Proficiency check renewal expired between 3 and 5 years.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigelh
The best way to go about this is to send them in an application form, having done nothing, with a note to say that this is how you interpreted it. Then you may get an actual answer with specifics
I have to agree, it is indeed hilarious that they put you on hold for any length of time to "check for you", and come back with that very same answer they come up with every time one is unsure of what the hell they need to do and need some advice from the people implement the rules! It's been this way down there for a few years now!
The best way to go about this is to send them in an application form, having done nothing, with a note to say that this is how you interpreted it. Then you may get an actual answer with specifics
I have to agree, it is indeed hilarious that they put you on hold for any length of time to "check for you", and come back with that very same answer they come up with every time one is unsure of what the hell they need to do and need some advice from the people implement the rules! It's been this way down there for a few years now!
Last edited by Old Age Pilot; 25th Feb 2013 at 15:16.
Having said that sometimes it works for you . I emailed them many years ago asking if I could operate my helicopter commercially here without an aoc and they said " yes" and then told me how Which is what i have done for the last 15 yrs or more . If you have it in writing from them it must be true ..
Which is what i have done for the last 15 yrs or more . If you have it in writing from them it must be true ..
Try emailing;
[email protected]
Or phone and speak to Barry Mooney.
But it's written down in published documents so it's the school who decides - try speaking to Leon Smith or John Daly at helicopter services.
[email protected]
Or phone and speak to Barry Mooney.
But it's written down in published documents so it's the school who decides - try speaking to Leon Smith or John Daly at helicopter services.
Helinut:
Paraphrased from a recent Industry/CAA 'crisis' meeting on Licensing issues post introduction of Part-FCL....the CAA man on EASA licensing committee pointed out that due to the 11000 comments to the Part FCL CRD, and that the EC imposed a start date for Part FCL, the committee did not have time to consider all the replies to the CRD! You just couldn't invent that scenario, could you?
Translation:
1. It was not the EASA committee's fault.
2. It was not the CAA's fault.
3. It must be our fault for raising all those comments.....
Am I feeling cynical.......?
Paraphrased from a recent Industry/CAA 'crisis' meeting on Licensing issues post introduction of Part-FCL....the CAA man on EASA licensing committee pointed out that due to the 11000 comments to the Part FCL CRD, and that the EC imposed a start date for Part FCL, the committee did not have time to consider all the replies to the CRD! You just couldn't invent that scenario, could you?
Translation:
1. It was not the EASA committee's fault.
2. It was not the CAA's fault.
3. It must be our fault for raising all those comments.....
Am I feeling cynical.......?
11000 comments?!? And they ignored them?
And we live in a democracy? I think not!
Perhaps Stalin succeeded after all... The common man paying for few people at the top to have cushy lifestyles!
And we live in a democracy? I think not!
Perhaps Stalin succeeded after all... The common man paying for few people at the top to have cushy lifestyles!
I asked Leon some time ago and I think he said 3 hrs training and LPC for the singles and 8 hrs and ground school plus exam for 109 .
As it is up to the ATO to decide , all I need to do is find one who agrees with us that only skill test / LPC required !!
Having said that , isn't it so sad that we have , over many years , allowed the lunatics to take over a wonderful industry ...which surely and steadily they will kill . How many ppl,s will give up flying over the next 10 years I wonder and how many AOC ,s will be left ( disregarding offshore etc ) .
As it is up to the ATO to decide , all I need to do is find one who agrees with us that only skill test / LPC required !!
Having said that , isn't it so sad that we have , over many years , allowed the lunatics to take over a wonderful industry ...which surely and steadily they will kill . How many ppl,s will give up flying over the next 10 years I wonder and how many AOC ,s will be left ( disregarding offshore etc ) .
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
Surely your twin training for your FAA licence would count anyway coupled with a LPC (OPC?)
Why don't you just do a 109 LPC and send the forms into the CAA for inclusion on your licence as per the cap 804
Surely your twin training for your FAA licence would count anyway coupled with a LPC (OPC?)
