Sa-caa Licensing Gone Mad!

[SFO]

And now for something completely ridiculous! CAA licensing section refuse to recognises level D simulators for take-offs and landings training for a type rating, costing the airlines hundreds of thousands of rands requiring 3 light load and 3 max all up weight take-off and landings (even with one engine inoperative) in the real aeroplane. Not only completely unachievable in a large aeroplane, but also totally unsafe (bird strikes, burst tyres, etc.). ICAO and the FAA must be rolling in the aisles - just waiting for the next act to begin!
Also, no ATP tests in simulators: "a simulator is not an aeroplane" say:rolleyes: licensing!

[birdlady]

And they want to have the new MPL up and running by next year...........................:\ :\ :\ :{

[Avvy]

My thoughts exactly birdlady. But then again it wouldn’t be SA unless they contradict there own rules a few times. :ok:

[philby737]

And now for something completely ridiculous! CAA licensing section refuse to recognises level D simulators for take-offs and landings training for a type rating, costing the airlines hundreds of thousands of rands requiring 3 light load and 3 max all up weight take-off and landings (even with one engine inoperative) in the real aeroplane. Not only completely unachievable in a large aeroplane, but also totally unsafe (bird strikes, burst tyres, etc.). ICAO and the FAA must be rolling in the aisles - just waiting for the next act to begin!
Also, no ATP tests in simulators: "a simulator is not an aeroplane" say:rolleyes: licensing!


O deary me, I wonder how thats going to wash with the next generation on spoories recruits :eek: being one time trained in the simulator and all :ugh:

[exjet]

I don't see the problem - the JAA also requires landings after a level D conversion. I think that the SLF would also appreciate the 'live' training.

:)

[Saffer]

I don't see the problem - the JAA also requires landings after a level D conversion. I think that the SLF would also appreciate the 'live' training.
:)

Single Engined :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[SFO]

And now, if your licence is lapsed (even with 20 000 total, mostly on jets) to reactivate you has to test on a multi-engine aeroplane with retractable flaps and undercarriage and variable pitch propellers. A jet does not qualify, but a Duchess or Twin Commanche will be just fine!!!!! The next day you allowed to fly your jet again. := := :=

[exjet]

SFO – I think that you miss the point.

Of course you can revalidate your licence and ME privileges on a B744 if you can afford it, so maybe the option of doing it on a Duchess is not a bad economical idea – and of course you would NOT be able to fly your ‘jet’ (20 000 hrs!) the next day unless you had revalidated the rating as well (LPC/OPC).

The same goes for your SA medical – even if you hold current JAA and FAA medicals they will not be valid (the same goes for them – not only the SACAA).

It sounds as though you are a little pi…. because you did not make arrangements with the SACAA before you left to keep your licence valid while you were flying elsewhere.

:)

[Shrike200]

Exjet, I don't think you understand what he's saying - he's saying that even if you could do the test on a 747, the CAA wouldn't accept it since it's not a 'complex' aircraft (ie no VP props!) which is what the law apparently states.

I'm only chiming in now since I've also heard this recently in conversation, but I also find it a little ridiculous. There must be some kind of logical explanation, or perhaps the CAA chap was misquoted.

[SFO]

[QUOTE=exjet;2964631]SFO – I think that you miss the point.
Of course you can revalidate your licence and ME privileges on a B744 if you can afford it,
EXJET - to the contrary - you miss the point and arraogantly so at that. No, you is not allowed to use a B744, exactly as mentioned by SHRIKE200 because no VP. Worse, the CAA person had to ask whether or not a jet has VP!!!
Thanks for the concern, but my licence are fine - I repeat only what have recently happened to some retired SAA pilots who now want to fly again. If I am p.... at anything, it are the CAA ignorance.

[Whenwe]

In all fairness to CAA, there are a number of issues at stake when it comes to endorsing a “heavy” onto a commercial / ATP licence.
In the majority of cases either a Part 135 or Part 121 company employs the professional pilot.
Having a type endorsed on a licence and being allowed to exercise that privilege in a company is another story. It is best to go through the various regulations and then you can see what I am talking about.
Any commercial pilot currently employed in any of the above companies will be able to tell you what else he has to do besides getting the type on his licence.

And as far as the Level D simulator is concerned, the regulations are quite straightforward. If that particular simulator has not been approved by CAA it will not be acceptable. If you are going to use training facilities in a foreign country, check with CAA before you go and find out if that particular training facility will be acceptable.

[nugpot]

And now for something completely ridiculous! CAA licensing section refuse to recognises level D simulators for take-offs and landings training for a type rating, costing the airlines hundreds of thousands of rands requiring 3 light load and 3 max all up weight take-off and landings (even with one engine inoperative) in the real aeroplane. Not only completely unachievable in a large aeroplane, but also totally unsafe (bird strikes, burst tyres, etc.). ICAO and the FAA must be rolling in the aisles - just waiting for the next act to begin!
Also, no ATP tests in simulators: "a simulator is not an aeroplane" say:rolleyes: licensing!

