Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By Human Factor
#1251074
I appreciate this may be a bit late for the Red Tape survey but:

I fly for an airline and also instruct part-time, as well as fly my own machine:

Why is there an arbitrary 1600kg weight limit requiring inclusion for FTL purposes when it is no more or less taxing to fly a 1300kg Yak or a 2400kg Harvard? Neither is more fatiguing than the other.

Which is more fatiguing to fly - the Beech F33C Bonanza (1542kg) or the Beech A36 Bonanza (1633kg)?
I would have to record any flying in one for FTL but not the other, "hire or reward/valuable consideration" instructing in both but "free" instruction in neither, when they're effectively the same type.


Any thoughts?

Edited for brevity
Last edited by Human Factor on Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:05 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
By A le Ron
#1251079
Hmmm - I suspect that, as in the world of EASA medical regulations, the drawing of the lines is arbitrary and has more to do with what 20-something member states can agree on than on evidence-based medicine/aviation etc.
#1251194
Seems to me that either you're flying or you aren't - really doesn't matter if you're bimbling in a single seater, or flying a sector in a 747. Of course there will be differences in demands and workload, but it's pointless to put cut-off point, you can only reasonably treat it all as flying.

G
By bookworm
#1251198
Human Factor wrote:I appreciate this may be a bit late for the Red Tape survey


Not too late. Keep 'em coming.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1251284
Hi Human Factor,

The 1,600kg limit is defined in ANO Article 144(2):

In this Part:

(a) 'flight time' means all time spent by a person as a member of the crew in:

(i) a civil aircraft whether or not registered in the United Kingdom (other than such an aircraft which has a maximum total weight authorised of not more than 1600kg and which is not flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work); or

(ii) a military aircraft (other than a military aircraft which has a maximum total weight authorised of not more than 1600kg and which is flying on a military air experience flight),
while it is in flight;


The limitation is then restated in CAP 371 which forms the basis of a UK operator's Flight Time Limitations (FTL) scheme. This is submitted as a part of their Operations Manual and therefore forms a part of their approval and Air Operators Certificate. Presently a commercial pilot is required to declare those hours/days GA instructing to it's CAT employer for inclusion in Commercial Air Transport (CAT) FTLs.

Since the introduction of Part-FCL we have returned to having PPL instructors in General Aviation. I would agree that, when exercising the privileges of a Private Pilot (FCL.205.A(b)), those hours should not be included in a CAT FTL scheme. However, from a GA perspective, under EASA each ATO is required to maintain it's own FTL scheme in accordance with Part-ORA.

Note that UK regulation (ANO and CAP 371) will shortly be superceded by EASA FTLs and Part-NCO, Part-OPS, and Part-CAT which will include CAT FTLs and FTLs at ATOs. How these will intermix is not yet clear, but I would hope for a far more pragmatic interpretation at PPL level instructing.

It would be better to place the onus on the individual to be responsible for any intermix of FTLs.

Cookie
User avatar
By Human Factor
#1303055
Any further news on this?

Would I be on dodgy ground if I instructed by exercising the PPL privileges of my licence, meaning no FTL scheme can apply?
User avatar
By Cookie
#1304624
Would I be on dodgy ground if I instructed by exercising the PPL privileges of my licence, meaning no FTL scheme can apply?


At present it would, in any case, fall under Article 144(2)(a)(i) meaning FTL rules apply if remunerated.

Luckily your Nanchang is only 1400kg so doesn't count towards FTLs :D

Cookie
User avatar
By Cookie
#1304739
This affects a large number of commercial pilots in the UK who, like myself, choose to fly GA and instruct in our leisure time. Such instructors are providing a significant contribution to General Aviation in the UK, and is no different in terms of Commercial Air Transport (CAT) fatigue to any other leisure pursuit or activity in our spare time. It would be better to place the onus on the individual to be responsible for any intermix of CAT and GA FTLs.

Having looked at the regulations again, I have included the relevant extracts with a brief explanation of my understanding.

