RAASA and Licensing

[Sad-Ham]

I might be sticking my neck out here but I would like to hear other pilots views on this..............

I have been flying for 15 years now and have renewed my license numerous times when still under CAA legislation by flying a prescribed number of hours per year and having my log book summarised and signed off. Since being 'RASSAnized' we now need a flight test every two years. When I did the last one two years ago , after being in the air for 5 minutes I get the comment 'Oh ja , ek kan sien jy kan vlieg' over the headset. Never the less , we did the required flight time and maneuvers as stipulated.

If I had not flown in the past two years , I agree wholeheartedly with having to do a test again but having done 100+ hours since the last test what is the necessity of being tested by the same instructor again? What will the next step be.... having to do all the theory exams over again just to refresh the memory?


Hopefully the local municipalities dont jump on the same bandwaggon and start requiring driving tests every two years

[Bugwar]

Hopefully the local municipalities dont jump on the same bandwaggon and start requiring driving tests every two years

watch this space, it is coming...

[HansH]

You are not the only one who thinks this is a load of bull. I asked MISASA what the logic was and the reply forthcoming was: Once a pilot got his licence he never again did a renewal check. This is deemed to be dangerous as pilots do get lax when it comes to checks and procedures to be followed and bad habits creep in over time. When they got the opportunity to regulate themselves the NTCA industry had a chance to lift the standards and training so that they wouldn't be looked down at by the Part 61 section of the industry. Microlight pilots were often thought of as hooligans of the skies and that their training was not up to standard.
It is difficult to see how doing a flight check every 2 years is going to improve standards and correct procedures.
However, it is when it comes to doing this check that the biggest load of nonsense is encountered. The regulations state that the check must be done by an instructor who is type qualified. There are a lot of pilots who live in outlying areas who operate a type of aircraft where the nearest type qualified instructor is 600 kms away. ( We in Margate have to travel to Secunda or somewhere in Gauteng to find a type qualified instructor.)
When I suggested that a Class 1 or 2 non type qualified instructor do the check on the basis that he is flying with a type qualified pilot who in fact can take pax and has a reasonable amount of experience on the type this was rejected since that instructor might not be tail-dragger rated or not know about variable pitch etc and then how could he correct the faults and so on and so forth. I have a serious problem accepting that a highly qualified instructor who even though he is not type rated can be considered to be incapable of assessing a pilots performance. And yet in some instances the instructor might not have flown that particular type for many years but because he has it on a piece of paper he is considered to be acceptable.
But, there is always a solution at hand. While it is bureaucratically essential that the instructor is type rated it is not neccessary that the pilot being checked is rated on the aircraft he is going to fly. This in itself is ridiculous. But just stick him into another type that he has never seen before and then do a conversion/check. This way the instructor shows him how to do the walk around, how to do the pre-start checks,engine start,taxiing,talks him through the take off, in flight exercises and finally the approach and landing and shut down. This is not a check, how can the instructor pick up bad habits that might have crept in because they will have been masked by all his patter. In a check the instructor should shut up and observe and point out any faults during the de-brief. But if there is a serious problem then demonstrate correcting the problem in the air. In other words, it is either a check or a conversion but not both.
There is a case for a newly licenced pilot to do a follow up check after 12 and 24 months. But then this must be done on a type that he is familiar with. To take a pilot with minimal experience and then stick him into an unknown aircraft for a check is unfair and certainly doesn't serve any purpose.
After 2 years the value of these checks is questionable. After all, private flying has been around for 70-80 years without flight checks but now all of a sudden they become essential. Any pilot who has problems with his flying or recency will normally turn to an instructor at his own free will for assistance so why legislate.
I get the feeling that this flight check idea is not in the interests of the pilots but more for the instructional section of the industry in that it provides them with an annuity type income benefitting their bottom line at the pilots expense.

[John Boucher]

So what do you suggest HansH....

I am a PPL'er. Do my Class 2 medical every year. Do my PPL re-validation (you might get a surprise or two how it gets done or is supposed to be done now) There are very little if any variations between Part 61 & Part 62. I do try and do a check ride with an instructor ever so often... every six months for example.

And on the topic of your test ... if an instructor should sit there and only observe my flying ability, I wouldn't use him again to be quite frank. A re-validation is as much as a training session as it is a test.

On the topic of doing conversions... well, I'll only do a conversion on a type if I know I am going to fly such an aircraft regularly.

But hey, who am I to say.... sorry honey, I'm dead because I didn't fly often enough, I lost the "feel" or "touch". I'm dead because I didn't take a rain check when the mist didn't want to lift but I just had to fly.... I'm dead because the aeroplane I was flying donkey died over the mountains because of stale fuel, jelly in the carbs, corrosion on the whatever, seals gone hard, bee nests in the air cleaner.....

Some valid ideas you made... but the bulk - COMPLACENCY KILLS!

[Bundy]

Hi Hans,

You make one or two very good points here. I totally agree with the point you make of being able to do the check in a different aerie eventhough the instructor is rated on the type, I fail to see how you can be judged provicient on a type you have never flown before....agreed.

That said, think about it this way. One blanket set of regulations is never going to suit everybody who falls under the regulations. Pilots in outlying areas are always going to be at a disadvantage as you say. However, we need to look at why the reg's are in place.
Bottom line is that flying will only become less regulated when we as pilots show the powers that be that we can remain consistent and safe. We moan about the reg's and want more freedom but we still have highly experienced pilots doing stupid things! This is including other aviation disciplines! It seems that experience does not count for much when you look at the accident figures and the causes of them? I for one am in favour of the regulations (mostly) as I find great comfort in the fact that every two years (for me in Feb 2012) I will get feedback from an instructor as to where I'm falling short. I can therefore work on the issues at hand and improve a situation that in other circumstances might have eventually killed me?
The reg's will certainly benefit Registered ATO's.... but in my opinion, this is a positive thing. The schools are struggling out there Han's and believe me we need to keep them open and operational. Our sport will die if we start losing these operations!
These Regulations were brought upon us by ourselves. Flying is now more accesible to the general public than ever before and this is why we need to make sure that the basic flying skills are high.... and remain so. I believe a mandatory CRM course will become a reality soon as well! Even for Ultralights.
The Reg's are here to stay Im afraid, it is up to us to change our flying attitudes and become better pilots first. Perhaps then there will be room to relax the laws.

[Air Hog]

I see nothing wrong with this test. All pilots pickup some sort of bad habits and in a re-test this comes out and it is the Instructor's duty to point these items out in a briefing after the test. Learn from it.

And even if the instructor is not rated on the specific aircraft, you are flying, and the instructor is testing your flying ability.

It WILL make you a better and safer pilot.

[Boet]

But NOT every 2 years. I let my PPL lapse to be able to keep the costs incurred down, and obtained my NPL. Seems the only damn way would be eventually to send the whole shebang to hell and just fly! This is absorbing just a tad too much of my hard-earned flying money!

[Tumbleweed]

If they would just allow any trike instructor to do your test and likewise any LSA instructor to check you out without having to be rated on type, it would simplify everything and probably serve its purpose.

There's little difference between an Aquilla and an exotic type trike, or a Bushbaby and a Cheetah.

After all, he wants to check that you just fly safely.