Why don't you just do a 109 LPC and send the forms into the CAA for inclusion on your licence as per the cap 804
I sent an email with all the info last week to the CAA . What's your best guess as to how long it will take them to respond ??
Ok. . I shall do an LPC with someone and send it in and see what they say !!
There isn't any official training on the FAA side ....I just jumped in with an instructor and went through emergencies and that was it .
Ok. . I shall do an LPC with someone and send it in and see what they say !!
There isn't any official training on the FAA side ....I just jumped in with an instructor and went through emergencies and that was it .
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel the whole subject has now become in the CAAs words 'at the discretion of the Head of Training of the ATO.' It really depends on the individual circumstances and other similar flying activities during the lapsed period. We are renewing ratings which have lapsed on twins by over 5 years with as little as 2 hours flying training plus test.The judgement falls completely on the ATO and is reflected on the course completion certificate. We are all learning the new EASA speak but must understand the words should are not the same as must so there lies the problem in interpretation. If you wish to PM me I will try and see the easiest way forward.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the whole subject has now become in the CAAs words 'at the discretion of the Head of Training of the ATO.'
in the "Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material to Part-FCL" it says on page 247:
"The amount of refresher training needed should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATO,"
I cant see where it mentions any specific person?? is there another document where there is guidance??
Regards CF
CF - the HoT is the person in charge of the ATO, the nominated post holder, therefore by default the buck stops with them so they decide.
However, from my posts, of you a current on type (2hrs in last 12months) flying the same type on an ICAO licence (inc FAA) have 100hrs (SE) or 350hrs (ME) then the rules clearly state you only need to pass an LST with an FE/TRE provided the ATO is willing to sign you off for the test.
If you are not current or do not meet the minimum hours on an ICAO licence then the HoT must assess and decide what training you need. See CAP 804, Part FCL and the AMCs - under type rating sections - simples!
However, from my posts, of you a current on type (2hrs in last 12months) flying the same type on an ICAO licence (inc FAA) have 100hrs (SE) or 350hrs (ME) then the rules clearly state you only need to pass an LST with an FE/TRE provided the ATO is willing to sign you off for the test.
If you are not current or do not meet the minimum hours on an ICAO licence then the HoT must assess and decide what training you need. See CAP 804, Part FCL and the AMCs - under type rating sections - simples!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misterbonkers,
thanks for that, unfortunately it all seems to have been written in a woolly fashion. i.e. on the face of it its clear but when you get into the detail its not.and creates much uncertainty for the expired type rating holder.
also the training organisations are going to have to balance the needs of the student with the desire to make money, i am sure some will revert to the default position of "you need to do the whole type rating again" when actually the student doesnt need to do that much.
also it fails to address how some organisations work where the head of training is not physically based on site, he/she may be at another base and/or difficult to get hold of at short notice as this type of business will often be a walk in.
I am very pleased i dont have involvement with this on a full time basis, it would drive me mad as well as make me angry that the flight training business is being killed by overegulation in my opinion.
thanks for that, unfortunately it all seems to have been written in a woolly fashion. i.e. on the face of it its clear but when you get into the detail its not.and creates much uncertainty for the expired type rating holder.
also the training organisations are going to have to balance the needs of the student with the desire to make money, i am sure some will revert to the default position of "you need to do the whole type rating again" when actually the student doesnt need to do that much.
also it fails to address how some organisations work where the head of training is not physically based on site, he/she may be at another base and/or difficult to get hold of at short notice as this type of business will often be a walk in.
I am very pleased i dont have involvement with this on a full time basis, it would drive me mad as well as make me angry that the flight training business is being killed by overegulation in my opinion.
It drives me mad too. Even at schools where the HoT is full time, it's still very restrictive.
As is more common nowadays the rules have been devised by those who have no clue about OUR industry.
There are now fewer and fewer qualified pilots in roles at the CAA and, more importantly, EASA. The head of the CAA is an ex railway man! Traditionally the medical division used to be headed by a doctor who flew and knew about flying.
They are even looking at charging a fee for using the open counter service despite the fact we have to use this service (even driving 5hrs each way to do so) because the postal service is so poor (3mnths to get an EASA which was mandatory to renew an FE ticket!).