ANO Article 144 currently requires any duty period/flight time in aircraft 1600kg and above to be included in Commercial Air Transport (CAT) Flight Time Limitations (FTLs), along with any CAT, Public Transport (PT), or aerial work (including flight instructing) regardless of aircraft mass. This requirement is re-stated in CAP 371. Therefore, flying an aircraft such as a T6 Harvard or any instructing at a flying club must presently be included in CAT FTLs due to ANO Article 144.

A significant change was introduced with Part-FCL, which has returned us to having Flight Instructors who are not CPL holders. Under FCL.205.A(b), if one is instructing or examining under the conditions specified therein then they are clearly exercising the privileges of a private pilot. The question of whether they are remunerated will cause that flight to be classified as "aerial work". ANO Article 144 therefore currently applies and those hours must by declared in any CAT FTL scheme. However, in the future this will become regulated by Part-NCO, within which there is no specific requirement for FTLs; there is a more generic statement about fatigue at NCO.GEN.105 and it would appear no calculation of any intermix of FTLs is mandated. Indeed, if acting within the privileges of a private pilot why should they be?

If an aircraft would be regulated by Part-NCC (Non-Commercial Operations with Complex Motor-Powered Aircraft**) then there is a specific reference to intermix of FTLs in NCC.GEN.105 (e) and(f) and those hours must be included in CAT FTLs.

Whilst Part-ORA regulations require FTLs at an Approved Training Organisation (ATO) in accordance with AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(b), this is clearly to protect against excessive duty/flying hours within that environment and not for pilots to calculate any intermix of those hours by including them in any CAT FTL scheme.

Therefore I suggest that ANO Article 144 et seq be amended to reflect the fact that General Aviation flying (non-complex** so MTWA 5700kg or less) and instructing carried out by Commercial Pilots should not be mandated for inclusion in CAT FTLs.

Cookie





Relevant extracts:

----------
T6 Harvard
Maximum Take-Off Mass 2540kg

----------
ANO Article 144
(2) In this Part:

(a) ‘flight time’ means all time spent by a person as a member of the crew in:

(i) a civil aircraft whether or not registered in the United Kingdom (other than such an aircraft which has a maximum total weight authorised of not more than 1600kg and which is not flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work);

----------
FCL.205.A

FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges

(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.

(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:

(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);

(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;

(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.


----------
Part-NCO NCO.GEN.105

NCO.GEN.105 Pilot-in-command responsibilities and authority

(a)The pilot-in-command shall be responsible for:

(5) not commencing a flight if he/she is incapacitated fromperforming duties by any cause such as injury, sickness, fatigue or the effects of any psychoactive substance;


----------
Part-NCC NCC.GEN.105

(e) The crew member shall not undertake duties on an aircraft:

(1) if he/she knows or suspects that he/she is suffering from fatigue as referred to in 7.f. of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 or feels otherwise unfit, to the extent that the flight may be endangered; or

(2) when under the influence of psychoactive substances or alcohol or for other reasons as referred to in 7.g. of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.

(f) The crew member who undertakes duties for more than one operator shall:

(1) maintain his/her individual records regarding flight and duty times and rest periods as referred to in Annex III (Part-ORO), Subpart FTL to Regulation (EU) No xxx/XXXX; and

(2) provide each operator with the data needed to schedule activities in accordance with the applicable FTL requirements.


----------
AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(b)

Training manual and operations manual

ALL ATO EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDING FLIGHT TEST TRAINING

OPERATIONS MANUAL

The operations manual for use at an ATO conducting integrated or modular flight training courses should include the following:

(14)flight duty period and flight time limitations (flying instructors);
(15)...
(16)rest periods (flight instructors);



----------
**Complex aircraft - EASA definition: Complex motor-powered aircraft are defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 [and] shall mean:

(i) an aeroplane:

with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or

certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or

(ii) a helicopter certificated:

for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots,
or

(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft.
User avatar
By Human Factor
#1304747
They don't make it easy.....
By Johnyev
#1368161
Human Factor wrote:They don't make it easy.....


No they don't !

But Cookie you do and you get my vote.