British v American approach to flying
On the skids: . .who the hell are you to castigate the FOI's at the CAA.. You obviously have only had occasion to rub up against them the wrong way. There are some very competent aviators capable of doing your job with their eyes closed whilst flying!. .Once you've met some of them and checked out their career paths I wouldn't be at all surprised that you probably couldn't hold a candle to them.. .I'm not a CAA groupie, they wind me up as much as the next man, but it's not the individual (correction: not all of them anyway) that screws up, it's the system they're wrapped up in.
With regard to their military background; would you have preferred it if they had paid for their experience in cash as well as committment?
Don't blame the messengers, blame the system. it's antiquated, out of touch and in dire need of a massive overhaul. Who knows how it will be resolved, but it is one end of the spectrum. There are some folk out there who think the FAA are the other end <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
With regard to their military background; would you have preferred it if they had paid for their experience in cash as well as committment?
Don't blame the messengers, blame the system. it's antiquated, out of touch and in dire need of a massive overhaul. Who knows how it will be resolved, but it is one end of the spectrum. There are some folk out there who think the FAA are the other end <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
No point in getting at OTS, the same comment has been made about the CAA for 30 years. There has always been a great deal of angst about the lack of commercial understanding from the FOI's, and it is a natural progression to pick on their background.
Not fair, maybe, but where's the charter that claims anything in life has to be fair <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Totally agree with you that the system needs drastic overhaul, but don't expect it before the next millenium <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
No point in getting at OTS, the same comment has been made about the CAA for 30 years. There has always been a great deal of angst about the lack of commercial understanding from the FOI's, and it is a natural progression to pick on their background.
Not fair, maybe, but where's the charter that claims anything in life has to be fair <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Totally agree with you that the system needs drastic overhaul, but don't expect it before the next millenium <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC. .Can't see why you were so angry with OTS. Your views don't seem far apart. It's pointless letting our mil loyalties cloud the issues.
Let's be blunt, it takes a certain type to want to go straight from the mil to the CAA. . .They're suspect in my book, whatever their mil backgrounds. . .Even those forced into it seem to change once they've joined "the Authority.". .You can't blame it all on 'the system' - people in the system are responsible for the attitude, and it may even attract people who like that attitude.
Let's be blunt, it takes a certain type to want to go straight from the mil to the CAA. . .They're suspect in my book, whatever their mil backgrounds. . .Even those forced into it seem to change once they've joined "the Authority.". .You can't blame it all on 'the system' - people in the system are responsible for the attitude, and it may even attract people who like that attitude.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Warri, Nigeria
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have had the benefit of earning multiple ATP licenses or certificates as we call them on the west side of the saltladen buffer zone. My view is a bit confused over the good and bad of each system (US and UK). The flying standards for practical tests are for most parts identical. My British colleagues would argue against any FAA standard being remotely close I fear. Our oral testing prior to flying is by far and away more difficult. Our recurrent checkride and training requirments are more stringent. The FAA mandates specific amounts of time and topics that must be covered in the six month checkride process. I have never had anything remotely resembling that under the UK system. The UK system seems to be a check to minimum standard and issue the pass without any real training. The amount of esoteric and totally useless knowlege required to pass the UK written exams exceeds that of the FAA, however we are catching up as our bureaucracy matures. Our written exams are based upon a building block concept in light of the way our FAR's are structured. Different FAR's apply to different levels of operations thus the base of knowlege is different for the level of operation the pilot is in. Licensing in the US is far and away better. Try to justify the ridiculously expensive fees to take exams and the awkward schedules the CAA has for administering them. The FAA makes themselves available rather than the other way around by the use of independent examiners and examining stations in addition to FAA officials and offices.
The basic attitude mentioned by a few of our UK pilots here is very accurate. What was good enough for Wellington is good enough. The reason it used to be an empire is just that kind of attitude. Just because it was invented in the US doesn't mean it won't work, is unsafe, or shouldn't be used or endorsed. The JetRanger, even though single engine, held the record as the safest aircraft flyiing for many years in a row. Despite the fact it flew over water, mountains, and other hostile terrain. British pilots scoff at the practice but the accident records prove the validity of the use of single engine aircraft in light of the modern engines and engineering advances.
