The end of JAA PPL's in the U.S. A ???
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
How do you match your requirements (+/- 10deg) for ADF tracking with the CAA requirements for +/- 5deg. I see your point about the wandering needle and the need to average but can not see how you can totally disregard a CAA/JAA requirement when conducting a flight test.
I think that the +/- 5 deg is also a requirement for adequate obstacle clearance on final approach under ICAO PANS OPS.
DFC
How do you match your requirements (+/- 10deg) for ADF tracking with the CAA requirements for +/- 5deg. I see your point about the wandering needle and the need to average but can not see how you can totally disregard a CAA/JAA requirement when conducting a flight test.
I think that the +/- 5 deg is also a requirement for adequate obstacle clearance on final approach under ICAO PANS OPS.
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is becoming quite obvious this discussion will go nowhere because their are two entirely different thought processes at work here.
On one side we have the by the book and rules pureists who do not take into account the real world of operational flying. Their only goal in life seems to be to forge ahead in the misguided belief that the CAA / FAA or what ever who make up all these rules and policies actually work in the real world.
What you must understand is when an examiner is giving any flight test, the criteria by which the skills and knowledge of the person being tested is measured by their ability to not only fly accurate headings and profiles, but, at the same time recognize when things are going all to hell. It is what the person being tested does when they recognize an anomoly in any procedure that truly counts.
By the book is great when you are " testing " someone, however I personally do not want that mindset in any airplane I fly.
Did you read that story?, and any comment on celestial nav. you would like to share with me DFC?
......................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
On one side we have the by the book and rules pureists who do not take into account the real world of operational flying. Their only goal in life seems to be to forge ahead in the misguided belief that the CAA / FAA or what ever who make up all these rules and policies actually work in the real world.
What you must understand is when an examiner is giving any flight test, the criteria by which the skills and knowledge of the person being tested is measured by their ability to not only fly accurate headings and profiles, but, at the same time recognize when things are going all to hell. It is what the person being tested does when they recognize an anomoly in any procedure that truly counts.
By the book is great when you are " testing " someone, however I personally do not want that mindset in any airplane I fly.
Did you read that story?, and any comment on celestial nav. you would like to share with me DFC?
......................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really like this quote, and it's so appropriate too, let's put it out again.
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" Douglas Bader
Examiners are in general wise men. They know their stuff and have seen so many people fly they can probably tell if you are going to bust your NDB approach before you commence it!
Come on DFC, you repeatedly quote from that document you cited, but conveniently miss my post where I pointed out where the document says the Examiner can ignore them. Are you really so blinkered?
Chuck is yet again correct on how the system really works. I myself busted the altitude standards in a major way on my FAA private checkride. I got myself into a spiral dive while intercepting a VOR radial under the hood. What a pillock, but I recognised it and correctly recovered. During my debrief the Examiner, a very experienced fellow, told me that although I had completely cocked up he would still pass me. Everything else was above average and I had demonstrated I could get myself out of trouble. It's a licence to learn, if you look at the private standards they are nigh on impossible to attain with 50 hours. He dragged my instructor in and told him to take me out and do further hoodwork. He was confident I was actually safe, and now I should go out and learn how to fly.
Guys like Chuck are getting harder and harder to find. They are all getting grey hair and failing their medicals. You can learn more from just listening to these crusty old guys than you can flying with a new boy. I used to hang out with these part 135 charter and ferry pilots in high altitude airports in the Rockies. When you got the priviledge to fly with them they would teach you more in one hour than these young fellows could in twenty. They would laugh at me with my new fangled ideas.
Every now and again a Flying Fortress turns up at my airfield and gives rides to the few remaining creaky old WW2 pilots who suddenly come out of the woodwork. These are the folk you should talk to, though they tend not to say much in return. These fellows would bring a plane back from a mission in continental Europe with half the control surfaces missing and a bullet in their leg. These new CPLs don't even know what the rudder pedals are for!
But I am also a relatively new boy at this game, and have nowhere near the experience of the Chucks and Beagles of this world, and never will. I try not to be too arrogant though, and these people here who tend to obey the rules without question should consider this too. I guess these people are just the product of a regulatory regime which doesn't give the freedom to explore that the FAA system still provides.
But then, with the lack of experience some of these new flyboys have, maybe they shouldn't be encouraged to think out of the box. Yeh, maybe it's better for them to obey the rules without question, and we should be grateful that modern transport planes are so reliable that significant human intervention is rarely needed anymore.
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" Douglas Bader
Examiners are in general wise men. They know their stuff and have seen so many people fly they can probably tell if you are going to bust your NDB approach before you commence it!
Come on DFC, you repeatedly quote from that document you cited, but conveniently miss my post where I pointed out where the document says the Examiner can ignore them. Are you really so blinkered?
