UK CAA IR Fiasco
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK CAA IR Fiasco
There was a thread on this forum a while ago regarding a rule change made in LASORS 2010 regarding UK IR holders who, in effect, had their IR's taken away from them. I have set up a petition as a few of us are taking legal advice to see if we can challenge the way in which the CAA handled this, the info below should flesh the case out...
Dear fellow Aviators,
This information pertains to any pilot who has been issued a UK CAA professional licence (JAR or National) and have moved abroad to work under another ICAO licence;
If you possess a UK issued professional licence the publication to refer to is a manual called LASORS (LICENSING, ADMINISTRATION and STANDARDISATION,
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS and SAFETY), this publication is valid until 1st July 2012 at which point CAP 804 will come into force as its replacement under EU-OPS. CAP 804 is the UK CAA's version of Part-FCL (Previously called JAR-FCL).These 2 documents lay out how to attain, maintain and if necessary revalidate your licence.
The matter to which I draw your attention pertains to holders of a UK CAA issued Instrument Rating (IR), more specifically, the requirements for renewing that rating. Up to and including LASORS 2008 there was a clause in Section E of the publication that took into account the utilisation of your ICAO (In this case non UK) or military IR. I quote/paraphrase directly from LASORS 2008;
"To renew an IR(A) that has expired by more than 7 years, applicants must: ...For multi-pilot aircraft pass a type rating skill test with or observed by a UK CAA Flight Operations Training Inspector. Applicants will also be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations. "
However, and most importantly for the affected pilots (Mostly expats);
"...where IR privileges have been exercised in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a UK military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry date of that IR."
In other words as long as you kept your other ICAO IR valid your UK IR was safe from the 7 year renewal rule and most importantly we wouldn't have to undergo the ridiculous requirement to resist the 7 theory exams, the very same exams on which our CPL/ATPL's are predicated.
Now the bad news, WITHOUT ANY PRIOR WARNING, the CAA removed the ICAO/Military caveat, in an instant rendering 100's of UK issued IR's invalid. The authority state that the rule shouldn't have been there in the first place and was therefor removed, this despite all the other JAR authorities entering into the spirit of the agreement and renewing licences/IR's that had expired by more than 7 years when the pilot produced reasonable proof that he/she had stayed current, for example, flown for an airline. The CAA took the rule at face value and applied it literally, with no thought of the consequences. They have in effect taken away our careers as a licence without an IR is basically worthless. When queried recently as to why they didn't pre warn us of the impending change, and after all they are very quick to criticise us for not referring to the CAA website for these matters, the reply was.... They didn't want to potentially upset our families in case we were deceased. So you see what we're up against... Nuff said really. Although not confirmed, it may be the case that you have to go to an approved school to do your ground studies, obviously completely unacceptable given most of our circumstances.
I haven't got enough space to go into all the details and futile attempts we have made to get the CAA to see sense, so what a few of us are doing is taking legal advice to challenge, not the rule change itself, but the way in which the change was implemented, in effect, without any warning. We have also sent our case to an MP who has stated he will pass it onto the Minister of Transport. The CAA have admitted 'that they could have communicated the change better', the implication being that there was some communication in the first place, which was not the case.
Without even considering the fact that they are treating professional pilots like novices, consideration is also being given to legally pursuing the costs that the authority have in effect imposed on us if we have to do the 7 ground exams. Ground courses, costs of books, exam fees and other incidental costs. As we all know money is a big part of the CAA's thinking, so several hundred pilots multiplied by several thousands of pounds costs each may get them to pay attention and not hide behind their rule books?
So, what can you could do to help? An online petition has been created to add weight to our cause, the link is below, and I ask that you add your signature and a message if you wish. Equally important is that you spread the word to other affect colleagues who don't read PPRuNe. We are preparing and planning to lodge a legal complaint prior to the introduction of CAP 804 so that we have date stamped our claim based on LASORS regulations. Even pilots who don't plan to return to EASA land should be encouraged to sign up, as you never know what path your career may take.
Personal enquiries/complaints to the CAA, your MP and EASA should also be a consideration to keep the pressure up on the authority.
Good luck!
Chris.
