Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1816407
@Skybolt1 I tend to agree. I fly a light single seater and at my age am unlikely to ever own anything else so having to do an hour in a Tomahawk or similar seems unnecessarily complex and entirely irrelevant.
Before EASA complicated things, yet again, I took advantage of the NPPL alleviation which allowed me to avoid the pointless one hour by declaring that I would fly single seat only.
Rob P, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1816408
Ah... Good point which I had missed totally (single-seater that is.)

Mind you, I'd view it the same as a courtesy car, your own vehicle just seems so much better when you get back to it.

Rob P
townleyc liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1816458
Bathman wrote:.... 40%.....
.....
** Based on the number of LAPL ratings pages I have seen that are signed

And another different 40% who don't have licences signed because they think they just have to do 11 hours p1 within the period "date of most recent training hour in log book" to "2 years after date of most recent training hour in log book".
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1816459
@rf3flyer so is your aircraft easa/easa permit? presumably is, or you could still use the single seat reval on an ssea. Let's hope for nppl-ssea in Reg21 v soon.
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1816490
@Irv Lee
Irv, mine is the sole RF3 on the UK register NOT on a permit. I have tried several times to change that but the CAA won't budge, but in the new year I'll be pushing again.

However, as with all things EASA, even being allowed to move to a permit for continued airworthiness the RF3, regardless of whether CoA or PtF, will still be an EASA type so licensing may not change. I just don't know but I do think it iniquitous that within UK airspace ANY suitable UK issued licence, ICAO compliant, JAR, EASA, National, cannot be used.
Irv Lee, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1816497
On the subject of instructor hour, I have flown a lot of them, and always tried to find a way with content to have the pilot go away happy that it was worth doing. The lasting effect of merely an hour is of course in some way dependent on the attitude of the individual pilot. I've had some great results in that respect that of course keep me enthusiastic about flying in general, but in the grand scheme of things the "demonstrably big results" are of course numerically small.
Similar to the ssea single seat rule, I had at first no massive opinion on the idea that a check in an Airbus simulator did away with the need for an training hour for sep revalidation until I flew with a 2 year retired airline pilot who had also flown his own sep for years and never flown sep dual since Hamble. After that I had an opinion, if he had had an sep engine failure in all that time, I wouldn't have felt confident for any walking-away .
My main problem with the 12 hour revalidation is the 12 hours... some worship that number as if it was originated in a burning bush on a mountain somewhere when it is (to me) a commandment from a false god. (The mountain bit is probably not far off the truth)
ak7274 liked this
By Skybolt1
#1816548
I am sure there are some stories that the one-hour flight has saved a pilot's and their family's life. However, I am guessing that the vast majority of cases has been the subject making the best of an expensive hour, and showing relief when it is over. And a reasonable level of competence demonstrated. It is OK in a club environment, or a group environment, but for me (a very humble pilot who practices a lot in a demanding aeroplane), it means finding a club machine with an intercom, flying something unfamiliar (which is nice, if I have to), and spending an hour in an unfamiliar environment (nice if I have to). I have picked up one or two delightful points in the umpty-ump years I have been doing them. Always smiling with relief at the end. But something I would avoid if I could, until I need to acquire a new skill, at which point I'm the first to ask for a check-ride.
rf3flyer, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1816550
As I have frequently related, I simply fly my own VFR machine under foggles in (poorly) simulated IMC. It gets me familiar with a situation I hope never to find myself in.

Though I was glad of it when I had to climb up through c;oud over the Channel for the safety of the sunlit uplands just a thousand or so feet above the bank of cloud that was forcing me down to maintain VFR.

Rob P
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1816580
As far as the 1 hour every two years goes I recall reading somewhere, possibly in Sport Aviation, that the single seat biennial in the US is done in the single seater in sight of the FI on the ground making requests for particular maneuvers by radio.
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1816630
There was a study (not a very good one IMO) a while back that concluded that the introduction of JAR, which of course brought in the 12 hours etc requirement (replacing the 5-13 one) and other things like annual tests for MEPs (I think that that was a JAR thing?) had no effect on GA safety.


