The CAA:

[Tiger_ Moth]

I am against the CAA. Some sort of organisation is needed for private flying but they're taking things too far. They are gradually ruining flying with their rules and regulations and their stupid bureaucracy.
For example, I readin Pilot magazine of one person who hada very mild stroke while playing squash. However they were ok and even finished their game. A doctor said they were ok and fit to fly. This person made the mistake of telling the CAA who despite him being a ppl in good health confiscated his medical. When he asked for it they wouldnt give it back. Then they kept it. They might still have it. What gives theses stupid, uninformed bureaucrats the right to take away his right to fly? Things like this happen all the time. A few years ago you couldnt even do aerobatics in Tiger Moths because the CAA said so.
Then, after years they realised there was nothing wrong with it and allowed it, but look at how long it took!
They need to be strict to make air transport a profitable, safe business but they are entangling private flying in this sticky quagmire of rules and restrictions. Perhaps a separate organisation would be a good idea. Why should they own the skies? If someone with a 1 in 100,000 chance of having a heart attack in the air wants to fly then it should be up to them , not some idiot behind a desk somwhere.
Private flying is not that bad right now but things are going downhill and I bet that in 20 years private flying will have been mutialted by air corridors, rules, restrictions and so forth.
Does anyone lese think the CAA are "going that way"?

Im adding this bit now to say that I have changed my views to agree that the CAA is necessary and that it would be better to try to work with the CAA than against it as with so many planes about some sort of organisation is needed to make it safe and organised. Due to the largeness of it obviously a few mistakes will be made but that cannot be helped. Id like it more if it was like it was in the 30s but nowadays that is not practical or safe so I agree we need the CAA and should work with them.

[ 24 July 2001: Message edited by: Tiger_ Moth ]

[aviatrix]

CAA = C ancel
A ll
A viation

[Tiger_ Moth]

Well done aviatrix, well done.
You've found the roots of the problem!

[Pielander]

Committee
Against
Aviation

[JB007]

"This person made the mistake of telling the CAA who despite him being a ppl in good health confiscated his medical."

Sorry!...this person did the right thing telling the CAA, it wasn't a mistake...the CAA took away his medical for his own safety and everyone elses, in the air and on the ground !!!

But having met most of the Senior Management in Flight Operations and within the GA section most are ex high ranking RAF types....kind of say's alot !!!!


http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/Planeattitude.gif


------------------
I've Got Bad Attitude!

[Speedbird252]

Hey Tiger, you still seem to be a bit over opinionated for someone who hasnt started flying yet. Yes there are problems with General Aviation and the CAA, somethings are improving, and some things arent. I remember you recently raving on about the new NPPL and what a great idea it was, it wont happen without the CAA`s help - Lets try and be constructive and specific with the critisism, as slagging them off like this doesnt achieve anything. Least of all your credibility.

[A and C]

Like all things the CAA has some good points and some bad ,iv found the engineering section very good over the years both for aircraft tech problems and ground engineer licencing.

The medical people are a lot more practical than the JAA and recently have dumped some of the JAA tests on the grounds that the tests had no flight safety implications.

Flight crew licencing is a national discrace the level of service and the charges are at the opposite ends of what one would expect from a public body
I have had exam results lossed ,money not returned and was sent another guys log book and licence !.
To top this off i now hear that ground engineer licencing has been taken over by this bunch of half witts.
I think that if i did my job as well as the head of FCL i would have been fired long ago and it is my opinion that its time that the upper management of FCL had some time on the dole.

[Kermit 180]

The problem of pen-pushers ruling how we should conduct our flying careers seems to be a problem in just about every country.

I personally believe that, despite some of the more despicable actions taken by CAA, you do actually need someone to educate and ensure safety standards. This education and regulation of standards should be, I believe, the primary role of any aviation authority such as CAA. Their role should be to provide safe skies for both aircrew and the public living below them or travelling as passengers. This can not be done if feelings of distrust between the authority and pilots exists.

So lets stop moaning and talk to them, tell them what we want, what we expect from them as pilots!

Kermie

[fen boy]

The problem is a much bigger issue than the CAA itself. Like any regulatory body the CAA needs to consult (yes it does) with those it regulates. However in the UK there is no one body that covers the majority of PPLs. The schemes run with the PFA and BMAA for aircraft certification and engineering work extremely well and I beleive the CAA would be happy to devolve more of its GA responsibilities to such organisations if there was someone to delegate it too. In the USA AOPA is a very powerful political body reprasenting the majority of PPLs. In the UK I think it reprasents less than 10%.

