PDA

View Full Version : CAA Stops Turbine Heli Training at Registered Facilities


VeeAny
3rd Sep 2010, 20:10
The CAA have issued a TrainingCom that removes approval to train on Turbine engine helicopters at regiistered facilities unless they are also FTO or TRTO approved for the type(s) in question.

If you have started and have permission (as a student) you can finish.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts_HELITRAININGCOM_1-2010.pdf

rotarywise
3rd Sep 2010, 21:14
The CAA have, historically, been seriously negligent in their oversight of both fixed and rotary wing PPL training, to the extent that they currently have no idea how many registered facilities are actually in operation. They know how many registration certificates they have issued but, since they have never required anyone to de-register when they cease trading, they have absolutely no control. This is why they stopped publishing Standards Document 30 - it was entirely meaningless.

The findings of the AAIB in this case (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_2009/aerospatiale_westland_sa_341g_gazelle__yu_hew.cfm) have been deeply embarrassing to the, mainly non-pilot, bean-counting management of the CAA and this is a typical knee-jerk response that completely misses the point of the AAIB's recommendation. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will be followed up by any meaningful oversight of registered facilities in the future, despite the best efforts of the AAIB and EASA.

DennisK
4th Sep 2010, 21:55
Oh that's really nice ... so now I cannot pass on the benefit of my 14,250 hours and experience on 32 rotary types ... where do the CAA get their ideas from?
Quite seriously and as I am gently gearing myself up to totally leave the industry I have enjoyed and loved for 58 years, it was comforting to feel the good things I have learned might benefit others .... all now gone at the stroke of a pen!

Dennis K

PS ... I guess the newbys can always go to an FTO or TRTO where a recently qualified FI who is paid less than the cleaner can teach on turbines and keep the Gatwick people happy.

GoodGrief
4th Sep 2010, 22:20
This is not new.
The original FCL-2 from 2003 says in 2.125(a) second sentence:

"A registered facility is limited to giving training on single-engine helicopters with a maximum certificated seating capacity of not more than 4 persons."

I think they are just enforcing it now, maybe the EASA plays a role in it.

Dennis, you can still pass on your knowledge by giving these new PPLs a type rating on what ever turbine they wish.

VeeAny
5th Sep 2010, 06:39
Good Grief,

It may not be new but up until last year the permission was easy to obtain. That became harder if not impossible in the middle of last year when the AAIB raised their points on the Gazelle crash.

Den,

The system is less than ideal, however I do believe with the one we have at the moment the lack of oversight of registered facilities is shocking, this TrainingCom doesn't solve that problem in itself and perhaps is a knee jerk reaction to a different problem which was easy to highlight because of the simplicity with which the permission could be obtained and the statement in FCL2 that has been there a long time.

Whilst most of the training accidents in the recent past have happened at schools where an FTO or TRTO approval was also held, I think it would be interesting to see where a lot of the post PPL training accidents happen and where the training took place, I am certain if it were possible to obtain this data a pattern would be seen as I think I have said before.

It doesn't take a genius to see the complete lack of understanding on their part of some low time but turbine qualified instructors who have got their 15 hours in and now can teach the next generation of turbine pilots everything they don't know (I can say this having been there and done it without realising nearly 10 years ago). Experience like Den's cannot be bought and I think this adds an uneccesary level of oversight to some and not enough to others, but what system is perfect ?

I wonder if the proposed (a couple of years ago) relaxation of Type Rating Training to be done at Registered facilites will be allowed under EASA ? I haven't had time to look at latest proposals or RFCs ?

jellycopter
5th Sep 2010, 09:01
In respect of this thread, the AAIB report into the YU-HEW accident made these safety recommendations:
Safety Recommendation 2009-087
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority allocate examiners for the conduct of PPL Skills Tests.
Safety Recommendation 2009-086
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority introduce periodic audits of Registered Training Facility (RTF) organisations to ensure appropriate private pilot training standards are being met at the current time and with the introduction of EASA FCL regulation.

If anyone has an inside track into the decision-making processes at the CAA and cares to shed light onto the logic of this latest restriction, please can they pass comment.

1. How does placing a blanket ban on turbine training for PPL(H) at Registered Facilities satisfy, in any way, the recommendations made above? This new restriction misses the target by a massive margin.

2. If a PPL(H) candidate is a turbine aircraft owner, how can it possibly improve safety if the owner is forced to train on a basic Robbo/Schweizer/Enstrom for 40+ hours and then, with a bare minimum of Turbine/Type conversion training, go out and fly their family/colleagues about in a high performance aircraft? I know the CAA have left the PPL(H) avenue open via FTO/TRTOs, but this is totally impractical for many owners as there are limited FTO/TRTOs and geographically, there are huge holes, which used to be successfully filled by Registered Facilites.

