FAA - v - JAA who does it right?

[Geoffersincornwall]

The perception is that the JAA do risk analysis and then regulate accordingly and the FAA wait for proof of a systemic problem and THEN regulate - maybe.

Came across this little gem on Wikipedia:-

Initially, aviation flight schools showed little interest in the "Link Trainer". Link also demonstrated his trainer to the US Army Air Force (USAAF), but with no result. However, the situation changed in 1934 when the Army Air Force was given a Government contract to fly the postal mail. This included having to fly in bad weather as well as good, for which the USAF had not previously carried out much training. During the first weeks of the mail service, nearly a dozen Army pilots were killed. The Army Air Force hierarchy remembered Ed Link and his trainer. Link flew in to meet them at Newark Field in New Jersey, and they were impressed in his ability to arrive on a day with poor visibility, due to practice on his training device. The result was that the USAAF purchased four Link Trainers at $3,500 each, and this can be said to mark the start of the world flight simulation industry.

Sound familiar. Not the FAA of course but maybe a Trans-Atlantic mindset in their DNA???? It shows that some folk over there have the ingenuity and insight not only to see a need but also to provide a solution. Pity the people that run the place seem like numb-skulls and were (are?) unable to foresee the consequences of their actions. Maybe 'Risk Analysis' was not part of the US vocabulary or maybe US Army Generals never looked out the window!!


G.

[Heliport]

American mentality v European mentality
=
Can do unless v Cannot do unless.


H.

[alouette]

The FAA, with all its bumps in the system is still more user friendly then the JAA. However, when it comes to validations in certain countries then the respective authorities want to see type ratings printed onto your license, and it makes it sometimes difficult to obtain a validation for your FAA license. The FAA license is till in ICAO license though. In my opinion, the JAA/EASA concept is nothing else but a money milking system in a desperate attempt to diminish aviation on the basis of lowering the accident statistics.

[Flyting]

the JAA/EASA concept is nothing else but a money milking system
I'll just stick with that.....

The amount of money you have to lay out to do anything in JAR land is rediculous.....
From the price of courses, exam fees, initial medical fee, IF training on twins...etc etc :ugh: and there is very little difference in the end result... we all learn to fly roughly the same way, we all do the same exams roughly the same - learning from question banks/books, we all fly in IF the same, in England, America, or Hong Kong.....but you better start saving, because you have to pay to learn how to do it "the same" in JAR land.
And forget about a validation..... JAR is too good for the rest of the world!
:{:{:{

[SASless]

Having been a participant in both systems....hands down I prefer the FAA over the CAA. The CAA/JAA/EASA whatever is the favorite flavor at the time over there...is way too complicated, expensive, inflexible, and damn sure too hung up on its own self imagined standard of excellence. It is not user friendly, is way too bureaucratical, and fails the industry it is supposed to serve.

One example is the matter of "Type Rating".

When every single aircraft (near about) is considered a "Type Rating" it really confuses the issue.

At least the FAA understand the concept of groups of aircraft falling under the same "Type".

The FAA does fall down as it tries to force Rotorcraft into an Airplane framed set of Regulations....such as the Type Ratiing system that was created for Airplanes before helicopters were really sigificant in numbers, sizes, and commplexity.

To compare the two systems for "User Friendliness"....file a VFR Fligh tPlan and gather weather and Notam information and use flight following services in the United States and try to duplicate that with a flight in the UK. Have you folks ever heard of a thing called a "Flight Service Station"?

Our system has its faults....but it beats Hell out of the CAA/JAA/EASA hands down!

The major difference begins with funding sources. The American method sees Aviation as being of value to the community, part of the national infrastructure, and a necessary and vital part of the national transportation system and thus supports the system primarily by tax revenues from the general population. The UK has the diametrically opposite view and funds the system on the back of the individual users (Operators, Pilots, Engineers...and passengers).

Geoffers.....Risk Analysis in the UK is just a tool of the HSE Bueaucrats to enhance their power and allow them to get a strangle hold on business. As Heliport correctly points out....in the UK one cannot do something unless it is specifically allowed. In the USA....unless it is specifically prohibited...one can carry on. That is the difference between a Bureacracy allowed to run wild and a national mindset that limits the power of government.

