|
|
Originally Posted by Landflap
(Post 10705681)
Great news. Back to the good old days. Very high standards, centrally well administered. I have held all of the glorious UK licences. PPl, CPL, SCPL, ATPL. (Actually, I recall the latter being called the Air Line Transport Licence (ALTP, rather than ATPL or worse, Americanised ATP ). All centrally administered. If you wanted to fly UK registered aircraft you need a UK licence. What's difficult about that ? Same applied in the USA. Want to fly USA Registered aircraft (?).........get a FAA licence. Want to fly a European Registered aircraft, get a licence issued by the individual European Country's Regulatory Authority. Of course there was recognition. UK licence was world wide admired and obtaining the foreign licence was often the easy matter of obtaining a "validation". Some countries asked for local Air Law paper only. I flew on validations to my Uk gold standard from three seperate European Licensing Authorities and two Middle East. FAA insisted on full writtens but they were REALLY easy multi choice. Of course, and rightly so , Top Class UK CAA did not reciprocate. Quite rightly did not recognise other easy licences and you would need to pass all the difficult writtens.
I see nothing wrong in all of the foregoing and it maintained a very high standard, world recognised Professional qualification process. We hear a lot of tripe about airspace restriction. UK never stopped other licenced carriers operating in UK airspace. USA & Europe never stopped UK registered aircraft flying in their airspace. Airspace regulation and licence regulation are seperate issues . And, note to UK CAA (oh love it !) Can we go back to nine fully written exams, not this dumbed down multi choice trash ? For Meteorogy, for example, can we go back to the tough theory (part one) and the really tough practical(pat two) where we had to decode stations, plot a course, plot the isobars & fronts with pressure susytems , decode the actuals and write forecast for destination & alternates (get Buys Ballot all wrong & you would wind up all over the chart. !) Note to foreign licence Regulators : As the new UK Licences will be the gold standards, we will expect foreign validations by just having to do your local Air Law exam ( not even that required by the Belgians in 1991) and just to be sure, this is for Licencing to fly registered aircraft of THAT country. Nothing, nothing, to do with the confusion of flying in foreign airspace Finally, of course the new UK LIcence will at last be recognised as University degree acadamic standard, so, can I be first to get my Degree in Civil Aviation. You know, something like "UK CAA Honours, -Hamble " ; then I could put "UKCAA-Ham Hon" behind my name. Ta. |
Taking difficult exams has little correlation to being a good pilot.
|
I’m not too sure how I feel about this with regards to the future, I see both sides of the argument.
I am currently studying for AustroControl ATPL Exams at BGS. I am an English pilot with an (EASA) Irish PPL & Class 1 medical and will probably be finishing my training (MEIR/CPL & APS MCC) after the transition period with EASA ends. Now, my predicament is that I had a UK class 2 medical 2 years before I started my training and the CAA refused to lift a restriction on my medical. Instead of fighting my corner, I transferred my records to the IAA who lifted my restriction and I then gained a Class 1 over in Dublin in November 2019. Now I’m pretty nervous that if I have to try and covert my licenses back to the UK (because of brexit) after my training for employment purposes then the CAA will put a restriction on my records again. Do the CAA keep a record of your records even though you go through the SOLI transfer process? Can anyone offer their thoughts/advice? Has anyone been through this process before or can relate to it? |
Yes, avoid the UK CAA altogether.
|
Originally Posted by Banana Joe
(Post 10705947)
Yes, avoid the UK CAA altogether.
|
I started my training and the CAA refused to lift a restriction on my medical. |
Well, well, well, that big wheel surely does go round!
I'm no fan of EASA and its pointless bureaucracy but then I wasn't a fan of the "old style" CAA either. You know, archaic exams, astronaut medicals, jobs for the boys, the "ex RAF navigators club" that kind of thing. Still many of those people are long gone now so this could/should be a golden opportunity. It will be interesting to see what we eventually end up with, after all of those with vested interests have exercised their influence and lobbying skills. Some people will fall through the cracks during transition and should/must be treated sympathetically. I agree it was interesting that Shapps was in Washington when he made the announcement. Maybe regulatory alignment will be heading westbound more in the future. |
Scam call centre owner in custody after BBC investigation
It doesn’t help when CAA staff are arrested for doing their job. |
From my own experience of the steady deterioration of competence, knowledge and ability over the last 20 years in the CAA's Safety Regulation Group, I think the estimate of 5 years for the CAA to regain any resemblance to a leading aviation safety regulator, on a par with EASA and the FAA is wildly optimistic.
