IAOPA sets out its stall on PPL licensing to the US and Europe
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't recognise the French, German [and Belgian, for that matter] medical for the issuance of a UK JAR-FCL PPL.
I've been trying to get my head around that one but presumably it is to cut down on people doing their initial medicals (especially CV tests) in certain well known locations
OTOH can't the initial CV test be done in any ICAO country?
Also EASA is refusing to recognise pilot papers from e.g. Croatia which was formerly a JAA country.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean it doesn't recognise them for the issue of a UK JAR-FCL PPL, or it doesn't recognise them for use in conjunction with a French or German JAR-FCL PPL to fly a G-reg?
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_Med...L_Mar-2010.pdf
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
As you well know the proposed eir is not the same as the imcr and the irr may not be available throughtout easa.
As to my comments regarding martin he rufused to lend aopa uks support to the imcr or to the campaign to save it to which i quote he said it was as much use as a chocolate teapot. He then changed aopas stance when he realised the tide had turned, aopas stance was very unpopular and they had little choice but jump on the band wagon. Personal opinion it maybe but aopa uk has lost its way under martin resulting in an organisation very poorly supported (with less than 10 % of the pilot population being members) and with few friends amoung the other representative organisations. I have no idea why he has clung on for so long and a change is well overdue - its not a job for life, although it does seem otherwise.
I appreciate you will disagree, but you did ask.
As you well know the proposed eir is not the same as the imcr and the irr may not be available throughtout easa.
As to my comments regarding martin he rufused to lend aopa uks support to the imcr or to the campaign to save it to which i quote he said it was as much use as a chocolate teapot. He then changed aopas stance when he realised the tide had turned, aopas stance was very unpopular and they had little choice but jump on the band wagon. Personal opinion it maybe but aopa uk has lost its way under martin resulting in an organisation very poorly supported (with less than 10 % of the pilot population being members) and with few friends amoung the other representative organisations. I have no idea why he has clung on for so long and a change is well overdue - its not a job for life, although it does seem otherwise.
I appreciate you will disagree, but you did ask.
Fuji, virtually all of that rant is utter nonsense!
The proposed En-route IFR Rating is totally different and is not a substitute, I agree. But the IR(R) will have the same privileges as the UK IMC rating and will not be valid outside UK airspace.
AOPA has always supported the IMC rating very strongly and neither Martin Robinson nor any other AOPA representative has ever wavered from that position.
The 'chocolate teapot' term was my description of the original EIR which hadn't been properly defined and was very vague and imprecise.
Again, complete nonsense. Although AOPA's position on the retention of the UK IMC rating most certainly did NOT change, the position on the EIR changed once the NPA 2011-16 proposals made it clear that most of the originally unacceptable vagueness and safety issues had been addressed. If you want to see the full details of both the IAOPA(EU) and AOPA(UK) actual position with regard to the EIR, you will have to wait until the CRD is released.
Nonsense though it is, you are of course entitled to your own opinion. However, you might care to know that AOPA has been working closely with the 'other representative organisations' on a number of issues without any friction or other difficulties. It also has a good standing with the senior levels of the CAA.
Before writing such bile-ridden garbage, it might have been better if you'd done rather more research.
As you well know the proposed eir is not the same as the imcr and the irr may not be available throughtout easa.
As to my comments regarding martin he rufused to lend aopa uks support to the imcr or to the campaign to save it to which i quote he said it was as much use as a chocolate teapot.
The 'chocolate teapot' term was my description of the original EIR which hadn't been properly defined and was very vague and imprecise.
He then changed aopas stance when he realised the tide had turned, aopas stance was very unpopular and they had little choice but jump on the band wagon
Personal opinion it maybe but aopa uk has lost its way under martin resulting in an organisation very poorly supported (with less than 10 % of the pilot population being members) and with few friends amoung the other representative organisations.
Before writing such bile-ridden garbage, it might have been better if you'd done rather more research.
