[Irv Lee]

I had posted this deep in another thread but as it does talk of fatalities i thought i should give it exposure.
I meet so many pilots confused about licence and associated rules. I see that my occasionally ventured opinions here that

(a) many GA pilots are confused about anything to do with licences/ratings and what they cover
and/or
(b) some pilots gave up caring much about things to do with licences/ratings (other than an expiry date if they have one) sometime around 2014 (and their airpersonship went the same way too)

now seems to be backed up by things getting to the state of needing a caa safety notice today:
SN-2018/007: The Dangers of Operating Outside the Privileges of Your Pilot's Licence
Licence Privileges - Following a number of incidents, some fatal, the CAA has issued a Safety Notice relevant to licence privileges.
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/SN2018007

[Rob L]

I think the CAA are confused. If they are suggesting a fatal accident was due to inappropriate licence, then they need their heads looking at. (Yes, I have read the CAA IN referred to in the OP).

Perhaps that is why Tony Rapson has moved on?

[Awful Charlie]

.... they need their heads looking at.....

you'll find those heads firmly wedged in a lower part of the anatomy

[Dave W]

What's the desired result, I wonder, from publishing that SN?

It's not informative, it isn't in clear language, its tone is finger-wagging and it is non-specific.

People know that rules exist and that they should follow them. The problem seems to be confusion; many don't know what those rules are.

Also, why pick out TMG particularly at 1.2 in the Introduction?

[PaulB]

Yes, it was a very confusing IN, especially as it seemed to be generalising from an unspecified incident.

Yes, the rules are mighty confusing and sometimes seem silly.... it’s not surprising that some people just give up and go flying! (Not condoning that attitude for one minute, but can see why it happens.)

[Irv Lee]

As i rather less frequently say (except in my checklist), the concept of ratings was never explained to grass roots pilots with ppls when Group A was dropped for sep land nearly 20 years ago. The staff examiners understood ratings as they had commercial licences and just assumed wrongly that it must be obvious to ppls.
Years of confusion followed, made worse by the sudden appearance of a licence without a rating just when pilots were getting used to the idea.
Y2K and JAR also brought in the concept of differences training - this was understood by hobby GA due to existing tailwheel courses, but even now, nearly 20 years on, many hobby pilots have never heard of the concept of (AND requirement for) familiarisation when changing aircraft types/models even within the SEP class. I had a friend switch from pa28 to aa5 (sell one buy other). I begged him not to pick up the aa5 himself alone but once my back was turned... hey... SEP rating... both aircraft SEP... no complexity requiring differences training... he snook off and flew it back, crashing on landing exactly as i had told him he had a good chance of doing!
(I notice the safety notice forgets about familiarisation too)

[GolfHotel]

I was wondering how many accidents they have that are attributed to flying without a licence and without skills that a conversion would have helped?

Seeing Lees post above. I would also add “where such training was required by regulation”

[Rob L]

...Also, why pick out TMG particularly at 1.2 in the Introduction?

I guess that's a reference to a particular incident, that they don't refer to further

If there was a little more information from the CAA, the GA community would have more information to learn from.
Hey-ho

[flyingeeza]

I think I've managed to decipher all that waffle...
It appears to mean:

"Don't be a fool. Get differences training and a sign-off on the type you wanna fly before you fly it, lest you crash."

When was that rule/bit of common sense ever not applicable?

[Flying_john]

Well thats as clear as fog then.

What does it all mean in really simple pilot understood language.

The thing I gleaned from it is if you don't have a licence then dont fly !. But anyone without a licence isnt going to be reading this CAA missive anyhoo.

Does it really mean that if I fly a PA28, I cant then fly another low wing simiar aircraft (say a piper cadet) without an instructor signed off conversion training course ? Or perhaps a C172 and then by a C152.

I can undertand extra signoffs for retracts, Wobbly prop, Low wing/High Wing, Tailwheel , jet etc - but are there otherofficial requirements, apart from learning a new POH, once you are licenced that have slipped passed me as I rarely if ever fly different types ?

