Frank,
sorry but I have to disagree with your apparent discontent with the amended CAAP. I don't wish to hijack the thread or make any unjust assumptions, but there are a few reasons I feel this amendment is long overdue. I don't know your licence type or level of experience, so please accept my apologies if I say anything that offends, this is not my intention.
I have worked at a couple of different flying schools. First one was as a student working the desk, second one was a recreational (GA) school attached to the charter company I flew for. Something I noticed on a regular basis (but not 100% of the time, mind) was complaints from (generally) PPL pilots about the need for a navigation component to the BFR. Oft-uttered phrases were along the lines of 'but I only fly aerobatics', 'I only visit the training area', 'I haven't done a nav in 6 years' and so on.
I say PPLs because it is rare for an active commercial pilot to require a BFR; we're kept busy with IR renewals, proficiency checks and the like, which cover the requirement for a BFR. Because we practice our skills on a daily basis, we are certainly at an advantage in that respect.
I don't wish to make this a professional vs. recreational debate, but I feel that if commercial pilots are required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of our flying, including things rarely practiced (emergencies, full NDB/VOR approaches, unusual manoeuvring etc) on a six-monthly basis, as well as the nav techniques that are our bread and butter, then other pilots should be held maybe not to the same standards of accuracy but definitely to the same broad areas of proficiency.
As pilots of all ilks we can surely agree that the one certainty in aviation is that nothing is ever certain. Who could ever say with 100% certainty that their navigation skills will not be called into play at some point in the 2 years between BFRs. I will acknowledge that GPS has made things easier, but in the 18 months I spent recently in the NT, I had the 'reliable' GPS fail on me five times, twice in close proximity to the ground and in poor vis in the vicinity of an active cyclone (later it was found to be that a well meaning but not particularly bright spanner had painted over the GPS dome antenna that was clearly marked 'do not paint', but I didn't know that at the time).
My ultimate point here is that it is frankly ludicrous that we have gone so long in this country not testing parts of a pilot's overall skillset simply based on his/her assurances that such skills are not part of their normal operations, and I'm pleased to see this amendment made (unfortunately still only a recommendation, but any Instructor worth their salt would read it as mandatory).
Finally, I acknowledge that certain less scrupulous individuals will no doubt take advantage of the change in the rules to make some extra nosh - as has always been the case in our industry, has it not?
Apologies for the long-winded reply. I'd be interested to know your further thoughts, if any.
Cheers
Aero