Bar a few exceptions, including some, I'm sure, that I don't know about, the last competent person left the building sometime before 2010, leaving behind the incompetent time-servers in their own little fiefdoms and silos, unemployable anywhere else. This is certainly true of Airworthiness and AME Training; I have not heard anything complimentary about a Surveyor in the last 10 years; the most typical comments are disbelief that anyone so poorly suited to the job could be employed to do it, usually with an anecdote about the latest stupid assertion from a Surveyor. That's not to say that the pre-EASA CAA was good; it wasn't. But from that low point it has gone steadily downhill since the UK joined EASA, and I just don't see how they can recover to become a top rank independent Regulator in less than 10 years, ie the minimum time needed to recruit, train and develop through experience the expert staff it needs. Mind you, if the UK loses much more of its design and manufacturing capability there won't be much to regulate and approve there; and if UK-registered airlines keep failing the same goes for Flight Ops and Airworthiness as well. There will always be a few airports to watch over, but perhaps not so many as before. I'm no fan of EASA, but the thought of the present bunch of oxygen thieves in the CAA taking charge instead makes me very glad I'm out of it later this year to spend more time with my boat. |
I can’t help feeling that the UK will try and do this on the cheap, as usual. No doubt, we will walk into the negotiations in good faith against economic blocks looking to deny any concessions for UK aviation simply to exert pressure in other areas. As mentioned above, the CAA is a shadow of its former self. I doubt there is the expertise to fill many of these senior roles within the U.K., unless airline management decide they fancy a few years at the regulator as a retirement job. Sadly, knowing the calibre and attitudes of some airline management, I can’t help but think we are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
|
Anyone know who is telling the government this is a good idea?
I can see a lot of industry people saying it's a bad idea. Is it just idealistic nonsense? It doesn't feel part of the negotiation, with a view to changing intention later, does it? |
Originally Posted by a5in_the_sim
(Post 10705990)
Scam call centre owner in custody after BBC investigation
It doesn’t help when CAA staff are arrested for doing their job. |
Re the EASA FTLs, they weren’t perfect by any means, but it’s worth bearing in mind that there were several EASA Member States that didn’t have any FTLs at all. So these crews were flying into the UK when grossly fatigued, and from a narrow UK perspective these were the crews who you might have met over Europe when their fatigue could have been your problem. Now, it’s slightly different.
You also have the comfort of knowing that when your UK licence takes you to an airport on the fringes of EASA land, said airport might have reached some auditable standards that are to your benefit. Has Grant Shapps worked out how the UK CAA is going to get sufficient safety data to manage risk in the UK when it can only gaze fondly on its own navel or on the UK industry through the lens of a very small straw? Somehow, I think the political posturing will be more important than the realities of operating in a vacuum. |
Originally Posted by JFZ90
(Post 10706013)
Anyone know who is telling the government this is a good idea?
I can see a lot of industry people saying it's a bad idea. Is it just idealistic nonsense? It doesn't feel part of the negotiation, with a view to changing intention later, does it? |
I fail to understand why this is such a surprise to anybody. Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something the government has ruled out from the beginning. One of the main Brexit points was to “take back control” and not being subject to the ECJ.
|
Originally Posted by Jack D
(Post 10705670)
Prior to joining EASA it was not uncommon for pilots who wear spectacles to hold a class 1 medical certificate, as long as required vision
standards were met. Perhaps you had an underlying vision problem which precluded the issue of a class 1 ? Simply requiring glasses wouldn’t affect the granting of a class 1 You can have a perfect eyesight and totally healthy eyes with your glasses, but if you exceed the nonsensical and arbitrary diopter prescription limits, you‘re out. Happened to many of my pals, who had perfect eyes otherwise. |
Sounds like another mini-brexit debate within the brexit :rolleyes:.
|
FAR
GS announcement was made in US (Washington) - is he minded to implement FAR?
|
Originally Posted by RVR800
(Post 10706163)
GS announcement was made in US (Washington) - is he minded to implement FAR?
|
Originally Posted by CEJM
(Post 10706096)
I fail to understand why this is such a surprise to anybody. Membership of EASA is contingent upon accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, something the government has ruled out from the beginning. One of the main Brexit points was to “take back control” and not being subject to the ECJ.
