CAA Set to abolish Registered Training Facilities
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr floater
personally, i agree with you but i am not sure the CAA does anymore hence the consultation here:- Consultation - LAASG FTSG Proposals | Consultations | CAA to change to training at unlicensed sites
i think if every person who fancies it can train out of a field, that often shoddy standards now will go down even more.
CF
There is a good reason that training has to take place on an airfield and it is nothing to do with long runways.
i think if every person who fancies it can train out of a field, that often shoddy standards now will go down even more.
CF
Thats why the CAA (and any sensible Authority) stipulate training at licenced airfields. It isn't designed to generate them funds (for a change) it's for your safety.
If I practice EOL's....even if it is power recovery....does it matter where I do that? I am sure engines fail during cruise while between airfields.
If we use the conventional wisdom here...then practice force landings outside the traffic pattern would be unsafe, unapproved, and not a done thing.
How do you practice confined area operations without finding a hole in the woods somewhere? Any pinnacles found on airfields?
Or....do we just do a verbal brief and simulate confined areas and pinnacles?
Any airfields on ridgelines?
Any mountain airfields handy for learning to fly in the mountains?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr sasless
unfortunately we have a bad system that if you come within 500ft of a vessel/person/vehicle/structure at an unlicenced site (such as a field) as you might do on a practice approach during your practice forced landing that you are breaking the law, unless it is a normal takeoff and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice.
a structure may be just a fence or a telephone line, it is very difficult to always be more than 500ft away from anything, even out in the countryside
so why not land you say in accordance with normal aviation practice? well you are not allowed to land either during a training flight at an unlicenced site.
in practice people do them but are always aware that they are taking a risk if they go below 500ft off airfield
in practice people either know a friendly farmer in the local area with a good confined area or they just take the risk of finding a confined area and hope nobody complains, especially if they are within 500ft of something. and once they are in the confined area, you have the crazy situation that you cant touch the ground as you would landing at an unlicenced site
regards
CF
If I practice EOL's....even if it is power recovery....does it matter where I do that? I am sure engines fail during cruise while between airfields.
a structure may be just a fence or a telephone line, it is very difficult to always be more than 500ft away from anything, even out in the countryside
so why not land you say in accordance with normal aviation practice? well you are not allowed to land either during a training flight at an unlicenced site.
If we use the conventional wisdom here...then practice force landings outside the traffic pattern would be unsafe, unapproved, and not a done thing.
How do you practice confined area operations without finding a hole in the woods somewhere? Any pinnacles found on airfields ?
regards
CF
SAS,
I am talking initial training to get the necessary handling skills required. Yes, once the individual has demonstrated proficiency then take them to other places as part of their approved training.
Fairoaks has a confined area just off airfield that can be seen by ATC.
How many PPLs do mountain flying as part of there basic training? So no need for a pinnacle on the airfield.
Unfortunately the helicopter industry in the UK is blighted by cowboys trying to buck the system and cut corners to make a quick buck and the rest of the industry is paying the price. So don't be surprised that the CAA have to write the regulations to cover every angle because as the flight safety poster says "You can't make it idiot proof because idiots are ingenious"
FNW
I am talking initial training to get the necessary handling skills required. Yes, once the individual has demonstrated proficiency then take them to other places as part of their approved training.
Fairoaks has a confined area just off airfield that can be seen by ATC.
How many PPLs do mountain flying as part of there basic training? So no need for a pinnacle on the airfield.
Unfortunately the helicopter industry in the UK is blighted by cowboys trying to buck the system and cut corners to make a quick buck and the rest of the industry is paying the price. So don't be surprised that the CAA have to write the regulations to cover every angle because as the flight safety poster says "You can't make it idiot proof because idiots are ingenious"
FNW
Unfortunately the helicopter industry in the UK is blighted by cowboys trying to buck the system and cut corners to make a quick buck and the rest of the industry is paying the price.
Are they a "blight" or folks who have found a way to do the same training at a much cheaper rate by avoiding the overhead costs incurred by operators who elect to use higher cost locations at "licensed" airfields?
The test should be in the quality of the operation.....not in its location.