I don't think anybody is debating a requirement for periodic demonstrations of competency. After all, a biannual flight review with an instructor is just that.
What we are arguing here is
- that it shouldn't have to be demonstrated to an examiner
What we are arguing here is
- that it shouldn't have to be demonstrated to an examiner
- that recent flight experience should play a role in setting the requirements
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I am not going to pursue this particular discussion as I know well of your involvement with AOPA and your opinions. I guess I would expect nothing less than for you to support them. That is fine with me and I have no intention of making it personal. Martin has a job to do and I just happen to think he doesn't do the job very well which means that an important organisation like AOPA UK doesn't have the support it enjoys or deserves.
I have been careful to confine my comments to the facts, facts of which you are clearly unaware because you have jumped to the wrong conclusions or made references which are not relevant. That is understandable because I am guessing you were not aware of some of the correspondence between us at the time and correspondence with other parties.
FWIW (and I guess not a lot) I have the emails and since not surprisingly they are in writing I am quite satisfied as to the position taken at the time and the views expressed with which it should be obvious I was very upset and felt it sold GA short. I make no apology for feeling strongly about this matter because I do and I know so do many others.
I am not going to pursue this particular discussion as I know well of your involvement with AOPA and your opinions. I guess I would expect nothing less than for you to support them. That is fine with me and I have no intention of making it personal. Martin has a job to do and I just happen to think he doesn't do the job very well which means that an important organisation like AOPA UK doesn't have the support it enjoys or deserves.
I have been careful to confine my comments to the facts, facts of which you are clearly unaware because you have jumped to the wrong conclusions or made references which are not relevant. That is understandable because I am guessing you were not aware of some of the correspondence between us at the time and correspondence with other parties.
FWIW (and I guess not a lot) I have the emails and since not surprisingly they are in writing I am quite satisfied as to the position taken at the time and the views expressed with which it should be obvious I was very upset and felt it sold GA short. I make no apology for feeling strongly about this matter because I do and I know so do many others.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 4th Jul 2012 at 12:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructors are trained to instruct. Examiners are trained to examine competency.
Instructors are of course also trained to assess competency. They are certainly capable of assessing competency. And they are required to assess competency, when they have to sign student pilots' off for written tests and checkrides. And they assess competency during the flight reviews.
Using an instructor for recurrent assessment as opposed to an examiner just saves a lot of money ($45 /hour vs $200 / hour).
Re the statement "that recent flight experience should play a role in setting the requirements" your asking the question is answering it:
How exactly would that work? A shorter test if you've logged instrument currency?
But that is obviously something you don't give a monkey's about...
And if the BFR came up for an instrument rated private pilot, even if current, I would throw in an approach or a hold just to see how things are going, but that is fun and at minimal cost.
Any relevant safety statistic you want to throw into this Bookworm ? I didn't think so.
Last edited by proudprivate; 4th Jul 2012 at 10:59.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proudpilot
Instructors are trained to instruct and are a pretty mixed bag going from very good to very poor.
Examiners are there to examine and should be detached from the person they examine.
You should not have an instructor who teaches you builds a relationship with you and then examines you.
Cost is another thing.
Nothing we do get from EASA will be what we want as there is little common sense in how they operate.
Anything which we do get which is less than that which is on the table at present will be a bonus.
If you can continue your FAA IR in Europe but are required to sit an airlaw exam and take a flight test with a designated Examiner that has to be a lot better than what is there at present.
Pace
Instructors are trained to instruct and are a pretty mixed bag going from very good to very poor.
Examiners are there to examine and should be detached from the person they examine.
You should not have an instructor who teaches you builds a relationship with you and then examines you.
Cost is another thing.
Nothing we do get from EASA will be what we want as there is little common sense in how they operate.
Anything which we do get which is less than that which is on the table at present will be a bonus.
If you can continue your FAA IR in Europe but are required to sit an airlaw exam and take a flight test with a designated Examiner that has to be a lot better than what is there at present.