I beleive the NPPL will be a success but it has only got this far because the major GA bodies worked together with the CAA.

[Don D Cake]

"What gives theses stupid, uninformed bureaucrats the right to take away his right to fly?"

Now let me think. When a pilot of an aircraft becomes incapacitated because of a medical problem does:

a) he release the "dead mans handle" on the control column, the aircraft sense this, fly to the nearest ILS equipped airfield and land safely or

b) the aircraft crash, possibly on me?

It ain't just the pilot that gets hurt when an aircraft goes down....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

But what happens if I have a heart attack when driving my car? I may cross to the other side of the road and have a head-on with an innocent 3rd party - or I may wipe out a bus queue, or I may just hit a wall with no 3rd party casualties.

In my aeroplane, anyone with me who'se not a pilot will probably die with me, but they knew that risk when they came for the flight. The chance of anyone on the ground being hit is very remote.

Which one poses the greater risk to the General Public? It's important to keep a sense of proportion here.

I'm not anti CAA, though being a QUANGO they have no 'predators' to keep thier powers under reasonable control. But i do think that strict medicals for recreational PPLs are OTT - and the NPL, which the CAA have championed, will address that.

On the other hand, I had my JAA class 2 last week. When you are a fat middle aged stressed-out male like me it's not a bad 130 quid's worth to know that all appears to be in order. having said that, and despite a perfect ECG trace, I know I could keel over anytime - I wouldn't be the first.

SSD

[t'aint natural]

Shaggy Sheep Driver calls it correctly.
I can live on a diet of chip fat, Mars Bars, beer and tobacco, be grossly overweight and terminally afflicted with road rage, and drive my eighteen-wheeler within three feet of a bus queue of schoolchildren while dodging opposite direction traffic by three feet at a closing speed of 80mph, and neither the CAA nor anyone else will raise a peep. You have to keep risk in perspective.

[This message has been edited by t'aint natural (edited 06 July 2001).]

[Don D Cake]

I agree, risk should be put into perspective. I also think the road deaths are for the most part ignored compared to other forms of premature death but that's another story. Back to my original point.... surely it is far easier to stop driving a road vehicle at the onset of a heart attack/stroke/seizure (ie you pull over or even brake in a straight line) than it is to stop flying an aircraft. I find it reassuring that the dozens of light aircraft that fly over my house are being piloted by someone that has at least had some sort of health check in the last few years.

Anyway it is kinda reassuring when just before your fortieth birthday the doctor tears off the ECG readout and goes "Yep, that looks okay to me".

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't work for the CAA, but have a lot to do with them (I work for two GA organisations, both of which seem reasonably sane and rational most of the time).

Lets be fair, even the CAA know that they don't understand much about GA. They don't help themselves by filling slots in FCL and GAD with retired airforce types, but anyway, they are trying hard to delegate as much as possible to the big associations.

If you're not a member of PFA / BMAA / BGA / BBAC, etc. why not? These chaps are cheaper, more sensible, more efficient, and largely staffed by people who fly the class of aircraft they're dealing with.

Whingeing about the CAA, which is set up to protect the public and organise the high-value air-transport industry is pointless. What makes sense is to get involved with the large flying organisations, and to work with them to make life easier. The NPPL is a good example, where the main airsports organisations have persuaded the CAA to delegate something to people with more understanding and a vested interest in keeping it simple.

If you want to see how things ought to be, look at Microlights or Gliders, then ask yourself how to get the same for whatever it is that you are flying? But you won't do it on your own, and certainly won't do it by simply whinging about those chaps down at the Belgrano.

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 06 July 2001).]

