Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

Information Notice 2016/049

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Information Notice 2016/049

Old 16th Jun 2016, 10:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Information Notice 2016/049

Hi

Just reading IN-2016/049, para 2.1 test/checks, i see the FI course pre-entry proficiency check is included under the scope of the IN. Reading notes 1 & 3 do i read it correctly that this has to be done in a simulator, or an application for exemption from Appendix 9 requirements be submitted?



What is going on, or am i reading this wrong?
Treadstone1 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2016, 17:26
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
No, you are reading it right. This stupidity started with IN-2012/155 which, in turn, was based on a misinterpretation of the statement in Appendix 9 of Part-FCL.

A discussion with a member of the FCL.001 working group, which originally drafted Part-FCL, confirmed that it was never the group's intention to make the use of FSTDs mandatory across the board. Unfortunately, the error is now established in law and we are stuck with it - even worse, EASA are now proposing (in NPA 2014-29) a definition of 'available' that will override the UK CAA's convoluted attempts to circumvent its own stupidity. If the proposal is adopted, the use of a FSS or OTD for skill tests and proficiency checks will be mandatory if one exists anywhere in the EU that is 'certified' and 'obtainable for lease or hire'.

Perhaps one answer would be for examiners to comply strictly with the IN and deluge the CAA with notifications each and every time that they intend to use an aircraft for a skill test or proficiency check (including the FI course pre-entry PC) in an SEP or MEP aeroplane since no FFS or OTD exists or is ever likely to exist for these classes. (Bear in mind that an OTD is defined as a training device other than an FFS, FTD or FNPT).
BillieBob is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2016, 19:58
  #3 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thumbs up

And might an outcome of LEAVE on 23 June also indicate a move away from such bizarre regulations?
parkfell is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2016, 06:28
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks BillieBob

Where and when will it end..
Treadstone1 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2016, 07:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,850
Received 333 Likes on 116 Posts
According to the IN, one of the criteria for the simulator / OTD to be 'available ' is that it:

c) replicates an aircraft type contained within the candidate’s licence endorsement.
So if your licence only includes an aeroplane class rating, not a type, then no problemo......
BEagle is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2016, 16:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So if your licence only includes an aeroplane class rating, not a type, then no problemo....
Not exactly - the IN requires an examiner to advise the Authority on each occasion that he intends to conduct a skill test or proficiency check in an aeroplane because an FFS or OTD is not 'available'. In the case of a class rating, no FFS or OTD is ever 'available' and, therefore, the examiner is required to advise the authority every time he intends to conduct a test or check.

It might also be said that a candidate's class rating endorsement 'contains' every type within the class and para c) refers to any one of them. Notice that it does not refer to a type rating

The fact is that the IN is badly written and symptomatic of the ever decreasing standards in evidence at Aviation House as a result of utterly inept management.
BillieBob is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.