Bring back the olds school boys who weren't afraid to put their name to something, stood up for aviation and didn't give a toss about politics and 'pleasing' them above for the sake of their careers.
Grass routes aviation with people who know HOW TO FLY, how to wander with the clouds, how to endure the foggy days and enjoy the sunny ones.
We all have our differences that air frequently on this site but ultimately we stand united with our passion for flying and sadly, so it seems, this passion no longer exists amongst those that 'govern' us!
Rant over.
As is more common nowadays the rules have been devised by those who have no clue about OUR industry.
There are now fewer and fewer qualified pilots in roles at the CAA and, more importantly, EASA. The head of the CAA is an ex railway man! Traditionally the medical division used to be headed by a doctor who flew and knew about flying.
They are even looking at charging a fee for using the open counter service despite the fact we have to use this service (even driving 5hrs each way to do so) because the postal service is so poor (3mnths to get an EASA which was mandatory to renew an FE ticket!).
Bring back the olds school boys who weren't afraid to put their name to something, stood up for aviation and didn't give a toss about politics and 'pleasing' them above for the sake of their careers.
Grass routes aviation with people who know HOW TO FLY, how to wander with the clouds, how to endure the foggy days and enjoy the sunny ones.
We all have our differences that air frequently on this site but ultimately we stand united with our passion for flying and sadly, so it seems, this passion no longer exists amongst those that 'govern' us!
Rant over.
This issue has caused us real headaches. We recently recruited a pilot who, for HR delay reasons, joined us after the November deadline. His S92 LPC had lapsed by 3 years - which we were fully aware of - and we sought a solution to renew it as we are not an ATO (but have UK licenced TREs.) One idea that seemed sensible, was to carry out his 20 hours of Operator Conversion simulator training and then have his PC carried out by a TRE having his TRE certificate revalidated by a CAA FOTI - all in the UK. Not deemed acceptable by LTS! 
The EC225 grounding has caused a massive demand for S92 training at the - very few - ATOs, so the only other option was FSI (none of the operators could handle the request.) I asked them to check if the 5 day/8 hour recurrent course would be acceptable to the CAA. It wasn't. So, full initial type rating course it is then, in June!
The really annoying thing about all this (apart from the cost, delays, and the fact that prior to September we could have administered all this ourselves) is that the AMC says applicants should be assessed on a 'case-by-case basis' but the authority is simply sticking to the suggested requirements in the AMC.
Now, if we fail a pilot during a Proficiency Check, he'll be grounded until we find an ATO with capacity to assess and train him. Guess how many failures there are going to be?
The EC225 grounding has caused a massive demand for S92 training at the - very few - ATOs, so the only other option was FSI (none of the operators could handle the request.) I asked them to check if the 5 day/8 hour recurrent course would be acceptable to the CAA. It wasn't. So, full initial type rating course it is then, in June!
The really annoying thing about all this (apart from the cost, delays, and the fact that prior to September we could have administered all this ourselves) is that the AMC says applicants should be assessed on a 'case-by-case basis' but the authority is simply sticking to the suggested requirements in the AMC.
Now, if we fail a pilot during a Proficiency Check, he'll be grounded until we find an ATO with capacity to assess and train him. Guess how many failures there are going to be?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212 et al
Shock horror to hear somebody actually mentioning those words 'fail a prof check' in public.
We have, in our industry, a blind spot when it comes to the important process of assessing the competence of our peers, colleagues and would-be arrivals on a new type.
There are administrative disincentives (a la 212's dilemma) and there are cultural disincentives where sitting in judgement on a colleague is seen as an evil process best handled by hurrying through the test and signing off the paperwork.
To persist with this lack of rigour does nobody any favours yet for economic and cultural reasons the vast majority of prof checks are, I suspect, unrealistic with unhelpful outcomes.
If a pilot needs a little extra training to get to the required standard then you are not helping if you are the TRE that nods him or her through the test. Your colleagues will have to fly with somebody who is sub-standard and the customer likewise.
