Renewal Skills Test Senseless Regulations

[HansH]

Every 2 years pilots have to do a renewal skills test. The problem is that the check instructor has to have the type on his licence. Finding a type rated instructor in the more outlying areas is problematic and to get this test done means pilots have to do hours long flights to get to a rated instructor or else travel hundreds of kilometers by road to some distant airfield and then hire a plane to do the check.
I have to do this check and organized a flight 3 weeks before licence expiry. On the day the instructor realized his licence had just expired and the check was delayed. Then the instructor went u/s due to illness and my licence has since lapsed.
In my case the a/c involved is a Tri-Cubby. Now here is where it starts to get stupid. At a nearby field there is an instructor who is rated on the taildragger Cubby. Because the Tri-Cubby is not on his licence he may not do a check because bureaucratically it's a different type. Actually it's the same aeroplane only easier to fly than the taildragger. I contacted RAASA and the official attitude is the instructor must have the type on his licence no matter what.
But look at the facts rationally. The pilot doing the renewal check is qualified and licenced on the type he is flying. In many cases he will in fact have an appreciable number of hours on that type. He is not being taught how to fly that type.
Let's get to the instructors. A "A" or "B" grade instructor has extensive experience over a wide spectrum of types. What is wrong with an instructor doing a check on a type he does not have on his licence. Remember, all he needs to do is 3 take off and landings to become type rated so in a sense 30 minutes on a type is neither here nor there. Also consider that the check instructor might not have flown in a particular type for a long time perhaps up to 2 years. Any instructor will soon realize whether a candidate he is checking has a problem even if he has never flown that type of a/c before. The regulations as regards the 2 yearly skills tests are nothing more than bureaucratic nitpicking and I get the impression that the authorities aim to make recreational flying as user-unfriendly as possible.
Further food for thought is that when the first Flitestar A320 arrived in South Africa the BA instructors who came to South Africa to do the training had to do a flight check for licence validation. The CAA inspector doing the checks was highly experienced on Boeings but had never seen a A320 and I had to spend time showing him how it all worked especially the glass cockpit and sidestick. The official line was the even though he had never been inside a A320 had would soon have realized if someone was marginal.
And in the next few months instrument ratings were done by non-type rated CAA inspectors who also adopted the same official line.
So why, if it was OK to do it that way 20 years ago can the same not be done now?

[gertcoetzee]

Hear hear. And try to get an Instructor to keep an appointment. If I fly more hours on type than Instructor per year, who tests the Instructor?

[justin.schoeman]

Does the instructor have to be rated on type? I thought that was not required for a renewal?

[lamercyfly]

Yes, clearly a silly stalemate.

You can help by using your frustration to grind away at silly laws......

One of the many regulations that requires amending is the 'open rating'. When we submitted the CAT's for part 62, we wrote in an open rating for pilots and instructors. The reasons for our logical submission were numerous, your example being just one.

However, the usual 'ghost technical committe', a faceless, unaccountable entity of either one or many unknown individuals who have the final say after the industry has been consulted, wrote the law to exclude 'open ratings' for instructors..........

.......and now we, the pilots and instructors in the NTCA and in particular Part 62 industry, suffer..

Do something please. Get the ball rolling. Do it in writing. Go to CARCOM with it. Canvass us, the pilots and instructors involved in Part 62 operations.....

I know you will get vast support. But I have done my bit, and I have run out of patience dealing with 'ghost technical committees'...

You want to get it done, you'll have to do it yourself. That's the sorry truth. Good luck and regards.

[John Young]

So why, if it was OK to do it that way 20 years ago can the same not be done now?

Hi,

These senseless regulations pee-off everybody except those that collect the cash. It was indeed the instructors that suggested this nonsense.

The Skills Test System is flawed in that it is not capped in terms of Total Time, Time on Type and Hours Flown last 12 Months.

Another piece of BS is a test flight by a Rated Test Pilot after all / any maintenance. Now consider that I fix a puncture on my GT450 - who the heck is the Rated Test Pilot? Yet, I can pack up my trike and tow it away on holiday.

Owner maintenance - in - out - in - out - in (I think) - "Dunno".

Flight Folio for a single owner / pilot of a trike - what cr@p

Luckily we don't have to carry an axe - less than 16 pax - bet they considered it.

Regards
John

[lamercyfly]

Morning John...........kindly excuse me from that list of 'instructors who collect the cash'....... a pretty general and unresearched comment which I don't think needed airing. Indeed, I am sure there are, and I know of one or two, who are 'cash collectors', but they are by far the minority and as group of 'cash collectors' don't involve themselves much in the voluntary service required to move our sport forward..........

Generally, as a group of folk I worked with when compiling the CATS, the was no 'collecting cash' mentality. We cared for the well being of the microlighting industry and did our darndest to rid ourselves of silly laws. We used our experience up to that point in the history of the sport to base our notions...

