Questions on the JAA Implentation
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions on the JAA Implentation
I am completing an MBA course and have chosen to study the effects of the JAA implentation on European aviation. As part of a project I am compiling I was looking for some opinions from professional aviators and training organisations.
1) As pilots what changes would you like to see to the European system of flight crew licencing?
2) Has the changes from the national system been benificial?
3) Do you think that the JAA system has been implemented fairly and equally among all the countries that have signed up? (please no xenophobia)
4) Should countries that have signed up initiate a National PPL system? If so why?
5) Was there enough consultation with airlines and chief pilots before the implementation? If not would more communication help?
If you would like to send me any opinions through e-mail please do send me some messages to [email protected]
Many thanks for you help.
1) As pilots what changes would you like to see to the European system of flight crew licencing?
2) Has the changes from the national system been benificial?
3) Do you think that the JAA system has been implemented fairly and equally among all the countries that have signed up? (please no xenophobia)
4) Should countries that have signed up initiate a National PPL system? If so why?
5) Was there enough consultation with airlines and chief pilots before the implementation? If not would more communication help?
If you would like to send me any opinions through e-mail please do send me some messages to [email protected]
Many thanks for you help.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer:
1) Less bureauocracy. Does anyone really know what JAR is all about?
2) No. As above re too much bureaocracy (I'll spell it right one day)
3)No- France. Also pan European licence may be one thing, but getting a job in that country due to social/political reasons may be another (except the UK - we'd quite happily employ others over UK nationals)
4)Yes. Why have a great big bur..etc to sort out licencing and training for someone to fly in uncontrolled airspace a couple of times a month. Professional licencing- OK, but for PPl's it's a waste of time & money.
5)Don't know. From the flying club world (where I was at the time) I think that only a few people CFI's etc repiled to anything that was sent out. They had more important things to do.
1) Less bureauocracy. Does anyone really know what JAR is all about?
2) No. As above re too much bureaocracy (I'll spell it right one day)
3)No- France. Also pan European licence may be one thing, but getting a job in that country due to social/political reasons may be another (except the UK - we'd quite happily employ others over UK nationals)
4)Yes. Why have a great big bur..etc to sort out licencing and training for someone to fly in uncontrolled airspace a couple of times a month. Professional licencing- OK, but for PPl's it's a waste of time & money.
5)Don't know. From the flying club world (where I was at the time) I think that only a few people CFI's etc repiled to anything that was sent out. They had more important things to do.
My thoughts for what they're worth...
(1) The system as introduced is safe insofar as it simply took the most stringent parts of each country's systems and combined them. This inevitably added cost and complexity at every level. Most of the individual systems worked adequately as a whole, and this was never properly recognised. Result - mild to severe chaos.
(2) Only in parts, I find it useful to be able to fly a German registered aircraft without extra paperwork. But when flying a UK registered aircraft in UK airspace, which is what I do most of the time, it's just created extra paperwork and changed the logo on the front of my license.
(3) No, the UK is an example of the most stringent adoption possible, others have either sat back to let others make the mistakes or adopted a much more pragmatic approach to implementation.
(4) No, it defeats the whole point. The only national PPLs were all ICAO compliant and so it was only a matter of a bit of paperwork for somebody to fly abroad or in another country. The UK NPPL and others seem likely to be sub-ICAO and thus we get a lack of cross-recognition. The solution to the high cost of the JAR PPL is to sort out that particular mess, not create another tower of babel worse than that which JAR-FCL was designed to solve.
(5) No idea, and frankly they've no interest in the PPL level of JAR-FCL anyway. At the PPL level, I think that the level of consultation on the content and implementation of JAR-FCL was woefully inadequate.
G
(1) The system as introduced is safe insofar as it simply took the most stringent parts of each country's systems and combined them. This inevitably added cost and complexity at every level. Most of the individual systems worked adequately as a whole, and this was never properly recognised. Result - mild to severe chaos.
(2) Only in parts, I find it useful to be able to fly a German registered aircraft without extra paperwork. But when flying a UK registered aircraft in UK airspace, which is what I do most of the time, it's just created extra paperwork and changed the logo on the front of my license.