This lack of rigour is pervasive and threatens the instructor corps as well. If we expect the line pilot to be good at his job then we should be even more demanding of those that are teaching and examining.
Continuing to pat each other on the back and say "well we know you can do it really, you just had a bad day" is not an attitude that will help us in the long run.
I know 212's operation well and I am confident that they have he right ethical and professional approach and could deliver on my craving for competence if not impeded by bureaucracy. This is NOT the way we should be going.
I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'
"Let competence rule and let competence rule absolutely", would be my 'crie de coeur'.
Sorry for any thread drift.
G
We have, in our industry, a blind spot when it comes to the important process of assessing the competence of our peers, colleagues and would-be arrivals on a new type.
There are administrative disincentives (a la 212's dilemma) and there are cultural disincentives where sitting in judgement on a colleague is seen as an evil process best handled by hurrying through the test and signing off the paperwork.
To persist with this lack of rigour does nobody any favours yet for economic and cultural reasons the vast majority of prof checks are, I suspect, unrealistic with unhelpful outcomes.
If a pilot needs a little extra training to get to the required standard then you are not helping if you are the TRE that nods him or her through the test. Your colleagues will have to fly with somebody who is sub-standard and the customer likewise.
This lack of rigour is pervasive and threatens the instructor corps as well. If we expect the line pilot to be good at his job then we should be even more demanding of those that are teaching and examining.
Continuing to pat each other on the back and say "well we know you can do it really, you just had a bad day" is not an attitude that will help us in the long run.
I know 212's operation well and I am confident that they have he right ethical and professional approach and could deliver on my craving for competence if not impeded by bureaucracy. This is NOT the way we should be going.
I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'
"Let competence rule and let competence rule absolutely", would be my 'crie de coeur'.
Sorry for any thread drift.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just got a shiny new bus pass (EASA licence) and finding that I have now lost the SK76, AS332L, A109, and AS355 ratings which have been removed from my licence and placed in the "previously held ratings" section, I can say that I am definitely annoyed about the whole thing, and disappointed that the Authorities have no regard for the cost and difficulty in getting these ratings in the first place.
I can see no reference so I assume having a rating ( CAA) on your licence that has lapsed OR never having had that rating makes no difference ? Ie I have ratings for 206 . , 341(2) and AS350 last valid 2009 ......if I am current on them and have over 100 pic on type , I can just do a skills test ...LPC and my ratings become valid again . If I do same on a type I do not already have a rating for ....I will then gain that rating . Then I assume it stays as before ...ie you do your LPC on any one of your group ( not incl Robbos ) and you get them all ?
Simple question ...slightly off topic ....but one close to my heart !!. Is it too late to have any sort of influence on the running of OUR CAA ....or do we have to accept that a British Rail Ticket inspector is going to take full charge of our industries future ? I have long said that ALL the medium and small aoc,s should withhold payment and carry on doing leases for the time being . I would bet they would be more profitable and also there would be no action from the CAA . To my knowledge there has NEVER been a prosecution for a lease deal flight and my lawyers tell me that the fact that the CAA have allowed it for 50 years with no attempt to stop it IS effectively condoning it .....therefore by default it IS legal and lots of us have done it for millions of hrs over the last 50 years or so
We will end up like Greece where their pilots have to come here for their check rides as all the instructors etc have quite sensibly gone elsewhere ......
Simple question ...slightly off topic ....but one close to my heart !!. Is it too late to have any sort of influence on the running of OUR CAA ....or do we have to accept that a British Rail Ticket inspector is going to take full charge of our industries future ? I have long said that ALL the medium and small aoc,s should withhold payment and carry on doing leases for the time being . I would bet they would be more profitable and also there would be no action from the CAA . To my knowledge there has NEVER been a prosecution for a lease deal flight and my lawyers tell me that the fact that the CAA have allowed it for 50 years with no attempt to stop it IS effectively condoning it .....therefore by default it IS legal and lots of us have done it for millions of hrs over the last 50 years or so
We will end up like Greece where their pilots have to come here for their check rides as all the instructors etc have quite sensibly gone elsewhere ......
Last edited by nigelh; 2nd Mar 2013 at 12:09.