You're a bright lad. Don't moan on this forum. That achieves nothing. Compile a list of what you consider 'silly laws'.....Motivate is with reason and example... pass that on to the MISASA Chairman to take to CARCOM...... follow it up with letters to the Commissioner (whatever he/she is called now), and if nothing then to the Minister of Transport's legal team... yes, they take our grievances very seriously. I know that from personal experience. Folk 'jump' when the legal dept. consulting to the Minister give them a call.........

But, like I said, I am not driving anything anymore. I will support..

Thankyou.

[John Young]

Morning John...........kindly excuse me from that list of 'instructors who collect the cash'....... a pretty general and unresearched comment which I don't think needed airing.

David,

You train for free? You would not charge me for a Skills Test every 2 years? Bollocks.

Anyway - I couldn't be bothered with all this local BS regarding regs. anymore - I am taking sEXY to the USA.

Cheers.

PS: I have formally written to MISASA - my license renewal and ATF exceeded R 3300.00. Thanks.

[lamercyfly]

Sorry John. Not rising to the occasion.... enjoy America.

[John Young]

Thanks - the States will be a hoot.

Oh, and by the way, I did research the subject.

Cheers.

[Grumpy]

Same to be said for the yearly ATF,
---picture of trike---equipment list---trike check by authorised AP (who might not have touched a trike in years- yet I fly every weekend)---flight folio----COPY OF YEARLY RENEWAL PAYMENT...and so on and so on. Ridiculous (racket)
And if you don't have and ATF, who cares?????? no one, till you have a prang and the authorities just wipe their hands.

[t-bird]

Hi Guys

I understand your gripe with the renewal.

I had my first renewal last year and was very negative about it.

The renewal last year SAVED MY LIFE.

Here is my story.
I had +- 400 hours last year and had to do a renewal.
I thought that it would be a quick flight and paperwork.

My renewal was booked with Roelf Palm.
He done a proper briefing before the test.
He pointed out important things to remember during a preflight.

He drilled me on precautionary landings and emergency procedures.

After the test was a proper debriefing and explanation from his side.

How it saved my life.

I had my first engine out at the beginning of this year over rocky terrain in a climbing turn low level.

I would not have walked away from it if it was not for the renewal.

The renewal have it’s merits when done properly.

[Gyronaut]

Hear Hear t-bird!

Its an attitude thing. Approach it (the renewal) with the right attitude and its a positive experience- we do this for fun after all!
Being a good airman requires Knowledge, Skill and Attitude ..

Experience is what we get after we needed it. (usually) Your sharpening up with Roelf probably contributed hugely to the way you flawlessly executed your emergency landing and possibly did save your life. Congratulations and well done for sharing your experience with us.

Len

[HansH]

T-Bird and Gyronaut, if you read the initial post more carefully you will see that the actual renewal test is not the problem. The problem lies with the fact that the check instructor has to be type rated on the aircraft that he is checking the pilot on,keeping in mind that the pilot being checked is type rated and experienced on that type and can in fact carry passengers.
As such the instructor is not teaching or converting but checking the pilot's overall skills so as to make an assessment.
An instructor has reached a high level of experience when he is a "B" grade instructor and more so when he achieves "A" grade. By rejecting open class ratings the bureaucrats/authorities display their ignorance regarding the practical side of aviation when they legislate that is essential that every instructor be signed out on every new type not withstanding vast experience on similar types in the same class.
In the case of a check ride are the authorities trying to tell us that if things go totally pear-shaped during a check, which is unlikely, then the check instructor is in fact considered to be technically incapable of correcting the situation until he has completed the bureautically legislated 3 circuits. That's the way it looks.
Every instructor that I have spoken to has said that before instructing on a new type they like to go up on their own for a few flights to accquaint themselves with the aircraft. These people are responsible enough to decide for themselves what to do and don't need bureaucratic over-regulation by people who appear to be more intent on personal empire building than the well-being of recreational aviation.

[t-bird]

Hi Hans

What if you had to do a tail dragger renewal on a cubby and the only instructor available was a tri cycle gear one ?

My point is where do you draw the line if you get blanket ratings ?

[Gyronaut]

I do get your point HansH, and I do agree.

I am sure 'Open Ratings' are achievable. I know one or two CFI's that do have open ratings so there must be a mechanism for it. ??

In the world of Gyro's - Take a Magni M22 rating. The Magni M22 is essentially the same as the Magni M16 except it has luggage pods and no controls at the back. Otherwise it is the same machine. How do you get an M22 Rating/Conversion? You cannot fly it as co-pilot so it is impossible to do a dual-check I do therefore think that certain categories/types should be grouped together yes. For example the MT03 from Auto Gyro and the MTOS are essentially the same except for speeds.

Part 187 has no fee for Conversions within a category (that I know of for Part 62) so there is no cost involved if it is the same category of airplane. (This of course assumes that there is no online exam to be written which would cost R100.00)

... as for me? I would really not like to get into a gyro for a renewal flight test (even with a type rated pilot) if I did not know exactly how for e.g. ... the pre-rotator worked, what the critical V speeds are and what other anomalies/quirks the machine might reveal. If I have gone to the trouble to read the POH and understand it then I might as well do the conversion.

Len