No more AL’s

[Bo Wing]

Heard an interesting rumour on the line the other day that AL’s are to become a thing of the past, apparently, to reduce the burden on the training system and on those trainers remaining in it. The AL is supposedly a CX requirement not a CAD one (not sure about that). So, it would seem that CC and the TB is really hurting them, not that they’d ever admit it! Anybody else heard anything along these lines?

[mr did]

As HR now know everything about piloting, they can roster one of their office staff to do them.

Questions to encompass Inclusiveness (online course), soft skills dealing with interpersonal connections and viral strategies for conflict management.

[BuzzBox]

Heard an interesting rumour on the line the other day that AL’s are to become a thing of the past...

Now that's wishful thinking! The Annual Line Check is a statutory requirement under the AN(HK)O, specifically Article 27(2) Schedule 11 Part B (2)(a)(i).

[Bo Wing]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

Now that's wishful thinking! The Annual Line Check is a statutory requirement under the AN(HK)O, specifically Article 27(2) Schedule 11 Part B (2)(a)(i).

There you have it, all bollocks! I have no doubt that our overlords tried it on however and were told, "cannot"!

[Farman Biplane]

Didn’t they try that during SARS, but the CAD would only relax the requirement to a “single sector” AL?

[morningcoffee]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

Now that's wishful thinking! The Annual Line Check is a statutory requirement under the AN(HK)O, specifically Article 27(2) Schedule 11 Part B (2)(a)(i).

Except that it will soon be the case that it’s only required once every 2 years for Captains and possibly later every 2 years for everyone else as per the data collected by the FAA from US carriers. Once the FAA oks it our CAD in principle will ok it. I have no idea if any Hong Kong carriers will adopt 24 month ALs.

[arse]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

Now that's wishful thinking! The Annual Line Check is a statutory requirement under the AN(HK)O, specifically Article 27(2) Schedule 11 Part B (2)(a)(i).

I might be wrong? It might it be the interpretation?

The PC and some regulatory items of the RT meet the requirements of the ANO quoted. The PC must be carried out by a CAD authorised examiner i.e. a BTC or STC (or now SSIs as well) who signs your license on behalf of the CAD.

Cathay Annual Line Checks are usually done by TCCs. TCCs are not CAD Authorised examiners. There is no license signing required. This is separate from the requirements of the ANO and therefore, presumably NOT regulatory?

Happy to have any errors of interpretation corrected.

[BuzzBox]

Cathay Annual Line Checks are usually done by TCCs. TCCs are not CAD Authorised examiners. There is no license signing required. This is separate from the requirements of the ANO and therefore, presumably NOT regulatory?

The AN(HK)O stipulates two types of tests for pilots: Schedule 9 items and Schedule 11 items. Schedule 9 items include the AR and IR, both of which require a Certificate of Test that must be signed by a person authorised by the Chief Executive of the HKSAR (eg an authorised examiner). Schedule 11 items include the Line Check, LVO, emergency manoeuvres and procedures, etc, which do not require a Certificate of Test.Nevertheless, it is still a statutory requirement they be tested by the aircraft operator.

The PC includes the Schedule 9 items (ie IR & AR) and some Schedule 11 items. It must be conducted by an authorised examiner because of the Schedule 9 items. The RT, on the other hand, includes only Schedule 11 items and does not need to be conducted by an authorised examiner. Similarly, the Annual Line Check is a Schedule 11 item and does not need to be conducted by an authorised examiner.

The PC and some regulatory items of the RT meet the requirements of the ANO quoted.

The AN(HK)O states:

“Every pilot included in the flight crew who is intended by the operator to fly as pilot in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules shall within the relevant period have been tested by or on behalf of the operator...as to his competence to perform his duties while executing normal manoeuvres and procedures in flight...”

“A pilot’s ability to carry out normal manoeuvres and procedures shall be tested in the aircraft in flight.
The other tests required by this sub-paragraph may be conducted either in the aircraft in flight, or under the supervision of a person approved by the Chief Executive for the purpose by means of a flight simulator...”

[Lakes2B]

I feel really unwell, I may need 3 weeks off sick

[GICASI2]

In Europe EBT (you call it TPMS) is only cost-effective to the beancounters because the AL requirement is reduced to one every 2 years. Maybe this is what you are seeing?

[badge42]

Good post Buzz! Can I paraphrase?

HK Licence holders can have their licence revoked by anybody who is simply 'authorised by the Chief Executive of the HKSAR'. Right or wrong? Authorised Examiners do not, themselves, need to demonstrate compliance with either schedule 9 and, as we all know, are incapable of compliance with schedule 11. Right or wrong? Then why do the 'Senior Citizen Sim Instructors' need a Class One Medical at all? Doesn't make any sense to me, but alas Air Law was my weakest subject.

[spleener]

Thanks for that Buzz. Much more eloquent than I’d have put it.
Sometimes I wonder about some of our spoon fed fellow pilots.... lots of sweat to get the licence, then clueless how it works.

[Pogie]

When I first saw this post, it read it as no more Annual Leave.