Yes. Those worked under some different scheme.
A UK PPL or IR school could not train in foreign airspace. One outfit tried it fairly recently to fly approaches at Calais etc and was refused. Only UK approaches were allowed as a loggable training.
Yes; as I said those are under some special scheme. Historically the USA had 6 schools in Florida and one is SoCal, all running under UK CAA approval.
Peter wrote:
Only UK approaches were allowed as a loggable training.
If that is true, it is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard of. Wow.
Jim Thorpe, a one time poster here (can’t recall his nickname) went through this, without success, when setting up a CB IR ATO.
But other stuff goes on eg a UK school would not be able to have a D reg on its fleet. Not sure the CAA still run that position.
How did the extensive FI grandfathering process get away with this, for all the years. In the UK before JAA, in France until c. 2012, etc.
In the UK there was a FI pre-entry test; this fulfilled the ICAO requirement for demonstrating CPL Level Knowledge, there is no mention in Annex 1 of passing any TK Exams!
A UK PPL or IR school could not train in foreign airspace. One outfit tried it fairly recently to fly approaches at Calais etc and was refused. Only UK approaches were allowed as a loggable training.
I suspect the issue might have had more to do with flying SE over water than instrument approaches! There is no training prohibition on any airspace if the aircraft can be legally be flown there
A very interesting input, Tumbleweed, as always.
In that case I wonder why the usual explanation of no foreign airspace training keeps being repeated.
Has there been a recent change?
With virtually no technical staff, they seem to be making it up as they go along. Only last week they refused to issue an IMC rating based on EASA Regulation! When challenged they issued it!
Where in the Regulation does it say that training can only be within the Approving State? With no such rule, they cannot simply make one up!
Peter wrote:
Only UK approaches were allowed as a loggable training.
Since you can transfer training from a different school from a different country (which is, I imagine, a bigger deal than just flying over there), it just reeks of nonsense. Anyway, I can’t see any benefit of such a restriction (you have the same aeroplane, instructor and sylabus).
Peter wrote:
But other stuff goes on eg a UK school would not be able to have a D reg on its fleet.
Some of those schools have other than G regs in their fleet and they’re maintained outside the UK as well (at least in one case even outside the country where the school operates IIRC). But I guess that could come with that “different scheme”.
