Heliport

On a thread about flying training/requirements, an American contributor said:. . Has he got a point?
If so, what's the reason?
Is it the difference in attitude between the FAA, and the CAA?
Are UK requirements for a professional licence unnecessarily high?

What do you think?

Please don't let this become a national pride or anti-American thread.

r22dave

What the americans and the FAA seem to have is a positive approach to aviation and the cheaper costs must help. The CAA (and perhaps local councils) seem very, very negative towards GA

CTD

I guess it depends on the environment. If you want to fly your own R22 around Indiana from Bloomington to Ft Wayne, that's one thing. However, if you want to fly professionally in a place like Canada with its weather and geographic extremes, then I fully agree it should be taken seriously and you bloody well should know what you're doing.

In the States, things are treated as 'rights', not 'priviledges', and I disagree with this approach when it comes to professional helicopter flying. They're big into single pilot and single engine IFR, and unfortunately the powers that be in Canada appear to be leaning that way as well. <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> Hopefully, the significant lobby against such nonsense will prevail.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: CTD ]</p>

baranfin

I cannot compare from experience between the different countries, but I can say that I would like it if I didnt have to wait untill my commercial rating to do practice full downs. I understand that in the UK full downs are part of the initial training. However I suspect that one of the reasons training is cheaper in the US is because of lower ins. costs.

yxcapt

CTD-

Just like a drivers lic. flying is a privileage and not a right. The events of 9/11 proved that.

As FAR as single engine and single pilot IFR are concerned, I don't beleave these are non-sense. Are there increased risk in these activities? Sure. But the only way to reduce these risks to zero is to not fly. Both these operations, when properly conducted are safe, mind you not without risk but still safe. I beleave the rewards out way the risks.

It's great to live in a place where we are allowed the freedom to make these decisions ourselves.

Daranfin-

The are no federal requirement preventing full down autos at any level. At our school, we do power recoveries until proficient then demo at least one full down auto before solo. Prior to your private check ride about 1 out of every 3 autos will be to the ground.

We do full down autos at all levels of training. A student will usually see them towards the end of the training program.

Whirlybird

I was discussing the different attitudes to flying generally, in the US and Britain, with a friend who's a f/w pilot and has flown over there quite a lot. She says in the US flying is considered normal and a way to get around, to get at least a PPL is no big deal, and no-one there thought the fact that she was a woman was any big deal either. Here flying is generally considered elitist, people think you have to be super-rich to do it (though with the difference in cost that's true to a certain extent <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> ), they do think if you can fly you must be an utterly amazing super-person, and if you're a woman who gets out of an aircraft alone they look around for the pilot!

Well, it does cost more, we do have more bad weather than a lot of places in the US, and I don't think they have anything equivalent to the commercial ground exams (not that you have to be a rocket scientist to pass them, just determined).. .But I think it probably comes down to a more basic cultural difference, along the lines of Brits assuming they won't be able to do things, while across the pond people think they have a right do do whatever they want. Possibly a result of our school system, or the class system - there'll always be someone better than you, don't try and step out of your place - that sort of attitude is still around. And the belief that if you want to do something enough then you probably can applies to most things, including helicopter flying.

aspinwing

Having flown in all three countries; may I comment? Basically; “it is different strokes for different folks!” First of you must understand the different mandate of the various regulatory authorities. In UK the CAA’s mandate is safety and security of the aviation system. If nothing fly they would be happy because nothing would crash. The FAA’s mandate is the ‘promotion’ of civil aviation which means that they wear, IMHO, two incongruous hats: one is the promotion / ease of use of the system and the other is safety. They are, again IMHO, between a rock and a very hard place, especially given the regulatory system in the US; where regulations can be passed by Congress which make absolutely no sense at all. Transport Canada fits somewhere closer to the UK model but it is also responsible for all modes of transport.. .The UK ground exams from PPL on up are nit-picky overkill. We do have very PRACTICAL ground exams and flight tests. My last with a TC examiner included a baulked landing in a very confined area, a jammed rudder, 180 autorotations from both directions. Subsequent company check rides have included jammed collective, full-on autorotations - close didn’t count; he wanted, and got it, in the top half of the “3”. Was it excessive? NO. . .Full on autorotations - absolutely; have done them at night and on floats. I credit one of the float sessions with saving my and the passengers necks(or at least backs), as the engine of a Bell 206 quit about four weeks later and I went onto glassy water near a very inhospitable shore. It is very much an instructor’s call when to do it with a student. The instructor must be current.

Single-engine IFR; why not? Would I want to do it in my Bell 47 with ‘steam’ driven instruments of forty years ago - NOT ! In a well equipped Bell 407 or EC 120 / 130 with a (now fairly) reliable turbine engine - absolutely! There are a lot of one-off items that I would rather not have quit than the engine. We practise engine failures - and they are a doddle- but when did we last practise losing tail-feathers?

B Sousa

CTD above seems to say, at least to me, that in the states We dont take things too seriously. Also that weather and extremes are very serious in Canada. So should that make getting the license more difficult?? I dont think so. The license itself does not mean that I as a pilot will go out to do sling loads on Mt Whitney or just hop in any Helo to deliver an Air Condiotner to the top of a 30 story building. It means I am a Commercial Helicopter Pilot with the ability to safely fly a Helicopter AND if I want to do those specialties, I will be checked out proficiently in those procedures before any Company will turn me loose.. .I would never consider flying into the NWT in winter unless I was with someone who had been there and knew the area and the hazards involved..... Maybe thats the difference in our licenses. Canada and the UK have to have it all stamped on the license with many written exams and rides.. I just have a simple little FAA card and hopefully the brains to know when and where I can use it.