Have you ever tried to get a former British Army QHI, now Civilian TRE/IRE to accept the notion that S-76's, Bell 212/412's, BK-117's, BO-105's are not type ratings in the US and thus will not "be on our license"? Hellfire....you should have seen the fracas at Aviation House when I presented my official US Army Pilot Flight records...all nicely collated, typed, and secured in a folder, IBM printouts of the daily entries on one side and the flying orders, DD-214, and Totals sheets on the other. (Not allowed ol' bean...they are not in a bound logbook you know!) Really, I think it was because my folder had those hi-tech american metal clip things instead of the correct string type.
The current flap at where I am at now is the unheard of use of centralized documentation and not keeping the aircraft logbooks at the field site where the aircraft is located. Once again the US system allows for innovation and improvements in technology at a much greater pace than the UK bureaucratical mindset. I fear in time , as our government grows in size and power....we too will be faced with the same kind of problems. How many times now have I read how the increasing fees charged by the UK are actually forcing people and businesses out of the industry. I kind of like the concept of walking into my local FAA office, grabbing a cuppa, and teling them which exam I need and then sitting down and taking the thing.....free of charge. Yes, I can access the FAA website and download all of the questions that are going to be on the test ahead of time so I can memorize them or practice them. Usually about 1500 questions to choose from when they make up the test papers...so your memory has to be pretty darn good.
The basic attitude mentioned by a few of our UK pilots here is very accurate. What was good enough for Wellington is good enough. The reason it used to be an empire is just that kind of attitude. Just because it was invented in the US doesn't mean it won't work, is unsafe, or shouldn't be used or endorsed. The JetRanger, even though single engine, held the record as the safest aircraft flyiing for many years in a row. Despite the fact it flew over water, mountains, and other hostile terrain. British pilots scoff at the practice but the accident records prove the validity of the use of single engine aircraft in light of the modern engines and engineering advances.
Have you ever tried to get a former British Army QHI, now Civilian TRE/IRE to accept the notion that S-76's, Bell 212/412's, BK-117's, BO-105's are not type ratings in the US and thus will not "be on our license"? Hellfire....you should have seen the fracas at Aviation House when I presented my official US Army Pilot Flight records...all nicely collated, typed, and secured in a folder, IBM printouts of the daily entries on one side and the flying orders, DD-214, and Totals sheets on the other. (Not allowed ol' bean...they are not in a bound logbook you know!) Really, I think it was because my folder had those hi-tech american metal clip things instead of the correct string type.
The current flap at where I am at now is the unheard of use of centralized documentation and not keeping the aircraft logbooks at the field site where the aircraft is located. Once again the US system allows for innovation and improvements in technology at a much greater pace than the UK bureaucratical mindset. I fear in time , as our government grows in size and power....we too will be faced with the same kind of problems. How many times now have I read how the increasing fees charged by the UK are actually forcing people and businesses out of the industry. I kind of like the concept of walking into my local FAA office, grabbing a cuppa, and teling them which exam I need and then sitting down and taking the thing.....free of charge. Yes, I can access the FAA website and download all of the questions that are going to be on the test ahead of time so I can memorize them or practice them. Usually about 1500 questions to choose from when they make up the test papers...so your memory has to be pretty darn good.
Way back when
Having been out of the training system for 25 years I can only comment on how it used to be back then. I trained in the states and from day one was treated with a great deal of respect, was encouraged and nurtured by the school to try and achieve my goals. Even the FAA examiner on my initial check ride gave me moral support prior to the test as it was plain to see I was just a kid with a dream and nervous as hell.
My whole impression was that they recognised a young man trying to start out in a somewhat difficult field and were going to do everything they could to help me on my way
When I came home to the UK some years later and and gurded my wallet for the CAA licencing process, I was from day one (and this includes the training school) left in no doubt that I was at best a student/candidate and it was made very clear to me that my FAA licence could be purchased for FREE with a box of cornflakes!! On my first sortie at Redhill I was not even allowed to taxi the aircraft out (even though they knew I had over 1000 hours including 600 hours spray time on type) Ah ,those were the days.... As a learning curve, I am glad I went through it and there is no doubt that a CAA ATPL is very well respected worldwide but considering you immediately fart out all unusable study theory when you qualify (and I found in the UK system that's 90%) I think the FAA system was far more flexible and helpful. Its also quite nice at that age to be treated like an adult. God I hope things have changed in the UK since those days
My whole impression was that they recognised a young man trying to start out in a somewhat difficult field and were going to do everything they could to help me on my wayWhen I came home to the UK some years later and and gurded my wallet for the CAA licencing process, I was from day one (and this includes the training school) left in no doubt that I was at best a student/candidate and it was made very clear to me that my FAA licence could be purchased for FREE with a box of cornflakes!! On my first sortie at Redhill I was not even allowed to taxi the aircraft out (even though they knew I had over 1000 hours including 600 hours spray time on type) Ah ,those were the days.... As a learning curve, I am glad I went through it and there is no doubt that a CAA ATPL is very well respected worldwide but considering you immediately fart out all unusable study theory when you qualify (and I found in the UK system that's 90%) I think the FAA system was far more flexible and helpful. Its also quite nice at that age to be treated like an adult. God I hope things have changed in the UK since those days
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My two cents worth - I'm not sure how the JAA system has affected ground exams, but the UK CAA concept of having to pay considerable sums of money, and only 'sit' at designated times for exams that you don't ever find out the real results of (so you can correct the mistakes) doesn't hold a candle to the FAA system.