Pace
What utter claptrap to suit your monetary self interest!
Instructors are of course also trained to assess competency. They are certainly capable of assessing competency. And they are required to assess competency, when they have to sign student pilots' off for written tests and checkrides. And they assess competency during the flight reviews.
Using an instructor for recurrent assessment as opposed to an examiner just saves a lot of money ($45 /hour vs $200 / hour).
Using an instructor for recurrent assessment as opposed to an examiner just saves a lot of money ($45 /hour vs $200 / hour).
Why do examiners cost more than instructors?
If you've logged instrument currency (where the approaches and holds during normal flight time can be verified - they are on ATC tape and on record at the airports) you shouldn't be re-tested at all, it's as simple as that. And it saves time and money for the pilot community.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community. Come to think of it, if I make it up the stairs to my AME's office without having a heart attack, why bother with the medical examination? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community.
Bookie
Tongue in cheek I am sure but I guess there is a serious point. As societies / communities develop they tend to accumulate ever more legislation and regulatory requirements; the danger is that either while they were justified at the time, they no longer are, or, on any proper examination of the evidence they were not justified in the first place.
The FAA monitor instrument proficiency in a different way to us we all know, but is there any evidence our system reduces the number of accidents / incidents? Conversely the BFR in FAA land is a test whereas in theory our nearest equivalent isn't and is works quite differently if you can demonstrate currency. Is one system better than another? Some aircraft in the UK require the pilot has a full CAA medical but other aircraft just as fast and perhaps more difficult to fly do not require the pilot to have a medical to the same standard. Moreover arguably they attract pilots who wouldn't get a CAA medical for one reason or another. Is there any evidence to suggest they have more incidents / accidents as a result of medical issues which would have been screened during a CAA medical? I don't know the answers but they are all valid questions me thinks.
Bookie
Tongue in cheek I am sure but I guess there is a serious point. As societies / communities develop they tend to accumulate ever more legislation and regulatory requirements; the danger is that either while they were justified at the time, they no longer are, or, on any proper examination of the evidence they were not justified in the first place.
The FAA monitor instrument proficiency in a different way to us we all know, but is there any evidence our system reduces the number of accidents / incidents? Conversely the BFR in FAA land is a test whereas in theory our nearest equivalent isn't and is works quite differently if you can demonstrate currency. Is one system better than another? Some aircraft in the UK require the pilot has a full CAA medical but other aircraft just as fast and perhaps more difficult to fly do not require the pilot to have a medical to the same standard. Moreover arguably they attract pilots who wouldn't get a CAA medical for one reason or another. Is there any evidence to suggest they have more incidents / accidents as a result of medical issues which would have been screened during a CAA medical? I don't know the answers but they are all valid questions me thinks.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Have you just realised the reason Europe is going down the drain is that it is a victim of its own burocracy?
A vast Army of government jobs, gold plated pensions big expense accounts all to be paid for. Regulators every way you turn with their research departments all heavily paid and all looking for new ways to regulate to justify their own jobs? A monster of a machine out of control and costing Billions all in the name of big brother Europe!
We cannot afford it anymore!
Just one tiny example of why we are going down the drain. They could have taken the FAA well tried and tested system adjusted for European issues and saved a fortune.
EASA common sense??? They regulate for their own benefit not the community
Pace
Tongue in cheek I am sure but I guess there is a serious point. As societies / communities develop they tend to accumulate ever more legislation and regulatory requirements; the danger is that either while they were justified at the time, they no longer are, or, on any proper examination of the evidence they were not justified in the first place.
Have you just realised the reason Europe is going down the drain is that it is a victim of its own burocracy?
A vast Army of government jobs, gold plated pensions big expense accounts all to be paid for. Regulators every way you turn with their research departments all heavily paid and all looking for new ways to regulate to justify their own jobs? A monster of a machine out of control and costing Billions all in the name of big brother Europe!
We cannot afford it anymore!