(3) No, the UK is an example of the most stringent adoption possible, others have either sat back to let others make the mistakes or adopted a much more pragmatic approach to implementation.
(4) No, it defeats the whole point. The only national PPLs were all ICAO compliant and so it was only a matter of a bit of paperwork for somebody to fly abroad or in another country. The UK NPPL and others seem likely to be sub-ICAO and thus we get a lack of cross-recognition. The solution to the high cost of the JAR PPL is to sort out that particular mess, not create another tower of babel worse than that which JAR-FCL was designed to solve.
(5) No idea, and frankly they've no interest in the PPL level of JAR-FCL anyway. At the PPL level, I think that the level of consultation on the content and implementation of JAR-FCL was woefully inadequate.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks Gengis. I am still looking for any other pilots viewpoints as well.
If I recieve enough views I may present my project to the JAA which may help change things - or not
It is worth a try though.
If I recieve enough views I may present my project to the JAA which may help change things - or not
It is worth a try though.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'll take it on, reluctant as I am to start lest the rant flow unabated ...
I was on one of the early JAA ATPL groundschool courses. I then started to teach at the school, and am still a groundschool instructor.
1. Less proscriptive, more flexible licence requirements. I did in fact debate with Genghis the many people we each knew who were forced to do ridiculous amounts of a certain type of flying, although they had experience of similar but more challenging flying in slightly different conditions. For example someone I knew who was a senior officer in the Royal Navy and an instructor on EH101 Merlin helicopters, with a full career of night dunking in Seakings behind him, doing 50 hours night flying in a Cessna 150! We had both also ben in the same position (my pointless journeys in a Cessna 150 to get a free cup of coffee were vital, my navigation in a gas-turbine helicopter at 200' and my instrument time in the same aircraft were irrelevant, counted for nothing).
2. No. Very little benefit, massive problems, especially for students and Flying Training Organisatios (FTOs). Some students were forced to sit exams in a made-up language ("Euro-English") for which the syllabus had been layed down to vaguely cover the questions submitted (and did not even do that) rather than questions being written for the syllabus. The schools had no prior knowledge of what the questions would be like or the depth of knowledge required at first (JAA refused to allow accurate example questions out). All were ill-prepared becasue of this, and the notes were approved despite all being at the time completely inadequate (those still using 4-Forces notes admit their's still are, and tell students not to use them in class!). Now JAA has offered no recompense to the students so shamelessly and disgustingly used to experiment with a new, obviously unworkable system on. These people have sometimes lost a year of their lives to JAA
The syllabus approximately doubled, but no more relevant information was included - it is estimated that 90% of the required ATPL syllabus is irrelevant to a pilot. Thus you could pass all the exams with good grades and know nothing relevant. For points which could be debated (especially in the psychology side of Human Performance, where the experts disagree) the FTOs are not given the reference from which the question is written, so it is impossible for even them to find the "correct" answer.
For a long time the rules had not been written - for example I tried to convert an FAA PPL, was tld that it was allowed, but the "requirements had not been written". When I studied law there was a part of the new JAA system that we could not learn because at the time it was only written in Spanish!
The international "co-operation" problems have caused anomalies, mostly because of intransigent French and Germans. Notably the question bank in English but translated by none-native English speakers, mostly not aviaiton specialists. The CAA did offer to translate them all.
It is crazy that a CPL is now required to teach to PPL level. There was nothing wrong with the old system.
Why is there no concession for CPL holders doing the IR exams or vice versa? One of the exams is identical!
Why are there no reasonable ways for pilots with none-JAA CPLs to acquire JAA CPLs?
Why is JAA so reluctant to approve overseas training?
Why get rid of the 3-tier medical? The system worked!
3. Don't know, except that we were one of the first, so got the worst of the problems, and I know that there have been problems with the Italians accepting a UK pilot. In fact I had heard that the Italian implementation went completely wrong, but not the details.
