British v American approach to flying

[Heliport]

On a thread about flying training/requirements, an American contributor said:. . "It seems all the folks from the UK and the above Canadian seem to think you must be a rocket scientist to fly a helicopter. Not true ...... You want to fly, do it."

Has he got a point?
If so, what's the reason?
Is it the difference in attitude between the FAA, and the CAA?
Are UK requirements for a professional licence unnecessarily high?

What do you think?

Please don't let this become a national pride or anti-American thread.

[r22dave]

What the americans and the FAA seem to have is a positive approach to aviation and the cheaper costs must help. The CAA (and perhaps local councils) seem very, very negative towards GA

[CTD]

I guess it depends on the environment. If you want to fly your own R22 around Indiana from Bloomington to Ft Wayne, that's one thing. However, if you want to fly professionally in a place like Canada with its weather and geographic extremes, then I fully agree it should be taken seriously and you bloody well should know what you're doing.

In the States, things are treated as 'rights', not 'priviledges', and I disagree with this approach when it comes to professional helicopter flying. They're big into single pilot and single engine IFR, and unfortunately the powers that be in Canada appear to be leaning that way as well. <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> Hopefully, the significant lobby against such nonsense will prevail.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: CTD ]</p>

[baranfin]

I cannot compare from experience between the different countries, but I can say that I would like it if I didnt have to wait untill my commercial rating to do practice full downs. I understand that in the UK full downs are part of the initial training. However I suspect that one of the reasons training is cheaper in the US is because of lower ins. costs.

[yxcapt]

CTD-

Just like a drivers lic. flying is a privileage and not a right. The events of 9/11 proved that.

As FAR as single engine and single pilot IFR are concerned, I don't beleave these are non-sense. Are there increased risk in these activities? Sure. But the only way to reduce these risks to zero is to not fly. Both these operations, when properly conducted are safe, mind you not without risk but still safe. I beleave the rewards out way the risks.

It's great to live in a place where we are allowed the freedom to make these decisions ourselves.

Daranfin-

The are no federal requirement preventing full down autos at any level. At our school, we do power recoveries until proficient then demo at least one full down auto before solo. Prior to your private check ride about 1 out of every 3 autos will be to the ground.

We do full down autos at all levels of training. A student will usually see them towards the end of the training program.

[Whirlybird]

I was discussing the different attitudes to flying generally, in the US and Britain, with a friend who's a f/w pilot and has flown over there quite a lot. She says in the US flying is considered normal and a way to get around, to get at least a PPL is no big deal, and no-one there thought the fact that she was a woman was any big deal either. Here flying is generally considered elitist, people think you have to be super-rich to do it (though with the difference in cost that's true to a certain extent <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> ), they do think if you can fly you must be an utterly amazing super-person, and if you're a woman who gets out of an aircraft alone they look around for the pilot!

Well, it does cost more, we do have more bad weather than a lot of places in the US, and I don't think they have anything equivalent to the commercial ground exams (not that you have to be a rocket scientist to pass them, just determined).. .But I think it probably comes down to a more basic cultural difference, along the lines of Brits assuming they won't be able to do things, while across the pond people think they have a right do do whatever they want. Possibly a result of our school system, or the class system - there'll always be someone better than you, don't try and step out of your place - that sort of attitude is still around. And the belief that if you want to do something enough then you probably can applies to most things, including helicopter flying.

[aspinwing]

Having flown in all three countries; may I comment? Basically; “it is different strokes for different folks!” First of you must understand the different mandate of the various regulatory authorities. In UK the CAA’s mandate is safety and security of the aviation system. If nothing fly they would be happy because nothing would crash. The FAA’s mandate is the ‘promotion’ of civil aviation which means that they wear, IMHO, two incongruous hats: one is the promotion / ease of use of the system and the other is safety. They are, again IMHO, between a rock and a very hard place, especially given the regulatory system in the US; where regulations can be passed by Congress which make absolutely no sense at all. Transport Canada fits somewhere closer to the UK model but it is also responsible for all modes of transport.. .The UK ground exams from PPL on up are nit-picky overkill. We do have very PRACTICAL ground exams and flight tests. My last with a TC examiner included a baulked landing in a very confined area, a jammed rudder, 180 autorotations from both directions. Subsequent company check rides have included jammed collective, full-on autorotations - close didn’t count; he wanted, and got it, in the top half of the “3”. Was it excessive? NO. . .Full on autorotations - absolutely; have done them at night and on floats. I credit one of the float sessions with saving my and the passengers necks(or at least backs), as the engine of a Bell 206 quit about four weeks later and I went onto glassy water near a very inhospitable shore. It is very much an instructor’s call when to do it with a student. The instructor must be current.

