New PPL Syllabus document - CAP1298 & 1299
 

This document was given to me by our ops manager who was forwarded from a third party.

I have looked on the CAA website latest news and it is not mentioned so it looks like it has just appeared as another CAP without telling anyone.

Have I missed something ie, was it announced. I don't think it is any different to the AMC but how are we supposed to know it was there?

I got an e-mail.
First I have had in a long time from the CAA.
Along with all the stuff about scrapping medicals.

That one must have slipped by me then.

Yep, it did. I have saved the link now

Yet another low quality document from the CAA. It is not their job to produce a syllabus and quite clearly they have no ability to do so. They could of course adopt an alternative Industry syllabus which is what I though this was all about.

Yes, another low quality doc from CAA whom seem to be in meltdown.

No mention of climbing at best rate of climb in climbing section

Its actually a poor version of standards document 10 and supposedly produced by a new GA committee!(who do not respond to emails).

When are safety sense leaflets and VFR Guide going to be updated(last amendment date 2010)

It took months to make few amendments to CAP 413 which is now back to the unmanageable one volume.

The website is a disgrace with out of date publications and masses of forms that few can understand

CAA constantly talk about raising standards but when are they going to raise their own. And its still cheaper to get both a passport and a driving license than it is to get a night rating added to a PPL?

Industry has to accept that the CAA is now just a Regulator and no longer a source of technical expertise. In the past, the CAA has endeavoured to assist industry by providing documents and advice that help ensure coherence in aviation training. It is now down to the Industry to comply with the micro-managed and often abiguous regulation, and then self monitor. The Authority is simply required to monitor this process meanwhile, the Chief Executive, who has no background in aviation, has the task of reducing expenditure, a process that appears to have allienated all of the technical staff and reduced morale to zero.

no longer a source of technical expertise! your right there Whopity:ok:

I'm a bit lost on the purpose of these documents having looked through them. They don't seem to clarify anything so what was the point?

You are absolutely correct, and that is the issue most instructors/examiners have with these 'new' publications.

A waste of time, resources and a missed opportunity to do something useful IMHO.

I was very disappointed at the end result, especially knowing where and who some of the information gathering came from.

XO

Jeremy Pratt of AFE was involved in formulating the new PPL syllabus.

Link below was posted last week and shows him being interviewed about this very subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azzqP5Q-Vc

So does that mean the exam papers are going to be reissued again to take into account this 'simplified' syllabus?
They talk about updating a old syllabus, but what's actually changed in 40 years? Other than including radio aids and gps.
And the CAA had to go to a book publisher to come up with this!
(OK he's an instructor, I suppose at least that's step in the right direction).
UK aviation was just about right 15 years ago with NFT's and GFT's.
All that was need was the 5 hours in 13 months rule to stay current needed changing slightly to say a flight every 60 days to stay current on a life time licence.
I wouldn't even have minded paying an annual sub to CAA, say £20, to look after GA.

We have regressed!
I was in Training Command in the mid 70s when the RAF deceided it could produce better and more cost effective training my reviewing all of its various syllabi. I recall attending the Management of Training (Ground) MOT(G) course at Newton where the Educators were driving this new initiative. Aims and Objectives were introduced, together with training that could be measured and results assessed.

40 years later we have reverted back to the garbage that was thrown in the bin! So we have learned NOTHING!

Aaaah - SAFT!

A lot of nonsense has been written on this thread about CAP 1298 & 1299.

The syllabus revision was a CAA initiative, but with full industry involvement. Over time, many of the industry groups simply didn't bother turning up at the PPL/WG meetings, leaving a small core of people working under a new CAA lead. The syllabus itself didn't need a huge amount of change, just being brought up to date. EASA are entirely happy with it; I recently attended an EASA meeting at which that was confirmed.

Where you will see considerable improvement is with the exams. Proper allocation of level of knowledge indicators to subject topics has been agreed; the IT requirements are being assessed but we are adamant that it will still be possible to take the 9-section exam at an RF - provided that the RF has a suitable Internet system and meets the security of access requirements being developed. It is expected that an Invitation To Tender will be released shortly, so that question authors (all 'industry', not the mythical 'ex-RAF navigators' some ignorant folk seem to think still populate the Belgrano!) can begin work....

And Whopity, when the ITT appears, I'm sure that your kind words about your erstwhile employer in this thread will of course be of no consequence......:hmm:

Whats that got to do with it, its UK flying instructors and schools that have to train PPL's not EASA. However as JP says you dont have to follow it, so you can teach climbing at best ROC speed!

If EASA had objected to the AltMoC, it would not have been possible for the CAA to release the CAP. Which Flight Instructors at UK RFs or ATOs may feel free to adopt.

Exercise 7 starts with the 'normal' climb. Unless people have some obscure reason for not doing so, this is at the best rate. Later parts of the exercise introduce cruise climbing and best angle of climb as being climbs with different IAS and the reasons for them.

I'm sure if you dig hard enough, you'll find some other obscure reason to claim that something else hasn't been spelled out in words of half a syllable for you....:rolleyes:

Good to see that you are not adopting a dismissive attitude towards the customers Beags. Antagonising the istructors is hardly the best way to make progress.

Theoretical Knowledge excluded, when I checked our approved course documents, the syllabus items are what we teach anyway in the same order so for us it is carry on as before.