4. No, but under the circumstances one is required. The requirements of the PPL have risen for no obvious reason.flying in the UK is no harder than it was, the NPPL is now as a colleague said to me today "back where the PPL was 30 years ago" (when he instructed)
5. Certainly not enough communication with the FTOs either way, nor the airlines as to what they wanted ATPL students to learn in groundschool. The FTOs were not significantly consulted (except to be asked for questions, before the syllabus was even decided) nor kept well-informed.
Best of luck with the MBA. If you have any questions feel free to email, address in my profile.
I was on one of the early JAA ATPL groundschool courses. I then started to teach at the school, and am still a groundschool instructor.
1. Less proscriptive, more flexible licence requirements. I did in fact debate with Genghis the many people we each knew who were forced to do ridiculous amounts of a certain type of flying, although they had experience of similar but more challenging flying in slightly different conditions. For example someone I knew who was a senior officer in the Royal Navy and an instructor on EH101 Merlin helicopters, with a full career of night dunking in Seakings behind him, doing 50 hours night flying in a Cessna 150! We had both also ben in the same position (my pointless journeys in a Cessna 150 to get a free cup of coffee were vital, my navigation in a gas-turbine helicopter at 200' and my instrument time in the same aircraft were irrelevant, counted for nothing).
2. No. Very little benefit, massive problems, especially for students and Flying Training Organisatios (FTOs). Some students were forced to sit exams in a made-up language ("Euro-English") for which the syllabus had been layed down to vaguely cover the questions submitted (and did not even do that) rather than questions being written for the syllabus. The schools had no prior knowledge of what the questions would be like or the depth of knowledge required at first (JAA refused to allow accurate example questions out). All were ill-prepared becasue of this, and the notes were approved despite all being at the time completely inadequate (those still using 4-Forces notes admit their's still are, and tell students not to use them in class!). Now JAA has offered no recompense to the students so shamelessly and disgustingly used to experiment with a new, obviously unworkable system on. These people have sometimes lost a year of their lives to JAA
The syllabus approximately doubled, but no more relevant information was included - it is estimated that 90% of the required ATPL syllabus is irrelevant to a pilot. Thus you could pass all the exams with good grades and know nothing relevant. For points which could be debated (especially in the psychology side of Human Performance, where the experts disagree) the FTOs are not given the reference from which the question is written, so it is impossible for even them to find the "correct" answer.
For a long time the rules had not been written - for example I tried to convert an FAA PPL, was tld that it was allowed, but the "requirements had not been written". When I studied law there was a part of the new JAA system that we could not learn because at the time it was only written in Spanish!
The international "co-operation" problems have caused anomalies, mostly because of intransigent French and Germans. Notably the question bank in English but translated by none-native English speakers, mostly not aviaiton specialists. The CAA did offer to translate them all.
It is crazy that a CPL is now required to teach to PPL level. There was nothing wrong with the old system.
Why is there no concession for CPL holders doing the IR exams or vice versa? One of the exams is identical!
Why are there no reasonable ways for pilots with none-JAA CPLs to acquire JAA CPLs?
Why is JAA so reluctant to approve overseas training?
Why get rid of the 3-tier medical? The system worked!
3. Don't know, except that we were one of the first, so got the worst of the problems, and I know that there have been problems with the Italians accepting a UK pilot. In fact I had heard that the Italian implementation went completely wrong, but not the details.
4. No, but under the circumstances one is required. The requirements of the PPL have risen for no obvious reason.flying in the UK is no harder than it was, the NPPL is now as a colleague said to me today "back where the PPL was 30 years ago" (when he instructed)
5. Certainly not enough communication with the FTOs either way, nor the airlines as to what they wanted ATPL students to learn in groundschool. The FTOs were not significantly consulted (except to be asked for questions, before the syllabus was even decided) nor kept well-informed.
Best of luck with the MBA. If you have any questions feel free to email, address in my profile.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Iceland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not agree more.
