SA going FAA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in front of apron
Age: 34
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SA going FAA?
Is SACAA reverting to FAA standards ? and there won't be a frozen atpl any more in SA..does anyone have any answers to this ?
Please let me know.
regards
Marco
Please let me know.
regards
Marco
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eire/HK
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no "frozen ATPL" in SA at the moment, and in order for the SACAA to "revert" to FAA would imply that they had implemented FAA before.
The SACAA follows the same "parts" as the FAA in some respect, ie 61, 91, and might adopt more, and therefore adapt to certain facets of the FAA for use in the SACAA. But the FAA works in the USA, and would not work in South Africa, the same way JAA/ JAR works in Europe but would not work in South Africa. Either of them would be a good basis to adopt, and then adapt them for use in South African airspace.
The SACAA follows the same "parts" as the FAA in some respect, ie 61, 91, and might adopt more, and therefore adapt to certain facets of the FAA for use in the SACAA. But the FAA works in the USA, and would not work in South Africa, the same way JAA/ JAR works in Europe but would not work in South Africa. Either of them would be a good basis to adopt, and then adapt them for use in South African airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B200Drvr, although I appreciate there is a seperate thread on this same topic (mods perhaps if you could combine), I am curious as to where you think the CAA should differ from FAA?
To clarify, I think items like airspace definitions, types of operations, type ratings, medical requirements covered in parts 61, 71, 77, 91, 119, 121, 135 would seem logical to be standardized, as I believe through ICAO there are already attempts to do across all member states.
On the other hand, from a practical syllabus perspective I prefer the CAA approach, although I can only speak for rotorcraft.
For example, in SA you learn downwind quick stops, full down auto's which you don't do as part of the FAA practical. The confined area and vertical take-off and limited power training was also more in depth as was rudimentary mountain flying.
On the other hand, with the FAA you do night rating as part of your basic license, which I think is better rather than making it an additional 15 hrs training like in SA, which many people don't do
I personally like the FAA approach to type ratings, and that it is that it is left to the aircraft owners (and in particular) their insurance companies to decide if you are competent to fly a particular aircraft and what the currency requirements are.
The way hours are logged under FAA is simpler too.
What would you suggest to keep/merge/change?
It would probably be good if we could separate answers for theory/air law vs practical training standards.
To clarify, I think items like airspace definitions, types of operations, type ratings, medical requirements covered in parts 61, 71, 77, 91, 119, 121, 135 would seem logical to be standardized, as I believe through ICAO there are already attempts to do across all member states.
On the other hand, from a practical syllabus perspective I prefer the CAA approach, although I can only speak for rotorcraft.
For example, in SA you learn downwind quick stops, full down auto's which you don't do as part of the FAA practical. The confined area and vertical take-off and limited power training was also more in depth as was rudimentary mountain flying.
On the other hand, with the FAA you do night rating as part of your basic license, which I think is better rather than making it an additional 15 hrs training like in SA, which many people don't do
I personally like the FAA approach to type ratings, and that it is that it is left to the aircraft owners (and in particular) their insurance companies to decide if you are competent to fly a particular aircraft and what the currency requirements are.
The way hours are logged under FAA is simpler too.
What would you suggest to keep/merge/change?
It would probably be good if we could separate answers for theory/air law vs practical training standards.
Last edited by birrddog; 24th Sep 2009 at 15:39. Reason: spelling