Single-engine IFR; why not? Would I want to do it in my Bell 47 with ‘steam’ driven instruments of forty years ago - NOT ! In a well equipped Bell 407 or EC 120 / 130 with a (now fairly) reliable turbine engine - absolutely! There are a lot of one-off items that I would rather not have quit than the engine. We practise engine failures - and they are a doddle- but when did we last practise losing tail-feathers?

[B Sousa]

CTD above seems to say, at least to me, that in the states We dont take things too seriously. Also that weather and extremes are very serious in Canada. So should that make getting the license more difficult?? I dont think so. The license itself does not mean that I as a pilot will go out to do sling loads on Mt Whitney or just hop in any Helo to deliver an Air Condiotner to the top of a 30 story building. It means I am a Commercial Helicopter Pilot with the ability to safely fly a Helicopter AND if I want to do those specialties, I will be checked out proficiently in those procedures before any Company will turn me loose.. .I would never consider flying into the NWT in winter unless I was with someone who had been there and knew the area and the hazards involved..... Maybe thats the difference in our licenses. Canada and the UK have to have it all stamped on the license with many written exams and rides.. I just have a simple little FAA card and hopefully the brains to know when and where I can use it.

[CTD]

Bert, I have a US ticket as well, and have flown in the States. I didn't mean to insinuate that all flying there was easy, and all flying in Canada was difficult. Your point is well taken. However, there is a much larger Gen Av component to helicopter flying in the US than anywhere else in the world, and the regs are geared to that.

I stand by my statement that if you want to fly professionally in a place LIKE Canada with its weather and geographic extremes, then your training and licencing standards should reflect the seriousness of the task. The same would go for Alaska, the Northwest, or any other harsh environment or task.

[yxcapt]

"* The FAA examiners are mandated in the regs with the authority to use any unsatisfactory performance as an opportunity to teach rather than fail and they routinely do so. They are success motivated, as are the TC inspectors. The CAA approach appears to be failure motivated."

This is only true in the case of a proficiency check with operations conducted under CFR 133, 135, 137 and 121. If a maneuver is messed up, the examiner may discontinue the PC, conduct training, then resume the PC. Hopefully the maneuver isn't messed up again.

When conducting a exam for a certifcate or rating (CFR 61 & applicable PTS), if a maneuver is messed up in this situation, the applicant is ineligible for the certifcate or rating sought. The examiner can not provide training and retest the applicant. The applicant must recieve training from a CFI and be recommended again for the exam. However, the applicant may recieve credit for previous areas of the prior exam that were satisfactory (In other words need not repeat the entire exam).

There are give and take in each country in every area of the aviation regulations and training enviroment. Somethings required in the state are not requried by others. (I can only speak of the US and Canada)

[virgin]

There is an arrogance in the British character which makes us assume that we're the best in the world at everything. CAA types think they know more about aviation than anyone else in the world. They regard the FAA as an upstart which has to be tolerated, and don't think they could possibly have anything to learn form the FAA. Wrong!!!

There's a big difference between the UK and US approach to flying generally. The CAA still seems to regard flying as an unnatural and dangerous activity which needs to be tightly regulated. The FAA seems to regard flying as just another means of transport.. .Generally, the UK Regs are "Can't do, unless ..." and the US Regs are much more "Can do, unless ...."

Although personalities come into it, dealing with the FAA is bliss compared with the CAA. The FAA seem to want to help you fly, the CAA always seem to want to find some technicality to stop you, or make it more difficult. . .I suppose the CAA is no better, no worse than any other civil service department in this country. ie terrible! Years ago, I worked at UK and US small operators and flying schools. In the States, nobody was that bothered when the FAA visited, all quite friendly, professional and helpful. Here, when the CAA were due to visit, there was always anxiety and when they came, you got the clear impression that they were trying to find something wrong. Trying to catch you out on something petty. I know 'the grass is always greener' etc, but give me the less petty, more professional and more grown-up approach of the FAA any time.