I, and my 3 of my buddies at flightschool, spent a year fighting this system and it was a nightmare, to say the least. We were finishing our CPL and were supposed to start the ATP theory, in our good old system, when they put up the JAR FCL in Iceland. Stuck smack in the middle of things, we felt the weight of this implementation full force. The story is to long to put into detail here but I have a very thick pile of documents from the CAA and Ministry of transport as well as our flight school and JAA offices on the mainland, as a reminder of this dark period. The flight school cancelled all our courses and intended to send us all smiling, with wallets out, paying them along the way, to our deaths in the JAA system. Boy, where they suprised when all the students walked out of the school as a sign of protest. We built our case, among other regulations concerning education, on the clause from JAR FCL 1005. Eventually we got to finish our education, delayed for over a year. I learned more about law, regulations and bureaucracy than flying during my stay in that flight school. The strange thing was that the flight school was our main opponent in our struggle. In the end the minister of transport ordered this flight school to finish our education and the head teacher and principal of the school where fired. I still donīt understand today why our flight school was against us. 84 students eventually took the ATP course and exams and got to finish in the old system. I was very proud to know that I helped in getting them all on the way to that goal. This flight school has 13 students today and I feel sorry for all of them Me and my friends are all flying today, two of us 747 classics and the other two, including me, light piston twins waiting for something bigger to come along. I wish I could say the same about the first full JAA class that came after us. None of them are flying and most have dropped out and I dont blame them. .
JAR-OPS Implementation
As the original question was about JAR implementation, some answers can be obtained by reading an article on 'The JAA's Operations Standardisation Team Visit Programme' published in the June edition of the UK Flight Safety Committee's magazine 'focus on commercial aviation safety'. A copy arrived through the mail today - which seems pretty good timing!
Information as to how you could obtain a copy can be gained through the UKFSC website which is, unsurprisingly, www.ukfsc.co.uk.
Information as to how you could obtain a copy can be gained through the UKFSC website which is, unsurprisingly, www.ukfsc.co.uk.
Dear JAA.NL
How was your thesis?
I am filing a story about JAA. I saw your thread and I think it was perfect for what I am looking for, as far a pilots are concerned.
I am wondering if you have any comments about engineers or maintainance organisations?
Rwy in Sight
How was your thesis?
I am filing a story about JAA. I saw your thread and I think it was perfect for what I am looking for, as far a pilots are concerned.
I am wondering if you have any comments about engineers or maintainance organisations?
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ultima Thule
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to add this...
The JAA hasn't really worked out as it should have, mainly because most of the member states never actually adopted the JAR completely.
I disagree what Genghis the Engineer said about UK being an example of the most stringent adoption possible.
I have heard from a reliable source that the only two countries that adopted the JAR from head to toe was Iceland and Luxemburg.
Because of this reluctance to adobt the JAR as it is, politicians and bureaucrats has now decided to make the JAA defunct.
That's what EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency)is for.
When that is up and running, politicians and parliaments in the EU, looses the power to take in the bits and pieces that would fit into their likings. They will have to take it in as it is, just as the thought was behind the JAA.
Proxus
See this link:
EASA
I disagree what Genghis the Engineer said about UK being an example of the most stringent adoption possible.
I have heard from a reliable source that the only two countries that adopted the JAR from head to toe was Iceland and Luxemburg.
Because of this reluctance to adobt the JAR as it is, politicians and bureaucrats has now decided to make the JAA defunct.
That's what EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency)is for.
When that is up and running, politicians and parliaments in the EU, looses the power to take in the bits and pieces that would fit into their likings. They will have to take it in as it is, just as the thought was behind the JAA.
Proxus
See this link:
EASA
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: BE-FR
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) As pilots what changes would you like to see to the European system of flight crew licencing?
- All I want is full JAA. I still have problems as JAA-resident to put some silly stamps on a JAA-licence issued by a JAA-country by another JAA-country (silly isn't it?). Medical visits are not recognised yet. For the moment I don't see any change - pityfull...
2) Has the changes from the national system been benificial?
- I don't know - have done all my training since 'fresh' implementation of the JAA - but yes, JAA permits to be more 'mobile' and get out of your country, something I really appreciate. And OK, I'm now JAA licenced, I thought the job-market to be full of opportunities but no... language is often a barrier in recruiting processes.
