Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By rats404
#1287011
From my perspective, working predominantly with clients in the public sector, this is remarkably rapid progress, and the language is unusually clear.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1287041
Regarding the 90 day currency thing, let's all not forget that we survived with equal safety for decades before 2000 when JAR brought the rule in, that the CAA's own safety analysis showed no improvement in safety since it's introduction ( nor since the introduction of BFRs or annual MEP tests) and that logically ( to me at any rate) a flight with a PPL current and familiar on a possibly complex / unique/ or unusual type would seem to be a safer alternative to an instructor who knows nothing about the type at all.
User avatar
By Flintstone
#1287055
HedgeHopper wrote:I do like the bit about reducing the number of exams to EASA levels
Yep, reducing them to a number that they themselves raised them above in the first place :roll:



Ummmm, different people within the CAA. Give them (the GA Unit) credit for moving it in the right direction.
By Paultheparaglider
#1287062
Keef wrote:Well, some glasses are half full, some are half empty, some are too large... Me, I think this is the most positive action I've seen by the CAA for as long as I can remember (which is a considerable time).

Yes, there's more to do. No, it's not the complete answer (yet), and there are some bits that are odd (like the 90-days and accompanying pilot thing). Nevertheless, it qualifies in my book for "surprise and delight" and I'd like to encourage all those who got us here to keep at it. Well done, all of you!


That represents my view. They have earned our support and our respect.
User avatar
By ianfallon
#1287170
Mostly a big :thumleft: to those involved for their efforts and fantastic to see the communication (with dates!) to back it up. Keep going! :salut:

The EASA section 'wins' were (with apologies to all of you flying balloons and seaplanes :scratch: ) pretty obscure drops in the ocean of EASA pain though.
User avatar
By Dave Phillips
#1287205
To me the most important bit is

Challenge and actively support the European Aviation Safety Agency as they work on their recently announced commitment to deliver ‘Simpler, lighter, better rules for General Aviation’. The Head of the CAA’s GA Unit has been confirmed as Chair the EASA NAA GA Roadmap Group with the first meeting held on 10 April 2014. This work will be a key priority if we are to secure positive and lasting change in the European regulatory environment.


That really gives us leverage in Europe.
User avatar
By kanga
#1287331
mods: would it be worthwhile putting this report up as a 'sticky' as the start of a new thread on the 'Red Tape' forum ?
User avatar
By Whiskey Kilo Wanderer
#1287360
Nice to see that the R Examiner privileges* have been extended to JAR / EASA licences. I could foresee instances where well meaning but ill informed R Examiners signed off SEP revalidation by experience, with dubious legal / insurance implications.

It was always difficult to explain why UK CAA PPL & NPPL, but not JAR / EASA SEP ratings, could be signed off. At least LAPL doesn’t have a rating as such.

*I think this is used by some LAA Coaches, as well as the odd feral CRI / R Examiner, for SEP revalidation by experience.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1287373
Nice to see that the R Examiner privileges* have been extended to JAR / EASA licences.


We have been working with the CAA on a method to reinstate R Examiner privileges since 2012. Whilst it is pleasing to see an appetite to improve the success and fortunes of GA within the CAA, I am not sure all of the items listed are attributable to the new GA unit.

Cookie
User avatar
By Gertie
#1287382
Cookie wrote:We have been working with the CAA on a method to reinstate R Examiner privileges since 2012. Whilst it is pleasing to see an appetite to improve the success and fortunes of GA within the CAA, I am not sure all of the items listed are attributable to the new GA unit.

That's politics. It's very often the case that you can never know whether your contribution made something happen or whether it was going to happen anyway. (Hence, when we're being honest, careful wording in leaflets etc.)
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1288164
The full CAA document can be seen at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/GA%20Unit%201st%20June%20Report%20v3.pdf .

A CAA/industry working group will be deciding which of the current PPL exam questions should be culled / amended when they meet next week. The aim is to complete the work by the end of the week, then submit the proposal to the GA unit. The ultimate aim will be to produce new sets of exams to coincide with the PPL/LAPL AltMoC by Apr 2015. We have proposed 3 x dual subject and 3 x single subject exams - which, if you omit Comms(PPL) and HP&L, was the situation pre-JAA. Of course this may mean that current publications might need to be amended.

And it'll mean that the iToy exam application will be largely useless. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.....
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1288170
Nice to see that the R Examiner privileges* have been extended to JAR / EASA licences.

Is it dependent in them actually proving they know the rules or at least attending a talk on the rules?. The enforced "see an FE" recently has driven a few out of local rats' nests "overseen" by local R examiner/CRIs in the past, and it is an eye opener, and not just on the paperwork side which some might claim doesn't matter in the grand scheme of safety, but in the distinct lack of knowledge, skill and safety attitude that came with the poor paperwork.
User avatar
By Cookie
#1288196
Irv,

That will depend on what EASA provide as the amendment to the regulations. I can tell you that for LAA Coaches who are Revalidation Examiners, there will be the annual LAA Class Rating Instructor Seminar held at LAA Head Office in September this year and an online refresher course.

Cookie
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1288204
And it'll mean that the iToy exam application will be largely useless. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.....


Nick, this bit went over my head, can you explain?

Thanks

Ian