I remember a friend who sat the first CAA turbine engine exams - he had a degree in mechanical engineering with a specialty in turbines - more than 90% of the candidates failed, and he said that more than 50% of the questions had no right answer. He was not allowed to have his questions revisited, even if he wanted to pay for the privelege (10% passed, so the exam must have been OK).
I remember a friend who sat the first CAA turbine engine exams - he had a degree in mechanical engineering with a specialty in turbines - more than 90% of the candidates failed, and he said that more than 50% of the questions had no right answer. He was not allowed to have his questions revisited, even if he wanted to pay for the privelege (10% passed, so the exam must have been OK).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fixed-wing only, just to make that point clear. That said, yes, I just did a British CAA JAA-ATPL (A).
The start of the ground school (London Met) was in November 2005 and the conclusion was at the end of June 2006, the final exams were in the first week of July and the IR ride and the issue of the licence was in November 2006. So make that one year and some fabulous amount of money, where one can do an FAA ATP easily within a month, given the same level of skill and experience I started with.
At London Met I learned all sorts of interesting stuff about how to calculate distance based on geographical co-ordinates, for instance, which certainly came in handy on the General Navigation exam, when I was thrilled to score 99%. That was about all it was useful for, though, and I have almost completely forgotten that particular skill now. You could argue that there I spent perhaps 2-300 quid for... what?
At London Met we started out in November with about 27 students. A couple dropped out immediately, seeming to be completely bowled over by the demands of the course. Then things shook down to a small group of people who were totally focused on passing the tests, a somewhat larger group who divided their time between the fun London always has on offer and studying (with a computer-assisted question data base a windfall for them but not always a sure help in their time of need) and a rag-tag group who brought up the rear.
The top people (with the best one a former super-market manager who averaged 97%) all averaged over 90%, the middle group were all over the map and the last group got well and truly hammered by the stiff requirements facing anyone needed to do re-takes.
I have blanked out most of the costs involved as a painful memory but I was struck by such nonsense as two (2) separate Comms tests, one VFR and one IFR, each one just taking 30 minutes, each for the full fee, same as the much longer General Nav test, for instance. There it really did seem that the CAA was just raking in the cash.
I guess I would sum it up by stating that, "If you want to play, then you must pay." Somewhere here you can read that the Transport Canada is moving to a JAR licence, which should simplify things to a certain extent. That said, I am sure that should mean more rather than less trouble and expense for pilots and engineers.
The USA shall continue to go its own way, I think. Well, we did finally go to the ICAO format for METARs and TAFs, but that should be about it, since we never did ratify the treaty for joining ICAO and the sheer size of our system allows it to stand alone.
As long as individual US pilots stick with N-registered aircraft and/or choose to work in foreign countries then licensing is no problem at all. The rest of us make up a very small group in over-all terms, I think.
That said, one thing that did chafe a bit was the treatment I got dealing with the German authorities, compared to how I knew we treated Germans in the USA. If you think the CAA can be a problem, just try the LBA! As a non-German, I mean!
The start of the ground school (London Met) was in November 2005 and the conclusion was at the end of June 2006, the final exams were in the first week of July and the IR ride and the issue of the licence was in November 2006. So make that one year and some fabulous amount of money, where one can do an FAA ATP easily within a month, given the same level of skill and experience I started with.
At London Met I learned all sorts of interesting stuff about how to calculate distance based on geographical co-ordinates, for instance, which certainly came in handy on the General Navigation exam, when I was thrilled to score 99%. That was about all it was useful for, though, and I have almost completely forgotten that particular skill now. You could argue that there I spent perhaps 2-300 quid for... what?
