Solo navigations and night landings with safety pilot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solo navigations and night landings with safety pilot
I would like to bring to your attention the habits of some southern european ATO's to send their students for the solo navs (PPL) and solo nav's + 5 solo night landings CPL, ATPL with safety pilot.
How can their regulators allow such violations, and am surprised such a widespread practice comes unnoticed.
Giving names here is risky business for fear of reprisals, not fom ATO's but national Caa's endorsing this.
Contacted EASA they just suggest to notify CAA's ...
How can their regulators allow such violations, and am surprised such a widespread practice comes unnoticed.
Giving names here is risky business for fear of reprisals, not fom ATO's but national Caa's endorsing this.
Contacted EASA they just suggest to notify CAA's ...
I suggest that you write to your Euro MP and request what EASA are doing about this when they inspect the countries involved. The LIST inspectors come from a number of States and should investigate any claims of activity that contravenes the regulation.
I'd heard of this before.
Refer the contravening Member State NAA to the FCL.010 definition of solo:
'SPIC' is not an option for the PPL course, nor for the night rating.
Refer the contravening Member State NAA to the FCL.010 definition of solo:
"Solo flight time" means flight time during which a student pilot is the sole occupant of an aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity, contacting an Euro MP is not an easy task, in some cultures you will not get any response unless you proceed through connections. Political parties are sealed entities, inaccessible to outsiders.
Plus because of rejection of responsibility being the norm nobody, no MP will never ever expose him/herself in defending any cause unless being personally involved.
Add to this that Brussel's parliament is plagued by absenteeism, you get the picture, you will never get any answer, let alone any help.
Contacting EASA through their website as I often did for various issues, gets you a generic answer, referring you to your own CAA, and giving you a link to initiate a procedure with the European Union legal department for breach of regulations .
Time consuming to start a legal procedure, outright dangerous to contact CAA, may expose you to repercussions in terms of retaliatory measures, e.g. when needing a revalidation.. So everybody knows, but turns a blind eye.
I have had in the past some valuable help from EASA experts taking matters in their own hands and giving valuable information, but these people are now in pension.
Plus because of rejection of responsibility being the norm nobody, no MP will never ever expose him/herself in defending any cause unless being personally involved.
Add to this that Brussel's parliament is plagued by absenteeism, you get the picture, you will never get any answer, let alone any help.
Contacting EASA through their website as I often did for various issues, gets you a generic answer, referring you to your own CAA, and giving you a link to initiate a procedure with the European Union legal department for breach of regulations .
Time consuming to start a legal procedure, outright dangerous to contact CAA, may expose you to repercussions in terms of retaliatory measures, e.g. when needing a revalidation.. So everybody knows, but turns a blind eye.
I have had in the past some valuable help from EASA experts taking matters in their own hands and giving valuable information, but these people are now in pension.
Last edited by markkal; 15th Aug 2020 at 20:50.
Markkal you appear to live in a state of an unnecessary paranoia. Over decades I've had innumerable battles with the UK CAA both personally and on behalf of others. I'm very aware of the dirty tricks they can be capable of attempting but I have never experienced any reprisals. If you are in the right and remain fair, balanced and determined your more likely to gain respect rather than retribution. NAA Employees are more concerned with securing their pensions rather than entering into an unnecessary dispute with you.
You refer to a "caa" but do you mean an NAA. (National Aviation Authority) with the responsibility and to whom it makes sense that you should make your complaint. You must have evidence of course. You cannot simply throw out unfounded suspicions without fact. Within 'integrated' courses some SPIC is allowed for given situations. Can you be certain that your understanding is correct.
If you have the facts and you are certain you are correct then make your complaint without fear or favour.
You refer to a "caa" but do you mean an NAA. (National Aviation Authority) with the responsibility and to whom it makes sense that you should make your complaint. You must have evidence of course. You cannot simply throw out unfounded suspicions without fact. Within 'integrated' courses some SPIC is allowed for given situations. Can you be certain that your understanding is correct.
If you have the facts and you are certain you are correct then make your complaint without fear or favour.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fl1ingfrog, you are right I meant national civil aviation authorities, ..Please understand I am not talking about UK CAA...
Here ATO's themselves don't hide the fact that they don't allow solo navigations, solo night rating landings, solo mountain and aero ratings flights. Nobody cares..Nobody questions..
You will be issued an EASA licence, the same one granted by those who abide by the rules...
Believe me I am not paranoid, if you only knew how some countries are ruled.... NAA's employees have no need to secure their pensions , they are "Untouchable" whatever happens. They even don't need to show up at work very often...It is common to have husband, wife and children all employed within the same administration... They have "Interpreted" the rules for decades and continue to do so under EASA..