The link is;
Petition: UK Civil Aviation Authority: Temp approval for affected pilots to renew their IR without resitting exams | Change.org
Dear fellow Aviators,
This information pertains to any pilot who has been issued a UK CAA professional licence (JAR or National) and have moved abroad to work under another ICAO licence;
If you possess a UK issued professional licence the publication to refer to is a manual called LASORS (LICENSING, ADMINISTRATION and STANDARDISATION,
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS and SAFETY), this publication is valid until 1st July 2012 at which point CAP 804 will come into force as its replacement under EU-OPS. CAP 804 is the UK CAA's version of Part-FCL (Previously called JAR-FCL).These 2 documents lay out how to attain, maintain and if necessary revalidate your licence.
The matter to which I draw your attention pertains to holders of a UK CAA issued Instrument Rating (IR), more specifically, the requirements for renewing that rating. Up to and including LASORS 2008 there was a clause in Section E of the publication that took into account the utilisation of your ICAO (In this case non UK) or military IR. I quote/paraphrase directly from LASORS 2008;
"To renew an IR(A) that has expired by more than 7 years, applicants must: ...For multi-pilot aircraft pass a type rating skill test with or observed by a UK CAA Flight Operations Training Inspector. Applicants will also be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations. "
However, and most importantly for the affected pilots (Mostly expats);
"...where IR privileges have been exercised in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a UK military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry date of that IR."
In other words as long as you kept your other ICAO IR valid your UK IR was safe from the 7 year renewal rule and most importantly we wouldn't have to undergo the ridiculous requirement to resist the 7 theory exams, the very same exams on which our CPL/ATPL's are predicated.
Now the bad news, WITHOUT ANY PRIOR WARNING, the CAA removed the ICAO/Military caveat, in an instant rendering 100's of UK issued IR's invalid. The authority state that the rule shouldn't have been there in the first place and was therefor removed, this despite all the other JAR authorities entering into the spirit of the agreement and renewing licences/IR's that had expired by more than 7 years when the pilot produced reasonable proof that he/she had stayed current, for example, flown for an airline. The CAA took the rule at face value and applied it literally, with no thought of the consequences. They have in effect taken away our careers as a licence without an IR is basically worthless. When queried recently as to why they didn't pre warn us of the impending change, and after all they are very quick to criticise us for not referring to the CAA website for these matters, the reply was.... They didn't want to potentially upset our families in case we were deceased. So you see what we're up against... Nuff said really. Although not confirmed, it may be the case that you have to go to an approved school to do your ground studies, obviously completely unacceptable given most of our circumstances.
I haven't got enough space to go into all the details and futile attempts we have made to get the CAA to see sense, so what a few of us are doing is taking legal advice to challenge, not the rule change itself, but the way in which the change was implemented, in effect, without any warning. We have also sent our case to an MP who has stated he will pass it onto the Minister of Transport. The CAA have admitted 'that they could have communicated the change better', the implication being that there was some communication in the first place, which was not the case.
Without even considering the fact that they are treating professional pilots like novices, consideration is also being given to legally pursuing the costs that the authority have in effect imposed on us if we have to do the 7 ground exams. Ground courses, costs of books, exam fees and other incidental costs. As we all know money is a big part of the CAA's thinking, so several hundred pilots multiplied by several thousands of pounds costs each may get them to pay attention and not hide behind their rule books?
So, what can you could do to help? An online petition has been created to add weight to our cause, the link is below, and I ask that you add your signature and a message if you wish. Equally important is that you spread the word to other affect colleagues who don't read PPRuNe. We are preparing and planning to lodge a legal complaint prior to the introduction of CAP 804 so that we have date stamped our claim based on LASORS regulations. Even pilots who don't plan to return to EASA land should be encouraged to sign up, as you never know what path your career may take.
Personal enquiries/complaints to the CAA, your MP and EASA should also be a consideration to keep the pressure up on the authority.
Good luck!
Chris.
The link is;
Petition: UK Civil Aviation Authority: Temp approval for affected pilots to renew their IR without resitting exams | Change.org
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx, have just seen it in the CAA website, so it gives us more time to put our case together.
