Pointless GAPAN.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,401
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Mr Bogeymann,
The Guild works closely with all organisations involved in aviation. They are as concerned about over-regulation as anyone else.
Much work is being done to acheive a reasoned compromise; this work is being carried out in committee and with other aviation groups. This thread has only highlighted part of that work and it is regrettable that this topic is being aired in such an ill-informed way; petulant and abusive comment is serving no-one well.
But, out of interest, what routine continuation training (ground or air) do you think would be reasonable for microlight pilots?
The Guild works closely with all organisations involved in aviation. They are as concerned about over-regulation as anyone else.
Much work is being done to acheive a reasoned compromise; this work is being carried out in committee and with other aviation groups. This thread has only highlighted part of that work and it is regrettable that this topic is being aired in such an ill-informed way; petulant and abusive comment is serving no-one well.
But, out of interest, what routine continuation training (ground or air) do you think would be reasonable for microlight pilots?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Planet reality - unlike the old school
Then why oh why did GAPAN not consult with one of its freemen who just happens to be the CEO of the BMAA - why would you call petulant the direct quote from GAPAN itself?
What continuation training is required in the BMAA - as I understand it no continuation training is currently required yet no case is to answer. Why force it upon them? Well an earlier contributer said it all. Jelousy.
Quote forwarded to me
In over 20 years of microlight training alone I have noticed a common trait in both students & pilots. The average microlight pilot seems to have to develop a natural and better feel for the air than nearly all of the conventionally orientated pilots that I have flown with.
I often have a tougher time teaching those who fly normal aircraft. The intricacies of flying a low inertia, high power to weight ratio and high drag aircraft (the types used by 90% of the microlight schools) are often diametrically opposed to the types that the conventional pilot has flown. As you know the typical weightshift pilot has to develop strange but unique skills that nearly always result in them converting to other aircraft in very short time. Whereas conversion of conventional pilots to weightshift can often be a nightmare! But still the conventional flying fraternity look down on them as not 'real' pilots.
Having been at the receiving end of typical conventional flying school tuition on many occasions, I find that the emphasis is very much on flying as a means to an end ie. professional pilot goal. Flying within a club environment can still be so expensive that the average pilot often only just manages to do the minimum required for revalidation and therefore I can understand somewhat the feeling that they need some form of skill test/check flight.
Microlight aviation on the other hand has not only made flying more accessible but has allowed the average pilot to knock up more hours and experience annually. Generally, the only reason a test is made is when they have not managed to clock up the minimum times for a C of E. In microlight flying this rarely happens as most people can fly their own aircraft regularly.
I hope that this steady trend towards increasing bureaucracy will not have just the opposite effect on safety. There is a constant feeling of despondency amongst pilots as they see that more regulation, often justified on the grounds of safety is usually just red tape!
Unquote...l
What continuation training is required in the BMAA - as I understand it no continuation training is currently required yet no case is to answer. Why force it upon them? Well an earlier contributer said it all. Jelousy.
Quote forwarded to me
In over 20 years of microlight training alone I have noticed a common trait in both students & pilots. The average microlight pilot seems to have to develop a natural and better feel for the air than nearly all of the conventionally orientated pilots that I have flown with.
I often have a tougher time teaching those who fly normal aircraft. The intricacies of flying a low inertia, high power to weight ratio and high drag aircraft (the types used by 90% of the microlight schools) are often diametrically opposed to the types that the conventional pilot has flown. As you know the typical weightshift pilot has to develop strange but unique skills that nearly always result in them converting to other aircraft in very short time. Whereas conversion of conventional pilots to weightshift can often be a nightmare! But still the conventional flying fraternity look down on them as not 'real' pilots.
Having been at the receiving end of typical conventional flying school tuition on many occasions, I find that the emphasis is very much on flying as a means to an end ie. professional pilot goal. Flying within a club environment can still be so expensive that the average pilot often only just manages to do the minimum required for revalidation and therefore I can understand somewhat the feeling that they need some form of skill test/check flight.
Microlight aviation on the other hand has not only made flying more accessible but has allowed the average pilot to knock up more hours and experience annually. Generally, the only reason a test is made is when they have not managed to clock up the minimum times for a C of E. In microlight flying this rarely happens as most people can fly their own aircraft regularly.
I hope that this steady trend towards increasing bureaucracy will not have just the opposite effect on safety. There is a constant feeling of despondency amongst pilots as they see that more regulation, often justified on the grounds of safety is usually just red tape!
Unquote...l
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 760
Likes: 34
From: Rural England, thank God.
Can I throw in my tuppence ha'pennyworth?
1. GAPAN does not have a "board" - this submission probably came from their Education & Training Committee
2. Said committee seems to have some sort of role in allowing aged aviators to pass their experience back into the industry - many members are ex-mil, and many are ex-training captains.
From my experience there are some in the Guild who have had their fill of directly patricipating in aviation (or who have lost their medicals), and a proportion have little experience of GA. However there are many who are supremely qualified, and a current member of the "Court" (nearest thing to a board) is an experienced GA FI.
Most in the Guild are passionate about attracting the best into the profession, and making it a fulfilling career. I hate red tape too, but I would have thought that this submission was well-intentioned.