At London Met we started out in November with about 27 students. A couple dropped out immediately, seeming to be completely bowled over by the demands of the course. Then things shook down to a small group of people who were totally focused on passing the tests, a somewhat larger group who divided their time between the fun London always has on offer and studying (with a computer-assisted question data base a windfall for them but not always a sure help in their time of need) and a rag-tag group who brought up the rear.
The top people (with the best one a former super-market manager who averaged 97%) all averaged over 90%, the middle group were all over the map and the last group got well and truly hammered by the stiff requirements facing anyone needed to do re-takes.
I have blanked out most of the costs involved as a painful memory but I was struck by such nonsense as two (2) separate Comms tests, one VFR and one IFR, each one just taking 30 minutes, each for the full fee, same as the much longer General Nav test, for instance. There it really did seem that the CAA was just raking in the cash.
I guess I would sum it up by stating that, "If you want to play, then you must pay." Somewhere here you can read that the Transport Canada is moving to a JAR licence, which should simplify things to a certain extent. That said, I am sure that should mean more rather than less trouble and expense for pilots and engineers.
The USA shall continue to go its own way, I think. Well, we did finally go to the ICAO format for METARs and TAFs, but that should be about it, since we never did ratify the treaty for joining ICAO and the sheer size of our system allows it to stand alone.
As long as individual US pilots stick with N-registered aircraft and/or choose to work in foreign countries then licensing is no problem at all. The rest of us make up a very small group in over-all terms, I think.
That said, one thing that did chafe a bit was the treatment I got dealing with the German authorities, compared to how I knew we treated Germans in the USA. If you think the CAA can be a problem, just try the LBA! As a non-German, I mean!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 53
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view, having trained out in the USA before returning to the UK, the CAA could learn a lot from the FAA.
The entire system in the USA seems to be aimed at helping people to learn to fly if that is what they wish. The CAA's approach gives the impression, whether intended or not, of setting as many hurdles, financial and administrative, to prevent people from obtaining a license. If a candidate eventually clears all these hurdles, a license is then grudgingly issued to allow the candidate to join this closely guarded CAA monitored club. An obvious demonstration of how overlycomplex the UK system is can be seen by the number of times a thread is on PPrune asking advice on hour and experience requirements to gain a particaular license in the UK. Many times the candidate has contacted the CAA a number of times already for the answer only to get conflicting answers: if the regulatory body isn't capable of dicephiring it's own rules, then i would suggest this is a good sign that the rulebook needs re-writing. The FAA have one book (the FAR/AIM) that covers everything you need to know - from medical requirements, to experience needed, to weather limits. If only life were so straightforward in the UK!
If i wasn't flying proffesionally, and having the luxury of my employers having to deal with the CAA on my behalf, i would have given up flying in the UK a long time ago, and just had the occasional flight in the USA on holiday.
At the end of the day, flying is similar to driving a car (or in my case a bus). It's certainly not rocket science. All that's required is a students willingness to learn, and a competent instructor to teach - it's a learned skill, nothing more. I think the FAA accept it as such, while the CAA for some reason don't. The fact that the accident rates in the US compared to the UK are not significantly different clearly demonstrates, in my view, that the system can work perfectly safely along the lines of the FAA system.
The entire system in the USA seems to be aimed at helping people to learn to fly if that is what they wish. The CAA's approach gives the impression, whether intended or not, of setting as many hurdles, financial and administrative, to prevent people from obtaining a license. If a candidate eventually clears all these hurdles, a license is then grudgingly issued to allow the candidate to join this closely guarded CAA monitored club. An obvious demonstration of how overlycomplex the UK system is can be seen by the number of times a thread is on PPrune asking advice on hour and experience requirements to gain a particaular license in the UK. Many times the candidate has contacted the CAA a number of times already for the answer only to get conflicting answers: if the regulatory body isn't capable of dicephiring it's own rules, then i would suggest this is a good sign that the rulebook needs re-writing. The FAA have one book (the FAR/AIM) that covers everything you need to know - from medical requirements, to experience needed, to weather limits. If only life were so straightforward in the UK!
If i wasn't flying proffesionally, and having the luxury of my employers having to deal with the CAA on my behalf, i would have given up flying in the UK a long time ago, and just had the occasional flight in the USA on holiday.