[Nick Lappos]

virgin,

I think there is some justification for the attitude that you describe to be found in many endevors, not just aviation. There is a particularly American reluctance to be regulated, and it is part of our culture, thus part of our government. This is a two sided issue, with the inherent relaxation of oversight, we pay less, gain efficiency and speed, innovate more quickly; but we lose some theoretical protection.

As proof to the premise that both systems work about equally well, I believe that the accident rate for US aviation is about the same as European operations, and I don't subscribe to the bugabear about how awful the European weather is (unless some Englishman wants to take a few Albany to Detroit runs with me some December, for tropical relaxation!). . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]</p>

[Flying Lawyer]

"(unless some Englishman wants to take a few Albany to Detroit runs with me some December, for tropical relaxation!)"

Done! Offer accepted. You've got a deal!
I'll be in touch nearer the time to discuss dates!. . :) :)

[Nick Lappos]

Flying Lawyer,

Having followed your exploits in the flying-chairs-and-people thread, I can see why you believe 3 hours of ice, cloud and mountains is tame by comparison! :)

[aspinwing]

xyc:

Minor quibble: TC, night VFR SE is legal: air taxi - essential crew only i.e. police, pilot must have IFR. I agree I wouldn't want to venture too far from the lights.

Remember FAA wears two hats == one is Safety but the other mandate is to promote aviation. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: aspinwing ]</p>

[On the skids]

Nick: I think Flying Lawyer would simply be proud to fly with you, wherever you were going and whatever the weather - as would most of us. . .As to the CAA, it's turned into a retirement home for otherwise unemployable ex-military types who've never paid for a minute's flying in their lives, and who therefore don't understand the first thing about the industry. Unlike the FAA, it has to be self-financing, and we have thus worked ourselves into a position where we can pay £900 ($1,400) to have them issue a simple piece of paper, with no other work involved. Every time they create a new nonsensical rule and demand payment for it, they drive another sad bastard out of business.

[Flying Lawyer]

On the skids. .That was precisely my reason - and I'm sure I could learn a thing or two at the same time! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[On the skids]

Flying Lawyer: Apologies for my presumptuousness, which was impolite of me.

[Flying Lawyer]

Nothing presumptuous / impolite at all - you saw right through my reason in one - I'll let you know all about the flight!! :)

[Nick Lappos]

I had intended the comments about equal accident rates as proof that the "extra" high standards of CAA are not particularly necessary to achieve good levels of safety.

I agree that it is the professional operators who we must thank for the safety record, not the folks who issue the paperwork.

[polzin]

Virgin......

Have never meet anyone I would agree with 100% . But........ just maybe ........ there is one exception.

[Thomas coupling]

On the skids: . .who the hell are you to castigate the FOI's at the CAA.. You obviously have only had occasion to rub up against them the wrong way. There are some very competent aviators capable of doing your job with their eyes closed whilst flying!. .Once you've met some of them and checked out their career paths I wouldn't be at all surprised that you probably couldn't hold a candle to them.. .I'm not a CAA groupie, they wind me up as much as the next man, but it's not the individual (correction: not all of them anyway) that screws up, it's the system they're wrapped up in.

With regard to their military background; would you have preferred it if they had paid for their experience in cash as well as committment?

Don't blame the messengers, blame the system. it's antiquated, out of touch and in dire need of a massive overhaul. Who knows how it will be resolved, but it is one end of the spectrum. There are some folk out there who think the FAA are the other end <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[XV666]

TC,

No point in getting at OTS, the same comment has been made about the CAA for 30 years. There has always been a great deal of angst about the lack of commercial understanding from the FOI's, and it is a natural progression to pick on their background.

Not fair, maybe, but where's the charter that claims anything in life has to be fair <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Totally agree with you that the system needs drastic overhaul, but don't expect it before the next millenium <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Hoverman]

TC. .Can't see why you were so angry with OTS. Your views don't seem far apart. It's pointless letting our mil loyalties cloud the issues.

Let's be blunt, it takes a certain type to want to go straight from the mil to the CAA. . .They're suspect in my book, whatever their mil backgrounds. . .Even those forced into it seem to change once they've joined "the Authority.". .You can't blame it all on 'the system' - people in the system are responsible for the attitude, and it may even attract people who like that attitude.