3. What are the CAA doing about the recommendation to allocate Examiners for PPL(H) LSTs? I know that the CAA don't have the manpower to audit Registered Facilities (as there's no cash in it) however, if they were to allocate Examiners to complete PPL(H) skill tests, this would weed-out the dodgy candidates. At the moment, Registered Facilities, FTOs and TRTOs have their 'favourite' (even employed) FEs and therefore there is no independent assessment of output standard leading to wildly differeing levels of competence of new PPL(H)s. There is a definite potential for conflict of interest here.

4. The Enstrom 480 Turbine has a maximum certified seating capacity, in the training role, of 3 persons (it's not physically possible to fit any more people in it). Are the CAA over-stepping the mark by countermanding JAR FCL 2.125?

I'd like to be educated and would welcome comments in support of this latest restriction.

JJ

rotarywise
5th Sep 2010, 09:10
Under EASA all training organisations must be approved, including the current 'registered facilities'. However, organisations that provide instruction only for the PPL and/or LAPL will, under the latest proposal to be published, be subject to a 'lighter touch' regulation. In practice, it is probable that little will change (apart from the cost to industry) except that PPL/LAPL organisations will be inspected, but at a lesser frequency than other approved training organisations. Expect to see the UK CAA doing everything in its power to avoid increasing its oversight of PPL training to an acceptable level.

EASA's responses to the NPA of Part-OR are due to be published later this month and will give a better idea of what the future holds.

Jellycopter - the answer to your questions are:

1. It doesn't
2. It can't
3. Nothing
4. The Enstrom 480 has a Maximum Certificated Seating Capacity of 5 persons. The fact that you cannot, in reality, fit 5 persons in it is not relevant.

DennisK
5th Sep 2010, 22:02
Ref ... the 5 seat Enstrom 480's physical restriction to 3 seats in training configuration ... ditto the left hand drive MD 500 series where the dual collective removes the third front seat. And the right hand drive MD 500HM version IS certifed as a four seater!

Oh, and the 2003 FCL-2 also prohibited 'swing over' controls for training. Whither the Robinsons!

Thank heaven I'm almost retired .........

Dennis K.

PS. Thanks for the note and info Gary. Will want to be with you guys for the the next Booker/WW informal safety evening please.

rotarywise
6th Sep 2010, 08:23
Dennis, I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the MD369HM but, since there is only one example of this variant on the UK register, I doubt that it will influence the CAA's decision to any significant degree.

The main problem is that these decisions are being made, in the vast majority of cases, by non-pilots who have little or no knowledge or experience of the flight training industry. Whilst this will make little difference under EASA, when the CAA will have no power to 'interpret' the legislation, right now it is putting UK industry at a very real commercial disadvantage against it's European competitors.

btw. the Robinsons do not have 'swing over' controls; this term refers to a single set of controls that can be re-positioned in flight in front of either the left or right seat - you don't see too many of those in helicopters! But, then, JAR-FCL 2 was originally a virtual word-for-word copy of JAR-FCL 1 with 'aeroplane' replaced with 'helicopter'.

Hughes500
6th Sep 2010, 08:40
Seriously guys what bloody difference does it make whether the ac has a turbine or a piston engine ? It is STILL a helicopter. if it is to do with performance than look at the R44 v 206, R44 is quicker, not a huge difference in weight. Wait a minute I might be bigging up a Robinson product better stop now !:ugh:

FLY 7
6th Sep 2010, 09:36
I have recently encountered this very problem, for my son's PPL(H).

Although he has some experience in piston helicopters, I wanted him to train in our own turbine, with our own very experienced instructor, through a registered facility at a fully equipped training airfield.

I did get a 'helpful' reply from the CAA, but their solution was that we should use a TRTO with only (literally) a few hours experience on the type, rather than the registered facility which had thousands of hours experience on type.

idle stop
6th Sep 2010, 13:23
To go back to the point made about Examiners......

FE (H) (PPL) are appointed by CAA FCL and may do PPL skills tests, and in addition LST/LPC at private or professional licence level; TRE (H) are appointed by CAA FOI and may do LST/LPC and OPC. Examiners may hold more than one examiner qualification. There are a few, very few, industry FE (H) (CPL) in addition to one full-time and several other available CAA staff examiners.

As to Standards:
All Examiners are appointed by the CAA or other JAA ‘competent authority’. In UK, Examiners are designated for their experience and personal qualities, and to some extent by geographic need, on initial appointment. Examiners are trained and checked before being authorised to examine, must follow the guidelines in the Flight Examiners Handbook, and are subject to an observed test or check (by CAA or FIE) every three years as part of the re-appointment process. (Of course, there’s a fee, too.) They must also be currently rated as FI (or TRI for multi-engine TRE).
Whilst there may be some variation in standard amongst examiners, hopefully this is within an acceptable bracket, based on the criteria above.

