why bother with caa ppl licence

[nigelh]

:ugh: I have both caa and faa licences . I have 206 206L AS 350 MD 500 and Gazelle on my caa licence. In order to fly a Long Ranger on my faa licence all i need to do is read the manual and maybe fly with someone current for 40 mins ( as it is only differences) now what do you think i have to do with the mighty caa ??? Yes you guessed it :rolleyes: a WHOLE day of ground school and min 1 hr flying at a cost of well over £1,000
Which makes one ask the question ....what is the benefit of flying on a caa licence other than commercially ?? Another example of the caa and their total lack of any judgement or sense . ( yet i am told you can convert from non hyd 44 to hyd 44 with no or almost no training ?? )

[Whirlygig]

Because you can't afford your own aircraft and are self-fly hiring and the local school from which you wish to hire, isn't too keen on your FAA licence???

Cheers

Whirls

[darrenphughes]

Nigel, I agree with you that FAA system seems to be better. Maybe someone on here can tell us if there is a much lower accident rate/incident per 100'000 hours flown on CAA PPL's versus the FAA PPL's. Maybe the extra restriction has left the skies over the UK much safer? What does everyone think?

[John Eacott]

Whirls,

I tend to agree with nigelh: there are times when the CAA's intransigence is difficult to accept :ugh:

I've only 5000 hours on B206's but the CAA won't recognise any of them, nor my overseas licences that are duly endorsed "Bell 206". Nor will they recognise my 1000's of hours on the A109, BK117, S76, etc etc: all require ground school/flight tests in order to be added to my UK ATPL.

Unlike the rest of the world, who have the good sense (and good grace) to recognise that other agencies are competent enough to have adequate checks in place before issuing endorsements :=

[Whirlygig]

I'm not disagreeing with Nigel regarding the petty bureaucracy of the CAA; just pointing out one (of many) reasons WHY someone does a UK JAA PPL.

Cheers

Whirls

[Robbo Jock]

Maybe the extra restriction has left the skies over the UK much safer?

The CAA's idea of increasing safety is to introduce nonsensical regulations then charge exorbitant fees to police them. This means fewer people fly, so maybe the skies over the UK are much safer. Eventually, with no aircraft in them, we'll have the safest skies in the world!

[jeepys]

The CAA may well over regulate in some circumstances I agree but do some of us think that the FAA system could be under regulated in some areas?

The FAA system of being able to fly any helo upto 12,500Ibs unless it requires a type endorsement could be seen to be stupid at one end of the scale and then good should you have the luxury of having different types to hand.

But.... put yourself in the place of a passenger. Under the FAA system I can fly say a longranger after finishing my ppl in a robbo without any further training or endorsements, throw 6 pax in it and off we go (once somebody has shown me how to start it). So on a monday you were completing your skills test in a R22 and tuesday you have 6 lives counting on your skill and judgement to fly and land them safely. They will not know you have never flown one before.

One last thing regarding the comparison of accident rates from the US to say the UK. In the US many prangs are classed as incidents which can go unreported unless there are fatalities. In the UK if you fart and scorch the seat it gets reported.

[Overdrive]

The CAA's idea of increasing safety is to introduce nonsensical regulations then charge exorbitant fees to police them. This means fewer people fly, so maybe the skies over the UK are much safer. Eventually, with no aircraft in them, we'll have the safest skies in the world!

You might've lightly alluded to the truth there more than is immediately realized. Much of the system in the UK is geared to exclusion as a tacit underlying principal.

[Robbo Jock]

I can fly say a longranger after finishing my ppl in a robbo without any further training or endorsements

Are light helicopters falling out of the sky like confetti in the US due to people being allowed to do that? Or are pilots (and aircraft rental companies) more sensible than that?

Unfortunately, idiots will kill themselves and other people no matter what the regulations say. In any field - a rider passing a motor-cycle test on a moped and jumping onto some kind of super-bike the next day, an inland-water dinghy sailor taking a sea-going yacht out into heavy seas, or a pilot jumping into an aircraft they haven't flown before with 6 friends and expecting everything to be exactly like an R22.