I find that completely unacceptable. A friggin publicly funded €100 million+ budget a year organisation should show common sense and should operate to serve the community
EASA common sense??? They regulate for their own benefit not the community
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Jul 2012 at 13:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've come across very few other people on PPrune who not only personalise the debate but also make fallacious assertions about the motivation of other contributors to the discussion.
Now tell me, are you or are you not making money from Aviation Regulation in Europe, be it as a consultant to the UK CAA on regulatory matters, a temporary agent at EASA, or a similar occupation ?
So why does the system bother with examiners at all then? Why not just get the hour-building kid who just qualified to teach students to assess your competence to do something that you've been doing for the last 20 years, and take that privilege away from you on a whim?
First, notice the absence of any safety statistic in your argument.
A system with examiners for initial check rides and instructors on a biannual basis has been tried and tested. The safety record of such a system per flown hour certain beats yours. Furthermore, it is cheaper on the pilot community. Therefore, it is superior.
Next, you propose to do away with examination altogether, and in the same sentence you question the competence of an instructor of your choice.
Finally, you describe the threat of an hour building kid to take away your flying privileges. This threat doesn't exist. You cannot "fail" a biannual flight review. The kid might refuse to sign you off, but if it is the kid of your choice, I would assume the dialogue and debrief would give you a clue as to why he would refuse this. But that is not "taking away flying priveleges". After some proper review, you would probably get the sign off. If the original examination was anything to go by, remedies are likely to be light.
Why do examiners cost more than instructors?
I don't have a definite answer to that one. Some possibilities could be:
a) because the examiner is usually a more senior pilot
b) because sometimes the local CAA charges add-on fees
c) because they have an oligopoly which they exploit
Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community. Come to think of it, if I make it up the stairs to my AME's office without having a heart attack, why bother with the medical examination? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community.
You've been thoroughly tested on various procedures, which at that time you knew how to fly within private or commercial standards. By regularly flying approaches and holds, you retain a sufficient level of competence. Sufficient studies in comparable educational domains prove that. The advantage is that the basic instrument skill set can be logged and verified by a competent authority (on its own behalf or on behalf of an insurance company for example).
The whole point of the debate lies in a cost/benefit balance, where the benefit is safety. It is certainly worthwile doing an impact study (a real one, not an EASA one where you twist assumptions to suit your needs) about the need of a medical for private flight, but that is not the issue here.
By contrast, FAA studies show deteriorating pilot skills with inexperienced PPLs, which is their main motivator for a BFR. I would guess that, based on the skills affected (some are affected more than others, and some are more safety related than others), an impact study would reveal a statistically significant accident increase in the absence of a BFR. This should then be weighed against the alternative of having pilots log particular exercises in lieu of a BFR. The conclusion would probably be that, systematically logging a bunch of unverifiable items would not outweigh a one off cost of a BFR.
@ Pace :
You should not have an instructor who teaches you builds a relationship with you and then examines you.
Nothing we do get from EASA will be what we want as there is little common sense in how they operate.
Last edited by proudprivate; 4th Jul 2012 at 13:42.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why does the system bother with examiners at all then? Why not just get the hour-building kid who just qualified to teach students to assess your competence to do something that you've been doing for the last 20 years, and take that privilege away from you on a whim?
......
Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride?
......
Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride?
You are doing something that I wouldn't expect of you - repositioning a sensible alternative view into an absurdity.
The position I think we should be debating is the EASA/JAA vs FAA/ICAO one of the role of instructors vs examiners and the requirements for currency. I am qualified under both, although I have only a little ad-hoc instructing experience.
My characterisation of the two models is as follows:
Under the FAA, there are effectively only 2 "ranks" - Designated Pilot Examiners and Instructors. A DPE is needed for only one type of event - the initial issuance of a Certificate or Class Rating. Absolutely every other requirement for a pilot's revalidation or renewal or differences training can be met by a plain vanilla CFI (with CFII and MEI privileges as required). A CPL/IR ME could have stopped flying 10 years ago, and a plain CFI-II-MEI could sign off his complete and full set of privileges without any reference to an examiner or the FAA or any paperwork other than logbook endorsements.