[Geronimo 33]

I too have had the benefit of earning multiple ATP licenses or certificates as we call them on the west side of the saltladen buffer zone. My view is a bit confused over the good and bad of each system (US and UK). The flying standards for practical tests are for most parts identical. My British colleagues would argue against any FAA standard being remotely close I fear. Our oral testing prior to flying is by far and away more difficult. Our recurrent checkride and training requirments are more stringent. The FAA mandates specific amounts of time and topics that must be covered in the six month checkride process. I have never had anything remotely resembling that under the UK system. The UK system seems to be a check to minimum standard and issue the pass without any real training. The amount of esoteric and totally useless knowlege required to pass the UK written exams exceeds that of the FAA, however we are catching up as our bureaucracy matures. Our written exams are based upon a building block concept in light of the way our FAR's are structured. Different FAR's apply to different levels of operations thus the base of knowlege is different for the level of operation the pilot is in. Licensing in the US is far and away better. Try to justify the ridiculously expensive fees to take exams and the awkward schedules the CAA has for administering them. The FAA makes themselves available rather than the other way around by the use of independent examiners and examining stations in addition to FAA officials and offices.

The basic attitude mentioned by a few of our UK pilots here is very accurate. What was good enough for Wellington is good enough. The reason it used to be an empire is just that kind of attitude. Just because it was invented in the US doesn't mean it won't work, is unsafe, or shouldn't be used or endorsed. The JetRanger, even though single engine, held the record as the safest aircraft flyiing for many years in a row. Despite the fact it flew over water, mountains, and other hostile terrain. British pilots scoff at the practice but the accident records prove the validity of the use of single engine aircraft in light of the modern engines and engineering advances.

Have you ever tried to get a former British Army QHI, now Civilian TRE/IRE to accept the notion that S-76's, Bell 212/412's, BK-117's, BO-105's are not type ratings in the US and thus will not "be on our license"? Hellfire....you should have seen the fracas at Aviation House when I presented my official US Army Pilot Flight records...all nicely collated, typed, and secured in a folder, IBM printouts of the daily entries on one side and the flying orders, DD-214, and Totals sheets on the other. (Not allowed ol' bean...they are not in a bound logbook you know!) Really, I think it was because my folder had those hi-tech american metal clip things instead of the correct string type.

The current flap at where I am at now is the unheard of use of centralized documentation and not keeping the aircraft logbooks at the field site where the aircraft is located. Once again the US system allows for innovation and improvements in technology at a much greater pace than the UK bureaucratical mindset. I fear in time , as our government grows in size and power....we too will be faced with the same kind of problems. How many times now have I read how the increasing fees charged by the UK are actually forcing people and businesses out of the industry. I kind of like the concept of walking into my local FAA office, grabbing a cuppa, and teling them which exam I need and then sitting down and taking the thing.....free of charge. Yes, I can access the FAA website and download all of the questions that are going to be on the test ahead of time so I can memorize them or practice them. Usually about 1500 questions to choose from when they make up the test papers...so your memory has to be pretty darn good.

[Rich Lee]

"Though there are many paths,
At the foot of the mountain;
All those who reach the top
See the same moon."

--Morihei Ueshiba

[griffothefog]

Having been out of the training system for 25 years I can only comment on how it used to be back then. I trained in the states and from day one was treated with a great deal of respect, was encouraged and nurtured by the school to try and achieve my goals. Even the FAA examiner on my initial check ride gave me moral support prior to the test as it was plain to see I was just a kid with a dream and nervous as hell.:eek: My whole impression was that they recognised a young man trying to start out in a somewhat difficult field and were going to do everything they could to help me on my way:D
When I came home to the UK some years later and and gurded my wallet for the CAA licencing process, I was from day one (and this includes the training school) left in no doubt that I was at best a student/candidate and it was made very clear to me that my FAA licence could be purchased for FREE with a box of cornflakes!! On my first sortie at Redhill I was not even allowed to taxi the aircraft out (even though they knew I had over 1000 hours including 600 hours spray time on type) Ah ,those were the days.... As a learning curve, I am glad I went through it and there is no doubt that a CAA ATPL is very well respected worldwide but considering you immediately fart out all unusable study theory when you qualify (and I found in the UK system that's 90%) I think the FAA system was far more flexible and helpful. Its also quite nice at that age to be treated like an adult. God I hope things have changed in the UK since those days:ok:

[Shawn Coyle]

My two cents worth - I'm not sure how the JAA system has affected ground exams, but the UK CAA concept of having to pay considerable sums of money, and only 'sit' at designated times for exams that you don't ever find out the real results of (so you can correct the mistakes) doesn't hold a candle to the FAA system.
I remember a friend who sat the first CAA turbine engine exams - he had a degree in mechanical engineering with a specialty in turbines - more than 90% of the candidates failed, and he said that more than 50% of the questions had no right answer. He was not allowed to have his questions revisited, even if he wanted to pay for the privelege (10% passed, so the exam must have been OK).