Look back at our infamous Silverstate Helicopters as a perfect example of a bad outfit at good locations.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: World
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have got around to reading TRAININGCOM - 3/2008, you could easily miss the change from Registered Facility (RF) to Approved Training Facility (ATO) by not paying attention, not good news.
Of course a RF is open to abuse but usefull in some cases. If the instructor is quilified, the aircraft legal and the course carried out as per the rules what else do you need? Some kind of accountability which was to become a RF, now the CAA are in the loop right at the start.
Now you can only train someone on first type up to PPL standard as a RF, so training someone on there own helicopter or your own was possible without the massive amount of money, time and paper work required for a TRTO which if you read what you have to do to become a ATO will kill anyone that did their teaching under the RF rules.
To give you an idea of when it could be usefull take the freelance instuctor, introduced to someone that has bought a helicopter and now wants to learn to fly it (don't ask why they just buy a helicopter and then find an instructor instead of going to a school, the buisness is magnet to some strange people).
Now the instructor could go to a school and ask to use their facilities, maybe the school isn't near, they want to take the lions share of the money, steal the student or the instructor likes to do his own buisness. Remember we are talking about doing the training the right way, what's wrong with the RF in this case?
On the PPL instructor subject in years gone by it helped a lot of people in to the industry. In a lot of cases people would go abroad to learn, get a CPL of that country and work untill their visa run out or they were found to have never had a visa. The reason why people went abroad was that it was a lot cheaper and they could get some experiance.
The rules a few years ago worked out that you could do an intergrated course of 150 hours or so either sponsered or you paid, so if you had to pay that was £60,000 and a year off work or 400 hrs was needed if you didn't do the intergrated course to take the CPL if I remember rightly.
So you would have people coming home with a CPL that wasn't worth the paper it was written on as far as the CAA was concerned and were faced with the exams and no flying till all of them had been passed plus some more training and a test or become a flight instructor and study for the exams while they were flying and getting some money in.
It worked well, the people that trained the instructors were very expieranced, the course taught the civvy pilot more about helicopters then all the CPL exams put together and assuming they were not a complete moron went on to instruct under the watchfull eye of expieranced people.
Some people just never wanted to do anything but teach and stayed as PPL's, they passed the instructor test why should they suddenly have to go off and do a load of exams?
None of this effects me by the way, just think it's a bit off.
Of course a RF is open to abuse but usefull in some cases. If the instructor is quilified, the aircraft legal and the course carried out as per the rules what else do you need? Some kind of accountability which was to become a RF, now the CAA are in the loop right at the start.
Now you can only train someone on first type up to PPL standard as a RF, so training someone on there own helicopter or your own was possible without the massive amount of money, time and paper work required for a TRTO which if you read what you have to do to become a ATO will kill anyone that did their teaching under the RF rules.
To give you an idea of when it could be usefull take the freelance instuctor, introduced to someone that has bought a helicopter and now wants to learn to fly it (don't ask why they just buy a helicopter and then find an instructor instead of going to a school, the buisness is magnet to some strange people).
Now the instructor could go to a school and ask to use their facilities, maybe the school isn't near, they want to take the lions share of the money, steal the student or the instructor likes to do his own buisness. Remember we are talking about doing the training the right way, what's wrong with the RF in this case?
On the PPL instructor subject in years gone by it helped a lot of people in to the industry. In a lot of cases people would go abroad to learn, get a CPL of that country and work untill their visa run out or they were found to have never had a visa. The reason why people went abroad was that it was a lot cheaper and they could get some experiance.
The rules a few years ago worked out that you could do an intergrated course of 150 hours or so either sponsered or you paid, so if you had to pay that was £60,000 and a year off work or 400 hrs was needed if you didn't do the intergrated course to take the CPL if I remember rightly.
So you would have people coming home with a CPL that wasn't worth the paper it was written on as far as the CAA was concerned and were faced with the exams and no flying till all of them had been passed plus some more training and a test or become a flight instructor and study for the exams while they were flying and getting some money in.