[Tiger_ Moth]

Speedbird, I never said I liked the NPPL, I might have asked a question about it but
I never said I was for it. I dont really have an opinion on it.
JB of course they did the wrong thing, look what happened to them! It wasnt serious, they finished their game of squash!
The thing is that you could rightly say they are putting more people at danger by driving a car which is true. Flying a plane, especially when PPL and so more likely to be away from highly populated areas presents very little danger to the public. As the risk is so small, especially when compared to other things the person carries on doing, the decision should be left to the individual and not some person who really doesnt know much about it.
I know you need rigid rules and stuff for aviation as a profitable and safe industry but what I think is that private, recreational flying should be separated from it so that it isnt bogged down by the strictness of the business side of aviation.
Someone said that I dont know anything about this which is not that true. I might not be a pilot but through reading over the years I do know a fair bit about GA, but admittedly probably not as much as a lot of you.
Anyway I think I can still see this downward trend of GA and you have to admit that as time goes by the number of restrictions and rules in GA increase and a large reason of this is due to it being linked to the business side of it. Private flying is not at all bad now, but I am just predicting that it will, as time goes by, get pulled down a bit.
Many of you say that the CAA have a big job which is hard to do given the sie and I agree which is why they should be relieved of this responsibility which is understandably hard to carry out as they deal with things as diverse as Long distance cargo flights in massive aircraft from busy airports down to tiny aircraft buzzing about grass strips.
What'ya say?

[StrateandLevel]

Tiger Moth, why don't you apply for a job with the CAA? With your forsight, knowledge and wisdom you could make aviation a better place. They could then release all the doctors, pilots and engineers to more important jobs in the sound knowledge that nothing will fall out of the sky onto our heads. You might even become Chief Dim Wit in a few years!

[Pielander]

This is the story of a man who did apply to the CAA for a job:

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum4/HTML/004535.html

[kabz]

Yeah, Tiger Moth for head of CAA !!!!

All new planes must be biplanes !!!

Sounds cool to me. Luckily, I am in USA !!!!

[StrateandLevel]

Military aircrew have the advantage that they have been trained in, and have experience in flying, training, planning and administration. The skills of many civil trained pilots are limited to just flying aeroplanes, unfortunately that does not equip them particularly well for regulatory administration.

The CAA personnel selectors did for a while move towards the recruitment of civil rather than ex-military flyers, as with most things the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To be fair, how many top-quality people from civil aviation have ever applied for a job at the CAA? By this I mean company Chief Engineers, club CFIs, Senior administrators from the airlines, etc. Very few I suspect.

I know many people at CAA, most of whom are either ex-RAF, or moved after being made redundant as BAe closed yet another site. I honestly don't know if many people from our side of the fence actually apply for these jobs? I certainly haven't - have you ever visited the towns around Gatwick?

Just for the record Tiger Moth, do you actually belong to any of the airsports organisations?

G

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]

[Getting Old]

The CAA are in most circumstances the best friend of the GA community. I find them very approachable and willing to discuss issues with individuals as to how these issues affect GA. Are you aware for example of the real efforts put in by them to ensure equal user access? Are you aware that many of the CAA staff are also private pilots, Before anyone asks I am a GA pilot totally unconnected with the CAA and fly around 150 hrs per annum throughout Europe. try a more positive approach, it can work wonders.

[Tiger_ Moth]

Hmmmmmmm...........I suppose that it is inevitable that with the growth of aviation there will need to be an increase in rules and regulations as types of aircraft grow etc and in many ways the CAA does do a good job. I have heard of them occassionally considering people who dont't quite meet the eyesight requirements on an individual basis which is good. However there are also things like the previous example and one I read about recently where they are demanding £65 or so just so that someone can continue counting hours spent teaching air cadets in a motor glider towards keeping their PPL valid, even though they had been doing it for years before and were obviously qualified.
Having said that it is inevitable that GA will become more restricted as it grows and with increasing numbers of GA aircraft I suppose this is necessary so it would be best to work with the CAA rather than against them and try to "lessen the impact". I would like things to be in the 20s but that would be downright dangerous with the numbers of planes about today. Still though, this doesnt give the CAA the right to one day say that you have to pay a certain amount for a certain certificate that says you can do what you've been doing for years anyway. The FAA is an example of what the CAA could be like minus a few bureaucratic splodges. I accept what you say: that we should work with them, but you must admit that in some cases the CAA do impose expensive, restrictive, un-necessary rules.

[stiknruda]

Genghis for Pres (or benevolent dictator!)

Stik

[Genghis the Engineer]

Interesting, we suddenly get this new "member rating thingy". I get three votes and one star, and Tiger gets one vote and one star.

Nice to be popular aint it Tiger!

G

:cool:

[Mr moto]

If you were old enough to vote, you might be able to do something about the CAA.
But as you're already coming down off your high horse, I'll not be so harsh on you.