I don't really see the benefit (but then I didn't of brexit) in any tangible form. I don't really know how big say Transport Canada is but they own their certification I think. Not sure I'd want to operate under Canadian FTL though... I can't see the new CAA being say more anti fatigue than easa because industry would see that as being uncompetitive. |
Originally Posted by KeyPilot
(Post 10705461)
This is inevitable, for the reasons Shapps says.
And also a good thing - in my opinion! |
a cancer of stupidity spreading through the UK
I'm afraid the reality is that the UK has been taken over by a fanatical group of people that hate Europe and hate Europeans, Brexiteers are akin to members of the National Front, going back to the old CAA national licence is a pathetic move, we are now a nation with a cancer of stupidity spreading through our population.
|
I have had the privilege of paying fees to convert my UK CAA ATPL to JAA ATPL to EASA ATPL and now back to UK CAA ATPL meanwhile flying the same aircraft on all the same routes.
|
Originally Posted by RVR800
(Post 10706163)
GS announcement was made in US (Washington) - is he minded to implement FAR?
Knowing that the feds can pop up at anytime keeps both the pilots and the companies pretty honest in my observation. I don't think I've ever bragged about how hard it is to get a pilot's license in the U.S. I think Americans are more concerned with how much money we make and how much time off we enjoy. Other cultures are probably more interested in the number of stripes on the uniform and post nominal letters. Will the CAA reinvent the wheel once more for a relatively small pilot market? Or, will they adopt (or re-adopt) successful rules already in place elsewhere? I think we already know the answer to that one. ;) |
Shapps does not have the power to make such a decision!
He told me on several occasions that there is no reason why the UK cannot be a non-EU EASA Member State such as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland currently are. Those UK citizens who wish the UK to remain in EASA should write to their MP! Mine is Robert Courts; on 29th October 2018 he wrote: You will be aware that the Government is seeking a comprehensive air transport deal with the EU which secures continued participation within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) system. P.S. Good to gear from you on this point; I hope this is reassuring. |
Honestly - the lunatics are taking over.
Anyone who thinks that we'll be going back to the old FTLs is utterly, utterly deluded. It will be all the CAA can do for the 1st ten years to keep the existing AOC holders operating - they won't have time to return to the days of Empire, I'm afraid. And how are we going to certify aircraft? And anyone that has had anything to do with the medical department knows that, err, THERE ISN"T ONE. I'm looking forward to the absolute chaos of putting this Daily Mail driven idiocy into place. It's gonna be bad... |
From a PAX perspective, I have no desire to see the FAA and their worldview anywhere near the UK. They have as much forgiveness to beg as Boeing.
Yet again we see the British thinking that they can go back to a better time. One of the staples of politcians is to claim that by 'going back' we can 'go forward'. Yet we all know that in our private lives this can never be acheived - so why do so many people buy this idea of a whole country going back to the future? It sounds easy and safe but experience says otherwise. Whatever the CAA might be now, it is not gold standard for, in all the 19 years I have been in these forums - I have never heard a good word about the CAA. I have heard people defending many things but never the CAA. As has been said, to build up a new organisation will take more then five years. Respect from the rest of the world will have to be earned, especially if we cozy up to the FAA whose name is below mud. One example of British govt incompetence: They stated that they would secure the borders of this country. We were supposed to have left the EU nearly a year ago - yet our outgoing borders are still open. Consequently, Whitehall has zero idea of who has left, or has not and overstayed their Visa. They had three years to recruit and train staff for that and failed. How long to build up a CAA? I know, just hire in your old mates from the golf course who say they know what to do ... EASA may be many things but it is agreement with our neighbours and trading partners. Agreements reduce admin costs. But all is being lost by little boys playing at being politicians. The EU has seen three years of Sabre rattling and have our measure. |
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10706287)
Shapps does not have the power to make such a decision!
