Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
By Bathman
#1809556
And one such answer to that would be a pragmatic CPL exam. One paper. Just an signature from an instructor saying your ready to sit the exam. And the exam can be sat at a local flying school or DVLA exam centre.
By Edward Bellamy
#1809562
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 forgive me I don't know what experience you have of the FAA system, but in my experience the BFR is not (if done correctly) a one size fits all skills test. Yes, an instructor can decline to sign off a BFR, but it is not the same as doing a skill test with an examiner which has very specific pass/fail criteria. People have commented during the Covid exemptions that they find the ground discussion associated with the rating extension process helpful, the BFR is intended to include that sort of thing.

The main argument, to me, is one of simplicity - a BFR in any aircraft you are rated on keeps the general suite of aircraft ratings on the licence valid (at GA level at least, gets more complicated with type ratings etc). So no separate MEP tests etc. No counting hours etc. IR does have a separate system of rolling validity.

Anyway we wouldn't have to copy the FAA content of the BFR if the UK did not want to, just that the counting of hours falls away.
User avatar
By skydriller
#1809629
wrt FAA BFR or EASA 1hr instructor flight/12hrs etc.. Is there any evidence that these have made the skies safer? I seem to remember that pre-JAR there was no such check on a pilot.

Dont get me wrong, I dont object to the flight or the minimum hours, but it does always seem to me (possibly because of my work combined with the fact I used to have a licence from a country different to that I live in) that getting the flight and sign-off was always a bit of a faf and a rush-around...

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By skydriller
#1809630
5. For new PPL students: once you pass the skill test the examiner gives you a temporary licence so you can go flying without having to wait for the CAA paperwork application etc.
(Or did that one already get fixed???)
#1809639
johnm wrote:The magic words Mayday Mayday Mayday or Pan Pan Pan pan pan pan are very important in those conditions


Declare an emergency for a perfectly normal flight? That sounds like a reasonable thing to do... :?

Adding to the list, if you've met the requirements for revalidation by experience, don't draw a line at a date to get the signature after which training and a test is required. It's pure bureaucracy and has nothing to do with whether actual flying requirements have been met.

While we're at it, get rid of the 12 hours in the second year of two business. That's just weird bonkers stuff.

As for CPLs and instructing, I've said for a while that *any* ICAO CPL should be valid to meet the requirements of ICAO in having CPL knowledge. That's a quick win. In the longer term we could have a basic CPL along the lines of the FAA CPL but with UK "PPL+" knowledge rather than US "PPL+". Call it the BCPL.

One thing I'd add to Irv's list is to have a sensible route to go from foreign PPLs, valid or expired, to UK PPLs. There should also be a sensible way of going from a foreign instructor rating to UK.
Grelly, Kemble Pitts liked this
By johnm
#1809669
@Paul_Sengupta I was responding the to the comment about struggling in low visibility and needing 10km to get into a safe class D environment SVFR as raised by Irv.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1809678
johnm wrote:@Paul_Sengupta I was responding the to the comment about struggling in low visibility and needing 10km to get into a safe class D environment SVFR as raised by Irv.

'as was raised and condemned by Irv', please!
The idea of a pan or mayday would probably force many PPLs to carry on regardless instead, GASCo did some computer simulations with volunteers a few years ago, and I remember a few London Info FISOs asking me in a coffee break of some meeting why pilots who, on learning how poor the weather is at destination on their way back from Le T, carry on anyway!
By johnm
#1809682
I accept the condemned to a degree, but it is all too easy to get caught out and assistance is available when needed and folk shouldn't hesitate to use it. A close friend of mine would still be alive if he'd called mayday and climbed and let ATC sort out the consequences, as it was he continued as instructed into solid IMC and CFIT while awaiting IFR clearance.
#1809709
skydriller wrote:wrt FAA BFR or EASA 1hr instructor flight/12hrs etc.. Is there any evidence that these have made the skies safer? I seem to remember that pre-JAR there was no such check on a pilot.


I mean to an extent this will always be the problem, this is no particular evidence one way or another, because there are too many factors of cause and effect in GA to separate them with any real certainty.

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.

Look across to FAA land and the accident rate is generally the same as the UK, if slightly better. Look across Europe and there is wild variety.

Which is why I think simplicity rather than safety is the main argument for reforming FCL regulations.
skydriller liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1809725
Edward Bellamy wrote:Which is why I think simplicity rather than safety is the main argument for reforming FCL regulations.


You have to be careful with simplicity. When people complained that the number of BT tariffs for phone lines were numerous and confusing and demanded things be simplified, BT just removed all the cheapest options, reducing the number of options and thus the confusion. In a similar way, the plethora of UK exemptions and licences have been brought in to keep people flying (with no degradation in safety) in spite of what EASA has imposed in terms of restrictions.
By johnm
#1809813
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Edward Bellamy wrote:Which is why I think simplicity rather than safety is the main argument for reforming FCL regulations.


You have to be careful with simplicity. When people complained that the number of BT tariffs for phone lines were numerous and confusing and demanded things be simplified, BT just removed all the cheapest options, reducing the number of options and thus the confusion. In a similar way, the plethora of UK exemptions and licences have been brought in to keep people flying (with no degradation in safety) in spite of what EASA has imposed in terms of restrictions.


Those exemptions are of course sub ICAO so the flyers are confined to the UK. EASA actually created the LAPL which is also sub ICAO but a good enough compromise to provide for pilots to fly in over 30 countries.