At what point does one require a CPL. When you're an employee flying a company aircraft on company or private business? When you're flying your own aircraft to a business meeting? When you're flying your own aircraft accompanied by a colleague to a business meeting? When the company covers your travel costs?
We've not even begun to discuss the C of A of the aircraft yet. Can you begin to understand the detail and extent of the task they have been set?
Again, you're not old enough to remember the bad old days of the CAA.

What you have now is a body which is coming round to serving the public and still needs improvement in some ways.

They are also having to fight the political battle with the European involvement in their
task. Thus, for example, you get the NPPL which is probably the most forward thinking initiatives in the history of GA.
Furthermore, they allow the PFA to regulate maintenance of certain aircraft types and the BGA to regulate gliding.

I too long for those golden days gone by and wish we could get on with the flying. We can't! If you don't like the smell, get out of the cowshed. Or join AOPA and at least have a voice.

By the way, don't compare the CAA and the FAA . Their bureaucracy is in some ways worse than ours and the population density is nearly TEN times that of the UK. Its a different kettle of fish.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hang on Mr Moto,

I agree with most of what you say but...

USA has about four times the population of the UK, and an entire continent to put them in. We've got a small island. surely the USA would be about 1/10 of the UK (or is that what you meant, I've made typos like that before now!).

It's also worthy of mention that the "charter" of the FAA is to support and regulate aviation. That of the CAA is just to regulate. A subtle, but important difference.

G

N.B. Where have the stars gone?

N.B.B. Off subject, but I just got the latest AFE catalogue in the post. They have privately compiled and published a "UK AIM" and are advertising it for £15, perhaps the answer to everything is private enterprise!

[barbox]

Tiger_Moth still at it?.

I actually stopped coming onto PPRUNE because of him, what a plonker!.

Get a licence, learn to fly, then comment, until just do us all a favour and shut the hell up!.

CAA taking a away a medical?,,,,, fully deserved, I actually failed a CAA medical, and glad I did so, if I had not had a pilots licence, I would never have found out about the problem I had, I would have been dead in 2 years, CAA medical showed the problem, after 4 months grounded and treatment I will now live and fly for 'decades' (CAA Doctors words), I now have my medical again and am happily flying, with a licence and a medical, unlike mr Tiger_Moth,,,,,,,,,!.

[Sleeve Wing]

Hail Genghis (again!)
Must agree on the new AFE UK AIM....great idea. Should put in on disc so that we don't have to clog up the book shelves!

Sorry, Tiger, but have to say that you're a little bit out of your depth on this one. You can read all the books you like but you'll never understand how the CAA works!
Must agree though that the our Regulatory wizards are are a "touche" self-generating ...partly the fault of our JAA brethren...
but mostly self-perpetuating!
;) :) :cool:

[Sleeve Wing]

Just a quickie,Danny. I may be a bit dumb but how the hell do we edit out Typos on this new format now ???

:( :( :( :(

[t'aint natural]

I’m afraid those who take comfort from the illusion that the CAA medical stops aircraft falling on their heads are misguided. Even the AAIB now admits, after undertaking its own statistical analysis, that there is no difference in pilot incapacitation rates between those types of flying which are exempt from CAA medicals, like gliding, and those where CAA medicals are required.
To quote Dr Peter Saundby, writing in a recent magazine article: “What the AAIB analysis did show was that the rigorous medical examinations applied to military and commercial pilots failed to prevent medical incapacity.”
He goes on to say: “Relatively few diseases are detectable before they become symptomatic and these should be monitored as part of the routine health care provided by the NHS. Even fewer of these diseases present a hazard to aviation.” His point is that certification by a pilot’s GP that he or she is fit to fly, without that doctor needing an expensive and coveted CAA license to make such a certification, would be infinitely better than the present bureaucratic nonsense, with its “political” blood tests and pointless groping.
As to Barbox, the chap who posted earlier about his medical having picked up a condition which if left unattended would have killed him, good for you, mate. But this organ of State is not there to force you to go to the doctor. One of these postings justifies the current system by saying: "It's kinda reassuring just before your 40th birthday to have the doctor rip off the ECG and say yup, that looks okay." So go to the doctor before you're 40, then. Take more responsibility for your own health, and save the rest of us some tens of millions of pounds, please.
PS: To the other chap - my light aircraft weighs less than a Mini and if it hit your house it would bounce off the roof. My HGV loads to 40 tonnes, and that would be a wholly different matter.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Sleeve Wing,

To edit use the pencil and paper icon far right above the first line of your post. If you allow your mouse to hover over each icon a help caption should come up till you get used to them.

Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
[email protected]

[ 09 July 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]

[Tiger_ Moth]

I wish I hadnt started such a controversial subject now. Even when I compromised you all just say how dumb I am. Barbox particularly seems to hate me! No matter what I say you all say I dont know anything. I admit I probably dont know as much as you and if you look at my last post I actually accepted many of your views.
Therefore Ill avoid saying anything controversial, like barbox said, because no one will ever agree. What do you mean you stopped coming here just because of me barbox? Im hardly ever here anymore. Anyway, sorry about that.
What is the rating system that someone (might have been genghis) spoke of? where do I see it? what does it mean? whats a vote do?

[Sleeve Wing]

Thanks, Rob.
Must be older( and more blind) than I thought! Didn't even notice it!
P.S. Is this your night job ???????

Rgds, Sleeve.

[Speedbird252]

Tiger, its not controversial! Just remember that you are throwing your views at Professional Pilots with years of flying experience, even in the Private Pilot forum.

The CAA is an attractive topic for the start of a sensitive argument.

But lets base any anger on our experiences, if we havent flown before, it isnt cool to slag them off on the basis of a magazine article.

Yes we need the CAA`s help, but they need our help too.

Im not sure what the way forward is, AOPA seem more into offering help with insurance and technical issues, for owners and operators. If im wrong here than they need to change there marketing strategy as all the literature I have on them seems to be for people that own or operate there own aircraft. We need a body that is specific to GA and an interface between GA pilots and the CAA. Construcive and official meetings, to adress our issues on a National level.

Any suggestions?

If this warrants a new topic mr moderator then lets do it!!

Gotta go, Paris Orly you know.........

Kind Regards.

[BEagle]

Without the CAA's support for our efforts, those of us working towards the introduction of the NPPL early next year would probably have got nowhere.

Incidentally, the CAA has now circulated their discussion paper on the NPPL which you will soon be able to read at http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/ga/ga_whatsnew.asp This is the first step in the mandatory process for ANO amendment to include the NPPL.

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Mr moto]

Yeah Genghis,
I must improve my poof reading skills!
Population versus area. Something like just under 70 per square mile compared to around 600 in the UK. Incidentally 250 odd in France.

Moto.

[Final 3 Greens]

Tiger Moth

"Crabbed age and youth cannot live together:

Youth is full of pleasance, age is full of care.

The Passionate Pilgrim, xii"

[t'aint natural]

Hang on a minute. If it wasn't for the CAA's hasty and ill-considered decision to be first to adopt JAR there wouldn't be any need for an NPPL. What the hell were they thinking about? A smart plan would have been to sit back, let somebody else blunder into the mire, and learn from it, like our European neighbours have done. As to the NPPL, it's unlikely that the CAA is going to oppose something that means more bureaucracy and bigger empires, is it.

[2Donkeys]

I have no particular axe to grind with this argument, but...

Contrary to the last post, I do not believe that it was the CAA that strove to have the PPL included within JAR.

That honour goes to....... AOPA.

Happy to be told I'm wrong.

[Whirlybird]

Tiger Moth,

Welcome to PPRuNe - 30,000+ people with different attitudes and opinions, and some with a tendency to flame anybody who posts anything that can even remotely be construed as controversial. It's not just you Tiger. It happens to all of us. The first time I got flamed on PPRuNe I ran away (for a day or two anyway). The next time I acted a bit like you're doing, and vowed to never post anything like that again. Eventually I just got used to it.

[SKYYACHT]

Its easy to get complacent, and assume that "they" ought to do something....I hear it about loss of airfields, priveleges, speed cameras etc. The only way that we, as a common user group may attempt to protect our already dwindling resources in terms of airfields, and freedom from excessive regulation etc, is to join AOPA, or PFA, or Action for Airfields. GAAC and any others you can think of. To quote - "for evil to succeed, good many need only do nothing!"

I agree in some respects that the CAA, is in a unique position, as a semi autonomous self regulating Government Agency. It does seem that users, ie., us, have no higher body with whom to lodge any appeals against undesired action/regulations. Such mechanisms do exist in other parts of governement.