F1 "Frog", êtes vous français par hasard ? envoyez moi un PM, je me ferais un plaisir de bavarder avec vous ! I'll be able to disclose every detail in private
Here ATO's themselves don't hide the fact that they don't allow solo navigations, solo night rating landings, solo mountain and aero ratings flights. Nobody cares..Nobody questions..
You will be issued an EASA licence, the same one granted by those who abide by the rules...
Believe me I am not paranoid, if you only knew how some countries are ruled.... NAA's employees have no need to secure their pensions , they are "Untouchable" whatever happens. They even don't need to show up at work very often...It is common to have husband, wife and children all employed within the same administration... They have "Interpreted" the rules for decades and continue to do so under EASA..
F1 "Frog", êtes vous français par hasard ? envoyez moi un PM, je me ferais un plaisir de bavarder avec vous ! I'll be able to disclose every detail in private
Last edited by markkal; 15th Aug 2020 at 21:09.
Je ne suis pas Français et mes connaissances sont de plus de trente-cinq ans d’instruction au Royaume-Uni. If you would like to pm me, in confidence, with some details I will be more than happy to share my thoughts. You must realise that I am not a lawyer and my qualifications in this are from the university of life.
Certainly EASA is slowly manoeuvring into a position where they will have direct control at a local level. I believe they are already directly approving ATOs operating outside of the EU. At the moment they can only audit a NAA, EASA cannot walk into an ATO of a member country and inspect it. That is what the NAA should do. You could act through a third party such as a lawyer and remain anonymous.
Certainly EASA is slowly manoeuvring into a position where they will have direct control at a local level. I believe they are already directly approving ATOs operating outside of the EU. At the moment they can only audit a NAA, EASA cannot walk into an ATO of a member country and inspect it. That is what the NAA should do. You could act through a third party such as a lawyer and remain anonymous.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 15th Aug 2020 at 22:58.
N4790P
Je ne suis pas Français et mes connaissances sont de plus de trente-cinq ans d’instruction au Royaume-Uni. If you would like to pm me, in confidence, with some details I will be more than happy to share my thoughts. You must realise that I am not a lawyer and my qualifications in this are from the university of life.
Certainly EASA is slowly manoeuvring into a position where they will have direct control at a local level. I believe they are already directly approving ATOs operating outside of the EU. At the moment they can only audit a NAA, EASA cannot walk into an ATO of a member country and inspect it. That is what the NAA should do. You could act through a third party such as a lawyer and remain anonymous.
Certainly EASA is slowly manoeuvring into a position where they will have direct control at a local level. I believe they are already directly approving ATOs operating outside of the EU. At the moment they can only audit a NAA, EASA cannot walk into an ATO of a member country and inspect it. That is what the NAA should do. You could act through a third party such as a lawyer and remain anonymous.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to bring to your attention the habits of some southern european ATO's to send their students for the solo navs (PPL) and solo nav's + 5 solo night landings CPL, ATPL with safety pilot.
How can their regulators allow such violations, and am surprised such a widespread practice comes unnoticed.
Giving names here is risky business for fear of reprisals, not fom ATO's but national Caa's endorsing this.
Contacted EASA they just suggest to notify CAA's ...
How can their regulators allow such violations, and am surprised such a widespread practice comes unnoticed.
Giving names here is risky business for fear of reprisals, not fom ATO's but national Caa's endorsing this.
Contacted EASA they just suggest to notify CAA's ...
These flights will be much safer, even if they are 'violations'. Just getting used to Two Crew Ops earlier than other countries.
Neither southern, nor European.
Last edited by Islandlad; 16th Aug 2020 at 09:23.
How can a student avoid fake solos? Ask around before joining!
As for the geography-specific suspicion, there are flight schools in Asia doing better on this subject then some West of the Bosphorus.
These flights will be much safer, even if they are 'violations'. Just getting used to Two Crew Ops earlier than other countries.
Some years ago I came across an East African VC10 pilot who had never flown solo in his life!
Markkal who started this thread has identified all this but he has no confidence in the particular schools who are doing the wrong thing changing their ways and the authority who oversees them doing the right thing by bringing them to account.
The whole structure of EASA is a joke and has become an industry in itself. It has been beneficial for heavy transport by achieving mutual recognition for that part it is true but otherwise it has dome harm. National authorities have been weakened and are less effective, always being subject to EASA mess ups and its forever rule making to clear up its own mess. NAAs are left in no better a position to understand EASA directives/rule making any better than the average man in the street. ICAO is more than sufficient.
The whole structure of EASA is a joke and has become an industry in itself. It has been beneficial for heavy transport by achieving mutual recognition for that part it is true but otherwise it has dome harm. National authorities have been weakened and are less effective, always being subject to EASA mess ups and its forever rule making to clear up its own mess. NAAs are left in no better a position to understand EASA directives/rule making any better than the average man in the street. ICAO is more than sufficient.