Thx.
Ps sign the petition as well if it's not too much of a hassle
Thx.
Ps sign the petition as well if it's not too much of a hassle
Last edited by Fart Master; 12th Jun 2012 at 18:48.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signed.
I was down at the CAA having a related but subtly different nightmare a few months ago; they were misreading their own LASORS in my case but refused to concede.
Whilst there, a Cathay TRI/E was told his JAA ATPL was no longer valid due to this 7 year rule; his HK ATPL was issued on the basis of his JAA ATPL, so in effect he'd lost his licences!!
The remedy; just go out and retake the ground exams, re-sit an IR!!!!
I think his solution was to pay for an FAA licence instead!
The people who spoke to me on the front desk at the CAA were Engineering specialists; they had no FCL specialists available. They appear to be having their own crisis, chances are if you've read the rules, you'll know more than the person on the 'phone at the CAA! What's worrying is that there was no concession whatsoever in mine or the other chap's case.
IMHO The Mil pilot makes up such a small % of the CAA's revenue that in their mind it's not worth their while to look after that body of people.
I was down at the CAA having a related but subtly different nightmare a few months ago; they were misreading their own LASORS in my case but refused to concede.
Whilst there, a Cathay TRI/E was told his JAA ATPL was no longer valid due to this 7 year rule; his HK ATPL was issued on the basis of his JAA ATPL, so in effect he'd lost his licences!!
The remedy; just go out and retake the ground exams, re-sit an IR!!!!
I think his solution was to pay for an FAA licence instead!
The people who spoke to me on the front desk at the CAA were Engineering specialists; they had no FCL specialists available. They appear to be having their own crisis, chances are if you've read the rules, you'll know more than the person on the 'phone at the CAA! What's worrying is that there was no concession whatsoever in mine or the other chap's case.
IMHO The Mil pilot makes up such a small % of the CAA's revenue that in their mind it's not worth their while to look after that body of people.
Last edited by Farfrompuken; 16th Jul 2012 at 05:41.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFP'em, agreed, the whole thing is a shambles. That's why we are going down the legal route, it might provide a little 'focus' to the situation.
We are still putting the case together. Update to follow as and when.
FM
We are still putting the case together. Update to follow as and when.
FM
LASORS 2008:
LASORS 2010:
No warning was given of this change and it isn't even highlighted in the 'changes from LASORS 2008' references to sections A 12 'Credit for Military Service' or E 1.2 'IR(A) Flying Training / Experience Requirements'.
The CAA made such a balls-up of LASORS 2010 that they had to release AIC 043/2011 'Amendments to LASORS 2010' which did at least include the following:
The CAA could quite easily have continued the earlier agreement under JAR-FCL1.020:
Note the words 'at the discretion of the Authority'. Why did they not exercise such discretion?
In addition, the CAA delayed introduction of part-FCL from 8 April 2012 to 30 June 2012 and later to 17 September 2012. All other part-FCL changes have been delayed to the same date, yet no similar delay has been allowed for Military Accreditation. Why??
Good luck with your case, this certainly deserves a legal challenge. If you can get an MP involved to put a formal question through the Secretary of State, the CAA will be obliged to take what they term 'orange folder action' in order to provide the answer within a fixed time period - which involves a lot of work for them!
Renewal of an IR (A)
The requirements to renew an IR(A) are based on the period of time elapsed since the rating expired i.e. calculated from the date of expiry of the most recent IR(A) proficiency check entered in the licence.
However, where IR privileges have been exercised in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a UK military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry date of that IR.
The requirements to renew an IR(A) are based on the period of time elapsed since the rating expired i.e. calculated from the date of expiry of the most recent IR(A) proficiency check entered in the licence.
However, where IR privileges have been exercised in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a UK military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry date of that IR.
Renewal of an IR(A)
The requirements to renew an IR(A) are based on the period of time elapsed since the rating expired i.e. calculated from the date of expiry of the most recent IR(A) proficiency check entered in the licence.
Where less than 7 years have elapsed since the IR(A) expired but IR privileges have been exercised since in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements for the IR(A) will be based on the expiry of that other IR.