1. GAPAN does not have a "board" - this submission probably came from their Education & Training Committee
2. Said committee seems to have some sort of role in allowing aged aviators to pass their experience back into the industry - many members are ex-mil, and many are ex-training captains.
From my experience there are some in the Guild who have had their fill of directly patricipating in aviation (or who have lost their medicals), and a proportion have little experience of GA. However there are many who are supremely qualified, and a current member of the "Court" (nearest thing to a board) is an experienced GA FI.
Most in the Guild are passionate about attracting the best into the profession, and making it a fulfilling career. I hate red tape too, but I would have thought that this submission was well-intentioned.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Planet reality - unlike the old school
Is it not the harshest thing to say about any committee - "Well they mean well"...
If an opinion is wanted it should be sought from the experts within that field and not by members of another sector of aviation,
If an opinion is wanted it should be sought from the experts within that field and not by members of another sector of aviation,
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,401
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
In which case, Mr Bogeymann, rather than just cutting and pasting quotes from others, perhaps you would answer the question I posed earlier:
"....what routine continuation training (ground or air) do you think would be reasonable for microlight pilots?"
"....what routine continuation training (ground or air) do you think would be reasonable for microlight pilots?"
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Planet reality - unlike the old school
I have already answered that one - the members of the BMAA have no safety case to answer. Why attempt to force continuation training on them when it is plainly and clearly not required. This sentiment is echoed by many and hence the cut and paste. This obvioulsy goes against your stance and hence the reason you fail to answer any of the points contained in it. It is sad when the CAA's own experts (Panel Examiners), the BMAA Council and the microlight instructor industry recommend one course of action based on their expert knowledge, to then have a group who obviously hold our expertise in contempt tell us off!
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,401
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Without wishing to labour the point, perhaps you might be care to ask your Chairman whether he considers there to be any merit in continuation training?
Perhaps, as I've inferred, not a flight. Perhaps different requirements for different types of microlight. Even a routine 'safety module' briefing conducted by the Examiner who signs your CofE?
I sincerely hope that compromise can be reached equably and expeditiously. Because I would personally hate to see the sort of changes enforced upon you that some have mooted.
Give a little and gain a lot - or give nothing and lose a lot?
Perhaps, as I've inferred, not a flight. Perhaps different requirements for different types of microlight. Even a routine 'safety module' briefing conducted by the Examiner who signs your CofE?
I sincerely hope that compromise can be reached equably and expeditiously. Because I would personally hate to see the sort of changes enforced upon you that some have mooted.
Give a little and gain a lot - or give nothing and lose a lot?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Planet reality - unlike the old school
But this should not be about petty posturing and totally about what is best all round. The system the BMAA has works. Enforced change just for the sake of compying with the red tape of others is quite simply daft.
I dont know what the chairman of the BMAA thinks is best continuation training wise but I do know that the BMAA does not have a safety case to answer therefore any continuation training is pointless.
The same applies to your idea of a meeting of minds somewhere halfway - WHY! Its getting a little repetitive now but the BMAA has no safety case to answer. I am sure that if it did someone would be shouting it out loud and clear - they are not.
I dont know what the chairman of the BMAA thinks is best continuation training wise but I do know that the BMAA does not have a safety case to answer therefore any continuation training is pointless.
The same applies to your idea of a meeting of minds somewhere halfway - WHY! Its getting a little repetitive now but the BMAA has no safety case to answer. I am sure that if it did someone would be shouting it out loud and clear - they are not.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
The whole continuation training argument is flawed.
Actually look at the data. The US introduced the requirement many years ago - that accident rate did not improve.
JAR introduced the requirement - the accident rate ( over admitedly a short period) has got worst.
But the 'flight training industry' is solidly behind the requirement on safety grounds - yeah right!!! I think we can see what grounds they actually support.
It is a sensible argument - but one that is simply not supported by the evidence. Perhaps that is because simply re-tracing parts of the original training syllabus does not add much value, perhaps having the least experinced pilots (in real world terms, i.e. frozen ATPLs), as instructors is wholly flawed. Whatever the problem the present continuation training is not reducing the accident rate.
So when GAPAN state the BMAA must 'get onside' with the financial vested interests where is the evidence that safety is being improved?
To be blunt light aviation would be much better off if it followed the BMAA approach rather than the 'we all want to be airline pilots' approach that most of the GA organisations seem to have.
Actually look at the data. The US introduced the requirement many years ago - that accident rate did not improve.
JAR introduced the requirement - the accident rate ( over admitedly a short period) has got worst.
But the 'flight training industry' is solidly behind the requirement on safety grounds - yeah right!!! I think we can see what grounds they actually support.
It is a sensible argument - but one that is simply not supported by the evidence. Perhaps that is because simply re-tracing parts of the original training syllabus does not add much value, perhaps having the least experinced pilots (in real world terms, i.e. frozen ATPLs), as instructors is wholly flawed. Whatever the problem the present continuation training is not reducing the accident rate.
So when GAPAN state the BMAA must 'get onside' with the financial vested interests where is the evidence that safety is being improved?
To be blunt light aviation would be much better off if it followed the BMAA approach rather than the 'we all want to be airline pilots' approach that most of the GA organisations seem to have.