At the end of the day, flying is similar to driving a car (or in my case a bus). It's certainly not rocket science. All that's required is a students willingness to learn, and a competent instructor to teach - it's a learned skill, nothing more. I think the FAA accept it as such, while the CAA for some reason don't. The fact that the accident rates in the US compared to the UK are not significantly different clearly demonstrates, in my view, that the system can work perfectly safely along the lines of the FAA system.
Last edited by AndyJB32; 7th Jan 2008 at 09:32.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having experience of both systems I agree, FAA is much more flexible and sensible. The flying standards are pretty much the same for the checkrides (despite the snobby 'cereal packets' jokes you hear from the JAA old boys club). The JAA CPL groundschool requirements are obscenely expensive, time consuming and a complete waste of time in the 'real' world.
Will it get any easier/cheaper under EASA? Don't count on it...
Will it get any easier/cheaper under EASA? Don't count on it...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'WORLD SERIES' is the clue
With just 29 US and 1 Canadian baseball clubs entered you could be forgiven for thinking that life on the North American continent is somewhat parochial when it is described as the 'world series'.
We live in a world that is dominated by too much 'fixed wing' thinking in all aspects of regulation and oversight and the only way we will right this wrong is to pull together as a global industry. That means that folk in the FAA need to at least consider the risk-management approach to aviation instead of burying their heads in the sand or allowing the apparent underfunding of their helicopter departments to continue. EASA/JAA need to recognise that wrapping us all in regulatory cotton wool does not make problems go away and can hinder the development of the industry.
The level of expertise in the authorities is critical and to be effective the encumbants need to have experience, real experience, in those aspects of the business they attempt to regulate. If the inspector is checking out a long-line operation then he really needs to be somebody who has been there and done it. Likewise with long range offshore ops, short range offshore ops, HEMS, Police, Firefighting and the many other things we manage to accomplish. The price of such 'quality' oversight would not come cheap but maybe we could help. In the UK we had a committee of industry professionals that met regularly with the CAA to discuss the shape and direction of regulation. It had a very UK focus and was also very 'commercial' so what was 'best' for safety may not always be accepted by the committee.
My proposal would be a working group (maybe through HAI) for each type of helicopter operation that could sit with both FAA and JAA/EASA experts to chew over the way the industry is developing in that sector and the lessons being learnt as things progress. Experts could come from any of the organisations working in that sector around the world.
Nobody and no one organisation has a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to aviation safety but I am convinced that we can accelerate the pace of progress if the energy and innovation (not to mention wealth) of the North Americans can be combined with the 'risk-management' philosophies of the Europeans and the no-nonsense approach of some other significant players.
If we are to shake off the domination of 'Fixed-Wing-Thinking' we have to show that our industry is mature, sophisticated and progressive .....and at least 'risk-aware'.
G
We live in a world that is dominated by too much 'fixed wing' thinking in all aspects of regulation and oversight and the only way we will right this wrong is to pull together as a global industry. That means that folk in the FAA need to at least consider the risk-management approach to aviation instead of burying their heads in the sand or allowing the apparent underfunding of their helicopter departments to continue. EASA/JAA need to recognise that wrapping us all in regulatory cotton wool does not make problems go away and can hinder the development of the industry.
The level of expertise in the authorities is critical and to be effective the encumbants need to have experience, real experience, in those aspects of the business they attempt to regulate. If the inspector is checking out a long-line operation then he really needs to be somebody who has been there and done it. Likewise with long range offshore ops, short range offshore ops, HEMS, Police, Firefighting and the many other things we manage to accomplish. The price of such 'quality' oversight would not come cheap but maybe we could help. In the UK we had a committee of industry professionals that met regularly with the CAA to discuss the shape and direction of regulation. It had a very UK focus and was also very 'commercial' so what was 'best' for safety may not always be accepted by the committee.
My proposal would be a working group (maybe through HAI) for each type of helicopter operation that could sit with both FAA and JAA/EASA experts to chew over the way the industry is developing in that sector and the lessons being learnt as things progress. Experts could come from any of the organisations working in that sector around the world.
Nobody and no one organisation has a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to aviation safety but I am convinced that we can accelerate the pace of progress if the energy and innovation (not to mention wealth) of the North Americans can be combined with the 'risk-management' philosophies of the Europeans and the no-nonsense approach of some other significant players.
If we are to shake off the domination of 'Fixed-Wing-Thinking' we have to show that our industry is mature, sophisticated and progressive .....and at least 'risk-aware'.