If more than 7 years have elapsed since the IR(A) expired, no credit will be given for any other IR rating or qualification, and the terms set out below for more than 7 years since expiry shall apply.
To renew an IR(A) that has expired by more than 7 years, applicants must:
For single-pilot aircraft pass an IR(A) skill test in an aeroplane with a UK CAA Staff Flight Examiner.
For multi-pilot aircraft pass a type rating skill test with or observed by a UK CAA Flight Operations Training Inspector.
Applicants will also be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations.
The requirements to renew an IR(A) are based on the period of time elapsed since the rating expired i.e. calculated from the date of expiry of the most recent IR(A) proficiency check entered in the licence.
Where less than 7 years have elapsed since the IR(A) expired but IR privileges have been exercised since in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements for the IR(A) will be based on the expiry of that other IR.
If more than 7 years have elapsed since the IR(A) expired, no credit will be given for any other IR rating or qualification, and the terms set out below for more than 7 years since expiry shall apply.
To renew an IR(A) that has expired by more than 7 years, applicants must:
For single-pilot aircraft pass an IR(A) skill test in an aeroplane with a UK CAA Staff Flight Examiner.
For multi-pilot aircraft pass a type rating skill test with or observed by a UK CAA Flight Operations Training Inspector.
Applicants will also be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations.
The CAA made such a balls-up of LASORS 2010 that they had to release AIC 043/2011 'Amendments to LASORS 2010' which did at least include the following:
21 Section E1.5, page E/7 - Renewal of an IR(A)
The second from last paragraph is expanded to include more detailed information regarding the accreditation scheme. The paragraph is replaced with the following:
Applicants will be required to complete theoretical knowledge instruction through an approved training provider. The amount of instruction will be at the discretion of the Head of Training. Where a QSP(A) or ex QSP(A) (as defined in section D3) can show that he/she can fulfil the criteria to claim credits under the one of the accreditation schemes set out in D3.3 for the grant of a JAR-FCL CPL(A) with IR(A), then he/she can, alternatively, follow that scheme's arrangements to fulfil the theoretical knowledge requirements for renewing the IR(A).
The second from last paragraph is expanded to include more detailed information regarding the accreditation scheme. The paragraph is replaced with the following:
Applicants will be required to complete theoretical knowledge instruction through an approved training provider. The amount of instruction will be at the discretion of the Head of Training. Where a QSP(A) or ex QSP(A) (as defined in section D3) can show that he/she can fulfil the criteria to claim credits under the one of the accreditation schemes set out in D3.3 for the grant of a JAR-FCL CPL(A) with IR(A), then he/she can, alternatively, follow that scheme's arrangements to fulfil the theoretical knowledge requirements for renewing the IR(A).
JAR–FCL 1.020 Credit for military service
()
Military flight crew members applying for licences and ratings specified in JAR–FCL shall apply to the Authority of the State for which they serve(d). The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service will be credited towards the relevant requirements of JAR–FCL licences and ratings at the discretion of the Authority. The policy for the credit given shall be reported to the JAA.
()
Military flight crew members applying for licences and ratings specified in JAR–FCL shall apply to the Authority of the State for which they serve(d). The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service will be credited towards the relevant requirements of JAR–FCL licences and ratings at the discretion of the Authority. The policy for the credit given shall be reported to the JAA.
In addition, the CAA delayed introduction of part-FCL from 8 April 2012 to 30 June 2012 and later to 17 September 2012. All other part-FCL changes have been delayed to the same date, yet no similar delay has been allowed for Military Accreditation. Why??
Good luck with your case, this certainly deserves a legal challenge. If you can get an MP involved to put a formal question through the Secretary of State, the CAA will be obliged to take what they term 'orange folder action' in order to provide the answer within a fixed time period - which involves a lot of work for them!
Last edited by BEagle; 16th Jul 2012 at 07:15.
Applicants will also be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations.
A point that you should be aware of is that LASORS has never had any legal status, it has always been a guidance document. The underlying rules have been JAR-FCL Part 1 (not law in the UK) and now Part FCL Regulation 1178/2011 (EU Law). Even CAP 804 is not a legal document, it reiterates other rules which it muddles with policy and guidance.
