Skill Tests and Proficiency Checks - Astonishing new paperwork......
Thread Starter
Skill Tests and Proficiency Checks - Astonishing new paperwork......
I have just come across what must be the most absurd product of the Belgrano inmates ever. There is a new 8 page form out called the 'SRG\1119 - Skill Tests and Proficiency Checks for Aeroplane Type/Class Ratings - Application and Report'. This is obviously intended to replace the usual forms (which were bad enough) - and it has to be used for the initial/revalidation/renewal flights for Type/Class ratings AND the revalidation by experience of a Single Engine Piston or Touring Motor Glider Class Rating.
The form itself is riddled with errors e.g. 'Registration/STD code' and 'Block Hours' are in the 'Examiner' section, not the 'Application' section, the 'Certificate of Course Completion' has some errors in the 'Course Details' section, Pages 3 to 6 are the 'MPA Type Rating, Skill Test and (presumably they mean 'or') Proficiency Check Schedule - Examiner's Record', however there is no equivalent SPA version. It contains the following gem 'Any of the practical training items may be included in the test/check of the examiner's discretion' - presumably they mean at the Examiner's discretion? But best of all, under 'Test Check Procedures' it states 'The applicant should pass all sections and items in the 2 attempts'. In JAR-speak, 'should' is only a recommendation - hence a lawyer would argue that the applicant is not required to pass the test at all!
There is no guidance to state what must be tested/assessed for SPA/SEP or any other SPA for that matter. I had to check the calendar as I thought this must be an April Fools' Day joke. Come on, CAA - this utter piece of poo must be withdrawn forthwith and substantially corrected and whoever drafted it should be relieved of their responsibility. I'd gladly volunteer to do the work for you - at a consultancy fee of £300 per hour plus expenses........
The form itself is riddled with errors e.g. 'Registration/STD code' and 'Block Hours' are in the 'Examiner' section, not the 'Application' section, the 'Certificate of Course Completion' has some errors in the 'Course Details' section, Pages 3 to 6 are the 'MPA Type Rating, Skill Test and (presumably they mean 'or') Proficiency Check Schedule - Examiner's Record', however there is no equivalent SPA version. It contains the following gem 'Any of the practical training items may be included in the test/check of the examiner's discretion' - presumably they mean at the Examiner's discretion? But best of all, under 'Test Check Procedures' it states 'The applicant should pass all sections and items in the 2 attempts'. In JAR-speak, 'should' is only a recommendation - hence a lawyer would argue that the applicant is not required to pass the test at all!
There is no guidance to state what must be tested/assessed for SPA/SEP or any other SPA for that matter. I had to check the calendar as I thought this must be an April Fools' Day joke. Come on, CAA - this utter piece of poo must be withdrawn forthwith and substantially corrected and whoever drafted it should be relieved of their responsibility. I'd gladly volunteer to do the work for you - at a consultancy fee of £300 per hour plus expenses........
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Northampton
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Some time ago I applied for and got my letter from Gatwick saying that I could go on the examiner's course. However, after seeing the paperwork involved in examining I had second thoughts about going ahead and eventually decided not to bother. The paperwork outlined in your post is just beyond belief. What on Earth can be the rationale behind it?
On a similar vein, I'm baffled by the course commencement and course completion certificates that I have to do for the MEP (Land) Class rating. They're just bits of paper for the sake of it, as far as I can see. They don't seem to serve any useful function at all. Then there is the application form, upon which I'm supposed to initial and date every part of the syllabus. Don't they trust us to do our job properly without filling in endless bits of paper which serve little or no purpose? The answer, presumably, is that they don't!
Best of luck with the examining, BEagle, but I think I'll stick to instructing; it seems marginally less fraught.
Regards, GT.
Some time ago I applied for and got my letter from Gatwick saying that I could go on the examiner's course. However, after seeing the paperwork involved in examining I had second thoughts about going ahead and eventually decided not to bother. The paperwork outlined in your post is just beyond belief. What on Earth can be the rationale behind it?
On a similar vein, I'm baffled by the course commencement and course completion certificates that I have to do for the MEP (Land) Class rating. They're just bits of paper for the sake of it, as far as I can see. They don't seem to serve any useful function at all. Then there is the application form, upon which I'm supposed to initial and date every part of the syllabus. Don't they trust us to do our job properly without filling in endless bits of paper which serve little or no purpose? The answer, presumably, is that they don't!
