Licensing nightmare

[CAVU2]

As an inexperienced pilot I have found all the different licensing requirements to be mind-boggingly overcomplicated.

I remember when I first started PPL training being surprised that I wouldn't be learning to fly through cloud (seemed like a basic expectation for flying in UK weather!), I'd gladly have spent longer and paid more money to be given that training before receiving a PPL but clearly that's not how things work.

Since qualifying my eyes have been opened to CPL courses, different types of instrument ratings, ATPL, MPL, JOC, ME, MEIR, Type ratings, MCC, the cynic in me thinks a lot of this stuff has been invented to make money for training providers, for example I find it strange that one would need to attend a course in order to learn to communicate effectively with the captain in an airliner (the MCC course), surely this is the sort of thing learnt through experience on the job....
Has it always been this way?
Coming out of WW2 were RAF pilots being turned away from airlines because they hadn't completed an orientation course or paid over the odds and completed a type rating?
I also find it hilarious how one can be qualified to fly in adverse weather in the UK and yet once you reach European airspace that's no longer legal.
Surely this could all be done so much better.

[janrein]

I also find it hilarious how one can be qualified to fly in adverse weather in the UK and yet once you reach European airspace that's no longer legal.

Could this be somehow related to that peculiar phenomenon called "BREXIT"?

[Contact Approach]

It’s a Jurassic **** show to put it simply.

[B2N2]

CAVU2

Your post just made me smile.
There are major philosophical differences between flight training in the USA and Europe.
PPL has a pre solo written exam (basic stuff done by the instructor or flightschool) and ONE FAA computerized exam of 60 questions.
Somehow in Europa-land they feel it requires 7-8 exams?
In the US you learn your Radiotelephony from your instructor and that’s unfortunate as you’ve got some yahoo’s out there that couldn’t udder one standardized phrase.
Each certificate or rating up to ATP only has one computerized exam.
We don’t learn Polar navigation unless you’re employed by a company that is authorized to do so.
Philosophically European standards overemphasize academics and US standards overemphasize practical experience.
At some point your experience plateaus and another 1000 hrs of doing the same thing adds very little value or skill.
Wannabe’s doing these EU 14 Draconian exams forget 85-90% the moment they walk out of the testing center.
There are significant flaws in every system.

[rudestuff]

Originally Posted by CAVU2

I find it strange that one would need to attend a course in order to learn to communicate effectively with the captain in an airliner (the MCC course), surely this is the sort of thing learnt through experience on the job...

CRM is a relatively modern concept. In the old days the Captain was treated as God, with the FO just a gear/flap monkey, and a lot of planes crashed because the captain got out of his depth and the FO didn't speak up. It's still like that in many Asian cultures. In the west CRM has saved a lot of lives, it needs to be taught and certainly can't be learned on the job - that's the literal opposite philosophy. Every airline has regular recurrent CRM training. The MCC as a course is required because flying an airliner is a team effort. Your first 200-odd hours are spent getting a single pilot licence (unless you've done an MPL) and learning to operate and make decisions collaboratively is vital. Some people can make great pilots but poor crew members.

[paco]

Communication is 80% of any job and it has to be taught, especially having the self-esteem to speak up when needed. As rudestuff says, CRM as a concept has saved many lives*, but the KSA thing is a nonsense and a huge legal minefield.

*Humans aren't designed for modern life, let alone aviation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by janrein

Could this be somehow related to that peculiar phenomenon called "BREXIT"?

Not really, other EASA countries didn't accept UK IR(R) ratings before the independence vote either.

G

[janrein]

Acknowledged and the OP may have meant the IMC rating indeed.

[VariablePitchP]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

Not really, other EASA countries didn't accept UK IR(R) ratings before the independence vote either.

G

But not being able to fly from Turweston to Rio IMC in a 172 was more of a technicality than anything particularly limiting…