Over all....I was not terribly impressed with the UK system of Aeronautics for what it claimed to be but was not. It sure seemed to cater to the Upper Class and denied access to the Common Man by its complexity and sheer cost. If not...why do so many Brits come to the USA to do their flying and training then return to Blighty?

Taking up on something 212Man has done.....he has encased his Nigerian ATPL in glass with a small brass tag that says "In Case of Unemployment- Break Glass" (or words to that effect)....I have done the same with my UK ATPL but the caption is "In Case of Terminal Illness- Break Glass and Renew!"

I won't live a day longer but at least I will feel like I lived an eternity while doing the renewal!

[Furia]

It is quite clear. The FAA was designed to promote aviation, be commercial or general and to help to develope it since many years ago. It has done it quite well.
The JAA have been recently created to restrict, limit and control aviation and most important to make the most money possible from it.
I have trained and got licenses in both systems and while the FAA puts more enphasis in practice, training and simple but safe practices, the JAA puts all its weight into paperwork, theory and minimum practice.
While the FAA is clearly "non airline" aviation friendly, the JAA sees anything smaller than a 737 as an "inconvenience" that must be regulated, restricted and if possible erradicated from its skies.

[Rotorbee]

Nobody in his right mind calls the european system the best.
But, the EASA only has to look for safety. The FAA has to gouvern the safety and promote aviation. A completely other mind set.
In the US I can rent a an R44 for 320 to 350 bucks, in Switzerland the same ships costs me 1000$ and more. The reason? They fly less, they have higher costs, the more it costs the less they fly, the more they have to ask for every hour.
Mecanics (sorry engineers) have pretty low wages here. It isn't the maintenace, that makes it more expensive, because that is everywhere the same.
Land on an airport and you have to pay, land off airport and you still have to pay. You need a off airport landing permit which you have to pay for, but no additional training is required. That's just making money on the back of the pilot.
Does Europe has less accidents per flight or per flight hour? I doubt it, because the pilots fly less and are therefore less current.
Once I had a problem with my CFI renewal procedure and the FAA guys were extremely helpfull and did everything to help me. That's how it should be.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Nobody sitting on the fence then.........

I wonder if there is someone out there prepared to speak up for the jolly old JAR-chappies??

..... and SAS, what do you say about the generals who put profit before the lives of their troops. Hardly in the true tradition of the Pony Express!!

Parallels with HEMS??

G.

[Helinut]

The European situation is going to get much worse when EASA rules apply to heles, starting next year, and replaces the way that the CAA selectively operated under JAA, or even before JAA.

One of the redeeming features of the UK CAA system was that, in the end, a CAA Flight Ops Inspector or Surveyor or a bod in the Belgrano could give an exemption. And exemptions was the way that lots of things got done. [It would have been simpler not to have such restrictive rules, but once you have the exemption you were hot to trot]. Since EASA are now auditing the national authorities' performance against the EASA rulebook, exemptions are more or less impossible.

[HeliTester]

Furia,

Regarding FAA’s role in promoting aviation, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 removed the FAA’s dual mandate to both regulate safety and promote industry development. One section of that law entitled “Elimination of Dual Mandate” identifies “safety as the highest priority” and specifically mentions the “elimination of promotion.” I don’t know how that was implemented. Perhaps JimL can weigh-in on that.

HT

[Ant T]

Another vote for FAA - particularly agree with SASless post#5

I am British. I did an FAA fixed-wing CPL/IR in the early 80's - after the IR training, the written exam, about a two-hour oral exam before going on the flight test, then taking off not knowing beforehand where the examiner was going to have me divert to, self-briefing the approach to an airport I had never been to etc etc, I then had a pretty good understanding of how the IFR environment worked in the States. The training was all very practically based and all about learning things that would matter in flight and the real world. The exams were about making sure you knew how to really understand approach charts, en-route charts, where to access weather information in flight, etc etc.

I subsequently did UK CPL/H IR and CPL/A IR - I found the groundschool subjects very interesting academically but at the expense of learning anything of much practical use. The IR training was pretty much focused on knowing exactly what to expect at each point in the test, (i.e exam coaching) and very little else - at the end of it I did not understand the practicalities of European IFR flying at all, and it took a long time to then find out how it really worked in the real world.

The FAA system was practical, efficient, low cost - the CAA system was academic, inefficient (hurdles put in the way for no obvious reason than bloody mindedness), and eye-wateringly expensive (my CPL/H was fortunately courtesy of Mr Bristow, but my UK CPL/A IR was self-funded).

For me what proves the point is that FAA licensed pilots seem to manage just as well as their supposedly better trained (in the JAA view of the world) colleagues.

[170']

Most converts from FAA have similar or worse impressions to Ant T

Re-bait to the bait re: Generals and Profit? (Can't let this slide, can we :=

Surely one studied modern history at your seat of highest learning Geoffers?
Does the phrase 'Lions led by Donkeys' ring any bells?

Yes, time has passed since the glory days of British Generalship, but on order of magnitude alone it behooves one ill to raise the issue. As a Brit I mean :E

170'

[Geoffersincornwall]

Touche!

That begs a wild thread-creep that I will resist. You mistake my observations as 'arrogant breast-beating' when I assure you, SAS et al that I am merely stimulating debate on some old chestnuts.

My own views on regulation are closer to yours and those of other correspondents than you might imagine but in the search for some original thinking on the subject the odd hand-grenade thrown over the garden wall does work well.

If the FAA was on the right track all along then they would still be doing things the way they did in the 60s. Is that the case? Or are they becoming more pro-active and realising that a totally 'laissez-faire' helicopter world is not going to deliver optimum safety without a bit of 'nudging' in the right direction.

If they are 'nudging' operators, are they not, in effect, moving in the same direction as JARLAND. The big question then is when will the trend in that direction cease?

Then we could see the FAA standing on the same ground in 5-10 years that was occupied by JAR-folk today!! Where do the arguments go then?

G.

[170']

Geoffers..
Thread creep ops abound in most posts and I think I know where that one would go ;-)
For transplants such as myself, I’ll admit the tendency to look back with rose tinted spectacles (I will never repeat these words ;-) and I will never say we haven’t got issues over there as well. But the issue is one of comparison and relative weaknesses and strengths..
I am concerned about the developments within the FAA. However I believe that it’s a political move, rather than a general attempt to fix a system that ‘ain’t broke’… and subsequent Administrations will ‘heal what ails us’.. At least I hope so.
In response to maintaining the status quo of the 60’s..
The 60’s are not a good point of reference due to the incredible escalation in aviation worldwide. New ground was being broken practically daily and there was a definite ‘catch-up’ element from the CAA and CAB thru 67-8 and the merger to become the FAA. The escalation IN RVN and political issues at home all muddied the waters. But if we could go back to the late 70’s and early 80’s…. Game on!
Getting back to your first paragraph; and that’s the best definition I've heard of the differences BTW… Absolutely perfect!
But we have to face the reality that Jarland is a complete f……g shambles, and it’s been that way for so long that it’s beginning (to many) to appear to be normal.
At least in the pre; JAA days I could go to the authority and plead my case, on specific points of law, establish past experience in the type of operation etc and acquire occasional dispensations and the like. But now it’s damned near impossible to find who to go to, and if you find someone to go to the chances are he/she is on ‘stress’ leave…Or has no idea what you’re talking about.
Risk analysis has its place, no argument! But we can’t analyze every aspect of helicopter aviation and issue bans on operations that could allow incidents that haven’t and might never happen. Yes a certain oxymoronic common sense has to be applied, but if we lived our private lives the way we are regulated to live our professional lives, interaction between people would be relegated to VOIP and email; as there’s a very real risk of catching an infection in ‘one on one’ contact, not to mention the risk of taking the tube or metro to the meeting place.
We have to re-find a balance, and until we do, it’s not even a case of sitting on the fence. The FAA leads by 8 lengths…You know it’s true, but the forum would wilt without the challenge…:D

[Pandalet]

Throwing another comparison out there, how about the HEMS accident rate in the UK vs. in the USA? Even when you correct for the fact that there are a LOT more HEMS flights in America, the accident rate still seems higher. Is that just a natural cost of a system that encourages more flights (so you get a more prolific industry, but at a cost to safety)?

[170']

Hi Pandalet

I would in a sort of masochistic way be slightly through to somewhat interested, in any statistical values that supports the 'still seems higher' theory...I have said more than once to my 20 year old son that statistically, a parent is eventually likely to beat the snot out of his own offspring if offspring does not clean up his room.

His normal response is ' statistics are easily manipulated'

Hope things are going well...

[Pandalet]

Hey 170'

I did start out by having a quick hunt for some useful supporting evidence, but couldn't find anything obvious (if someone can point me to some, I'd appreciate it); hence 'seems higher' rather than 'the evidence shows it to be higher'. I'm questioning based on discussion and hearsay, rather than solid fact, as I'd like to know what others closer to those parts of the industry than I am think/know.

Things are mostly unchanged, but there is the possibility of positive movement ahead.

[SASless]

Then we could see the FAA standing on the same ground in 5-10 years that was occupied by JAR-folk today!! Where do the arguments go then?

G.

We see the current American Administration doing its dead level best to copy European/UK socialism here in our country, business, and economy all the while watching the results of decades of the same in the UK and Europe.

Just because one is being imitated does not necesarily make one a proper role model.

The last time we bashed accident rates and the like....there was no significant difference between the UK and the USA. Nick Lappos pointed that out in some detail as I recall.

Having sat the exams in both systems....the American system is by far more functional. The system uses a building block approach...PPL/CPL/ATPL and each level demands higher precision in the accomplishment of flight maneuvers and adds different levels of learning at each stage of licensing.

The written tests and flight tests are both geared to ensure a proper knowledge of the tasks one shall be confronted by while actually flying. I always wondered why I had to know the inter-workings of a Cereal Bowl compass or the landing gear system of a Lancaster Bomber in order to fly a helicopter in the UK. I am especially happy I got a waiver on the Morse Code section as well.

Does that make me any less the competent pilot?

[check]

Geoff,

Many years ago I attended a lecture on Flight Safety and Human Factors at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London.

One of the speakers was from the FAA and during his lecture he brought up the difference in philosophies between the FAA and CAA. He took two pilots, one trained to FAA standards and one to the CAA's. At the end of the training both flew to the same standard but the CAA licence holder was streets ahead with "aviation knowledge". When both reached 1200 flying hours both flying ability and "knowledge" were the same. The CAA candidate lost all the useless bits on the way and the FAA candidate picked up all that was useful.

Which is the best?, most students will always opt for the easiest solution and at the end of the day he/she will not be a lessor pilot for it if they follow the FAA route. If they follow the CAA way then will finish up a lot poorer, be more knowledgeable, for a time at least, and have a licence that normally only requires Air Law to change.

I have to pick up on Heliport where he differentiates between can and cannot do with regard to the US and Europe. Flying in Holland weather/conditions marginal, Ops Manual out, to a man the Brits said we can go, our Dutch colleagues said no. The reason was the book did not say we could go, but it also did not say we could not go and two different cultures crossed. The point I'm making is that the line between the US and Europe is fuzzy because Europe is united with its confusion and cultures.

I've used CAA because that is what it was at the time but it can be replaced by JAA.

[SASless]

So why spend time and money requiring the teaching of useless bits?

Is the need to feel "superior" worth all that dosh and agro?

[Geoffersincornwall]

If you build a helicopter today you have little option but to build it to the latest certification standards. These will make your helicopter more expensive and a good deal heavier than you might like but you can't go backwards and build it to the old standards - if you did you as likely as not will be unable to sell it.

The unfortunate situation in Europe is that we have been through two iterations of 'new' regulators. First the JAA that was a 'club' of NAAs that wanted to 'harmonise' but couldn't really do that and turn a blind eye to all the new thinking that coloured our views of safety and related issues. So JARs ended up with a perceived 'tightening' of the regs.

To do that whole exercise again before we have really finished the JAA-thing is a big ask for it will not be allowed to be 'different' to JAA unless it is DIFFERENT to the JAA. It being impossible to regulate LESS we are likely to end up being regulated even MORE.

This unfortunate reality does not bode well for the future of European aviation and I suspect there are a lot of nervous NAA folk out their who were quite happy with a somewhat pick-and-mix application of JARs that gave them some elbow room and a comfortable un-audited way of life and now face having to make the rules stick.

It will be interesting to watch from the sidelines!!

G.

[170']

Geoffers, Anyone?
Any idea on timing before we might see a little enforcement/compliance from the various NAA's. Is there an actual date set for the removal of NAA privilege to operate under NAA regulations.
170'

[Epiphany]

I have JAR, FAA and CASA ATPL(H)'s. JAR and FAA are poles apart and IMHO both need to move a little closer to the middle ground which I think is presently occupied by CASA who have it just about right. However, there is no such thing as the 'perfect' system.

[Lonewolf_50]

Nobody sitting on the fence then.........
I wonder if there is someone out there prepared to speak up for the jolly old JAR-chappies??
..... and SAS, what do you say about the generals who put profit before the lives of their troops. Hardly in the true tradition of the Pony Express!!
Parallels with HEMS??
That seems to have little to do with the topic, FAA/JAA comparison, unless all you wish to create is gratuitous, pointless Yank bashing.

I am trying to divine how your non-sequitur example of Link (pre WW II, we are three generations past that) is in any way a point related to your topic.

Care to explain?

We used to say the same as SASless says, in re Navy pilots versus Air Force pilots: Navy (if it doesn't say you can't do it, you can) Air Force (if it doesn't say you can, you can't).

I wonder at how often, and in what shades of gray, that philosophical difference raises its head in comparisons between organizations. :cool:

[SASless]

That begging forgiveness stuff sounds good.....but based upon my past experience...forgiveness can be a hard sell sometimes! One has to be prepared to pay for one's Sin when called forth to do so and not make a habit of having to do so.

Captain Hypen-Smyth of Eket fame summed it up...."Don't miss a Takekoff and never ever argue with the Chief Pilot!"

[Geoffersincornwall]

Lonely Wolf

The trick when baiting yanks is not to respond when they bait you back. When faced with threads on tedious subjects like the FAA you have to liven it up a bit and SAS is always going to give you a major literary contribution which is thought provoking and educational.

Such is his literary contribution (8,000 posts) that it would be worth putting a collection of the best together and publishing them. What we would need is a good title - anyone have a suggestion. Mine would be 'Prime Posts from Principled PPruner', but I'm sure something better could be found.

The two essentials for a helicopter pilot are a thick skin and and good sense of humour. Add to that the ability to speak the following phrases in whatever the local language happens to be that month:

Where is the nearest hotel with a bar?
Where can I find a taxi?
Two beers please?
My friend will pay!

G.

[SASless]

Bait a Brit....surely one jests!:E

[KKoran]

The major difference begins with funding sources. The American method sees Aviation as being of value to the community, part of the national infrastructure, and a necessary and vital part of the national transportation system and thus supports the system primarily by tax revenues from the general population. The UK has the diametrically opposite view and funds the system on the back of the individual users (Operators, Pilots, Engineers...and passengers).

SASless,

You are right about the US seeing aviation as a vital part of the national transportation system, but wrong about the funding. The majority of the FAA's funding (68.8% in Fiscal Year 2011) (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/AATF%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) comes from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which is funded from aviation-related excise taxes on passengers, cargo, and fuel, not tax revenues from the general population.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Have we finished chucking rocks at the JARLAND folk? Maybe the guys who know it best can air their views about the FAA. Are they so perfect?

G.

[Lonewolf_50]

Are FAA so perfect?

Who has claimed this? :confused:

It is worth noting the point made earlier in the thread, that EASA and JAA functions, on one side of the pond two separate entities, are more or less folded into the function of one agency on this side of the pond.

I am not convinced, given the above, that one should believe one is making an apples to apples comparison.

Thinking further, it seems to me that JAA and EASA as agencies have a slightly trickier job in the aggregate, having to navigate and deal with the national political issues of a few dozen nations. The FAA only has to deal with one national government (the other agencies and the legislative) which while trouble enough, is at least not as filled with booby traps as what the folks across the pond have to deal with.

[SASless]

KK,

Does that metric include all the local airports that are owned and maintained by City/County governments?

Indeed the bulk of the FAA funding derives from fees you note....and the Airline Industry makes a loud case crying about that as they feel the Corporate and Private sectors get a cheap ride on their behalf as a result.

Yet we have to remember that the vast majority of flights daily take place from small airports and are done VFR with not a lot of demand upon the large airports.

The Airlines also skip over the subsidies they get for operating into airports that are considered "remote"....a program that has been under much scrutiny lately for its gross inefficiency.

Casting a simple Statistic out without providing the underlying data does not always answer the question fully.

A quote from the FAA Inspector General's testimony to Congress about the 2012 Budget......

FAA is currently financed by two mechanisms: excise taxes deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and a General Fund contribution. While the General Fund has paid for about one-third of FAA’s total budget the past 2 years, in fiscal year 2012 the General Fund is expected to contribute $8.2 billion, or 44 percent, towards the total budget. In addition, past differences between FAA’s budget, Trust Fund revenues, and General Fund contribution were bridged by drawing down the Trust Fund’s uncommitted balance. These drawdowns have caused a 90-percent decline in the uncommitted balance, from $7.3 billion at the end of fiscal year 2001 to $770 million at the end of fiscal year 2010 (see figure 1).
Figure 1. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Uncommitted Balance Fiscal Year 2001 to Fiscal Year 2010 (Dollars in Millions)
Source: FAA

Please recall the recent debacle by Congress where the Trust Fund revenues were allowed to lapse while the folks in DC fussed over something silly. We also have to remember how John "Haditha" Murtha squandered over 120 Million USD's on his favorite small airport near his home. Add in the decline in the economy and we shall see a greater support of the FAA's Budget by General Fund contributions as the Trust Fund is damaged by politics and other factors.

So...if we take the figure from the IG's Testimony and add in the non-Federal contribution to the overall National Aviation System....I would suggest the Airline/Air Freight Industry does not "pay for the FAA".

As to having to pay a "fuel tax"....is that not just a fact of life anywhere in the World we live. The guvmint has to fund itself somehow...and that next to taxing groceries is probably the single best constant source of tax revenue.

[212man]

If you build a helicopter today you have little option but to build it to the latest certification standards. These will make your helicopter more expensive and a good deal heavier than you might like but you can't go backwards and build it to the old standards - if you did you as likely as not will be unable to sell it.



I'm sure you are aware, Geoff, that Part 29 and CS29 are aligned, so the general discussion over certification is is not valid. However, you may like to trawl though some of the recent FAA decisions regarding cerification of the S-92 Hoist and Cabin Tie down rings - now there's an interesting discussion!!!!!

Thanks SASless for the reminder - Here's the picture!!

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa50/S92ctc/DSC_5328.jpg

After the first two or three responses I had rather decided to ignore commenting on this thread, as it was descending down the usual baseless and ignorant course, but caved in!!

I guess I'll see you (Geoff) next month in Holland - look forward to it!

Cheers

[grumpytroll]

A pointless discussion in the mode of he said she said. If you fly in the U.S. you will get to know the FAA. if you fly in Europe etc. you will get to know the JAA or EASA. I am not planning to leave the U.S. just because I like the alternate better and no one on the other side of the atlantic is coming here because the FAA seems so much better. It is what it is and as a professional pilot for 26 years there ain't a damn thing I can do to change either one. I like my job. Flying helicopters for a living is a fantastic way to go. If you don't like the money, go to Harvard! Enjoy. Cheers.

[Brian Abraham]

If you don't like the money, go to Harvard

But you need the money to go to Harvard grumpy. Unfortunately I never got enough money. :{

http://www.alaskawingcaf.org/images/img012.jpg

IMHO both need to move a little closer to the middle ground which I think is presently occupied by CASA who have it just about right

I hope VB managed the rewrite of the ATPL(H) syllabus OK Epiphany. The lads saw little point in having to learn the Boeing 767 EFIS and pressurisation systems.

[Geoffersincornwall]

You make an important point. Where the pressure of commercial interest has come to bear we see a measure of harmonisation. As the helicopter world becomes ever more globalised is there scope for harmonisation of the FCL regulations? Control of Flight Operations? After airworthiness where next?

G.

[SASless]

Create a thing called ICAO perhaps?