It made me want to cry
Can anyone paraphrase @bookworm ‘s reply? I don’t know enough to work it out.
I think a part of the problem is that GPS-anything, let alone GPS approaches, were not taught in Euroland until possibly very recently, so it is easy for some rulemaker to decide that extra training and a signoff is required.
Of course the same argument also says that instrument rated pilots are idiots and cannot read and so cannot work out how to fly this incredibly complicated procedure
but I don’t think this has ever stopped anybody who gets paid for rulemaking!
Peter_Mundy wrote:
It made me want to cry
Me too, it was almost funny if it wasn’t true. Definitely living in their own world.
Peter wrote:
Of course the same argument also says that instrument rated pilots are idiots and cannot read and so cannot work out how to fly this incredibly complicated procedure
Or mechanics are idiots an cannot read and so cannot work how to mainten an incredibly complicated aircraft
It seems the above is also a point of view which many accept. I guess the conclusions could be that pilots don’t find themselfs idiots but very capable, mechanics don’t find themselfs idiots but very capable, and authorities don’t find themselfs idots but very capable.
Peter wrote:
I think a part of the problem is that GPS-anything, let alone GPS approaches, were not taught in Euroland until possibly very recently, so it is easy for some rulemaker to decide that extra training and a signoff is required.Of course the same argument also says that instrument rated pilots are idiots and cannot read and so cannot work out how to fly this incredibly complicated procedure
I think that sums it up rather well.
Peter wrote:
Of course the same argument also says that instrument rated pilots are idiots and cannot read and so cannot work out how to fly this incredibly complicated procedure
Considering some discussions both here and on the PPL/IR forum, there could well be some truth in that. Not that people are idiots of course, but that there are non-obvious things that actually matters.
Remember that you don’t know what you don’t know!
I would actually love it if somebody told me the not so obvious stuff about RNAV approaches. There’s always another question and even many of the more experienced fliers cannot answer some of them, especially when it’s about the little tricks with the equipment etc.
But maybe it’s just me who’s too stupid for some stuff!
Guillaume wrote:
EASA Opinion 2015/03
The ATO part will be a major obstacle. I don’t even see how the ATOs could cope with the demand for additional training, assuming all IR pilots want to take it.
The good thing is that it appears from the proposed article 4a (2) (iv) that it is up to the examiner at a PC to determine the amount of flight training required and that this training does not have to be with an ATO.
Flyer59 wrote:
I would actually love it if somebody told me the not so obvious stuff about RNAV approaches. There’s always another question and even many of the more experienced fliers cannot answer some of them, especially when it’s about the little tricks with the equipment etc.
The PPL/IR PBN manual is very good!
Airborne_Again wrote:
Remember that you don’t know what you don’t know!
I took that gold plated course @boscomantico linked to earlier in this thread, so I ought to know.
The only thing I took out of this course was the terminology mess that the FAA created and everyone else perpetuates, namely that LPV approaches are not called precision approaches, even though they provide approved vertical guidance, but “APV” (Approach with Vertical Guidance), due to some technicalities ICAO demands from ILS approaches are not met by LPV approaches.
Was it worth the effort in time and money? No.
Is this proportionate regulation? No
Would I be an unsafe(r) pilot without that course? No
The PPL/IR PBN Manual is far better than all the FOCA approved course material I’ve seen.