Oh heck, what's a GFT?

GFT stands for general flying test.

I am sure that if this is no longer in use, some clever people in a shiny office decided that they should use some brand new terminology to make things sound more expensive!

But you do need an RT for PPL to be valid don't you?

You don't. Except of course you could not legally use the radio!


It is still, at least in theory, possible to complete a PPL in a non radio Tiger Moth.


In reality, I doubt that it's been done for a long time.

Absolutely, you can obtain a PPL and fly it, as long as you have someone else with you who is RT qualified (that's my understanding, anyway), though why you'd do that is beyond me. Unless, of course, as you say, you do your PPL in a non radio aircraft

Seems counter productive to me to get the PPL without radio qualification. May as well just get the NPPL... Less expensive medical, lower number of hours required to pass..... Etc....

As you would struggle to go anywhere outside the UK without radio / transponder on board. And to rent abroad, you'd be hard pressed to find places allowing you to rent an aeroplane without a radio licence.

It isn't all impossible - just much much harder...

I'm sure there's someone out there for whom it might be useful. Perhaps they're ready for a skills test but the RT examiner is off sick. Or perhaps they own a ranch in Zimbabwe and only plan to fly from one side to the other and to their neighbours for tea. Why advocate make something more restrictive just for the sake of 'rationalisation'.

Well three airfields are a no-no without RT Fairoaks,White Waltham,Denham,

Just for safety I wouldn't want to contemplate leaving the ground without RT even for circuits, that must make me a big wuss.....

I know a farmer in NZ who has three airstrips on his property - one at each end and one in the middle. Can't expect the vet to spend hours driving from one end to the other!

Haha! But if that's all you're flying for, you might not even need a licence!! Although pretty cool to have 3 strips! SuperCub?

I don't think so... I've seen people do circuits without radio, and have radio planes coming in to land without knowing that there was anyone else around, some planes are particularly difficult to spot and them coming VERY close to one another before realising that they were on a collision course. I have also seen a few airprox due to this very reason. Especially now - there is little reason to fly without a radio, handheld are so cheap!

ABGD - I agree that it shouldn't be changed for rationalisation, just surprised it was possible in the first place! Seems rather limiting, but maybe that's just because I like to do longer trips around Europe...

It's the vet who has the aircraft, not the farmer. Yeah, it's some farm strip taildragger, don't remember what type exactly. When we visited we got driven from one end to the other, in a 4WD, in good weather with the river low, and it took hours.

And the farmhouse was on the front page of the Grauniad web site a couple of days ago, split apart by the earthquake - didn't look like that when we stayed there :-((((

Doing a (training) instrument approach to Norwich once upon a time.

"Might have to vector you around a bit, there's someone coming in non-radio."

(bit later)

"OK, it looks like he knows what he's doing, report localiser established."

Really sorry to hear that GTW... :-( I hope they're okay despite being shaken. Family friends were in Kaikoura during the quake, got helicoptered out.

Well that a new one for me!! No wonder nobody was surprised when I turned up with a PPL!! How cool would that be!?

Glad its not just me thinking some of them aren't particularly "aware" of their surroundings! It is quite incredible how much situational awareness you get from having a radio! I have had a couple of radio failure incidents, and its pretty hard to tell who is where, especially at a bigger circuit pattern such as Biggin!

Whilst on the subject of night ratings, perhaps somebody could clear up some confusion for me please?

Does anybody know where I can find official phraseology for stop & go landings? I've searched the latest edition of CAP 413 but it doesn't seem to have anything relating to stop & go landings. Although I am conscious that this might be because it is not a commonly practiced procedure!

In particular I'm keen to find out what calls I should make once cleared for the S&G and landed. I've had conflicting advice about whether I should call 'rolling'/'departing', 'airborne', or even no need to call after landing until downwind again (similar to a T&G).

Apologies for the slight drift - be useful to have some ATC insight as well if any tower bods browse here. Perhaps I might cross-post in ATC section.

You could always give the ATC a call and ask them what they expect from you - that would avoid any confusion.

I can't help beyond that as when I did my night rating with the full stop landings I was cleared to land, and then after coming to a stop I think I was cleared for takeoff (with a backtrack if required) without needing to request it.

...exactly how we've done it for years. No problem, though I do sit in the Tower with the controller to observe. A short backtrack proves the point re. the full stop.

TOO

This does depend on where you do your rating. Southend and Biggin have really long runways and the phraseology I have used / was given / heard on the radio was very very clear. It depended on the circumstances of the landing, and what other traffic there is.

For instance, I was once cleared for a full stop only, and requested to vacate to let the number 2, a A319 land before resuming my circuits.

Usually, I call downwind "G-AB downwind runway xx for Stop & Go" and the clearance given will vary from "G-AB call final, number x" to "G-AB call final, number x, cleared stop and go, backtrack as required".

They're used to having people call for stop and go, especially at night! But always best to chat to them first to make sure!

What amazes me as the years roll by is that the same questions in Aviation come up time and time again. The same questions being asked 30 years ago.
Why can't the aviation authority get their act together and in plain English publish what is required to get qualifications or ratings.
I have over the years done several PPL's with night rating within 45, why deprive those capable, of not doing the rating till 45 hours has been done.
Then all the nonsense about holding the PPL or not.
The aeroplanes are the same as 40 50 years ago, the sky is the same. It seems only humans have to create problems.
Same reason why there will always be wars, rubbish politicians and never any common sense shown.

BEB,

The UK CAA does publish all these...
In weird, legal type wording and structure. With CAP and a number following it. Super easy to find, extremely easy to figure out if its the "up to date" version, and accessible to all non-legal types! *sarcasm implied*

In contrast - the NZ CAA (which I cannot hold highly enough in terms of organisation) manages to have a publications page on their website, and regularly print mini booklet versions available for free at most schools / training centres, and also available as PDF online from their website. https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/publications.htm ; They are well designed, go through all the required elements, and all the knowledge required by us in simple to understand format.

It seems that they still have some illegible non-sense which was brought in thanks to some idiotic UK CAA official giving them "consultancy" but at least they're giving more meaningful, easy to read literature for their instructors and pilots!

And you know... They have to give themselves a job!! Just like "Elf n Safety"! Otherwise how else can they justify their ridiculous fees!?

Actually - whilst on topic of night flying...

https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/Night_VFR.pdf

Its an AMAZING night flying booklet (in my humble opinion). I already had my night rating when I went over there - but the club required a substantial amount of further training for them to agree to let me fly their planes solo at night. Admittedly, their runway had runway lights some 20m away from the tarmac, was a relatively short runway and it was particularly hard to line up without landing light.

I think it covers most of the theoretical knowledge required for night flying.

As for stop and go, why the confusion.
You have told ATC what you want to do, You stop and go without further calls.
Why should it need ATC to say anything, you have just been given the wind on landing, for instance.
If the situation changes ATC should tell you to stop.

And yes Alex, but the CAA EASA keep changing their mind for no good reason, they seem to keep fire fighting.
At the last Examiner seminar we were told the CAA had republished some document three times that week and it was only Wednesday!

And I have had an old boy turn up who's be flying with a licence that ran out two years ago.
When we stamped logbooks the validity was seen every time the logbook was opened, simple and fool proof.