3) Do you think that the JAA system has been implemented fairly and equally among all the countries that have signed up? (please no xenophobia)
- Yes surely, but JAA-reglementation is still mixing up with the old one, leading to loads of confusions. 'In the old days' reglementation was already difficult: there was FAA, ICAO and all other independant countries with their own CAA - now there is JAA with it - so difficulties still persist...
4) Should countries that have signed up initiate a National PPL system? If so why?
- It's sad to see local PPL-holders don't even dare to cross the borders of their own country - JAA stands for 'joint' aviation: borders do still exist (just filing the flightplan is 'mission into the unknown' for PPL's, never done that I presume) and language is still a problem... The primary mission of the JAA - I think - is to put everything on the same level, meaning maximum flexibility for flying and getting your licences where you want it... Please explain me the benefits of the National PPL-system then? Are we going backwards or what?
5) Was there enough consultation with airlines and chief pilots before the implementation? If not would more communication help?
- I would tend to repeat the story of the Iceland-guy just above... It seemed like we were completely left behind by the flying school itself - I don't know how they got their FTO-recognition as all ATPL-theory lessons were still based on the old system - the certificates-test was a really bad surprise and my prom' really got the impression to be used as guinea pigs... And of course the flying school was not happy with us as well as the training got delayed and thought we did it on purpose... What saved us was that overall results (France) were so poor that some measures were taken (2nd pass allowed and green light to continue your CPL-IR/ME training without full ATPL theory in the pocket! Imagine!).
About the JAA - "communication":
I happen to learn a lot more by reading FAQ's and forums questions than reading that old-style-reglementation-airlaw which only lets me pass that "010" you see. Sum the things up clearly next time and who knows... every-one will 'once' love JAA because it's oh so clear like cristal water compared to the old-fashioned system (/end rant)
- All I want is full JAA. I still have problems as JAA-resident to put some silly stamps on a JAA-licence issued by a JAA-country by another JAA-country (silly isn't it?). Medical visits are not recognised yet. For the moment I don't see any change - pityfull...
2) Has the changes from the national system been benificial?
- I don't know - have done all my training since 'fresh' implementation of the JAA - but yes, JAA permits to be more 'mobile' and get out of your country, something I really appreciate. And OK, I'm now JAA licenced, I thought the job-market to be full of opportunities but no... language is often a barrier in recruiting processes.
3) Do you think that the JAA system has been implemented fairly and equally among all the countries that have signed up? (please no xenophobia)
- Yes surely, but JAA-reglementation is still mixing up with the old one, leading to loads of confusions. 'In the old days' reglementation was already difficult: there was FAA, ICAO and all other independant countries with their own CAA - now there is JAA with it - so difficulties still persist...
4) Should countries that have signed up initiate a National PPL system? If so why?
- It's sad to see local PPL-holders don't even dare to cross the borders of their own country - JAA stands for 'joint' aviation: borders do still exist (just filing the flightplan is 'mission into the unknown' for PPL's, never done that I presume) and language is still a problem... The primary mission of the JAA - I think - is to put everything on the same level, meaning maximum flexibility for flying and getting your licences where you want it... Please explain me the benefits of the National PPL-system then? Are we going backwards or what?
5) Was there enough consultation with airlines and chief pilots before the implementation? If not would more communication help?
- I would tend to repeat the story of the Iceland-guy just above... It seemed like we were completely left behind by the flying school itself - I don't know how they got their FTO-recognition as all ATPL-theory lessons were still based on the old system - the certificates-test was a really bad surprise and my prom' really got the impression to be used as guinea pigs... And of course the flying school was not happy with us as well as the training got delayed and thought we did it on purpose... What saved us was that overall results (France) were so poor that some measures were taken (2nd pass allowed and green light to continue your CPL-IR/ME training without full ATPL theory in the pocket! Imagine!).
About the JAA - "communication":
I happen to learn a lot more by reading FAQ's and forums questions than reading that old-style-reglementation-airlaw which only lets me pass that "010" you see. Sum the things up clearly next time and who knows... every-one will 'once' love JAA because it's oh so clear like cristal water compared to the old-fashioned system (/end rant)