Best of luck with the examining, BEagle, but I think I'll stick to instructing; it seems marginally less fraught.
Regards, GT.
Just how much longer do we have to put up with all this bureaucratic nonsense which does nothing to further the cause of flight safety??
The reality is that examiners have discretion and (if they want to) they can soon find a reason to fail a candidate.
I know of at least one examiner who has packed it in because he is fed up with all the paperwork and others (including me!) who have no wish to have to spend hours pouring over meaningless paperwork instead of doing a proper debrief.
Roll on the revolution!
The reality is that examiners have discretion and (if they want to) they can soon find a reason to fail a candidate.
I know of at least one examiner who has packed it in because he is fed up with all the paperwork and others (including me!) who have no wish to have to spend hours pouring over meaningless paperwork instead of doing a proper debrief.
Roll on the revolution!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Beagle’s comments on the form SRG\1119.
It must be the most absurd piece of paperwork ever produced by the CAA. The previous LST and LPC forms were at least workable and both the examiner and the candidate could utilise those forms to determine what had to be included in the test/check. The latest offering from the Belgrano fails totally to address the content of an LST or LPC for SPA, and as worded for an MPA the form succeeds in making every single item discretionary.
Luckily the CAA have not written to examiners informing us of the introduction of the new form therefore since I have not been told of its existence I do not know of its existence and will continue to utilise the previous forms.
It must be the most absurd piece of paperwork ever produced by the CAA. The previous LST and LPC forms were at least workable and both the examiner and the candidate could utilise those forms to determine what had to be included in the test/check. The latest offering from the Belgrano fails totally to address the content of an LST or LPC for SPA, and as worded for an MPA the form succeeds in making every single item discretionary.
Luckily the CAA have not written to examiners informing us of the introduction of the new form therefore since I have not been told of its existence I do not know of its existence and will continue to utilise the previous forms.
Thread Starter
Yup - very glad to read on the www.srg.caa.co.uk website that this ridiculous form has been withdrawn! Thank you, CAA - my confidence has been restored!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, whats more is they have just published a great book called Lasors. Cost £5.00 plus postage and is a little gem for all the new licencing procedures and is long over due.
Now I don't mind paying for this but I am very annoyed that the CAA fail to inform all examiners of its existence. We as examiners are supposed to be "freelance". As I do this part-time now for a hobby, I am very much freelance. This book is a must for any examiner and can help "us" answer the many questions that come my way about licencing issues. I am told this book was sent to each flying club. If we as examiners where told of these gems and therefore invited to purchase them. We could do our job properly as "ambassadors" to the CAA crap licencing stuff and answer most questions of the flying fraternity before they ever flood the useless belgrano with what they call "irritating" calls.
We pay massive renewal fees as examiners, (just done mine & bitter!) and get treated by the CAA as cretins. Yet they then have the nerve to make us do more of their work for them without giving us the tools to do it. I think it is time for a revolt. I reckon they should do what the airlines do when it gets out of hand. Shut the thing down, sell it all off at the market and start all over again with the best bits. If there are any. About the only thing going for it is the ivory tower.
Was there the other day and could'nt believe the language of the security staff at the front desk. Every other word was the "C" word. Not very professional! Sums up the whole farce to me.
Now I don't mind paying for this but I am very annoyed that the CAA fail to inform all examiners of its existence. We as examiners are supposed to be "freelance". As I do this part-time now for a hobby, I am very much freelance. This book is a must for any examiner and can help "us" answer the many questions that come my way about licencing issues. I am told this book was sent to each flying club. If we as examiners where told of these gems and therefore invited to purchase them. We could do our job properly as "ambassadors" to the CAA crap licencing stuff and answer most questions of the flying fraternity before they ever flood the useless belgrano with what they call "irritating" calls.
We pay massive renewal fees as examiners, (just done mine & bitter!) and get treated by the CAA as cretins. Yet they then have the nerve to make us do more of their work for them without giving us the tools to do it. I think it is time for a revolt. I reckon they should do what the airlines do when it gets out of hand. Shut the thing down, sell it all off at the market and start all over again with the best bits. If there are any. About the only thing going for it is the ivory tower.