[chuks]

I am fixed-wing only, just to make that point clear. That said, yes, I just did a British CAA JAA-ATPL (A).

The start of the ground school (London Met) was in November 2005 and the conclusion was at the end of June 2006, the final exams were in the first week of July and the IR ride and the issue of the licence was in November 2006. So make that one year and some fabulous amount of money, where one can do an FAA ATP easily within a month, given the same level of skill and experience I started with.

At London Met I learned all sorts of interesting stuff about how to calculate distance based on geographical co-ordinates, for instance, which certainly came in handy on the General Navigation exam, when I was thrilled to score 99%. That was about all it was useful for, though, and I have almost completely forgotten that particular skill now. You could argue that there I spent perhaps 2-300 quid for... what?

At London Met we started out in November with about 27 students. A couple dropped out immediately, seeming to be completely bowled over by the demands of the course. Then things shook down to a small group of people who were totally focused on passing the tests, a somewhat larger group who divided their time between the fun London always has on offer and studying (with a computer-assisted question data base a windfall for them but not always a sure help in their time of need) and a rag-tag group who brought up the rear.

The top people (with the best one a former super-market manager who averaged 97%) all averaged over 90%, the middle group were all over the map and the last group got well and truly hammered by the stiff requirements facing anyone needed to do re-takes.

I have blanked out most of the costs involved as a painful memory but I was struck by such nonsense as two (2) separate Comms tests, one VFR and one IFR, each one just taking 30 minutes, each for the full fee, same as the much longer General Nav test, for instance. There it really did seem that the CAA was just raking in the cash.

I guess I would sum it up by stating that, "If you want to play, then you must pay." Somewhere here you can read that the Transport Canada is moving to a JAR licence, which should simplify things to a certain extent. That said, I am sure that should mean more rather than less trouble and expense for pilots and engineers.

The USA shall continue to go its own way, I think. Well, we did finally go to the ICAO format for METARs and TAFs, but that should be about it, since we never did ratify the treaty for joining ICAO and the sheer size of our system allows it to stand alone.

As long as individual US pilots stick with N-registered aircraft and/or choose to work in foreign countries then licensing is no problem at all. The rest of us make up a very small group in over-all terms, I think.

That said, one thing that did chafe a bit was the treatment I got dealing with the German authorities, compared to how I knew we treated Germans in the USA. If you think the CAA can be a problem, just try the LBA! As a non-German, I mean!

[AndyJB32]

In my view, having trained out in the USA before returning to the UK, the CAA could learn a lot from the FAA.
The entire system in the USA seems to be aimed at helping people to learn to fly if that is what they wish. The CAA's approach gives the impression, whether intended or not, of setting as many hurdles, financial and administrative, to prevent people from obtaining a license. If a candidate eventually clears all these hurdles, a license is then grudgingly issued to allow the candidate to join this closely guarded CAA monitored club. An obvious demonstration of how overlycomplex the UK system is can be seen by the number of times a thread is on PPrune asking advice on hour and experience requirements to gain a particaular license in the UK. Many times the candidate has contacted the CAA a number of times already for the answer only to get conflicting answers: if the regulatory body isn't capable of dicephiring it's own rules, then i would suggest this is a good sign that the rulebook needs re-writing. The FAA have one book (the FAR/AIM) that covers everything you need to know - from medical requirements, to experience needed, to weather limits. If only life were so straightforward in the UK!:ugh:
If i wasn't flying proffesionally, and having the luxury of my employers having to deal with the CAA on my behalf, i would have given up flying in the UK a long time ago, and just had the occasional flight in the USA on holiday.
At the end of the day, flying is similar to driving a car (or in my case a bus). It's certainly not rocket science. All that's required is a students willingness to learn, and a competent instructor to teach - it's a learned skill, nothing more. I think the FAA accept it as such, while the CAA for some reason don't. The fact that the accident rates in the US compared to the UK are not significantly different clearly demonstrates, in my view, that the system can work perfectly safely along the lines of the FAA system.:)

[manfromuncle]

Having experience of both systems I agree, FAA is much more flexible and sensible. The flying standards are pretty much the same for the checkrides (despite the snobby 'cereal packets' jokes you hear from the JAA old boys club). The JAA CPL groundschool requirements are obscenely expensive, time consuming and a complete waste of time in the 'real' world.