I don't understand the fuss. All the SA airlines do base-training after level D sim for type rating. This normally includes an engine out (simulated) approach. Mango is doing base training in CPT as we speak.

I completely agree that ATP (initial) tests should not be carried out in a sim. There are certain things that an ATP pilot needs to demonstrate (airmanship, awareness, real life ATC) that you just cannot simulate.

As said previously, JAR's require the same.

[south coast]

Must correct you there nugpot, JAR does not require the ATPL skills test to be carried out in the plane.

In actual fact, it is carried out more often or not in the sim. The JAR ATPL, as I am sure you are aware requires a Multi Pilot type rating, and therefore most people double up their intial MP type rating with the ATPL skills test.

Makes sense.

All those things you talk about, airmanship, ATC etc, well, in order to get a job where someone is prepared to send you to a level D sim, one would expect you to pocess such atributes, and by 1500 hours, one should also be capable of dealing with ATC procedures.

The JAR ATPL and SA ATPL are actually quite different, 500 multi-crew hours required, Multi Crew Course certificate required and the hardest part, a Multi Pilot type rating is required.

Not like hiring yourself a Duchess from Lanseria and doing you ATPL flight test.

[Q4NVS]

I repeat only what have recently happened to some retired SAA pilots who now want to fly again...:yuk:

Nationwide or Mango..:\

Surprised that the SA CAA did not also ask for an "updated" Logbook Summary (- Bunk Time) ;)

The JAR ATPL and SA ATPL are actually quite different, 500 multi-crew hours required, Multi Crew Course certificate required and the hardest part, a Multi Pilot type rating is required.

Not for much longer - Read Part 61 currently up for comment on SA CAA's website.

:ok:

[south coast]

Q4...

Since I know longer fly in SA, I admit my knowledge of up to date goings on at that circus are not great...

Interesting that SA CAA are going down that route, it makes unfreezing ones ATPL very difficult unless you have a job with an operator who has Multi Pilot planes...

Hurry up to those B1900 guys flying command with only CPL's, get your ATPL before it becomes a nightmare!

[contraxdog]

You see this is exactly what happens when you try an re-invent the wheel from scratch. Especially if you go and copy three other wheels at the same time, all designed for other conditions, and then paste it together to make a brand new touchy-feely-politically correct, non gender biased wheel to fit a wheel barrow.
Ja well, the previous one wasnt perfect but it work well. And I must say in my humble opion, far better than this current chaotic re-invention.
These days I am considering empolying legal advisor, and a secretary to make sure that I : do not/ do not attempt to/give the impression that I do not attempt to/ conspire to atempt to fail to keep my licence and all its privelages current.
Coming from a family of lazy white men(I fly for a living, the others are in the legal profession, thus play golf and inbibe for a living, sounds like pilots doesnt it?), I attempted to get free (if expensive whiskey dont count)legal counsel regarding the various laws governing my chosen profession. The answer I got. "Keep the whiskey. The laws as they are now are a mess. Either get out, or keep going like you were, because at the moment, those laws/rules etc can be interpreted as you wish."
I can remember when I could still recall nearly every rule and law at will because it all came in one book, was easy to understand, easy to comply with.
These days its refererencing and cross referenceing, and then only to determine which of these have a meratorium on and which doesnt. Its an absolute ball ache!
It seems like the whole purpose of it could be that a lot of legal advisers; working on a contractual basis of course, making an outhouse full of "wildtuin fotos"; can write, re-write, overwrite the laws, only to be put on hold once completed,for further discussion, so the prosess can be started from scratch.
I have to assume the the whole idea about this whole re-write is to make aviation safer. News flash! No laws make things safer, just look at the crime situation in "the beloved county". Policeing them would. But that will take much more real work, and intellegence. OH.......OK now I get it.
Lets make some more laws...lets:
Have many nation wide conferences where all the stakeholders at grass root level are represented(dont forget the TPA(Tea Persons Assosiation)They are very important!
We can then elect committees representing all the stakeholders in the industry from all the districts in SA. Very important,All committees must represent the demographics of South Africa. If no qualified committee member can be found, one will be appointed and and then be trained to be qualified.
Plan the first National Comittee Conference to be in Dubai/ or anther duty free shopping mekka.
Fly the conference delegates business class to the conference.
Make arrangements for conference facilies and accomodation close to the shopping areas.
Have a luffly conference where all delegates can have their opinion heard , but only if they feel up to it,while the others do some shopping.
Fly home and appoint a DPA law firm as consultants to make up some more laws.
To pay for it.... raise the fees and taxes in the industry, we need it to make drastic changes in order to raise the levels of saftey in Aviation in SA.
Viva!

[south coast]

Hello mee ol' bonehead mate...

I am glad to see you so positive about things in SA.

[nugpot]

... Long Rant ...;)
Viva!


You forgot: "To still be translated into Zulu - the second official aviation language in RSA."

[contraxdog]

Nugs translate this in aviation Xhosa or Zulu....

" Rant, Rant ek ko lant"