AOPA and GFTs
There was - and it seems to have been deleted.
Basically, a contributor had been given incorrect information regarding the EASA proposal for mandatory 6-yearly LPCs for SEP Class Ratings, and had been told that this was an AOPA initiative....
It most certainly was NOT! It is another product of €urocratic Kölunacy from the EASA funny farm. Here is the actual proposal:
FCL.740.A Revalidation of class and type ratings aeroplanes
(3) When the applicant holds both a single engine piston aeroplane land class rating and a touring motor glider rating, he/she may complete the requirements of the paragraph above in either class, and achieve revalidation of both ratings.To object to this, you must go to EASA CRT application and register. Then wait for an e-mail approving your registration. Then go back to EASA CRT application and login. Then you will be able to access the Comment Response Tool. From that, select 'View documents'. From the list, right click on NPA 2008 - 17b and then 'Add/edit comments' from the context menu. With luck the document will load; on the right hand side scroll down to page 37; this should open FCL.740A on the left hand side. Right-click on the FCL.740A paragraph and you will see it highlighted in pale yellow, with an 'Add comment' option. Left click on that and a comment box will appear on the right hand side. Enter your comment, then left click the 'floppy disk' icon to save (and send) it.......
Simple really. NOT!!
Whilst in a complaining frame of mind, then go to Applying spectrum pricing to the Maritime and Aeronautical sectors | Ofcom and comment on the ludicrous Ofcom 'spectrum pricing' consultation concerning aeronautical and maritime frequencies.
Sometimes I wonder if Orville and Wilbur shouldn't have just stuck to fixing bikes......
Basically, a contributor had been given incorrect information regarding the EASA proposal for mandatory 6-yearly LPCs for SEP Class Ratings, and had been told that this was an AOPA initiative....
It most certainly was NOT! It is another product of €urocratic Kölunacy from the EASA funny farm. Here is the actual proposal:
FCL.740.A Revalidation of class and type ratings aeroplanes
(b) Revalidation of single pilot single engine class ratings.
(1) Single engine piston aeroplane class ratings and touring motor glider ratings. For revalidation of single pilot single engine piston aeroplane class ratings or touring motor glider class ratings the applicant shall:
(i) within the three months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or
(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including: 6 hours as pilot-in-command ; 12 takeoffs and 12 landings; and a training flight of at least one hour with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this flight if they have passed a proficiency check or skill test in any other class or type of aeroplane.
(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including: 6 hours as pilot-in-command ; 12 takeoffs and 12 landings; and a training flight of at least one hour with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this flight if they have passed a proficiency check or skill test in any other class or type of aeroplane.
(2) For at least every third revalidation, the applicant shall comply with the requirements in (1)(i).
(3) When the applicant holds both a single engine piston aeroplane land class rating and a touring motor glider rating, he/she may complete the requirements of the paragraph above in either class, and achieve revalidation of both ratings.
Simple really. NOT!!
Whilst in a complaining frame of mind, then go to Applying spectrum pricing to the Maritime and Aeronautical sectors | Ofcom and comment on the ludicrous Ofcom 'spectrum pricing' consultation concerning aeronautical and maritime frequencies.
Sometimes I wonder if Orville and Wilbur shouldn't have just stuck to fixing bikes......
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for the instructions.
But like all these things the more you read the more you wonder. 10 points for the French who seem to have got most of the the things they already have (brevet du base, mountain rating etc).
So much for sensible medicals and an accessible IR. I doubt my comments will make any differnce but I'll plug on through.....
But like all these things the more you read the more you wonder. 10 points for the French who seem to have got most of the the things they already have (brevet du base, mountain rating etc).
So much for sensible medicals and an accessible IR. I doubt my comments will make any differnce but I'll plug on through.....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, AOPA have responded to this latest threat with a response that states it is onerous, a waste of time and will do nothing to enhance flight safety.
A response is also being prepared for the ludicrous proposals for our Instructor ratings.
1. All instructors to fly with their school CFI before undertaking instructional duties and thereafter on an annual basis.
2. All instructors to fly a check flight on a type they have previously not flown prior to giving instruction, including trial lessons on that type.
Clearly, there would need to be an arrangement for single instructor registered facilities but this could perhaps be overcome by requiring an initial and annual flight with an instructors instructor.
Additionally, there are many other areas that the various safety groups have identified that require consideration in the longer term.
A response is also being prepared for the ludicrous proposals for our Instructor ratings.
1. All instructors to fly with their school CFI before undertaking instructional duties and thereafter on an annual basis.
2. All instructors to fly a check flight on a type they have previously not flown prior to giving instruction, including trial lessons on that type.
Clearly, there would need to be an arrangement for single instructor registered facilities but this could perhaps be overcome by requiring an initial and annual flight with an instructors instructor.
Additionally, there are many other areas that the various safety groups have identified that require consideration in the longer term.
Just to clarify things, the stupid proposals for Instructor Ratings quoted by bose-x come from the CAA's GASWRG, not from EASA.
What on earth is that supposed to consist of?
A 'type' on a Class Rating? What is a 'check' flight? Is it a standardisation flight? Who defines the content?
In any case, were the CAA to try and introduce this there would need to be a Consultation and a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
There are far more important things for the CAA to worry about!
a check flight on a type
A 'type' on a Class Rating? What is a 'check' flight? Is it a standardisation flight? Who defines the content?
In any case, were the CAA to try and introduce this there would need to be a Consultation and a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
There are far more important things for the CAA to worry about!
