I wish to take a dissenting view to the idea that one license is as good as another. Being the proud holder of both US and UK ATPL's.....there is a great difference of knowledge required for each license that is applicable only to the individual license and the knowledge that is common to both is very limited. We all know the standards maintained by the CAA are under assault each day and hopefully the FAA will one day see the light and improve their poor standards.
I suggest that the concept of adjudging the magnetic course of another aircraft by viewing its nav lights is very basic to all of us....and that to be able to do while flying at night is what we all do as a matter of course while flying. The FAA never has asked for us to do that on a written and merely requires that we be able to ascertain what aspect of the opposite aircraft we are viewing and then utilize the relative motion of the aircraft to determine collision potentials without mentally computing the magnetic course the other aircraft is flying.
I also find it to be most important to know all about direct reading compasses....afterall we encounter those things on a daily basis. Thus the CAA is most correct in demanding that we be able to answer technical questions on such pieces of equipment. The FAA has never asked a question on those.
How could anyone not see the need for a pilot to discuss valve overlap and cam timing in great detail? The CAA once again leads the FAA in applying the more professional standard here. Despite the pilot not being able to do anything about the overlap or timing....I just cannot see why the FAA doesn't see the necessity for all pilots to know this.
As to distortions created by different types of maps....Lambert Conformal and Mercator Projections for instance....why once again, every pilot should be able to discuss at length the variances and answer detailed questions about the two methods. Once again the FAA falls way short of the mark!
Then we get to checkride standards.....the FAA misses the point once again.....why should we have to spend hours with the examiner prior to flight and diagram all of the aircraft systems and prove a technical knowledge of the aircraft we fly. Afterall, this could have been done by written exam as part of the licensing procedures whereby one is tested by use of multiple guess questions with a fair percentage of wrong answers being satisfactory whereas the examiner might just require a complete knowledge of the systems prior to actually flying with you in the aircraft.
I never did understand how I flew in the USA without knowing what kind of lights and/or signals would be displayed by a lighter-than-air aircraft if it was underway at night without power? I sure needed to know that each time I took the airlaw exam in the UK......despite the first time when there were none of the sausage looking things on the UK registry.
But......the absolute best indicator of the superiority of the Bristish CAA system is knowing that every ten years I get to take my cute little white book down to the nice man and give him 400 GBP for the renewal of the license. I pray God that the FAA never gets as professional as the CAA in this matter. I kinda like the idea of maintaining my currency and medical per the regulations and bypass the donation of hard earned money part.