As to Independence:
Examiners may not, without permission in writing from the CAA, examine students that they have taught. They may, of course, be students of other FI at the RTF/FTO/TRTO where the examiner is based.
TRE are appointed to a company and will usually be company employees, and the company’s appointed TREs will fly with company pilots to do their LPC/OPC. (Can still not do an initial type rating check on own students.)
It would, IMHO, be impractical for the CAA to specifically allocate examiners at PPL GFT level from within the pool of FE, either CPL or PPL. Ditto with Licence (Grant of Type-Rating) Skills Tests, and, given the often short notice, totally impossible to legislate who does particular Licence Proficiency Checks.
From the student’s point of view, I doubt that the PPL student in the North of Scotland would be happy if the CAA had to allocate an FE from the South Coast, with the poor student stumping up for travel expenses. (OK, extreme, I know, but you get the point….)

And lastly, to whom is my responsibility as an Examiner?
• To the candidate (must be properly trained, objectively tested, and be safe and competent)
• To the CAA (they appoint me)
• To myself (see previous 2 bullet points, and NB potential for litigation….)

HillerBee
6th Sep 2010, 14:44
The interesting thing is, in the rest of EASA/JAA land this rule doesn't exist. So I guess the CAA is just trying to kill some already struggling flightschools before the lose their power to EASA....

I don't see the difference between flying a R44 or a Jetranger .... (yes, the R44 performs a lot better)

Hughes500
6th Sep 2010, 17:03
Seeing everything is EASA now can the CAA actually enforce this ?

GoodGrief
6th Sep 2010, 17:33
@HillerBee

Read my previous post. It is there for everybody in JAR land.
Looks like everybody is still running on 7 year old exemptions.


I agree with ivor about the type rating system being total nonsense.
But so is the basic licence as well.
Your ticket has an expiration date and all you do is sending a piece of paper and money to the con artists and you are good for another two years.

md 600 driver
6th Sep 2010, 17:48
has any one read or is up to speed with easa fcl

will will still have type ratings ?
who will do type ratings examiner or instructor as i read it for the new lpl/h the instructor will do type ratings is this the same for ppl/cpl ?
will there be a need to go to a trto do do conversion for lpl/ppl/cpl ?

GoodGrief
6th Sep 2010, 18:05
Found this

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/doc/Events/2008/june/Presentations%20and%20materials.zip

rotarywise
6th Sep 2010, 20:22
Seeing everything is EASA now can the CAA actually enforce this ?Everything is not EASA now, so far they have taken responsibility only for airworthiness. EASA Part FCL is not due for implementation until April 2012 and some think that this is an optimistic estimate.
will will (presumably 'we') still have type ratings ?Yes.
who will do type ratings examiner or instructor as i read it for the new lpl/h the instructor will do type ratings is this the same for ppl/cpl ? Not entirely sure what you are trying to ask but, in the case of the PPL and CPL, there will be no change from the current arrangements under JAR-FCL.
will there be a need to go to a trto do do conversion for lpl/ppl/cpl ?The TRTO, as such, will not exist. All organisations providing training for any EASA licence, rating or certificate, whether for helicopters, aeroplanes, sailplanes or balloons will have to be approved. For a type rating, you will have to attend an organisation that is approved to provide the appropriate training.

Found this http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/doc...0materials.zip (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/doc/Events/2008/june/Presentations%20and%20materials.zip)All at least two years out of date. The current version of Part -FCL is here (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20on%20personnel%20licensing %20%28LW%29.pdf)

Health Warning - The above answers are given with reference to the draft version of Part FCL (see link above) that has been submitted to the EC. There is no guarantee that this is what will eventually be adopted into EU law.

jellycopter
7th Sep 2010, 17:12
Does this mean all the guys and girls trained at DHFS Shawbury on the Squirrel will no longer be able to get a PPL(H) at the end of the 75ish hour course? I think DHFS is a Registered Facility, not a TRTO/FTO.

Any ideas?

JJ

SASless
7th Sep 2010, 17:23
ITD is speaking pure treason!

The whole type rating system should be abolished for small helicopters.

Is that not what the Yanks and their exemplry FAA do now?

Are not Type Ratings based upon weight of the aircraft (12,500 pounds and up....) or by some very unusual handling issues....(jets for example)?

Why should one have a different "type" rating for very similar aircraft.

Differences training perhaps....ah hang on a mo'....how would the CAA and the "Old Boy" Club justify their existence, income, and self promotion?

md 600 driver
7th Sep 2010, 17:50
JJ
yes get the dust off the historic flight 47 that should do or

if you had bought the 333s that were proposed instead of the squirrel you would be ok

does this also mean that mr robbies new turbine goat may also fall fowl

so much for simplyfing things with easa

lol

helispeediii
9th Sep 2010, 17:17
dear den,you taught me alot,but we all have to learn for ourselves what caa stands for and why all the caa staff walk funny its from sitting on the fence playing pass the parcel on desicions, in the end they come up with no as it easier otherwise you might have to think cs helispeediii