The instructor has a vital role in assessing competence. The FAA I think would say a greater role (albeit less formal) than a DPE. The endorsement an instructor gives a candidate is taken as a formal assessment that the candidate meets the skills, experience and knowledge standards for the privileges he seeks. The DPE's role is to perform a "check" that this is the case, but it is emphasised that a single check ride can only test so much, and that the instructor is exercising a significant responsibility in endorsing a candidate and giving this message to the DPE and the FAA. In the award of new qualifications, there are thus two independent "gates" (the instructor and the DPE). In the revalidation/renewal, it is entirely down to the instructor's assessment.
I happen to think the system works well, its virtue is an obvious simplicity and practicality and, most importantly, a safety outcome as good or better than the best European countries. Of course, there is some small risk that a "bad egg" gets through, but the safety record suggests this is more than mitigated by avoiding the vast unproductive bureaucracy associated with flight training and testing in Europe, and consequently making flight training more accessible and less expensive. By less expensive, interestingly, that does not apply to instruction. The typical US rate is $50/hr flight and ground time. A much fairer rate than the pittance many European instructors work for. But, the avoidance of the huge regulatory cost makes flight training cheaper overall. Basically every penny you spend goes on training and practically none on the overheads and approvals needed in Europe.
Conversely, a "flight instructor" in Europe sits at the bottom of a multi-layered hierarchial pyramid, with NAA inspectors and examiners at the top, senior examiners and examiner examiners below them, then normal examiners, then heads of training and CFIs and then finally the "plain" instructor (with the "restricted" instructors below that), who are basically empowered to execute some training roles in an FTO and that's it. There is no comparison between that role and an FAA CFI, who has all of the privileges of European examiners in the realm of revalidation and renewal.
The hierarchy and multiple layers of paperwork checking may appeal to a certain kind of mentality, but I think it achieves nothing relative to the US model for flight training and safety.
brgds
421C
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA monitor instrument proficiency in a different way to us we all know, but is there any evidence our system reduces the number of accidents / incidents?
The JAA annual IR test does nothing to improve safety.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I am not going to pursue this particular discussion as I know well
of your involvement with AOPA and your opinions. I guess I would expect nothing less than for you to support them. That is fine with me and I have no intention of making it personal. Martin has a job to do and I just happen to think he doesn't do the job very well which means that an important organisation like AOPA UK doesn't have the support it enjoys or deserves.
I am not going to pursue this particular discussion as I know well
of your involvement with AOPA and your opinions. I guess I would expect nothing less than for you to support them. That is fine with me and I have no intention of making it personal. Martin has a job to do and I just happen to think he doesn't do the job very well which means that an important organisation like AOPA UK doesn't have the support it enjoys or deserves.
I am a member of AOPA and nothing more. I don't want to start an argument, but I can't think of how to counter the personal attacks you have made on Martin and AOPA's role in the IMCr in any other way. I think you both have some sort of grudge and elevated self-importance. In my opinion, Martin and AOPA (and Beagle!) have done absolutely sterling work from day 1 in support of the IMCr, and any positive outcomes are due to their efforts, as well as the supportive role of the CAA/DfT and other pilot organisations. I would guess your contribution, on balance has been zero, because anything positive that your long-forgotten petition achieved has probably been negated by your endless criticism of AOPA on pilot forums for years since. I agree that AOPA doesn't have the support it deserves. I would attribute that to several factors on the whole
- useless apathy amongst many GA pilots
- unrealistic expectations of what a small voluntary organisation can achieve
- the egocentric view of "if it doesn't conform to my exact preferences in instance X, Y or Z" then I will stroppily refuse to join
In addition, I would add that a certain kind of anti-AOPA grudge-holder can be particulary vociferous on pilot fora, and I suspect this has some minor effect on negativity entering the collective pilot psyche. You are such a grudge-holder.