Chuck is yet again correct on how the system really works. I myself busted the altitude standards in a major way on my FAA private checkride. I got myself into a spiral dive while intercepting a VOR radial under the hood. What a pillock, but I recognised it and correctly recovered. During my debrief the Examiner, a very experienced fellow, told me that although I had completely cocked up he would still pass me. Everything else was above average and I had demonstrated I could get myself out of trouble. It's a licence to learn, if you look at the private standards they are nigh on impossible to attain with 50 hours. He dragged my instructor in and told him to take me out and do further hoodwork. He was confident I was actually safe, and now I should go out and learn how to fly.
Guys like Chuck are getting harder and harder to find. They are all getting grey hair and failing their medicals. You can learn more from just listening to these crusty old guys than you can flying with a new boy. I used to hang out with these part 135 charter and ferry pilots in high altitude airports in the Rockies. When you got the priviledge to fly with them they would teach you more in one hour than these young fellows could in twenty. They would laugh at me with my new fangled ideas.
Every now and again a Flying Fortress turns up at my airfield and gives rides to the few remaining creaky old WW2 pilots who suddenly come out of the woodwork. These are the folk you should talk to, though they tend not to say much in return. These fellows would bring a plane back from a mission in continental Europe with half the control surfaces missing and a bullet in their leg. These new CPLs don't even know what the rudder pedals are for!
But I am also a relatively new boy at this game, and have nowhere near the experience of the Chucks and Beagles of this world, and never will. I try not to be too arrogant though, and these people here who tend to obey the rules without question should consider this too. I guess these people are just the product of a regulatory regime which doesn't give the freedom to explore that the FAA system still provides.
But then, with the lack of experience some of these new flyboys have, maybe they shouldn't be encouraged to think out of the box. Yeh, maybe it's better for them to obey the rules without question, and we should be grateful that modern transport planes are so reliable that significant human intervention is rarely needed anymore.
The Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Naples, Florida U.S.A.
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I would put in the views of someone that teaches FAA, CAA, and JAA Courses.
There are many ways to teach how to fly. Which way is the best? None. Each way has its strong points and its weak points. You need to study each program to see the big picture. Over the years, we have incorporated the strong points from all three programs. The attitude that there is only one way to do everything will get you killed. You need to keep learning and be ready to change as technology changes.
The only instructing I have personally taught in the last 10 years has been CRM and real world flying. When you are learning to fly or adding a rating, the instruction is geared to meeting and exceeding the requirements to ultimately pass an exam with an examiner. This has nothing to do with the real world. (This would be an topic for a new thread, so I will not go into detail here.)
Flying by its very nature crosses all borders. Your thinking cannot be limited to one country or one organization or one governing authority.
Are people that Train in the UK better than people that train in the US? No.
Are people that train in the UK and the US better than people that just train in either the UK or the US? Yes.
Are people that train in three countries better than people that trained in just one or two countries? Absolutely.
Aviation is global and people need to think globally.
Happy Flying,
Capt. Richard J. Gentil, Pres.
Naples Air Center, Inc.
There are many ways to teach how to fly. Which way is the best? None. Each way has its strong points and its weak points. You need to study each program to see the big picture. Over the years, we have incorporated the strong points from all three programs. The attitude that there is only one way to do everything will get you killed. You need to keep learning and be ready to change as technology changes.
The only instructing I have personally taught in the last 10 years has been CRM and real world flying. When you are learning to fly or adding a rating, the instruction is geared to meeting and exceeding the requirements to ultimately pass an exam with an examiner. This has nothing to do with the real world. (This would be an topic for a new thread, so I will not go into detail here.)
Flying by its very nature crosses all borders. Your thinking cannot be limited to one country or one organization or one governing authority.
Are people that Train in the UK better than people that train in the US? No.
Are people that train in the UK and the US better than people that just train in either the UK or the US? Yes.
Are people that train in three countries better than people that trained in just one or two countries? Absolutely.
Aviation is global and people need to think globally.
Happy Flying,
Capt. Richard J. Gentil, Pres.
Naples Air Center, Inc.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slim-slag and Richard:
Excellent responses.
Soon it will be time for me to quit, not because I want to but because the clock is running out.
Fortunately my health is still excellent , but I am getting tired.
There is only one thing that I wish to do before I finally have to quit though and that is pass on what over thirty thousand accident free hours has taught me, but that is impossible as there is no way I can do that.
So what I am doing is trying to reason with those who think they know how it should be done without the experience to prove they are right.
The best advice I can give is have an open mind because some day you to will realize we never really even scratch the surface of perfection. What we can do is listen, evaluate, then choose how we plan and fly each flight, maybe with the right attitude and a lot of luck you to will reach the end of your career still able to teach based on all the lessons you have learned.
