Hoops and hurdles . . .
Thread Starter
Hoops and hurdles . . .
I'm probably going to enter rant mode during this post - if you notice, let me know ! Also, I stand ready to be corrected on technical, legal and administrative issues. I already know that "in aviation you must do all the work" and "it's life, it's not fair", "it's the way it is because the CAA say so" and all the other trite stuff, so keep that to yourselves.
The CAA say you must have a CPL(H) before you can carry passengers. Fair enough - it's in the interests of the operator that passengers a) survive the trip and b) are satisfied enough to come back and spend more money.
Except in the UK it's not quite that simple. You have a type rating. You need to get base and line checked by the operator who runs the particular aircraft you're going to use. If you want to fly for another operator then you need to get base and line checked with them. Same type of flying, same type, just the name on the AOC you're flying under has changed. And the line check is a navigation check to make sure you can fly from A to B without getting lost. And if you have two or more types on your licence then you need to keep current on both base and line checks on all types for all operators for whom you fly.
And if you're going to be allowed to do a Check A on the aircraft, required by law to be done before a P/T flight, you need to be authorised by the maintenance company which maintains the aircraft. All well and good if the maintenance company is the one on the same field as the operator, but what if the aircraft is maintained by someone who's an hour's drive away ? And what if there are two almost identical aircraft, each maintained by a different company ? You need TWO Check A authorisations.
And of course you need to have a fire certificate, and a first aid certificate, and in the early part of your career you need to undergo Single Pilot CRM training - if of course you can find a provider !
My question is this. How is safety increased by having these sorts of hoops ? How come one AOC holder can't do a base and line, and another one just do a brief proficiency check ? Or, how about having a Pilot Proficiency Certificate for each type, which is issued by an operator authorised by the regulator to do that ?
And the Check A ? Why not a similar thing ? A maintenance organisation, approved to conduct Check A Authorisation training, gives you a piece of paper to add to the little forest stapled ( securely
) into your log book.
Potential problems :[list=1][*]All aircraft operators don't fly the checks to the same high standards[*]All maintenance organisations don't provide Check A authorisation training to the same high standards[*]Pilots will find a way around it, or fly illegally.[*]Regulators - CAA / EASA (seeing as we're talking UK here) won't like it as they see something which works, albeit in a cumbersome manner, changing.[/list=1]
Feel free to add your personal list of problems to the above.
However, problems are not without a solution. The primary aim - to provide a less cumbersome (good word, used it before, couldn't find a decent alternative) but just as safe method of ensuring that any pilot who flies Public Transport is :
[list=a][*]Appropriately trained for the aircraft type[*]Current on type[*]Current on Check A authorisation to ensure the aircraft is safe to carry passengers[/list=a]
Any ideas / constructive comments / flames ?
The CAA say you must have a CPL(H) before you can carry passengers. Fair enough - it's in the interests of the operator that passengers a) survive the trip and b) are satisfied enough to come back and spend more money.
Except in the UK it's not quite that simple. You have a type rating. You need to get base and line checked by the operator who runs the particular aircraft you're going to use. If you want to fly for another operator then you need to get base and line checked with them. Same type of flying, same type, just the name on the AOC you're flying under has changed. And the line check is a navigation check to make sure you can fly from A to B without getting lost. And if you have two or more types on your licence then you need to keep current on both base and line checks on all types for all operators for whom you fly.
And if you're going to be allowed to do a Check A on the aircraft, required by law to be done before a P/T flight, you need to be authorised by the maintenance company which maintains the aircraft. All well and good if the maintenance company is the one on the same field as the operator, but what if the aircraft is maintained by someone who's an hour's drive away ? And what if there are two almost identical aircraft, each maintained by a different company ? You need TWO Check A authorisations.
And of course you need to have a fire certificate, and a first aid certificate, and in the early part of your career you need to undergo Single Pilot CRM training - if of course you can find a provider !
My question is this. How is safety increased by having these sorts of hoops ? How come one AOC holder can't do a base and line, and another one just do a brief proficiency check ? Or, how about having a Pilot Proficiency Certificate for each type, which is issued by an operator authorised by the regulator to do that ?
