CAA training

[FlushVision]

The CAA seems to closely follow our original 333 process, where everything had to be documented, reviewed, and approved by our FAA. In a way some of our 333 process wax worse as it allowed public comment in some areas. Full scale commercial pilots, commercial unions, and a few individuals were extremely negative with every application submitted. Muddied the water more than anything else. However, our 333 process permitted those awarded one a lot of latitude to apply for waivers to operate under some pretty difficult conditions and permitted them to operate at a higher general altitude than later 107 operators.

The implementation of Part 107 greatly simplified the process and does not require a documentation package, but does suggest developing one. In time we should expect documentation to become mandatory instead of optional. When that happens it will be interesting to see how demanding they become.

Yes, although the CAA do seem to be getting tougher on PfCO applications and renewals particularly with getting shirty over the Ops Manuals, I do get the impression that they are also becoming slightly more relaxed when it comes to special wavers. For example, I gather that we are now allowed to do night flying so long as the Ops Manual submitted reflects safe operations for night flying.

I received an email from the CAA last week warning of the need to update ops manuals to reflect changes in the law and I expect that other PfCO holders received the same email...so they are now telling us about changes in advance...something that they didn't seem to do until now. But I agree with @Ren57 what we are now supposed to include in our ops manuals is getting a bit stupid. My ops manual is currently 52 pages long and that's without having updated it to reflect recent changes in the law. If I do update my ops manual (now very doubtful) to renew my PfCO, I can see it easily going up towards a page count of 60.

 

[OnTheRopes]

Yes, although the CAA do seem to be getting tougher on PfCO applications and renewals particularly with getting shirty over the Ops Manuals, I do get the impression that they are also becoming slightly more relaxed when it comes to special wavers. For example, I gather that we are now allowed to do night flying so long as the Ops Manual submitted reflects safe operations for night flying.

I received an email from the CAA last week warning of the need to update ops manuals to reflect changes in the law and I expect that other PfCO holders received the same email...so they are now telling us about changes in advance...something that they didn't seem to do until now. But I agree with @Ren57 what we are now supposed to include in our ops manuals is getting a bit stupid. My ops manual is currently 52 pages long and that's without having updated it to reflect recent changes in the law. If I do update my ops manual (now very doubtful) to renew my PfCO, I can see it easily going up towards a page count of 60.

I believe all you need to do for now for your ops manual is to change the CAP393 to read "CAP 393 The Air Navigation Order 2016 and Regulations 30 May 2018 Statutory Instrument (SI) 2018 No. 623 The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2018"
Perhaps also referring to CAP1687, just a couple of lines.
Also change references to Person in Charge to Remote Pilot.
If you wish to carry out night ops you will need a section on your procedures.

 

[FlushVision]

I believe all you need to do for now for your ops manual is to change the CAP393 to read "CAP 393 The Air Navigation Order 2016 and Regulations 30 May 2018 Statutory Instrument (SI) 2018 No. 623 The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2018"
Perhaps also referring to CAP1687, just a couple of lines.
Also change references to Person in Charge to Remote Pilot.
If you wish to carry out night ops you will need a section on your procedures.

Hmmm. Simpler than I imagined...although I hadn't given the amendments needed in my Ops manual serious consideration up to this moment. My PfCO is due for renewal at the start of November so if I do renew it (doubtful) I'll need to start the process by mid September at the latest.

 

[PatR]

Something I’ve found consistent with government document submittals. State exactly what they want to see and no more. Anything more, or less, is seen as an open invitation to questioning and perpetual clarification.

We tend to be overly descriptive in hopes of providing clarity. Government employees don’t understand or deal with clarity and any sentence or topic with multiple descriptives confuses them. Word selection is critical.