Some of the study conclusions are here.

The introduction in 1999 of new revalidation requirements contained within JAR-FCL had no significant effect on the number of serious incidents and accidents involving fixed-wing GA (Single Engine Piston) aircraft for both private pilots and instructors.


The proportion of all serious incidents and accidents that involved a training related issue remained significant following the introduction of JAR-FCL (20% before and 21% after).


The number of serious incidents and accidents specifically involving an experience or training issue did not significantly change on SEP aircraft.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Paper200705.pdf
User avatar
By kanga
#1816673
How things were (for youngsters) :wink: [Sorry, longish :oops: ]

Looking back at my UK, pre-CAA, Board of Trade PPL I find the following loose leaf pages, bound with a standard Treasury 'shoelace' in a stout light brown (for PPL) cardboard cover :) :

a. 'Licence' (TL.150) specifying 'Aeroplanes' by having 'Helicopters and Gyroplanes' overtyped. Wording on reverse confirms it is ICAO-compliant

[also overtyped is the wording allowing it to be used in lieu of a UK Passport, which British Subjects [sic] could pay extra to have incorporated if they provided a photograph and proof of citizenship]

b. 'Ratings' (SAL Form 150/O):
- Group 'A' specifying 'SE' (not 'SEP') Max Total (not 't/o') Weight not >12,500lb
[note: SLMG/TMG implicitly included; no microlight 'Class' existed]
- 'B': ME (not MEP) not >12,500lb
- 'C': >12,500lb
.. with a BoT stamp and signature against only 'A'; printed note that only a BoT officer could make any entry or alteration

c. 'Aircraft Rating-Certificate of Experience (Thirteen month period)' (SAL Form 150/E/1)
'I the undersigned, being a person authorised by the BoT, ..' [ie, a FE] ..certify .. personal flying logbook ..satisfied me .. within the 13 month period .. five hours pilot in command (..P1..) or co-pilot (..P2..)'

[note: no requirement for any time under instruction]

d. 'Aircraft Rating-Certificate of Test'(SAL Form 150/C)
'I the undersigned, being a person authorised by the BoT, ..' [ie, a FE] .. certify .. has passed as flying test .. P1 .. or ..P2 .. on the aircraft type or simulator specified ..'
[first entry and stamp made at BoT, presumably on receipt of FE's report of GFT]

Medical and FRTOL pages were of the same size and with same perforations, so they could also be bound in. FRTOLs were, of course, unnecessary, as many learnt non-radio in that era.

In my first ~30 years I was always renting annually in summer, so had (under FC rules, not ANO) to do club checkouts before embarking on my minimum 5h P1 (until JAR came in, and I joined a syndicate as it suddenly made the hourly rate in the second year more affordable, and then of course I flew much more anyway); and I often did little more than that each year. I once remarked to the CFI that 5h P1 without any FI oversight legally required seemed remarkably little. He (RAF WW2) agreed, but pointed out that I had not need a Driving Instructor or Examiner session since passing my test (providing I stuck to cars and light goods!); and anyway, most light aircraft flying was expensive enough that it was affordable to most only in a FC/FS environment. As for the rest: "the law cannot protect the rich idiot from himself". :?

I suppose that a significant change was the advent of microlights (weightshift; and then regulations designed for them also encompassing the lightest fixedwing) and kitplanes, which made some ownership and flying outside a FC/FS environment much more affordable. But I wonder whether that BoT regime was actually more dangerous to anyone except the pilot (and 1-3 passengers) rather than the wider public. I first met the 'compulsory FI time every 2 years' regime with BFRs in the US in the '80s. Canada (then; now ?) didn't have any analogous requirement.
By Skybolt1
#1816686
No matter how much training is carried out, there will always be some pilots who are barely capable and some who are more than capable. Shame to have to sample the entire community to catch the less-than-borderline cases. And of those, how many are actually 'caught'?