[ChampChump]

How is a Safety Notice adding anything to safety when it merely points to part of existing regulations? Should it not perhaps refer to all regulations affecting GA, as Safety it is top of all their mission statements?

It looks as if someone wanted to Do Something after a TMG accident.

Safety Sense leaflets, yes, random bits such as this, no.

[Irv Lee]

I think I've managed to decipher all that waffle...
It appears to mean:

"Don't be a fool. Get differences training and a sign-off on the type you wanna fly before you fly it, lest you crash."

When was that rule/bit of common sense ever not applicable?

Well that is sort of my point... by bringing in sep ratings and emphasising the requirement for differences training but not familiarisation, it gave the impression that here is a list of features that means you MUST be trained by, and signed off in log book by, a suitable instructor. What was never mentioned was if the aircraft does not have features in that list, familiarisation is mandatory within class instead. However many a hobby pilot assumes the legal (legal, not sensible) choice is either differences training or nothing.
@Flying_john like lapl validity, YOU are responsible for deciding about familiarisation, how much, what, etc. It doesn't have to be an instructor and log book sign off . What it means of course is that YOU have to know the answer to the question of what you need... without being familiar with the aircraft!
(but jaa was a committee too so do not be surprised)
The S.A. caa make every change a log book sign off by instructor but there is a requirement for flight(s) if it is differences training but flights possible but not mandatory for familiarisation- but instructor log book signature required for both.

[flyingeeza]

Way back when in South Africa we could do "conversion" training on a series of types such as the C-type Cessnas. I flew some hours dual in a C150, a C152, then some in a C172, and was signed off as qualified to fly the C-series Cessnas. That's a bit scary really, because a C210 is a different animal altogether.

I also had the PA28 series sign-off...140, 180, Warriors, and the Turbo Arrow 4, so I guess as long as you've flown the more complex aircraft of a series, the rest are pretty easy to manage.

[Irv Lee]

@flyingeeza it depended on the instructor. For example, for SA, if i got someone wanting to go cessna 172 to piper on pa161, I could sign off pa28-161 or p28a (all non complex 28s) and i took a personal view on the experience, skill and attitude of the pilot as to which i did.

[MichaelP]

Slippery slope this type rating business.
If you mandate type ratings for every single type of light aeroplane you’ll make it both expensive and difficult for the vast majority of pilots who make sure they are familiar with the aircraft before they fly.

I for one have flown over 140 different types of light aircraft!
Some have been single seat aeroplanes.
Many have not been flown by anyone within thousands of miles... Would I need to get someone from a far place to come and check me out?

What really needs to change is the quality of flight instruction in this country.

When I learned to fly I did so in the Cessna 150, but I was taught to fly aeroplanes and that is the difference.
I checked out in a Condor in an hour and a half. All I needed to prove was that I would keep it straight!
Otherwise the landing was the same.

I talked to an operator recently who will not rent out his simple aeroplanes without a five hour dual check out.
I had a similar type once (Sportstar), and I would happily brief a pilot and send them off in it most times.

The reason why the operator wants five hours is because pilots land flat!
There was a thread on here about landing flat recently, and it made me smile... Not everyone I hoped, maybe the odd person... But now I learn it is serious.

Then Phillip commented on my landing in the Warrior a while ago, done right! Apparently the standard of landings at Redhill is poor.
Why are pilots not taught to land properly?

The AA5 has to be landed properly and a PA28 pilot should have no problem if he/she lands that aeroplane properly.

So it comes down to training.
Don’t be f’ing lazy, land the aeroplane properly.
Also in an AA5 quit the ‘rotate’ nonsense and keep the pressure off the nosewheel on takeoff. You’re flying a single engine light aircraft and not a 737!

The elevator is there for the protection of the nosewheel.

Read the AFM or POH and make notes before you fly a different type.
Take someone experienced in that type with you if you can.

Don’t screw it up for the rest of us by ending up with type ratings for every single aeroplane we fly.