Nothing, I repeat nothing will replace experience and the ability to recognize when we are wrong, then learn from it and have the strength of character to admit to being wrong, after that it gets easier.
Have you ever really thought about how I sign off??
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
You will also note I do not post anonymously.
Excellent responses.
Soon it will be time for me to quit, not because I want to but because the clock is running out.
Fortunately my health is still excellent , but I am getting tired.
There is only one thing that I wish to do before I finally have to quit though and that is pass on what over thirty thousand accident free hours has taught me, but that is impossible as there is no way I can do that.
So what I am doing is trying to reason with those who think they know how it should be done without the experience to prove they are right.
The best advice I can give is have an open mind because some day you to will realize we never really even scratch the surface of perfection. What we can do is listen, evaluate, then choose how we plan and fly each flight, maybe with the right attitude and a lot of luck you to will reach the end of your career still able to teach based on all the lessons you have learned.
Nothing, I repeat nothing will replace experience and the ability to recognize when we are wrong, then learn from it and have the strength of character to admit to being wrong, after that it gets easier.
Have you ever really thought about how I sign off??
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. You will also note I do not post anonymously.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: san diego
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i agree unreservedly with the last few posts -when the FAA examiner signed my logbook for my ppl skills test his words were -congratulations a license to learn! -words every pilot should live by no matter what authority stamped the book or what system you fly under -you should continue to update your knowlegde every time you walk towards an aircraft or even better -before you even think about going flying!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle, sorry, having read the post again I now see that you did say 10deg "sector". 5 each side!! Should have known that you would not say otherwise.
Chuck et al,
I agree totally that any licence pass is only the start of the real learning process. The test standards are the minimum safe standards that must be acheived. With experience and practice, I expect that those standards will be far exceeded. For example, PPL flight test height keeping is +/- 150ft. Any PPL I know usually keeps it within +/- 50ft when trimed straight and level.
I also agree that at the end of the day it is the examminers feeling that this student is a safe operator which will result in a pass. Not Chuck Yeagar flying.
However entering a spiral dive from simulated instrument flight is an unsafe departure and as the examminer quite rightly pointed out required further training. The idea being that this PPL having flown VMC into IMC will most likely be at or worse below the min safe altitude and any significant loss of height would kill. On the other hand, not keeping the wings perfectly level and allowing the heading to wander back and forth would not be as bad provided nothing dangerous happened.
In the case quoted, if all the other flying was fine then I would have given a "partial pass" and told the guy to come back for a second check of the IF part before I would sign the paperwork. That is me taking out an insurance policy on that guy which prevents him from ignoring the further training "advice" (which is all it can be after the licence is signed) and operating on the licence. Or more importantly it protects the unsuspecting passengers that he might take up. I know full well that without practice this guy's ability to operate by sole reference to instruments will disappear. However when I read about their VFR to IFR loss of control accident, I can sleep tight knowing that I did all that I could do to prevent it.
I have checked again and did not see any reference to the CAA document where is says examiners can disregards the laid down minima. Perhaps someone could give me the reference again.
ICAO sets worldwide standards agreed by the member countries. What makes things difficult between the Americas and Europe is that in many respects the FAA ignore ICAO and have to go their own way...visibility in Statute Miles, TERPS, etc. Yes, the UK does have some differences but overall the number are small.
Big note for everyone I am not saying which system is better, I am saying that there are differences and it is the differences that count.
Once again, I say that I am in favour of any European going to the US to train if it suits them and being trained for any FAA rating they choose. They can then return to Europe and convert that licence if they so like. There are clear well laid down conversion procedures.
I am not in favour of them being trained for a European licence in the US unless the instructors and Examminers have the same experience of European operations as any instructor based in Europe and meet the same standards with regard to instructor renewal i.e. seminar etc. Again, I highlight the question asked earlier by one US instructor which clearly demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of JAR. In fact I would have a fair chance of being correct if I stated that most of the US based instructors teaching for the JAA licences/ratings have never studied JAR-FCL or JAR-OPS.
Because of the differences in rules and procedures, a flight conducted in the US totally as per European requirements may be illegal under the FARs. Thus, it is not possible to fully teach European operations in the US.
Many returnees from the US with JAA qualifications know all of the FARs but none if any of the JARs. This is only natural since they were operating under the FARs but it is not good enough.
To turn the tables. How would like it if I was training US pilots for US licences in Europe. Do you think that they would be safe operators on returning to the USA never having has VFR flight following or never operated in the Class E airway system of the US or never came across any of the terminal area procedures.
Do you think that a newby pilot who is used to Class G operations and automatically selects 7000 on the transponder will go down well in the US when they call up and ask for a "Radar Information Service"??????? By issuing the licence, the FAA have stated that the student requires absolutely no further training in the US to operate and carry passengers. Is this true do you think?