CTD

Bert, I have a US ticket as well, and have flown in the States. I didn't mean to insinuate that all flying there was easy, and all flying in Canada was difficult. Your point is well taken. However, there is a much larger Gen Av component to helicopter flying in the US than anywhere else in the world, and the regs are geared to that.

I stand by my statement that if you want to fly professionally in a place LIKE Canada with its weather and geographic extremes, then your training and licencing standards should reflect the seriousness of the task. The same would go for Alaska, the Northwest, or any other harsh environment or task.

yxcapt

"* The FAA examiners are mandated in the regs with the authority to use any unsatisfactory performance as an opportunity to teach rather than fail and they routinely do so. They are success motivated, as are the TC inspectors. The CAA approach appears to be failure motivated."

This is only true in the case of a proficiency check with operations conducted under CFR 133, 135, 137 and 121. If a maneuver is messed up, the examiner may discontinue the PC, conduct training, then resume the PC. Hopefully the maneuver isn't messed up again.

When conducting a exam for a certifcate or rating (CFR 61 & applicable PTS), if a maneuver is messed up in this situation, the applicant is ineligible for the certifcate or rating sought. The examiner can not provide training and retest the applicant. The applicant must recieve training from a CFI and be recommended again for the exam. However, the applicant may recieve credit for previous areas of the prior exam that were satisfactory (In other words need not repeat the entire exam).

There are give and take in each country in every area of the aviation regulations and training enviroment. Somethings required in the state are not requried by others. (I can only speak of the US and Canada)

virgin

There is an arrogance in the British character which makes us assume that we're the best in the world at everything. CAA types think they know more about aviation than anyone else in the world. They regard the FAA as an upstart which has to be tolerated, and don't think they could possibly have anything to learn form the FAA. Wrong!!!

There's a big difference between the UK and US approach to flying generally. The CAA still seems to regard flying as an unnatural and dangerous activity which needs to be tightly regulated. The FAA seems to regard flying as just another means of transport.. .Generally, the UK Regs are "Can't do, unless ..." and the US Regs are much more "Can do, unless ...."

Although personalities come into it, dealing with the FAA is bliss compared with the CAA. The FAA seem to want to help you fly, the CAA always seem to want to find some technicality to stop you, or make it more difficult. . .I suppose the CAA is no better, no worse than any other civil service department in this country. ie terrible! Years ago, I worked at UK and US small operators and flying schools. In the States, nobody was that bothered when the FAA visited, all quite friendly, professional and helpful. Here, when the CAA were due to visit, there was always anxiety and when they came, you got the clear impression that they were trying to find something wrong. Trying to catch you out on something petty. I know 'the grass is always greener' etc, but give me the less petty, more professional and more grown-up approach of the FAA any time.

Nick Lappos

virgin,

I think there is some justification for the attitude that you describe to be found in many endevors, not just aviation. There is a particularly American reluctance to be regulated, and it is part of our culture, thus part of our government. This is a two sided issue, with the inherent relaxation of oversight, we pay less, gain efficiency and speed, innovate more quickly; but we lose some theoretical protection.

As proof to the premise that both systems work about equally well, I believe that the accident rate for US aviation is about the same as European operations, and I don't subscribe to the bugabear about how awful the European weather is (unless some Englishman wants to take a few Albany to Detroit runs with me some December, for tropical relaxation!). . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]</p>

Flying Lawyer

Done! Offer accepted. You've got a deal!
I'll be in touch nearer the time to discuss dates!. .

Nick Lappos

Flying Lawyer,

Having followed your exploits in the flying-chairs-and-people thread, I can see why you believe 3 hours of ice, cloud and mountains is tame by comparison!

aspinwing

xyc:

Minor quibble: TC, night VFR SE is legal: air taxi - essential crew only i.e. police, pilot must have IFR. I agree I wouldn't want to venture too far from the lights.

Remember FAA wears two hats == one is Safety but the other mandate is to promote aviation. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: aspinwing ]</p>

On the skids

Nick: I think Flying Lawyer would simply be proud to fly with you, wherever you were going and whatever the weather - as would most of us. . .As to the CAA, it's turned into a retirement home for otherwise unemployable ex-military types who've never paid for a minute's flying in their lives, and who therefore don't understand the first thing about the industry. Unlike the FAA, it has to be self-financing, and we have thus worked ourselves into a position where we can pay £900 ($1,400) to have them issue a simple piece of paper, with no other work involved. Every time they create a new nonsensical rule and demand payment for it, they drive another sad bastard out of business.

Flying Lawyer

On the skids. .That was precisely my reason - and I'm sure I could learn a thing or two at the same time! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

On the skids

Flying Lawyer: Apologies for my presumptuousness, which was impolite of me.

Flying Lawyer

Nothing presumptuous / impolite at all - you saw right through my reason in one - I'll let you know all about the flight!!

Nick Lappos

I had intended the comments about equal accident rates as proof that the "extra" high standards of CAA are not particularly necessary to achieve good levels of safety.

I agree that it is the professional operators who we must thank for the safety record, not the folks who issue the paperwork.