And the Check A ? Why not a similar thing ? A maintenance organisation, approved to conduct Check A Authorisation training, gives you a piece of paper to add to the little forest stapled ( securely
) into your log book.Potential problems :[list=1][*]All aircraft operators don't fly the checks to the same high standards[*]All maintenance organisations don't provide Check A authorisation training to the same high standards[*]Pilots will find a way around it, or fly illegally.[*]Regulators - CAA / EASA (seeing as we're talking UK here) won't like it as they see something which works, albeit in a cumbersome manner, changing.[/list=1]
Feel free to add your personal list of problems to the above.
However, problems are not without a solution. The primary aim - to provide a less cumbersome (good word, used it before, couldn't find a decent alternative) but just as safe method of ensuring that any pilot who flies Public Transport is :
[list=a][*]Appropriately trained for the aircraft type[*]Current on type[*]Current on Check A authorisation to ensure the aircraft is safe to carry passengers[/list=a]
Any ideas / constructive comments / flames ?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Canada has a PPC that is valid for the aircraft type. Now I see the rationale for it.
Flying in the UK is overly regulated, to be sure. And I don't think the safety record in the UK is any better than anywhere else ( at least in the small helicopter business)
Flying in the UK is overly regulated, to be sure. And I don't think the safety record in the UK is any better than anywhere else ( at least in the small helicopter business)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada/around
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the Canadian PPC is valid for all single engine types operated by that operator with less than 9(?) seats and is transportable to another company as long as they operate the type on which the PPC was flown (and including all types they operate, etc.).
The annual recurrent training must still be completed (by nearly anyone) on each type and elemantary maintenance.
The annual recurrent training must still be completed (by nearly anyone) on each type and elemantary maintenance.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: floating around
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing that Rotorheads has such a wide variety of pilots and engineers from all around the world and with huge amounts of experience and Knowledge in different types of flying operations, somebody in the CAA should be taking notice of what is being said on this forum, a lot of people to say the least, are becomming extremely frustrated.
It has an extremely poor reputation for common sense in comparison to other authourities.
And if something is not done very very soon something will have to give. Aviation will be regulated out of exsistance in the U.K and other JAA countries, the only survivors will be the large operators, which will not be good for the country, the business and the economy.
(My god I am starting to sound like a politician )
It has an extremely poor reputation for common sense in comparison to other authourities.
And if something is not done very very soon something will have to give. Aviation will be regulated out of exsistance in the U.K and other JAA countries, the only survivors will be the large operators, which will not be good for the country, the business and the economy.
(My god I am starting to sound like a politician )
Thread Starter
Sarik :
Here in the UK, opportunities for commercial work in an N-reg aircraft are few and far between, even more limited in fact than the number of N-reg helicopters.
And with wife, child and IT job, moving abroad doesn't have too much appeal.
Here in the UK, opportunities for commercial work in an N-reg aircraft are few and far between, even more limited in fact than the number of N-reg helicopters.
And with wife, child and IT job, moving abroad doesn't have too much appeal.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
One of the really interesting things about the FAA is that they can only bring in the 'minimum legislation necessary for safety'. A wonderful concept, and one that, more or less, has proven to be a good one.
Accidents do happen, to be sure, but the rate is no higher (it seems) than anywhere else. Just that there are a lot more aircraft here than anywhere else.
Why don't the other countries adopt the same philosophy? Having to justify every rule will make people think twice about making more rules for the sake of making rules.
Accidents do happen, to be sure, but the rate is no higher (it seems) than anywhere else. Just that there are a lot more aircraft here than anywhere else.
Why don't the other countries adopt the same philosophy? Having to justify every rule will make people think twice about making more rules for the sake of making rules.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,633
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
The CAA is not a non-profit making organisation....
Those fancy trees in the Belgrano cost a small fortune.....
I think I've paid for the big one in the middle...
Those fancy trees in the Belgrano cost a small fortune.....
I think I've paid for the big one in the middle...