The celestial nav comment was just an example of how "useless old procedures" can become very usefull in certain situations.
The difference is the differences.
DFC
Chuck et al,
I agree totally that any licence pass is only the start of the real learning process. The test standards are the minimum safe standards that must be acheived. With experience and practice, I expect that those standards will be far exceeded. For example, PPL flight test height keeping is +/- 150ft. Any PPL I know usually keeps it within +/- 50ft when trimed straight and level.
I also agree that at the end of the day it is the examminers feeling that this student is a safe operator which will result in a pass. Not Chuck Yeagar flying.
However entering a spiral dive from simulated instrument flight is an unsafe departure and as the examminer quite rightly pointed out required further training. The idea being that this PPL having flown VMC into IMC will most likely be at or worse below the min safe altitude and any significant loss of height would kill. On the other hand, not keeping the wings perfectly level and allowing the heading to wander back and forth would not be as bad provided nothing dangerous happened.
In the case quoted, if all the other flying was fine then I would have given a "partial pass" and told the guy to come back for a second check of the IF part before I would sign the paperwork. That is me taking out an insurance policy on that guy which prevents him from ignoring the further training "advice" (which is all it can be after the licence is signed) and operating on the licence. Or more importantly it protects the unsuspecting passengers that he might take up. I know full well that without practice this guy's ability to operate by sole reference to instruments will disappear. However when I read about their VFR to IFR loss of control accident, I can sleep tight knowing that I did all that I could do to prevent it.
I have checked again and did not see any reference to the CAA document where is says examiners can disregards the laid down minima. Perhaps someone could give me the reference again.
ICAO sets worldwide standards agreed by the member countries. What makes things difficult between the Americas and Europe is that in many respects the FAA ignore ICAO and have to go their own way...visibility in Statute Miles, TERPS, etc. Yes, the UK does have some differences but overall the number are small.
Big note for everyone I am not saying which system is better, I am saying that there are differences and it is the differences that count.
Once again, I say that I am in favour of any European going to the US to train if it suits them and being trained for any FAA rating they choose. They can then return to Europe and convert that licence if they so like. There are clear well laid down conversion procedures.
I am not in favour of them being trained for a European licence in the US unless the instructors and Examminers have the same experience of European operations as any instructor based in Europe and meet the same standards with regard to instructor renewal i.e. seminar etc. Again, I highlight the question asked earlier by one US instructor which clearly demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of JAR. In fact I would have a fair chance of being correct if I stated that most of the US based instructors teaching for the JAA licences/ratings have never studied JAR-FCL or JAR-OPS.
Because of the differences in rules and procedures, a flight conducted in the US totally as per European requirements may be illegal under the FARs. Thus, it is not possible to fully teach European operations in the US.
Many returnees from the US with JAA qualifications know all of the FARs but none if any of the JARs. This is only natural since they were operating under the FARs but it is not good enough.
To turn the tables. How would like it if I was training US pilots for US licences in Europe. Do you think that they would be safe operators on returning to the USA never having has VFR flight following or never operated in the Class E airway system of the US or never came across any of the terminal area procedures.
Do you think that a newby pilot who is used to Class G operations and automatically selects 7000 on the transponder will go down well in the US when they call up and ask for a "Radar Information Service"??????? By issuing the licence, the FAA have stated that the student requires absolutely no further training in the US to operate and carry passengers. Is this true do you think?
The celestial nav comment was just an example of how "useless old procedures" can become very usefull in certain situations.
The difference is the differences.
DFC
Last edited by DFC; 7th Apr 2002 at 11:35.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC:
As Richard stated we live in a global world now and are allowed with some exceptions to fly in most of the worlds airspace.
Before "any" flight a pilot "must " have avaliable to him / her all charts, notams, weather, airplane operating procedures, documents etc. for the flight to be conducted.
So what is the big deal where you received your license?
You seem to be inconsistent in your arguments, on one hand you relate to "old" procedures and navigation methods as only useful in the odd occasion you get completly screwed up. Yet you state you will never fly approaches with GPS.
Do you carry a Ouigi board with you to get the answers?
......................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
As Richard stated we live in a global world now and are allowed with some exceptions to fly in most of the worlds airspace.
Before "any" flight a pilot "must " have avaliable to him / her all charts, notams, weather, airplane operating procedures, documents etc. for the flight to be conducted.
So what is the big deal where you received your license?
You seem to be inconsistent in your arguments, on one hand you relate to "old" procedures and navigation methods as only useful in the odd occasion you get completly screwed up. Yet you state you will never fly approaches with GPS.
Do you carry a Ouigi board with you to get the answers?
......................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