Sadly, this shambolic mess has come about by allowing people with no relevant knowledge or experience to play about with rules they clearly don't understand.
Sadly, this shambolic mess has come about by allowing people with no relevant knowledge or experience to play about with rules they clearly don't understand.
Signed. Good luck guys. Why do I just know that it is only the UK that has taken such arbitrary action against their own pilots?
A point that you should be aware of is that LASORS has never had any legal status, it has always been a guidance document.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just picked this thread up gents,
If you are going down the legal route, you may also want to look into the fact that some idiot(s), quite probably plural and I am being kind, when constructing EU Regulation 1178/2011 for EASA Part-FCL, together with the AMC/GM and subsequently CAP 804 appears to have totally omitted any process for converting an ICAO IR into an EASA Part-FCL IR. I cannot believe for one second this is by accident.
The old CPL process has been somewhat modified in that an applicant for converting an ICAO CPL into its EASA equivalent must now attend an Approved Training Organisation and be assessed; the ATO must then forward a recommendation of training to the CAA who must rubber-stamp it with their own approval before the training can go ahead......mmm, I wonder whether there will be a further contribution required to the CAA Staff Final Salary Scheme Pension Fund, err, sorry I mean a charge.
However, there is no similar IR process in place and any credits available from holding a non-EASA ICAO IR can, according to the CAA, only be applied to an integrated CPL/IR course and not any modular IR. In short, the full IR course must be taken, less any credits for holding an EASA Part-FCL CPL, with its impending cost.
Appendix 6 to Part-FCL (Modular IR course) has no conversion process outlined within, neither has Part Q.
There is a validation process which permits the holder of an ICAO ATPL or CPL/IR to fly on Commercial Air Transport ops for one year only, with a single extension of one further year, provided that the person can demonstrate that they have commenced a course of study towards the theoretical knowledge requirements for licence conversion.
However, the old 15 hour IR conversion requirement has simply vanished into thin air, without a 'by-your-leave'.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I thought it better that anyone who is holding an ICAO CPL/IR only should be aware of the full story and not be thinking it's a case of doing the theory exams only.
But hey, more good news, I've lost my CPL altogether thanks to EASA!
Great, innit?
If you are going down the legal route, you may also want to look into the fact that some idiot(s), quite probably plural and I am being kind, when constructing EU Regulation 1178/2011 for EASA Part-FCL, together with the AMC/GM and subsequently CAP 804 appears to have totally omitted any process for converting an ICAO IR into an EASA Part-FCL IR. I cannot believe for one second this is by accident.
The old CPL process has been somewhat modified in that an applicant for converting an ICAO CPL into its EASA equivalent must now attend an Approved Training Organisation and be assessed; the ATO must then forward a recommendation of training to the CAA who must rubber-stamp it with their own approval before the training can go ahead......mmm, I wonder whether there will be a further contribution required to the CAA Staff Final Salary Scheme Pension Fund, err, sorry I mean a charge.
However, there is no similar IR process in place and any credits available from holding a non-EASA ICAO IR can, according to the CAA, only be applied to an integrated CPL/IR course and not any modular IR. In short, the full IR course must be taken, less any credits for holding an EASA Part-FCL CPL, with its impending cost.
Appendix 6 to Part-FCL (Modular IR course) has no conversion process outlined within, neither has Part Q.
There is a validation process which permits the holder of an ICAO ATPL or CPL/IR to fly on Commercial Air Transport ops for one year only, with a single extension of one further year, provided that the person can demonstrate that they have commenced a course of study towards the theoretical knowledge requirements for licence conversion.
However, the old 15 hour IR conversion requirement has simply vanished into thin air, without a 'by-your-leave'.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I thought it better that anyone who is holding an ICAO CPL/IR only should be aware of the full story and not be thinking it's a case of doing the theory exams only.
But hey, more good news, I've lost my CPL altogether thanks to EASA!
Great, innit?
Last edited by 2close; 16th Jul 2012 at 20:21.
