to fly airways or ILS but just want to be safer trapped above closing-in cloud now they can be above it, or even forced to climb through stratus to be safe. It works now for motor gliders on a ppl(s)
4: alternative means of compliance for lapl(a) validity. Pilot allowed to chose between current validity method (the real one, not the one they think they are following) and the self-invented one that many do follow, which is they have to do 12 hours by 2 years after the last training hour. Reason: they vote with their feet and actually do that now. Make it legal.
Kemble Pitts, T6Harvard, cjrpaterson and 4 others liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1809473
3) First rate idea

4a) Carp idea

Rob P
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1809487
Kemble Pitts wrote:PPL/FI allowed to teach for PPL, as it used to be.

They can now, they just need CPL TK.

I guess what you mean is that a better way needs to be found to fulfil the ICAO requirement (I believe) for 'demonstrating knowledge to CPL level'.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1809501
Bathman wrote:Cut and pass the FAA CPL TK?

Including all the references to US regulations on licensing, privileges, airspace, weather services, charts etc?

I think not.
#1809515
Rob P wrote:4a) Carp idea


Why?

trevs99uk wrote:SVFR restore the UK definitions.


Do you mean the class D cloud limits for VFR? That is one issue relatively easy to pick off, although we must be careful to not feed the "UK airspace is special" point of view.

Pre-SERA SVFR in the UK was (IMHO) a load of non-ICAO tosh. I remember trying to get my instructor in 2005 to explain the difference between ICAO VFR, UK PPL visibility/cloud minima and ICAO SVFR vs UK SVFR. He couldn't and it was only years later when becoming a bit of regulation nerd that I really understood the differences. ICAO Annex 2 is generally pretty good - although I think the way the US has adapted re cloud/vis limits it also has its strengths/logic.
Bathman liked this
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1809524
Irv Lee wrote:1: National Licences restored to privileges to fly all aircraft their fcl equivalents can fly. Reason: No reason why pilots with national licences should not fly all aircraft they can and not have a needless iron curtain between them and many rental or syndicate aircraft.

Yes! Yes! Yes! … 10 times over, yes!
User avatar
By Rob P
#1809532
Rob P wrote:4a) Carp idea


Edward Bellamy wrote:Why?


Because the current system allows you to work on your own weak points rather than fannying around with some one size fits all skills test.

Rob P
skydriller liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1809534
Edward wrote:
trevs99uk wrote:SVFR restore the UK definitions.


Do you mean the class D cloud limits for VFR? That is one issue relatively easy to pick off, although we must be careful to not feed the "UK airspace is special" point of view.

Pre-SERA SVFR in the UK was (IMHO) a load of non-ICAO tosh.

Unsafe too. If you are flying around in class G in 4km getting worse and decide diverting into or through CAS in the safest way, what you don't need is svfr minimum at 10km like it used to be in the UK. Anyone know why it was?
Edward Bellamy liked this
By johnm
#1809540
The magic words Mayday Mayday Mayday or Pan Pan Pan pan pan pan are very important in those conditions

The 10 km was part of the horse trading around IMCR which is what we had to settle for because the CAA would not entertain an accessible IR something EASA has made good progress on.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1809542
johnm wrote:The magic words Mayday Mayday Mayday or Pan Pan Pan pan pan pan are very important in those conditions

The 10 km was part of the horse trading around IMCR which is what we had to settle for because the CAA would not entertain an accessible IR something EASA has made good progress on.

It was 3km if you had an IMCR.
johnm liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1809548
GrahamB wrote:
Kemble Pitts wrote:PPL/FI allowed to teach for PPL, as it used to be.

They can now, they just need CPL TK.

I guess what you mean is that a better way needs to be found to fulfil the ICAO requirement (I believe) for 'demonstrating knowledge to CPL level'.


Thats why I wrote PPL/FI and not PPL/FI plus CPL TK!

I'd have thought some sort of pragmatic (and defensible) judgement could be made that the FI course, maybe plus some CPL TK 'module' added on, met the ICAO requirement.

Many of the instructors who taught me to fly had only a PPL (maybe with a grandfather 'freebie' BCPL) and the CFI was ex-Lancasters. Seemed to work then. As we know, the CPL TK has little or no relevance to teaching the PPL course.