Was there the other day and could'nt believe the language of the security staff at the front desk. Every other word was the "C" word. Not very professional! Sums up the whole farce to me.
Thread Starter
S&L - No, nothing I have is 'free'! I paid in full for my PC, GPRS phone and fax machine. So far this financial year I'm £800+ out of pocket due to expenses involved in my part-time work as a UK/FE (PPL) and member of the NPPL steering committee - but the 'day job' is pretty well paid, so it's nihil ad rem.
CaptAirProx, the current LASORS 2002 is a bit of a trial by our chums at the Belgrano. I've already expounded its virtues in several PPRuNe threads and have had a Thankyougram from the CFE. His idea is that LASORS should eventually be a document which ALL pilots should own; it is very readable and an excellent publication much like FAR AIMS is in the USofA and I certainly agree that all pilots should own a copy.
CaptAirProx, the current LASORS 2002 is a bit of a trial by our chums at the Belgrano. I've already expounded its virtues in several PPRuNe threads and have had a Thankyougram from the CFE. His idea is that LASORS should eventually be a document which ALL pilots should own; it is very readable and an excellent publication much like FAR AIMS is in the USofA and I certainly agree that all pilots should own a copy.
Last edited by BEagle; 24th May 2002 at 19:17.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LASORS is a good idea and great value for money. However, it's a shame that the CAA don't seem to have told anyone about it (I only heard about it thanks to PPRuNe) and even once you have discovered that it exists it is 'challenging' to find on their website - I stumbled across the order form by accident, buried deep in the Safety Regulation Group webpages, while looking for something else (which I didn't find - really a topic for elsewhere, but anyone know what constitutes a 'cross-country' flight as per, e.g., GID21, part two, table 1)
Maybe sending some copies off to flying schools or taking an advert out in Flyer or Pilot would be a good idea?
Maybe sending some copies off to flying schools or taking an advert out in Flyer or Pilot would be a good idea?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Popham
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of GIDs and the CAA site and not finding things or not being informed, I'm always looking for a simple title index to the various GIDs but I always end up having to search which (a) takes time and (b) always finds all sorts of things in preference to what I'm looking for - and anyway, it would be useful to know what they have written as GIDs.
I can't believe a simple index isn't there - either it isn't, or the site design hides it.
I can't believe a simple index isn't there - either it isn't, or the site design hides it.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irv, the CAA produced 'Flight Examiners Handbook' contains a full listing of all GID's. If you are not an examiner yourself I am sure your local FE/FIE will let you copy that page.
Evo7, do you have a link for the LASORS bit on the SRG website?
Evo7, do you have a link for the LASORS bit on the SRG website?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Evo7.
Irv, hope this helps:
CAA General Information Documents:
2. UK PPL (SMLG)
3. UK PPL (Microlights)
4. UK PPL (Powered Parachutes)
5. UK PPL (Gyroplanes)
6. UK PPL (Balloons)
8. UK CPL (Aeroplanes)
9. UK ATPL (Aeroplanes)
10. UK FE
11. UK CPL (Helicopters)
12. UK ATPL (Helicopters)
14. UK CPL (H) & UK ATPL (H) for QSP
15. Licence Ratings (Aeroplanes)
16. Licence Ratings (Helicopters)
17. UK Seaplane Ratings
21. JAR-FCL PPL (Aeroplanes)
23. JAR-FCL PPL (Helicopters)
24. JAR-FCL CPL (Aeroplanes)
25. JAR-FCL ATPL (Helicopters)
26. JAR-FCL CPL (Aeroplanes)
27. JAR-FCL ATPL (Helicopters)
28. QSP JAR Licences (A)
29. QSP JAR Licences (H)
32. How to be a PIlot
33. Keeping your Licence and Ratings valid
34. FIR Conversion
35. Requirements for the FRTOL Licence
36. Issue of a JAR-FCL Licence based on a UK Licence (A)
37. Issue of a JAR-FCL Licence based on a UK Licence (H)
38. Change of state of a JAR-FCL Licence
39. Addition of Type/Class Rating (A)
