In respect of this thread, the AAIB report into the YU-HEW accident made these safety recommendations:
Safety Recommendation 2009-087
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority allocate examiners for the conduct of PPL Skills Tests.
Safety Recommendation 2009-086
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority introduce periodic audits of Registered Training Facility (RTF) organisations to ensure appropriate private pilot training standards are being met at the current time and with the introduction of EASA FCL regulation.
If anyone has an inside track into the decision-making processes at the CAA and cares to shed light onto the logic of this latest restriction, please can they pass comment.
1. How does placing a blanket ban on turbine training for PPL(H) at Registered Facilities satisfy, in any way, the recommendations made above? This new restriction misses the target by a massive margin.
2. If a PPL(H) candidate is a turbine aircraft owner, how can it possibly improve safety if the owner is forced to train on a basic Robbo/Schweizer/Enstrom for 40+ hours and then, with a bare minimum of Turbine/Type conversion training, go out and fly their family/colleagues about in a high performance aircraft? I know the CAA have left the PPL(H) avenue open via FTO/TRTOs, but this is totally impractical for many owners as there are limited FTO/TRTOs and geographically, there are huge holes, which used to be successfully filled by Registered Facilites.
3. What are the CAA doing about the recommendation to allocate Examiners for PPL(H) LSTs? I know that the CAA don't have the manpower to audit Registered Facilities (as there's no cash in it) however, if they were to allocate Examiners to complete PPL(H) skill tests, this would weed-out the dodgy candidates. At the moment, Registered Facilities, FTOs and TRTOs have their 'favourite' (even employed) FEs and therefore there is no independent assessment of output standard leading to wildly differeing levels of competence of new PPL(H)s. There is a definite potential for conflict of interest here.
4. The Enstrom 480 Turbine has a maximum certified seating capacity, in the training role, of 3 persons (it's not physically possible to fit any more people in it). Are the CAA over-stepping the mark by countermanding JAR FCL 2.125?
I'd like to be educated and would welcome comments in support of this latest restriction.
JJ