Regulations don't stop idiots, any more than laws stop criminals.

[Whirlygig]

a rider passing a motor-cycle test on a moped and jumping onto some kind of super-bike the next day

In the UK, you are not allowed to do that anymore due to the high level of people wiping themselves out!

Cheers

Whirls

[darrenphughes]

Under the FAA system I can fly say a longranger after finishing my ppl in a robbo without any further training or endorsements, throw 6 pax in it and off we go

Yeah, this is true but doesn't the insurance industry in the US prevent this from happening to a certain extent, unless you're filthy rich and exorbitant insurance premiums don't matter.

I don't see why the UK insurance would be so different. Granted European society isn't as litigious as their American counterparts, but the insurance companies still love to charge plenty.

[nigelh]

I do not believe that safety is the big issue with the caa . Take Cheltenham for example .....numpty caa man is there checking all you aoc boys over good and proper , looking for the smallest thing to complain about ......ignores all the privateers as they are no fun to mess with .....nowhere near enough paperwork there !!!!! Come end of day he sits on his arse and watches loads of helicopters do totally illegal departures in bad viz and getting dark :rolleyes: There is NO excuse for the nonsense that they force people to endure in the name of safety .....a whole day to learn to fly a 206L versus a 206 is obviously daft ...dreamt up by someone who does not fly . The sooner people stand up to these people the sooner we can really tackle safety . What about developing autopilots for singles,sas, imc,s, nvg,s etc etc With a body who actually make it illegal to bolt a satnav ( greatly enhancing safety in my view having flown for years without ) into your cockpit there is no hope. Any decent new ideas in this country get swamped by beaurocrats and that is why we are still in the dark ages in aviation in the uk.

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Hi Nigel

Apart from the whole day of ground school it sounds reasonable to me that you’d need to do some ground school and a minimum of 1 hours flying in the Longranger having only flown the Jetranger, how many hours ground school have the CAA said you have to do?

On the flying side your only talking an extra 20 minutes compared to the FAA system, also the times you’ve quoted are minimums you could end up flying longer at the discretion of the instructor/training school. This would apply to both FAA & CAA systems.

By the time you’ve started the machine, done a few circuits, confined area, limited power, vortex ring, few EOLs etc etc, your going to be into an hours flight time.

On the R44 comment the Astro and the hydraulic 1 & 2 are the same variant, as far as I remember. But I think most schools/instructors would insist on a familiarisation flight if changing between these variants.

[212man]

I've only 5000 hours on B206's but the CAA won't recognise any of them, nor my overseas licences that are duly endorsed "Bell 206". Nor will they recognise my 1000's of hours on the A109, BK117, S76, etc etc: all require ground school/flight tests in order to be added to my UK ATPL.

John, I don't follow your argument? If you hold an ICAO licence, with type ratings and 500 hours on those types, you can add them to your UK licence by conducting an LST with a UK TRE. Now if you wanted to self fly hire a 206, a school would expect you to do a check ride, so you could combine this with the LST. If you wanted to operate the 76 etc then you would be doing so with a commercial operator (normally) and so would require a proficiency check anyway, again including the LST.

[John Eacott]

212man,

I was advised by the CAA (in joined up writing!) that my Australian ratings would not be sufficient to have type endorsements added to my UK ATPL: I would need to carry out a flight test and a type rating written exam.

Needless to say, I couldn't be bothered :hmm:

(too old to care any longer, anyway :{)

[nigelh]

The instructor who was going to do the differences training told me that the caa had made him write out a course of ground school and flying that would take a whole day to complete incl 1 hr of flying . At the end of the day it is just a big jet ranger and i do think that is over the top !! I will fly dual with another pilot , go through the differences , and fly on my faa licence . This is not a big deal , just symptomatic of what is going on in this country and with the price of fuel going where its going there will be precious little GA left in this country within a couple of years. Already many aircraft are virtually unsaleable due to the costs and airfields are getting quiet which will mean their closure in due course . Sadly , the possible saviour of diesel flying has had a set back with ( i hear but cannot promise ) their imminent grounding . I am not usually a pessimist but i am afraid it all looks very dark out there at the moment :eek: