Flying training in the UK from unlicensed aerodromes
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying training in the UK from unlicensed aerodromes
Not really my area but I notice that the UK CAA is proposing to permit flying training from unlicensed areodromes. I thought I'd post it because it might be of interest and I don't see any other discussion. Details here.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I think (I hope!) that there will still be in place minimum requirements for surface condition, lack of runway slope, clear approaches and side slopes, safeguarding from inappropriate development etc as are required at licenced aerodromes. I don't think it would be right to train ab initio pilots at places that are little more than farm strips. The savings would be in the cost of the actual licence and visits from the full inspection team. I would imagine there would be more 'self declaration', provided a proper Safety Management System was in place. I think there will still be a requirement for 'Category Special' fire cover, for instance.
TheOddOne
TheOddOne
The CAA LAASG Committee made this recommendation early last year but it appears to have gone nowhere! http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/17/srg_asd...s_12-04-07.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 74
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just seen a missive from CAA. Apparently they're minded to accept the recommendations of the working group and are going through a final call for comments with the intention of inplementing the rule changes in December.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK, right of centre
Age: 52
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we'd prefer to stick with the CAA licence, i know that this keeps the Health and Safety people at bay as the CAA are looking after it instead. Better the devil you know......
Also, my thoughts are that following an accident (that can happen anywhere, not just at unlicenced strips) and someone is seriously injured and the case goes to court, fingers will be pointed as to whether a duty of care was given, irrespective of whether the CAA made you have a fire truck or not. If you had a CAA licence, at least you can argue you met their stringent standards. Probably would be ok from an unlicenced strip managed correctly, just i wouldn't want to test it in court.
The process of getting a CAA licence is quite time consuming, but most of the hoops to jump through are there to protect your backside if you do have a day in court. I know my human nature, being a bit lazy an' all, i probably wouldn't do all the things i'm supposed to if i didn't have the CAA visiting every 15 months or so.
Just my thoughts
KK
Also, my thoughts are that following an accident (that can happen anywhere, not just at unlicenced strips) and someone is seriously injured and the case goes to court, fingers will be pointed as to whether a duty of care was given, irrespective of whether the CAA made you have a fire truck or not. If you had a CAA licence, at least you can argue you met their stringent standards. Probably would be ok from an unlicenced strip managed correctly, just i wouldn't want to test it in court.
The process of getting a CAA licence is quite time consuming, but most of the hoops to jump through are there to protect your backside if you do have a day in court. I know my human nature, being a bit lazy an' all, i probably wouldn't do all the things i'm supposed to if i didn't have the CAA visiting every 15 months or so.
Just my thoughts
KK
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem being is that maintaining a CAA licence which is geared towards commercial ops and is very expensive serves nothing in the context of GA training. There has never been a life saved by an airfield fire crew according to the CAA but for a licence they are required to a certain CAT. This all puts a drain on schools and clubs that are all ready hemorrhaging students and members due to fuel costs and slower economy.
Saving the huge costs of a CAA licence and allowing these organisations to invest the money elsewhere will help keep things afloat.
With all respect Captain Kremen, if you are that lazy that you cant show enough discipline to do the things you are supposed to, should you have a place in aviation?
Saving the huge costs of a CAA licence and allowing these organisations to invest the money elsewhere will help keep things afloat.
With all respect Captain Kremen, if you are that lazy that you cant show enough discipline to do the things you are supposed to, should you have a place in aviation?
KK, I think you've hit the nail on the head. No matter how hard you try to conform to the proposed 'code of conduct' you would be left exposed to litigation should something go wrong during a rescue. Unless the requirement for rescue services to be provided on site are removed from the proposal then I can't see this working.
The advantage of being licensed is that you have an auditor to confirm your compliance with regulations, which offers a significant protection in this litigious society. Without it, it is your word against those who wish to sue you. And no, Bose X, I don't believe that following the code of conduct will offer sufficient protection. I know of one license holder for example, who is currently being sued for £250,000 due to the alleged status of his runway which 'caused' an aircraft to break its nosewheel. The fact that the airfield is licensed however and was recently inspected is helping enormously in defending against this action.
Additionally, I cannot see that the 'code of conduct' will actually save the airfield operator that much money. The CAA inspection fee is only around £1,500, and if, as is currently proposed, some form of rescue service is required which will require apparatus and on-going training for personnel, then I can't see that much money will be saved.
I suggest instead that the proposal is altered to factor in local emergency services response times instead of on site rescue services.
The advantage of being licensed is that you have an auditor to confirm your compliance with regulations, which offers a significant protection in this litigious society. Without it, it is your word against those who wish to sue you. And no, Bose X, I don't believe that following the code of conduct will offer sufficient protection. I know of one license holder for example, who is currently being sued for £250,000 due to the alleged status of his runway which 'caused' an aircraft to break its nosewheel. The fact that the airfield is licensed however and was recently inspected is helping enormously in defending against this action.
Additionally, I cannot see that the 'code of conduct' will actually save the airfield operator that much money. The CAA inspection fee is only around £1,500, and if, as is currently proposed, some form of rescue service is required which will require apparatus and on-going training for personnel, then I can't see that much money will be saved.
I suggest instead that the proposal is altered to factor in local emergency services response times instead of on site rescue services.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with Bose X on this one
Sounds like a very positive rule change
I would be very interested to know if those who are against this breath of fresh air and common sense have a vested interest. Do you currently operate from Licensed airfields ? Will you loose some customers to unlicensed aerodromes ?
Nothing like a bit more competition for those licensed monopoly airfield operators who have informal gentlemens agreements about how much things should cost locally.
Sounds like a very positive rule change
I would be very interested to know if those who are against this breath of fresh air and common sense have a vested interest. Do you currently operate from Licensed airfields ? Will you loose some customers to unlicensed aerodromes ?
Nothing like a bit more competition for those licensed monopoly airfield operators who have informal gentlemens agreements about how much things should cost locally.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Bose-x also.
Read the draft code of practice - there's a link earlier on this thread.
The requirements are quite detailed so, as I believe the code will have to be followed to enable flying training to take place, it seems to me that evidence of compliance with the code will be helpful to any airfield owner who gets on the wrong end of litigation.
The requirement for airfield licensing has long hindered flying training in this country and the proposed change is long overdue.
With fuel and other costs increasing all the time anything we can do to reduce the regulatory cost burden has to be welcomed with open arms!
Read the draft code of practice - there's a link earlier on this thread.
The requirements are quite detailed so, as I believe the code will have to be followed to enable flying training to take place, it seems to me that evidence of compliance with the code will be helpful to any airfield owner who gets on the wrong end of litigation.
The requirement for airfield licensing has long hindered flying training in this country and the proposed change is long overdue.
With fuel and other costs increasing all the time anything we can do to reduce the regulatory cost burden has to be welcomed with open arms!
I have been flying in France from a grass airfield open to all comers with no fire cover of any sort, no ATIS, nada, zilch, nothing, for the last seventeen years. A lot of people have got their PPLs there in that period, entirely legally and without problem or comlaint, other than the price of champagne in the bar. About 
time the Campaign against aviation allowed the same thing in UK 
time the Campaign against aviation allowed the same thing in UK
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Licensing illusion
Unless the requirement for having RFFS at training aerodromes is withdrawn completely there will be little if any costs saved with de-licencing. RFFS is the single most expensive hurdle for an operator. Both in operational costs and with the scheduling of RFFS staff/volunteers.
The exercise appears to me to be a cost saving effort for the CAA themselves. They have long complained that the licensing of small aerodromes is not cost effective. At the same time they act like a mother who won't let go.
Piper.Classique makes the point but for the CAA to give up their baby is not easy for them and the urge to regulate is strong, the british desease.
The exercise appears to me to be a cost saving effort for the CAA themselves. They have long complained that the licensing of small aerodromes is not cost effective. At the same time they act like a mother who won't let go.
Piper.Classique makes the point but for the CAA to give up their baby is not easy for them and the urge to regulate is strong, the british desease.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
the urge to regulate is strong, the british desease
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK, right of centre
Age: 52
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose x
My Lazy comment was tongue in cheek, so i am happy with my place in aviation but thanks for your thoughts though.
But the point was that it is some kind of help having a licence and meeting certain standards when defending a problem in court. Without one, without a regular independant inspection of your facility, you could miss something, or more likely fall foul of some lawyers' aggressive stance on an irrelevant detail that we all see in the press every day. Having met the CAA standards, you are at least being seen to do the right things and not relying on your own opinion of what should be done as a duty of care to your customers.
Its a fair point that the costs are high, but providing a duty of care outside of the CAA isn't going to be much cheaper if done properly. How could i operate a school not having some fire cover, irrespective of whether anyone has been saved by a crew. One day it might happen. And if H and S visit, they might decide i need a fire crew anyway and shut me down until i get one.
The scene in court - i explain that my fire crew tried their best to save a trapped pilot in a fatal fire and the prosecution asks me how the crew were trained to attempt this. How do i know the crew were competent?
Do i have records of training? etc etc until you fail some question.
I'm more concerned about operating under H & S than under the CAA, both for costs and paperwork.
My Lazy comment was tongue in cheek, so i am happy with my place in aviation but thanks for your thoughts though.
But the point was that it is some kind of help having a licence and meeting certain standards when defending a problem in court. Without one, without a regular independant inspection of your facility, you could miss something, or more likely fall foul of some lawyers' aggressive stance on an irrelevant detail that we all see in the press every day. Having met the CAA standards, you are at least being seen to do the right things and not relying on your own opinion of what should be done as a duty of care to your customers.
Its a fair point that the costs are high, but providing a duty of care outside of the CAA isn't going to be much cheaper if done properly. How could i operate a school not having some fire cover, irrespective of whether anyone has been saved by a crew. One day it might happen. And if H and S visit, they might decide i need a fire crew anyway and shut me down until i get one.
The scene in court - i explain that my fire crew tried their best to save a trapped pilot in a fatal fire and the prosecution asks me how the crew were trained to attempt this. How do i know the crew were competent?
Do i have records of training? etc etc until you fail some question.
I'm more concerned about operating under H & S than under the CAA, both for costs and paperwork.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 74
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As ever, this is an issue of proportionality. As a previous poster has stated, there's never been a case of the occupants of a training aircraft being saved from death by the appropriately trained fire crew on a licensed civil aerodrome. A well-rounded PPL course should include operating from both busy airports and quiet grass strips as the licence privileges allow the new pilot to use both. Remember too that the division between SEP and 3-axis microlight has fuzzied to the point of obscurity. It is a nonsense that two FTOs can exist on the same field, one using PA-38s and the other Ikarus with the Tomahawk operator having to stop training at the end of licensed flying whilst the microlight can legally continue. Full marks to CAA on this one - a pragmatic solution which will work well, provided that the good FTOs (that's most of them, in my experience) interpret the new freedom sensibly.
A positive offspin might just be a wider spread of schools around the country, encouraging more people into the cockpit.
A positive offspin might just be a wider spread of schools around the country, encouraging more people into the cockpit.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South east England
Age: 53
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am hoping this finally happens. I have lots of little fields that I like to use that keep the Helicopter noise haters at bay. It always gets my goat when I get charged more for landing an R22 on the grass beside the runway than a Cessna 210 gets charged for using the runway and the taxiways. I cant teach anyone who owns their own heli from their own field until we touch down at the airfield and swap seats. What a waste of time and money.
Hope sense starts to prevail.
Hope sense starts to prevail.