40. Requirements to obtain a validation
42. Requirements for JAR-FCL MCC
43. JAR-FCL Theoretical Examinations
44. Recording of Flight Time
Irv, hope this helps:
CAA General Information Documents:
2. UK PPL (SMLG)
3. UK PPL (Microlights)
4. UK PPL (Powered Parachutes)
5. UK PPL (Gyroplanes)
6. UK PPL (Balloons)
8. UK CPL (Aeroplanes)
9. UK ATPL (Aeroplanes)
10. UK FE
11. UK CPL (Helicopters)
12. UK ATPL (Helicopters)
14. UK CPL (H) & UK ATPL (H) for QSP
15. Licence Ratings (Aeroplanes)
16. Licence Ratings (Helicopters)
17. UK Seaplane Ratings
21. JAR-FCL PPL (Aeroplanes)
23. JAR-FCL PPL (Helicopters)
24. JAR-FCL CPL (Aeroplanes)
25. JAR-FCL ATPL (Helicopters)
26. JAR-FCL CPL (Aeroplanes)
27. JAR-FCL ATPL (Helicopters)
28. QSP JAR Licences (A)
29. QSP JAR Licences (H)
32. How to be a PIlot
33. Keeping your Licence and Ratings valid
34. FIR Conversion
35. Requirements for the FRTOL Licence
36. Issue of a JAR-FCL Licence based on a UK Licence (A)
37. Issue of a JAR-FCL Licence based on a UK Licence (H)
38. Change of state of a JAR-FCL Licence
39. Addition of Type/Class Rating (A)
40. Requirements to obtain a validation
42. Requirements for JAR-FCL MCC
43. JAR-FCL Theoretical Examinations
44. Recording of Flight Time
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unplanned diversion???
Hi all,
Glad to see new form has been withdrawn. BEagle sent me a copy of it - there goes another 200 rainforests I thought!!!
Moving swiftly on, a quick question....
I'm doing a SEP RENEWAL next week for a guy with a PPL lapsed by just under 10 years.
I know I have to use an LST form (confirmed by CAA). It was my understanding that the Skills Test should include an unplanned diversion and also use of radio navaids (tracking & fixing), however, I can't find any mention of this on the LST form. Is it just that I've got an old form or am I mistaken - has the candidate got to do these items???
Any info appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Glad to see new form has been withdrawn. BEagle sent me a copy of it - there goes another 200 rainforests I thought!!!
Moving swiftly on, a quick question....
I'm doing a SEP RENEWAL next week for a guy with a PPL lapsed by just under 10 years.
I know I have to use an LST form (confirmed by CAA). It was my understanding that the Skills Test should include an unplanned diversion and also use of radio navaids (tracking & fixing), however, I can't find any mention of this on the LST form. Is it just that I've got an old form or am I mistaken - has the candidate got to do these items???
Any info appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The test for revalidation is exactly the same as for the Prof Check there is NO navigation section required and therefore no diversion.
Test is as per App 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240
Section 3a is only used for "ME or Type" where a Sector is required.
.
Test is as per App 3 to JAR-FCL 1.240
Section 3a is only used for "ME or Type" where a Sector is required.
.
Last edited by Noggin; 28th May 2002 at 21:58.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Still unsure???
BEagle / Noggin,
What I'm enquiring about is a RENEWAL, NOT a revalidation.
There's no mention of 'MEP and Type rating's only' in section 3A of the form (LST) as noggin suggested so I'm still a bit miffed. I think Noggin, are you thinking of the LPC form rather than the LST form?
The guy i'm flying with's licence has lapsed by just under 10 years so he's definately in RENEWAL territory. I think its crazy if he doesn't have to do any nav (and incidentally so does he!!!)
If the LST and LPC are effectivly the same thing, why record them on different forms???
What I'm enquiring about is a RENEWAL, NOT a revalidation.
There's no mention of 'MEP and Type rating's only' in section 3A of the form (LST) as noggin suggested so I'm still a bit miffed. I think Noggin, are you thinking of the LPC form rather than the LST form?
The guy i'm flying with's licence has lapsed by just under 10 years so he's definately in RENEWAL territory. I think its crazy if he doesn't have to do any nav (and incidentally so does he!!!)
If the LST and LPC are effectivly the same thing, why record them on different forms???