He told me on several occasions that there is no reason why the UK cannot be a non-EU EASA Member State such as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland currently are. Those UK citizens who wish the UK to remain in EASA should write to their MP! Mine is Robert Courts; on 29th October 2018 he wrote: He also wrote a footnote in manuscript stating: Perhaps if you revisit the subject with him now, he may be able to tell you the reasons against that he previously suggested would not exist. Then again, if he criticises his cabinet colleagues too much he can find himself a new job and be replaced with someone more compliant. |
Why are people so surprised and alarmed, that a post-Brexit UK government wants to take back control of the country's own laws as they relate to aviation?
Continuing as a non-EU EASA member is vassalage pure and simple. All the non-EU EASA members have far smaller populations - and aviation sectors - than the UK's. And as for "it will take the CAA 10 years to become capable" - this is just project fear all over again. How long did it take EASA to set up? And that was really from scratch, in a city without a major aviation industry. Post-EASA Britain will do just fine. |
Originally Posted by PAXboy
(Post 10706307)
From a PAX perspective, I have no desire to see the FAA and their worldview anywhere near the UK. They have as much forgiveness to beg as Boeing.
As cited above: The UK aerospace industry, which has a highly-regulated global supply chain, relies on membership of EASA to maintain common safety and certification standards that are also acceptable to the US safety agency, the Federal Aviation Administration. Aerospace companies based in countries without aviation regulatory compliance with EASA [or the FAA] find selling aerospace products and providing aviation services to the US and Europe, and indeed other countries outside their immediate jurisdiction, difficult and subject to additional work. This is because EASA and the US FAA standards form the benchmark for products and services so companies will be required to show their products match up to these benchmark standards. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10706432)
Looks like the CAA is going to be doing the begging that the FAA will accept their work once they are out of EASA. If the CAA certification can't measure up to FAA standards, the world's largest aviation market will take its business elsewhere.
As cited above: From the article DaveReidUK posted: |
Key pilot.... yes exactly, there WAS a time.
|
I'm intrigued. Given that over the past few years UK nationals working in EASA and the various other European agencies will, like me, have been acquiring some form of European citizenship (and EASA is in Germany, which allows dual UK-German citizenship if applied for before the end of the transition period), how many Brits will be willing to move back? Their jobs are secure, and if they've been working in Cologne since the beginning, as implied by Mr. Shapps, their lives must be pretty stable? Move back to regulate what little manufacturing is left?
I work in automotive at the moment, and have acquired a second European passport to maintain my position here. It would take quite the package to persuade me back right now. I doubt that the UK has any right of recall over these people - they aren't diplomats - and so will have to be tempted back. What would tempt you back? Assuming, that is, that you aren't one of the jingoistic sorts on here who would never have gone in the first place... |
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10706287)
Shapps does not have the power to make such a decision!
He told me on several occasions that there is no reason why the UK cannot be a non-EU EASA Member State such as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland currently are. |
The CAA employs as many people today as it did prior to EASA.
WWW |
Originally Posted by SMT Member
(Post 10706530)
Then you're Mr. Shapps is an even bigger idiot than politicians in general. Remaining as a non-EU member of EASA would mean accepting the ECJ as the legal arbitrator, and the UK has made it abundantly clear that's not going to happen.
Instead of lobbying MPs for something which won't happen, let's all do what we can to make UK PLC work in the new post-Brexit (and post-EASA) world. |
Also re this BS about it taking 10 years for the CAA to build up again - we can have a policy unilaterally to accept EASA licenses/Cs of A/etc. etc. without even validations required, for a transition period of even several years if needs be.
All will be well! |
How many of those here who think this is a good idea have any skin in the game?
|
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 10706546)
How many of those here who think this is a good idea have any skin in the game?
Plus we all do for sake of our industry & wider economy |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.