There is a validation process which permits the holder of an ICAO ATPL or CPL/IR to fly on Commercial Air Transport ops for one year only, with a single extension of one further year
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When putting together your legal case you might look at the requirements for the likes of the CAA to consult with industry before introducing a change. It used to be called the BERR code. It requires regulators generally to conduct risk assessments etc and consult before changing regulations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
Just a wee update;
As things stand we are still in talks with a law company and the government. I have a couple of small requests of everybody who is involved/affected by this ruling;
1. We have received a reply from the government. The Minister of Transport is now aware of our case. The first letter we received contained 2 interesting points. Firstly she admitted that the guidance that the CAA provided was in error. An admission of guilt? Secondly she stated that the rules had been in place for 12 years, we can only assume that she was referring to the creation of JAR? We're not exactly sure what she means. Anyway, we have written back to the MP requesting more information whilst also fleshing out our case. This includes informing them that there is a petition online. I think this will make them realise that we are serious in regards to this matter. So my request to you is to get as many to sign up as possible. Our thanks in advance.
2. As we are now approaching the point where we may be looking at taking legal action, the two of us leading the case would appreciate any other legal angles in addition to what has already been provided, that you feel may be appropriate to help us apply pressure to the CAA/Govt.
One thing is for sure if we give up now then we're guarenteed not to have a favourable outcome. If you are willing, keep writing letters/e-mails or phone to show your displeasure at what is going on.
Chris
As things stand we are still in talks with a law company and the government. I have a couple of small requests of everybody who is involved/affected by this ruling;
1. We have received a reply from the government. The Minister of Transport is now aware of our case. The first letter we received contained 2 interesting points. Firstly she admitted that the guidance that the CAA provided was in error. An admission of guilt? Secondly she stated that the rules had been in place for 12 years, we can only assume that she was referring to the creation of JAR? We're not exactly sure what she means. Anyway, we have written back to the MP requesting more information whilst also fleshing out our case. This includes informing them that there is a petition online. I think this will make them realise that we are serious in regards to this matter. So my request to you is to get as many to sign up as possible. Our thanks in advance.
2. As we are now approaching the point where we may be looking at taking legal action, the two of us leading the case would appreciate any other legal angles in addition to what has already been provided, that you feel may be appropriate to help us apply pressure to the CAA/Govt.
One thing is for sure if we give up now then we're guarenteed not to have a favourable outcome. If you are willing, keep writing letters/e-mails or phone to show your displeasure at what is going on.
Chris
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Military training was cut cut and cut some more around the time I went through. I had to take all the ATPL exams when I had years of service and thousands of hours. There were no exemptions in the 1990s available to the likes of me. When I took all the exams I learned a LOT of stuff that the military didnt teach me. I learned a lot of guff as well!
In my opinion, military pilots need to do these exams, ONCE! This 7 year rule is just another CAA 'hoop' to jump through, thought up by european minded blunties........
In my opinion, military pilots need to do these exams, ONCE! This 7 year rule is just another CAA 'hoop' to jump through, thought up by european minded blunties........
Fart master, don't be smoke-screened by the revised 'Revalidation of Part-FCL Instrument Rating' accreditation criteria (which may or may not be included in Section 4 part O of amendment 1 to CAP 804, to be released in 2 days time) - your argument is with the illogical changes introduced in LASORS 2010!
jayteeto, how right you are about the progressive dumbing-down of military theoretical knowledge instruction! For example, I was taught (and examined in) in PofF to a greater level for my PFB in 1971 than I was at CFS 20 years later.
For example, OCU groundschool for the Vickers FunBus was significantly dumbed down after some Stn Cdr decided that he didn't like it being so comprehensive.....
Any holding officer waiting to start flying training would be well advised to study for EASA CPL ground exams......in my view....
jayteeto, how right you are about the progressive dumbing-down of military theoretical knowledge instruction! For example, I was taught (and examined in) in PofF to a greater level for my PFB in 1971 than I was at CFS 20 years later.
For example, OCU groundschool for the Vickers FunBus was significantly dumbed down after some Stn Cdr decided that he didn't like it being so comprehensive.....
Any holding officer waiting to start flying training would be well advised to study for EASA CPL ground exams......in my view....
Last edited by BEagle; 25th Jul 2012 at 18:49.