G
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Geoffers - totally agree. The problem is going to be getting such a group together. If we thought it was difficult to start to form unions for helicopter pilots, getting an industry experts group together in the USA will be even harder.
The HAI training committee is a start, but more needs to be done.
The FAA's refusal (so far) to consider more helicopter appropriate ratings is quite amazing. (I'd recommend piston, turbine and twin as starters).
When I did the flight tests, it took three flights when the fixed wing equivalent was all wrapped up in just one. Any wonder people get upset?
The best story I've heard about the difference evidently happened to a Canadian pilot who came to Gatwick and asked what he needed to do - he was given the application forms and duly started to fill them out. Returning to the counter shortly thereafter, the clerk said 'But sir, you've left the part about experience blank.' 'Yes' says our hero - 'I'm paying you folks quite a sum of money and providing you my log books, I expect you'll fill that part out'
The HAI training committee is a start, but more needs to be done.
The FAA's refusal (so far) to consider more helicopter appropriate ratings is quite amazing. (I'd recommend piston, turbine and twin as starters).
When I did the flight tests, it took three flights when the fixed wing equivalent was all wrapped up in just one. Any wonder people get upset?
The best story I've heard about the difference evidently happened to a Canadian pilot who came to Gatwick and asked what he needed to do - he was given the application forms and duly started to fill them out. Returning to the counter shortly thereafter, the clerk said 'But sir, you've left the part about experience blank.' 'Yes' says our hero - 'I'm paying you folks quite a sum of money and providing you my log books, I expect you'll fill that part out'
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent Thread
Great posts on this topic. I look forward to reading more comments. That would seem a wonderful and practical idea to have, as said, FAA, JAA, EASA all sit down to discuss a common goal on all issues.
I have a good friend and colleague who is trying to get his expired CAA ATPL H revalidated and he is having a hell of time with someone making decisions on what he has to do to achive this. He's flying over next month to sit in their office to get this thrashed out. Good Luck!!!
What a thought, the FAA, JAA, and EASA all working together!!!!
I have a good friend and colleague who is trying to get his expired CAA ATPL H revalidated and he is having a hell of time with someone making decisions on what he has to do to achive this. He's flying over next month to sit in their office to get this thrashed out. Good Luck!!!
What a thought, the FAA, JAA, and EASA all working together!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big POW WOW
I think I am right in saying that there are formal links between the JAA folk and their FAA counterparts already and we may malign them in this respect. What I am suggesting is a forum for feeding front-line experiences and opinions into the regulators who, almost by definition, cannot be expert in the vast array of fields in which helicopters earn their keep.
This need not be a step in the regulatory process but instead a regular exchange in an informal forum that seeks to educate the NAAs about life's realities whilst allowing a frank exchange of views about the way the business is developing.
I have worked in operations with widely differing philosophies but if they deliver safety we cannot say they are invalid just because we disagree. Realising that somebody else can have a good idea is the first step away from bigotry and tunnel vision.
ETOPS and JAROPS 3 NPA38 are both based on the concept of risk analysis, risk assessment and probability computations that are informed by technical experts with feet firmly planted in the real world of flight operations. This is a clue as to the way forward but we need our regulators to be informed by those who do that job every day and have a track record that indicates their judgment can be trusted.
Maybe somebody with an HAI connection can get something on the agenda for their next management meeting. I cannot believe that the proposed membership of these working groups would think that making the effort once or twice a year would be wasted effort. But ....... please ...... remember that the 'I' in HAI means international so lets see such groups have a decent degree of non-US representation.
G
This need not be a step in the regulatory process but instead a regular exchange in an informal forum that seeks to educate the NAAs about life's realities whilst allowing a frank exchange of views about the way the business is developing.
I have worked in operations with widely differing philosophies but if they deliver safety we cannot say they are invalid just because we disagree. Realising that somebody else can have a good idea is the first step away from bigotry and tunnel vision.
ETOPS and JAROPS 3 NPA38 are both based on the concept of risk analysis, risk assessment and probability computations that are informed by technical experts with feet firmly planted in the real world of flight operations. This is a clue as to the way forward but we need our regulators to be informed by those who do that job every day and have a track record that indicates their judgment can be trusted.
Maybe somebody with an HAI connection can get something on the agenda for their next management meeting. I cannot believe that the proposed membership of these working groups would think that making the effort once or twice a year would be wasted effort. But ....... please ...... remember that the 'I' in HAI means international so lets see such groups have a decent degree of non-US representation.