Having said that I personally have always found the CAA staff to be helpful, friendly and co-operative, even if they do charge an arm and a leg.....

Tailwinds
:rolleyes:

[Tiger_ Moth]

Final 3 Greens, surely you're not suggesting some kind of gladiatorial death match between the two factions?

I accept everything you say speedbird. You see I'd like flying to be like in the 20s/30s but I realise that thats just impossible with the advances in technology and numbers of aircraft. Therefore this cant all be blamed on the CAA as I was doing earlier because it was inevitable so although I generally revoke my hasty comments I still do think there is room for improvement and that a few regulations could be brushed aside. I also agree that this is not solely the CAAs responsibility but also the pilots so the two have to work together. I also realise that you have to be specific so Ill just go and find some more examples....

[Speedbird252]

Thats cool Tiger, dont worry about starting a contraversial topic. As you said, there is much good in this kind of debate, and all the various views are good news, cos sooner or later it will help GA. You are right to air your concerns, youve got a long life of flying Moths ahead of you - if we can all help eachother than it will be worth it.

Im stuck with an ATR72 tonight, think yourself lucky.

Regards!

[Final 3 Greens]

Tiger Moth

Gladitorial deathmatch?

Think you must have got too much sun in that open cockpit mate!

:p

[loglickychops]

.

[Spoonbill]

I'm not the biggest fan of the CAA or the RAF, but most of the people who work for the CAA are there on merit, (with the possible exception of FCL, when the phrases brewery,pissup & couldnt come to mind).
Few people realise the work that they put in to ensure that initial standards are sufficiantly stringent to comply with safety and good practices.
The sort of thing that ensures that when an engineer works on your aircraft, he's trained and competent and only uses the proper parts, (no squashed coke cans instead of washers - yes it has happened!).
The standards that ensure that all pilots, atco's, licensed airfields and others at the sharp end of aviation work to the best practices.
I'm sure everyone has their little story about how the CAA have failed them at some time or other - it would be interesting to see if they can back them up.
Far from being office bound pen pushers, the staff who are responsible for this have a wealth of experience and for the most part are genuinely passionate about maintaining standards and helping out whenever they can.
The day to start moaning is when they are'nt there looking over your shoulder, because that's the day the cowboys move in with the invitable consequences for you, your aircraft, and your wallet. :cool:

[Tiger_ Moth]

Won't you people let this topic die??
Everyone comes into it, reads my initial hasty remarks, then disagrees but they havent read my latest replies which go back on a lot of it.

Spoon I would generally be more in favour of less intervention than more intervention from the CAA in private flying as the risk is small anyway and the consequences, if there are any will usually effect the individual: crashing in a field, its not like its a 747 crashing in some city centre.
I didnt know there was anything wrong with the RAF now, apart from their lack of flying, is there?
Anyway, lets all let this topic die gracefully, starting now.

[Speedbird252]

People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones Tiger.......

If ya want to let it die, stop replying......?

[Bouncy Landing]

Personally (over 18 years on & off)I've only had the best service from the CAA: friendly, professional, fairly prompt, and ever concerned and compassionate when both FCL & I thought they had lost my old license and some personal effects(subsequently found in my flight bag)!

Of course they regulate us, sometimes to a degree that we may not appreciate but the alternaive is probably much worse..... I don't doubt some of the horror stories are true, but there needs to be balance.

[FNG]

Hey Tigger, I believe that, as the originator of the thread, you can lock it. If this is not so, try a polite email to one of the moderators and thay may close it for you.

[Whirlybird]

Tiger Moth, whoa there, it's OK! :)

You started what was always going to be a controversial subject, but it's generated some good discussion. And I don't think some of the latest posters have been attacking you at all, just giving their opinions. Personally I think the whole thread has been a good contribution to PPRuNe, and thanks for starting it. I'd be happy if it ran and ran. But if you've really had enough you can always delete the thread.

[Tiger_ Moth]

Well if you really like it I don't mind but originally it was used as a means of slating me, you see.

[Gash Handlin]

just to perpetuate your thread a bit more :D

You could always edit your first post to tell everyone you've changed your opinion and demonstrate your growing ability to start accepting criticism if you've flown off the handle a little!

[and I'll edit mine coz I can't spool or tupe]

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Gash Handlin ]

[Wibbly P]

You only have to be nice to the staff at the CAA to get treated well, FCL is run (generally) by a bunch of very nice people, who deal with up to 100 pilots a day each, pis*ing and moaning about things that you don't like, will not get you far.