Will it get any easier/cheaper under EASA? Don't count on it...

[Geoffersincornwall]

With just 29 US and 1 Canadian baseball clubs entered you could be forgiven for thinking that life on the North American continent is somewhat parochial when it is described as the 'world series'.

We live in a world that is dominated by too much 'fixed wing' thinking in all aspects of regulation and oversight and the only way we will right this wrong is to pull together as a global industry. That means that folk in the FAA need to at least consider the risk-management approach to aviation instead of burying their heads in the sand or allowing the apparent underfunding of their helicopter departments to continue. EASA/JAA need to recognise that wrapping us all in regulatory cotton wool does not make problems go away and can hinder the development of the industry.

The level of expertise in the authorities is critical and to be effective the encumbants need to have experience, real experience, in those aspects of the business they attempt to regulate. If the inspector is checking out a long-line operation then he really needs to be somebody who has been there and done it. Likewise with long range offshore ops, short range offshore ops, HEMS, Police, Firefighting and the many other things we manage to accomplish. The price of such 'quality' oversight would not come cheap but maybe we could help. In the UK we had a committee of industry professionals that met regularly with the CAA to discuss the shape and direction of regulation. It had a very UK focus and was also very 'commercial' so what was 'best' for safety may not always be accepted by the committee.

My proposal would be a working group (maybe through HAI) for each type of helicopter operation that could sit with both FAA and JAA/EASA experts to chew over the way the industry is developing in that sector and the lessons being learnt as things progress. Experts could come from any of the organisations working in that sector around the world.

Nobody and no one organisation has a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to aviation safety but I am convinced that we can accelerate the pace of progress if the energy and innovation (not to mention wealth) of the North Americans can be combined with the 'risk-management' philosophies of the Europeans and the no-nonsense approach of some other significant players.

If we are to shake off the domination of 'Fixed-Wing-Thinking' we have to show that our industry is mature, sophisticated and progressive .....and at least 'risk-aware'.

G
:ok:

[Shawn Coyle]

Geoffers - totally agree. The problem is going to be getting such a group together. If we thought it was difficult to start to form unions for helicopter pilots, getting an industry experts group together in the USA will be even harder.
The HAI training committee is a start, but more needs to be done.
The FAA's refusal (so far) to consider more helicopter appropriate ratings is quite amazing. (I'd recommend piston, turbine and twin as starters).
When I did the flight tests, it took three flights when the fixed wing equivalent was all wrapped up in just one. Any wonder people get upset?

The best story I've heard about the difference evidently happened to a Canadian pilot who came to Gatwick and asked what he needed to do - he was given the application forms and duly started to fill them out. Returning to the counter shortly thereafter, the clerk said 'But sir, you've left the part about experience blank.' 'Yes' says our hero - 'I'm paying you folks quite a sum of money and providing you my log books, I expect you'll fill that part out'

[Darren999]

Great posts on this topic. I look forward to reading more comments. That would seem a wonderful and practical idea to have, as said, FAA, JAA, EASA all sit down to discuss a common goal on all issues.

I have a good friend and colleague who is trying to get his expired CAA ATPL H revalidated and he is having a hell of time with someone making decisions on what he has to do to achive this. He's flying over next month to sit in their office to get this thrashed out. Good Luck!!!
What a thought, the FAA, JAA, and EASA all working together!!!! :ok:

[Geoffersincornwall]

I think I am right in saying that there are formal links between the JAA folk and their FAA counterparts already and we may malign them in this respect. What I am suggesting is a forum for feeding front-line experiences and opinions into the regulators who, almost by definition, cannot be expert in the vast array of fields in which helicopters earn their keep.

This need not be a step in the regulatory process but instead a regular exchange in an informal forum that seeks to educate the NAAs about life's realities whilst allowing a frank exchange of views about the way the business is developing.

I have worked in operations with widely differing philosophies but if they deliver safety we cannot say they are invalid just because we disagree. Realising that somebody else can have a good idea is the first step away from bigotry and tunnel vision.

