As I understand it at the moment, your basic PPL enables you to fly a single engined ‘plane’ upto a specific weight and in certain conditions.
If you want to go ‘up-market’ and have fancy things like retractable undercarriage or variable pitch props on your pride and joy, you have to undertake extra training. All well and good and I agree that this a ‘good thing’ cos it enables people to advance in their flying career, safely.
But isn’t a bit boring ? isn’t the CAA a bit too smothering ?
Why can’t the CAA be a bit like the FAA in the ‘States ?. They are so laid laid back (but fair) and the options for increasing your competances in GA is so much more affordable and more importantly, obtainable.
Take a look at this, isnt it a bit more exciting than getting a VP credit on license? Why cant the CAA allow this over here ? This is the latest qualification available, but understandably one of the criteria for this ‘tick-in-the-box’ is a minimum of 200 hrs P1 on CFS2
By: aviddriver - 3rd April 2003 at 16:44
Here Here Seagull.
We all need to sing from the same pro-aviation hymm sheet.
Don’t know how people can suggest we “laid back” control – even if they are jesting.
Cheers
Aviddriver
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd April 2003 at 16:36
geedee,
I’d realised that your image and e-mail was a spoof – I just think your comments about a ‘laid back’ CAA could be seen as inflamatory and could be taken the wrong way by a casual observer browsing this site.
It is comments like this that can get inflamed by an over enthusiastic journalist and turned into ‘Pilots call for less restrictions.’
Seagull
By: geedee - 3rd April 2003 at 15:51
I think you’ll find that I actualy agreed in the text that this sort of training was a ‘good thing’ !!!
Okay…I put my hand up…it was posted on 1st (April Fools !) of April as a bit of a laugh with an obviously doctored image of a light GA ‘plane getting the go signal for a cat launch on an aircraft carrier, and the text was supposed to lead into an amusing piccie, that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously…at all
I’ll put my other hand up now….hmmm, cant type very fast with my nose !…and admit that I am not a pilot (current…allthough I was solo in Gliders at the tender age of 16, started to get my PPL, was buyilding my own ‘plane at one time etc etc).
This whole thread was meant to be mildy amusing and was in no way a serious dig at an official body that does a very good job (Allthough some would not agree on certain topics…me included)
Trust me…if I was to do a serious dig, it would be on somewhat different lines to the above.
PS: it would have helped if you had seen the post when it was first posted. However….
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd April 2003 at 15:26
geedee,
How can you say that the CAA is too “smothering”? Surely youd rather they were safe than have aeroplanes falling out ofthe sky because people hadn’t been taught to fly them properly?
We’re all too keen to knock the CAA for being overpowering but in my experience they’ve been really helpful. Why do we find it necessary to moan about them all the time?
If I want to fly an aeroplane with a VP prop I fully expect to be taught how the systems handle, for my safety and everyone elses.
S’gull
By: EGNM - 1st April 2003 at 19:07
lol i like… theoretically i reckon you could take one of these really good STOL a/c that only need about 50knts airspeed to become airbourne off one of these things – 20 knots headwind, 30 knots groundspeed – just a thought…
Sign In
April 1, 2003 at 2:53 am