The CAA are there to help you and everyone affected by aviation safety, even if it seems that sometimes they just want to stop you getting in the air.

If you are unhappy with the services that PLD provide then complain in writing (with clear reasons), I promise you that it is worthwhile.

PS

AOPA were one of the main driving forces behind the PPL being covered under JAR regulations. also the BMA wanted the SLMG's to remain a national.rating

WP

[Rusty Cessna]

Tiger,

Can I offer some constructive advice. If you have a quibble with something, think before you rant on about it, perhaps even do a little research and get a good idea of what the hell you are talking about. Then post, then for gods sake stand by what you say "yay the NPPL!" becomes "oh no I'm not for the NPPL" and "I hate the CAA" becomes "oh yeah they do a good job at a lot of things", we wont let this die because well basically its a silly thing to say, "abolish the CAA" and it quite frankly annoys some people.

The CAA is made up of doctors, psychologists, pilots, engineers, pen pushers, accountants and probably bakers too, they all pull together to try and make things better, they do actually try very hard, you try organising and regulating Civil Aviation. Yes there are things that annoy us and get on our nerves, but we need to tell the CAA so they can rectify it not slate them for everything they do wrong.

Simple fact of the matter in question, this unfortunate man has had a mild stroke. If you knew anything about Strokes you would realise that a mild stroke leaves the door wide open to an even bigger, deadly stroke, also stroke consequences can lie dormant for ages, so this guy goes flying, crashes, and everyone in the aeroplane perishes, and also someone who they landed on. There is a reason for everything, just a little obscure sometimes.

Sorry people, I'm usually a nice pruner, I just snapped, and feel this had to be said, I know you expect better from me, especially you whirly, *hangs head in shame* ;)

Now go enjoy gettin yer PPL.

Hope it helps,
Regards to all,
Rusty

[ 24 July 2001: Message edited by: Rusty Cessna ]

[Tiger_ Moth]

Cessna, what is this business about the NPPL? You say I changed my mind on it but I have never expressed an opinion on it one way or the other.
I agree it would have been a good idea to perhaps research more specific examples and stuff but I did give one example and it was unjust to ground him, its extremely unlikely that he'd expierience one when flying and as a PPL he wouldnt have loads of passengers, any of whom would probably know him and so know about the minor stroke and make their own decisions to fly with him. The chances of him injuring anyone on the ground are also very small and thats only IF he happened to suffer a stroke. The risk was so small that it should have been left up to him to decide. If you ban him from flying then you should also ban him from driving.
I am not too happy with the CAA because of things like this but obviously with such a large organisation a few things are bound to go wrong and the organisation is worthwhile. I would like things to be less controlled but thats impossible and would be quite unsafe as there are so many more planes around nowadays.

[Gash Handlin]

TM

Is that your considered medical opinion?

I assume you carried out the medical examination on the chap in question and are not just repeating an anecdote you heard in chat one night :mad: oh no thats right, you read it in Pilot, Must be true and accurate then :mad:

The medical rules are there for a reason and as with any rule you have to set a limit and stick to it. I don't know what the JAA medical ruling is on history of strokes but whatever it is I'm sure the level of acceptability (if any) wasn't just pulled out of the air but based on sound medical reasoning. If you're unfortunate friend falls outside that limit then that is a great shame for him but the rules are there for the safety of the many.

As you say, the people flying with him would know (assuming he tells them or does he wear a huge sign round his neck?) and have the chance to choose whether the risk was acceptable, but what about everybody else in the air and on the ground underneath his flightpath?

How do you think the general public would react if a pilot with a known medical complaint that was outside of the limits set by the JAA (Notice that again TM the JAAnot the CAA ) were to have a crash and land on someones house or even just near to a built up area, after the CAA had said "well you're outside the limits but we'll give you a licence anyway cos it's pretty unlikely you'll crash.

I think it would be fairly safe to assume that there would be a whole heap of regulation and possibly even class1 medicals required all-round if enough of a fuss was kicked up by the media.

When you start posting serious,considered,intelligent posts people might start taking you seriously, until then think before you start complaining that you aren't being treated fairly.

Rusty

The CAA is made up of ... probably bakers too, do they regulate the rolls :D
who looks after the loops and the stall turns? :D