G
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trivia answer: It's called the 'World Series' because it was begun by a newspaper, the New York World. It has nothing to do with whether it's the championship of the entire earth, it's just a name applied by a now defunct newspaper to try to increase subscriptions.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Gomer !!!!
Found this on www.baseball-almanac.com
Although the "Fall Classic" as we know it didn't begin until 1903, Major League Baseball had several versions of a post-season championship series before that. In 1884, the Providence Grays of the National League outplayed the New York Metropolitan Club of the American Association in a three game series for what was originally called "The Championship of the United States." Several newspapers penned the Grays as "World Champions" and the new title stuck. Over the next six years, different variations took place between the National League and American Association pennant-winners, ranging in length from six to fifteen games. The American Association folded unexpectedly after the 1891 season forcing a suspension of the series. The following year, the National League absorbed four of the American Association's former franchises and expanded to twelve teams in an effort to promote the growth of baseball and maintain the public's interest. They played a split season in which the first-half winner played the second-half winner for the league championship. Many fans did not support the new system and the split season was promptly dropped in 1893.
G
Although the "Fall Classic" as we know it didn't begin until 1903, Major League Baseball had several versions of a post-season championship series before that. In 1884, the Providence Grays of the National League outplayed the New York Metropolitan Club of the American Association in a three game series for what was originally called "The Championship of the United States." Several newspapers penned the Grays as "World Champions" and the new title stuck. Over the next six years, different variations took place between the National League and American Association pennant-winners, ranging in length from six to fifteen games. The American Association folded unexpectedly after the 1891 season forcing a suspension of the series. The following year, the National League absorbed four of the American Association's former franchises and expanded to twelve teams in an effort to promote the growth of baseball and maintain the public's interest. They played a split season in which the first-half winner played the second-half winner for the league championship. Many fans did not support the new system and the split season was promptly dropped in 1893.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLD!
When I was busy with the classwork I couldn't get any clear answers on how I went from having the exams passed to getting that licence in my hot little hands, so I called the CAA and spoke to a nice lady in "Licensing."
Much later I was told it was actually "Policy and Licensing," with "Policy" above "Licensing," so that my nice lady had not exactly told me what I needed to know. Now there was "a problem." My problem, of course! To be solved with the application of time, trouble and English pounds. Bummer!
There ensued a series of e-mails back and forth between me and some Policy bod. These suddenly ceased, just when I was waiting for clarification of an important point. Next I was told that my correspondent had bimbled off to join the Irish CAA; that was why he was no longer busying himself with my little problems!
I even was physically present there at Aviation House once, wanting to have speaks with my new Policy case officer, not that this was the main reason I was there. I could only speak to this eminence on the internal telephone; the idea that a mere mortal should shuffle off to talk across a desk in an office just showed how delusional I really was about what all this money I had spent entitled me to.
Much later I was told it was actually "Policy and Licensing," with "Policy" above "Licensing," so that my nice lady had not exactly told me what I needed to know. Now there was "a problem." My problem, of course! To be solved with the application of time, trouble and English pounds. Bummer!
There ensued a series of e-mails back and forth between me and some Policy bod. These suddenly ceased, just when I was waiting for clarification of an important point. Next I was told that my correspondent had bimbled off to join the Irish CAA; that was why he was no longer busying himself with my little problems!
I even was physically present there at Aviation House once, wanting to have speaks with my new Policy case officer, not that this was the main reason I was there. I could only speak to this eminence on the internal telephone; the idea that a mere mortal should shuffle off to talk across a desk in an office just showed how delusional I really was about what all this money I had spent entitled me to.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA CPLH and the CAA
I am a UK 4500 hour heli pilot, with an FAA CPLH IR. I have worked abroad for the last 14 years but now wish to return home.
The CAA say that I must basically start again with my CPL if I want to fly in this country.
I have a UK class 1 medical.
Can anyone guide me to a link, or lawyer, where I can start with a case against the CAA on what I believe are discriminatory grounds.
I want to fly aerial work in an N reg (or G reg if it's easier) heli within UK airspace.
The CAA say that I must basically start again with my CPL if I want to fly in this country.
I have a UK class 1 medical.
Can anyone guide me to a link, or lawyer, where I can start with a case against the CAA on what I believe are discriminatory grounds.
I want to fly aerial work in an N reg (or G reg if it's easier) heli within UK airspace.