It worked well, the people that trained the instructors were very expieranced, the course taught the civvy pilot more about helicopters then all the CPL exams put together and assuming they were not a complete moron went on to instruct under the watchfull eye of expieranced people.
Some people just never wanted to do anything but teach and stayed as PPL's, they passed the instructor test why should they suddenly have to go off and do a load of exams?
None of this effects me by the way, just think it's a bit off.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: World
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well my last post didn't stimulate much response but I will carry on ragardless, first sign of madness talking to yourself.
The whole point is as we Brits know once a privilige (note that word) has been taken away it's not coming back and recourse is now to a faceless authority in a foriegn country rather than a faceless authority on another planet.
I can only think of one person that has an RF and he never uses it, be interesting to find out who still operates under them, it is rather restrictive so only had a limited use anyway, still would like to retain it though.
The PPL instructor is a thing of the past which did work in it's time, as I said before the rules were different and a lot of people went abroad, America for most, got some expierance and came home. Some just did the whole thing in the UK, PPL, added the instructor rating then went on to CPL. One of them was flying the London HEMS last time we spoke.
Well that's it for now as I get bored talking to myself, well I know all the jokes.
The whole point is as we Brits know once a privilige (note that word) has been taken away it's not coming back and recourse is now to a faceless authority in a foriegn country rather than a faceless authority on another planet.
I can only think of one person that has an RF and he never uses it, be interesting to find out who still operates under them, it is rather restrictive so only had a limited use anyway, still would like to retain it though.
The PPL instructor is a thing of the past which did work in it's time, as I said before the rules were different and a lot of people went abroad, America for most, got some expierance and came home. Some just did the whole thing in the UK, PPL, added the instructor rating then went on to CPL. One of them was flying the London HEMS last time we spoke.
Well that's it for now as I get bored talking to myself, well I know all the jokes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many people are reading but not commenting.
The RF is the only way a PPL instructor can opperate If the new rules are implimented all the PPL instructors will leave the industry the CPL instructors will then all be young hour builders or retired ex military pilots working for less than a bus driver gets paid. Anyone thinking of being a pilot now must be off there head! more so being an instructor £40 an hour 5 hours a week if your lucky no pay for reading all the bull on the web sites CAA JAR Europe FCL lasor dont forget the poor student he needs briefing at least 100 hours you do this in your spare time when you should be relaxing on the weekend. My advice if you wish to fly for fun in the uk get a USA licence have some fun learning to fly Dont get involved with these employed fools making mor and moor rules. Do your bit tell the CAA to leave thing alone.
Please note that consultation period for NPA-2008-22d "Authority and Organisation Requirements - Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices "CS-FSTD(A)"" has been extended until 15 Apr 2009.
See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_55
To place comments please logon at EASA CRT application
For further information please contact Rulemaking Process Support at [email protected]
The RF is the only way a PPL instructor can opperate If the new rules are implimented all the PPL instructors will leave the industry the CPL instructors will then all be young hour builders or retired ex military pilots working for less than a bus driver gets paid. Anyone thinking of being a pilot now must be off there head! more so being an instructor £40 an hour 5 hours a week if your lucky no pay for reading all the bull on the web sites CAA JAR Europe FCL lasor dont forget the poor student he needs briefing at least 100 hours you do this in your spare time when you should be relaxing on the weekend. My advice if you wish to fly for fun in the uk get a USA licence have some fun learning to fly Dont get involved with these employed fools making mor and moor rules. Do your bit tell the CAA to leave thing alone.
Please note that consultation period for NPA-2008-22d "Authority and Organisation Requirements - Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices "CS-FSTD(A)"" has been extended until 15 Apr 2009.
See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_55
To place comments please logon at EASA CRT application
For further information please contact Rulemaking Process Support at [email protected]
Eddiecapt
Apart froim them relinquishing control to EASA in the first place (and I don't know what say they had in that) what has this got to do with the CAA ?
This is an EASA issue and the CAA aer encouraging the Heads of Training / CFIs to comment on the NPA, the impression I get from the letter they sent out on 05 February is that they don't want the Registered facility to die either, otherwise why write to us and ask us to comment on it specifically with guidance as to what to look for on the EASA website.
