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!

EASA Uprt-Loc update

Old 14th Apr 2020, 22:58
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,504
Whatever the best intentions of RMG.0581, the unpalatable fact is that the Regulation states only that "3 hours of dual flight instruction" is required on the advanced UPRT course. It really doesn't matter what individual competent authorities think, they are not able to change the Regulation. The UK CAA is quite correct in its interpretation and the inept framing of the requirement means that 3 hours of flight time, as defined by FCL.050, is compliant, if inadequate. This issue demonstrates clearly the fundamental weakness of a system that values bureaucratic pedantry and legal nit-picking above technical expertise. I maintain that EASA represents the biggest threat to flight safety that I have encountered in my 52 years in the aviation industry.
BillieBob is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2020, 10:11
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 509
The argument over the 3 hours airbourne instruction vs flight time is specious, it matters little. The syllabus content, poorly prescribed, is more of concern in my view. A maximum duration is not laid down of course. The instructor can and should take the necessary time to ensure that the ATO syllabus in completed fully and the knowledge and skills required are achieved satisfactorily, as with all elements of all training.
Fl1ingfrog is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2020, 14:53
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by BillieBob View Post
Whatever the best intentions of RMG.0581, the unpalatable fact is that the Regulation states only that "3 hours of dual flight instruction" is required on the advanced UPRT course. It really doesn't matter what individual competent authorities think, they are not able to change the Regulation. The UK CAA is quite correct in its interpretation and the inept framing of the requirement means that 3 hours of flight time, as defined by FCL.050, is compliant, if inadequate. This issue demonstrates clearly the fundamental weakness of a system that values bureaucratic pedantry and legal nit-picking above technical expertise. I maintain that EASA represents the biggest threat to flight safety that I have encountered in my 52 years in the aviation industry.
You are not alone.
Sepp 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 - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.