I value many of your interesting contributions on fora, but not your anti-AOPA campaign. If you have your doubts, the more constructive way would be to engage directly with the AOPA Member's working group etc, and stop rubbishing AOPA whenever the opportunity pops up. Of course, we are all entitled to an opionion, but when the number of times I have read an opinion of this sort from you approaches the 100 mark, as it probably does, I start to think it is vindictive, egocentric and unfair.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread focus...
I don't think it is particularly helpful to to discuss actions of Martin Robinson or IAOPA in the past nor the advantages and disadvantages of joining IAOPA. I'm an AOPA member myself, and I see clear benefits to me.
I started this debate because Mr Robinson / IAOPA communicated to me on the current negotiations. I think it is not unreasonable to ask for a cost & effort conscious simplification of private aviation regulation in Europe. Some of the points mentioned in his communication seemingly contradict this rather straightforward view.
Replacing examinations with currency requirements for the instrument rating is an obvious one. Honouring ICAO papers another one.
I started this debate because Mr Robinson / IAOPA communicated to me on the current negotiations. I think it is not unreasonable to ask for a cost & effort conscious simplification of private aviation regulation in Europe. Some of the points mentioned in his communication seemingly contradict this rather straightforward view.
Replacing examinations with currency requirements for the instrument rating is an obvious one. Honouring ICAO papers another one.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not ? I happen to have a long standing relationship with my instructor. He would not sign me off if he felt I were deficient, and the BFR would certainly be a good learning experience
Proudpilot
We agree on many things
You may have a great instructor who is more than capable That to me is what an instructor should be.Instructor conjures up an image of a grey haired guy with that knowing twinkle in his eye who passes down years of hard earned experience to lesser mortals
Sadly an instructor can be the hour building kid with limited ability, hours and experience.That does not mean that there should not be an instructor plus rating which qualifies more experienced instructors to examine? A sort of halfway house between an instructor and examiner.
Regarding the relationship between an instructor and carrying out examinations as well it is often good to have a second eye or opinion of your flying and an unbiased one at that.
Your instructor knows you well, knows your flying good and bad habits and is more likely to turn a blind eye. You dont go for a driving test and do it with the guy who taught you to drive you need an unbiased outside view of your abilities!
If we are expecting IR privalages in Europe rather than actually attaining and holding equiavalent licences is it not better to satisfy a European examiner representing EASA that we are up to the standards expected and save a fortune in the process.
I cannot see EASA letting an 18 year old with 200 hrs total give that approval!
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
I have read an opinion of this sort from you approaches the 100 mark, as it probably does, I start to think it is vindictive, egocentric and unfair.
Fair comment.
I don't wish to pursue this is a vindictive manner. You will have gathered I feel strongly, but perhaps that is academic if it crosses the line.
For the record AOPA and Martin have done sterling work in many areas. In some I may think otherwise but for now and the future from my point of view it is best left there, you are right.
I have read an opinion of this sort from you approaches the 100 mark, as it probably does, I start to think it is vindictive, egocentric and unfair.
Fair comment.
I don't wish to pursue this is a vindictive manner. You will have gathered I feel strongly, but perhaps that is academic if it crosses the line.
For the record AOPA and Martin have done sterling work in many areas. In some I may think otherwise but for now and the future from my point of view it is best left there, you are right.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see EASA letting an 18 year old with 200 hrs total give that approval!
) but that is just the reality of European politics.One can debate the fundamentals but they will never change.
The US system, demonstrably "at least as good and mostly safer" will never be adopted here, partly for job protection reasons and partly because it is American.
So, instead of flying 6 approaches within the last 6 months, I have to fly with a CRE/IRR and spend £150, once a year. (In fact I have to do both because I have both IRs to maintain). That's about the cheapest way to do it. Plus the cost of actually flying, so a renter will be paying lots more than that. For nothing.
Last edited by peterh337; 4th Jul 2012 at 15:11.