ETOPS and JAROPS 3 NPA38 are both based on the concept of risk analysis, risk assessment and probability computations that are informed by technical experts with feet firmly planted in the real world of flight operations. This is a clue as to the way forward but we need our regulators to be informed by those who do that job every day and have a track record that indicates their judgment can be trusted.

Maybe somebody with an HAI connection can get something on the agenda for their next management meeting. I cannot believe that the proposed membership of these working groups would think that making the effort once or twice a year would be wasted effort. But ....... please ...... remember that the 'I' in HAI means international so lets see such groups have a decent degree of non-US representation.

G
:ok:

[Gomer Pylot]

Trivia answer: It's called the 'World Series' because it was begun by a newspaper, the New York World. It has nothing to do with whether it's the championship of the entire earth, it's just a name applied by a now defunct newspaper to try to increase subscriptions.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Found this on www.baseball-almanac.com


Although the "Fall Classic" as we know it didn't begin until 1903, Major League Baseball had several versions of a post-season championship series before that. In 1884, the Providence Grays of the National League outplayed the New York Metropolitan Club of the American Association in a three game series for what was originally called "The Championship of the United States." Several newspapers penned the Grays as "World Champions" and the new title stuck. Over the next six years, different variations took place between the National League and American Association pennant-winners, ranging in length from six to fifteen games. The American Association folded unexpectedly after the 1891 season forcing a suspension of the series. The following year, the National League absorbed four of the American Association's former franchises and expanded to twelve teams in an effort to promote the growth of baseball and maintain the public's interest. They played a split season in which the first-half winner played the second-half winner for the league championship. Many fans did not support the new system and the split season was promptly dropped in 1893.

G
:ok:

[chuks]

When I was busy with the classwork I couldn't get any clear answers on how I went from having the exams passed to getting that licence in my hot little hands, so I called the CAA and spoke to a nice lady in "Licensing."

Much later I was told it was actually "Policy and Licensing," with "Policy" above "Licensing," so that my nice lady had not exactly told me what I needed to know. Now there was "a problem." My problem, of course! To be solved with the application of time, trouble and English pounds. Bummer!

There ensued a series of e-mails back and forth between me and some Policy bod. These suddenly ceased, just when I was waiting for clarification of an important point. Next I was told that my correspondent had bimbled off to join the Irish CAA; that was why he was no longer busying himself with my little problems!

I even was physically present there at Aviation House once, wanting to have speaks with my new Policy case officer, not that this was the main reason I was there. I could only speak to this eminence on the internal telephone; the idea that a mere mortal should shuffle off to talk across a desk in an office just showed how delusional I really was about what all this money I had spent entitled me to.

[hbpfly]

I am a UK 4500 hour heli pilot, with an FAA CPLH IR. I have worked abroad for the last 14 years but now wish to return home.
The CAA say that I must basically start again with my CPL if I want to fly in this country.
I have a UK class 1 medical.
Can anyone guide me to a link, or lawyer, where I can start with a case against the CAA on what I believe are discriminatory grounds.
I want to fly aerial work in an N reg (or G reg if it's easier) heli within UK airspace.

[Helipilot1982]

Someone please correct me if im wrong but im sure you can operate an N reg aircraft in UK airpace with your FAA commercial licence - subject to insurance, AOC etc

[hbpfly]

I am unable to open th link - can you please tell me what it is and I will try and Google it. Thanks.

[Senior Pilot]

Too many "http://"'s :hmm:

Link fixed :ok:

[hbpfly]

Link now opens. Thank you.

[Oogle]

Please don't let this become a national pride or anti-American thread.

Haven't seen any "Anti-American" yet Heliport. Seems like the other way around to me so far. :ouch:

[WhirlwindIII]

Interesting thread. Glad I finally noticed it.

Seems just about every macro point of view ref: licensing systems and associated cultural attributes of them has been brought up.

Having worked both sides of the pond under the UK and FAA systems as a line pilot, instructor, training captain and check airman the one thing that struck me about the UK training and standards, as compared to FAA, is that pilots learn a lot more about why things in helicopters are the way they are than their FAA counterpart. I noticed UK pilots more proficient at analyizing and dealing with abnormal situations as well as being able to express the situation to maintenance engineers in order to expedite troubleshooting and fixing - for what that is worth, and it may be substantial, I'm not in much a position, or with sufficient interest, to prove it - just an observation.