I believe the NPA you need to look at is NPA 2008-22c and that can be found here http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_59 , the one referred to above is about aeroplane synthetic trainers.
It seems to be just like when we whinge at the CAA with one man one voice, thats the way it is in Europe and the CAA have a small voice, the people in the industry need to comment in a balanced manner and hope that someone in Europe is listening, not just about this but about all the European NPA to do with licensing, ops,Training Organisations etc.
With regard to PPLs doing flight training, whats the problem if they meet the standard and know their stuff. However if the authority have to audit something is better to audit initial training, or the 5 hours of a type rating.
The comment made by someone else earlier in the thread with regards to a lot of the onerous requirements made in NPA2008-22c not applying to PPL ATOs is still valid.
Will it be more of a pain than just sending in a form ? Yes.
Will it perhaps get some facilities with undesirable qualities looked at more closely ?
Probably.
Will it change what really goes on when the CAA aren't looking ? Not in the slightest.
Will PPLs be stopped from carrying out flight training under EASA FCL ?
If NPA 17 goes through as proposed then no they won't, Subpart J allows for training up to the licence you hold [FCL.915] and specifies an additional requirement that prior to entry to an FI course a PPL shall have at least 200Hrs PIC and at least 250Hrs Total Time.
I support some bits of the proposals as a whole and not some others, but its up to each of us to comment on what we don't agree with.
We all have to keep up with EASA, CAA, JAA ICAO etc it just goes with the turf, as in all walks of life some people keep abreast of the changes more than others and one of the consequences of implementing a system where PPL training is auditable may be the RFs set up by people who did their FI training and then make no effort to keep up with the current rules might have to try and keep up with the more professional ones that are out there (not directed at anyone, an industry general observation).
Off to take the little one to school back soon.
Apart froim them relinquishing control to EASA in the first place (and I don't know what say they had in that) what has this got to do with the CAA ?
This is an EASA issue and the CAA aer encouraging the Heads of Training / CFIs to comment on the NPA, the impression I get from the letter they sent out on 05 February is that they don't want the Registered facility to die either, otherwise why write to us and ask us to comment on it specifically with guidance as to what to look for on the EASA website.
I believe the NPA you need to look at is NPA 2008-22c and that can be found here http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_59 , the one referred to above is about aeroplane synthetic trainers.
It seems to be just like when we whinge at the CAA with one man one voice, thats the way it is in Europe and the CAA have a small voice, the people in the industry need to comment in a balanced manner and hope that someone in Europe is listening, not just about this but about all the European NPA to do with licensing, ops,Training Organisations etc.
With regard to PPLs doing flight training, whats the problem if they meet the standard and know their stuff. However if the authority have to audit something is better to audit initial training, or the 5 hours of a type rating.
The comment made by someone else earlier in the thread with regards to a lot of the onerous requirements made in NPA2008-22c not applying to PPL ATOs is still valid.
Section 2 Additional
requirements for ATOs providing training for licences and
ratings other than the LPL, PPL, SPL and BPL.
requirements for ATOs providing training for licences and
ratings other than the LPL, PPL, SPL and BPL.
Will it perhaps get some facilities with undesirable qualities looked at more closely ?
Probably.
Will it change what really goes on when the CAA aren't looking ? Not in the slightest.
Will PPLs be stopped from carrying out flight training under EASA FCL ?
If NPA 17 goes through as proposed then no they won't, Subpart J allows for training up to the licence you hold [FCL.915] and specifies an additional requirement that prior to entry to an FI course a PPL shall have at least 200Hrs PIC and at least 250Hrs Total Time.
I support some bits of the proposals as a whole and not some others, but its up to each of us to comment on what we don't agree with.
We all have to keep up with EASA, CAA, JAA ICAO etc it just goes with the turf, as in all walks of life some people keep abreast of the changes more than others and one of the consequences of implementing a system where PPL training is auditable may be the RFs set up by people who did their FI training and then make no effort to keep up with the current rules might have to try and keep up with the more professional ones that are out there (not directed at anyone, an industry general observation).
Off to take the little one to school back soon.