The UK standard certainly provides a pilot who can talk a better show than the FAA one but when it comes right down to the normal flying bits I haven't noticed much difference in capability or actual performance in training, under check/test, or in line flying.

WIII

BTW - Far as I know the FAA's mandate hasn't included 'promoting' aviation for quite awhile - I believe their focus is regulatory and enforcement; though many of them do have quite a forward looking and helpful attitude towards their job - definitely more positive and helpful to the average pilot than many of their UK counterparts.

[SASless]

I would think this is more an FAA/CAA,CASA/JAA/EASA discussion vice American/British/Australian per se.

Granted the various national personalities have a bearing upon the process and that in itself might be telling a bit about our various mindsets and views upon what is important and what is not.

The real discussion should be about how to cherry pick the good parts of the various systems and meld them into a single system that would work worldwide re licensing, training, and operations.

But that requres a decision as to what the priorities must be towards cost, structure, and philosophy.

All that being said.....I find very little in the CAA system to embrace beyond perhaps the CAA/UK system seems to value safety a bit more than perhaps some of others....but at what cost?

The FAA accessibility, building block approach to licensing and testing for those licenses plainly beats the CAA concept.

The funding method of the US FAA system seems superior to the UK/CAA.

The "costs" to the user cannot be beat in the US FAA system.

I can assure you....my once intricate knowledge of "cereal bowl" compasses....and valve overlap and cam timing....and the landing gear system of a Lancaster Bomber never made me a "better" helicopter pilot.

That being said....I have made good use of old Lord Buys Ballot's law! If I could just remember if it is the right or left arm....and which hemisphere requires which arm? Too many choices I guess!

[Shawn Coyle]

WhirlwindIII
While the 'promoting' part may be gone from the FAA's mandate, the requirement to write only the minimum legislation necessary for safety has not. This alone is a huge part of the difference in approach between the two sides of the Atlantic.

[WhirlwindIII]

SASless

Yes, more a combined authority discussion but my experience is limited to CAA/FAA and I do agree the UK system seems to value safety a bit more, but as you say, "at what cost". I remember all the CAA writtens, systems and law and type technicals - challenging and what a helicopter pilot seems to favor, knowledge of the field, or is it just theory disguised as *&^%&&&& ? I won't go towards a discussion of JARs etc. Far too much thinking and far too little knowledge.


Shawn

Agree. In years past I had a few years of reasonably close dealings with AFS 400 - 420 and 800 etc., and those in OKC, and a few of the supporting arms and organizations to find the size of the beurocracy and its inefficiencies create a huge impediment to writing regulation, which may not be how it is in the UK/Europe. As a result I see the FAA pretty much 'regulating' by Ops Spec, etc. This may in fact be more efficient, flexible, and useful than the UK regulatory approach but I do admire the latter's standards and overall think them useful, albeit cumbersome, annoying, and very expensive. Just me.

[dwoodcoc]

Hey WhirlwindII,

I came to the US with a UK PPL I got in 2005 and quickly realised that I knew absolutely nothing compared to someone who had done their training in the US. I had also done the JAA ATPL exams and wondered why I had spent 6 months of 10 hours study a day when I would have been better off being thought to be a helicopter pilot.

I've trained people from all over the world and I've always found that when a European ppl comes to the US to hour build, or get a CPL, their level of knowledge, and in most cases flying ability, is way below that of an FAA ppl - and I can say this without any bias because I was once that person! I thought myself, when I came over, that JAA was way more advanced, and quickly realised that us, as Europeans, are just a more arrogant people!

I believe that on the FAA side you learn a lot more about the machine you fly. I did all my commercial and IR flying in the US so cant comment on any comparison there.

Just another point of view from someone who trained in both places and has both licenses!

[WhirlwindIII]

dwoodcoc

I never had any experience on the PPL level so that's kinda out of my league in the backlooking sense. I'm glad you have found a good time of it here in the U.S. My experience with both sides of the pond ended in the '80s - no idea what you might have experienced back then on such a comparison you've secured.

I believe what HAI have done for the training equation here in the US is a boon for both sides. George Bedford was the Bristows principal of their UK scheme there and here in the U.S. for quite awhile. Knowing him I suspect he brought a great deal to the table.

I believe the 6 months and 10 hours a day! Do the CAA Instructor Course - that's fun too! I struggled, believe me!

I hope your career is as full, safe, and varied as mine, you certainly have a good and open attitude to achieve it!

Fly safe.

WIII