How does that differ from the current situation? I believe what's needed is for the CAA to create the syllabus and administer the testing. Then private companies can offer training - be it "for profit" or "not for profit". I have to say, though, running anything with unpaid volunteers is really hard work!
If you can fly one multi rotor can you fly them all ?
- Thread starter ZAxis
- Start date
Gary Mortimer
Member
I believe the CAA understand they are not experts and want industry to come up with usable options. So at the moment it's the current incumbent or nowt. If another group approached the CAA with a workable sensible plan they would struggle not to accept it. There is also Resource UAS they might well be having more courses for the smaller operator. They seem much better equipped than others.
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/09/18824/resource-uas-showcases-generic-uas-mission-simulator/
The thing of course to remember is that at least you can argue that things are too expensive, in the USA it is and will remain for the near future illegal to even start!!
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/09/18824/resource-uas-showcases-generic-uas-mission-simulator/
The thing of course to remember is that at least you can argue that things are too expensive, in the USA it is and will remain for the near future illegal to even start!!
Resource UAS are focussed on the big stuff, by the look of it. But, most significantly, they don't offer a "recognised" qualification. So you get your training from them and go to EuroUSC to be tested - doesn't change anything. The CAA can't adopt a "we're not experts" stance - this is Civil Aviation and they are the Authority!
The cost of training/certification is not the main issue. It will be a long time before getting licenced is the same cost as taking a driving test
. The two big problems I see are 1) the unofficial status of the "qualification" offered and 2) the (absurd) aircraft-specific nature of the "qualification".
We need to understand what these "big changes" that are apparently already coming will be. How far off is this CPL(U) and who will create and execute the testing?
The cost of training/certification is not the main issue. It will be a long time before getting licenced is the same cost as taking a driving test
. The two big problems I see are 1) the unofficial status of the "qualification" offered and 2) the (absurd) aircraft-specific nature of the "qualification".We need to understand what these "big changes" that are apparently already coming will be. How far off is this CPL(U) and who will create and execute the testing?
Macsgrafs
Active Member
ZAxis
Member
So where do we start ? Do we want to restrict ourselves to say sub 7, 10 or 20kg multirotors only or include others? Do we consider Line of Sight only or include FPV even if its not allowed for UK commercial work? Setting sensible boundaries to what we want to achieve would make things simpler to at least get started. Are we working towards a CPL(MR sub20kg UAV) where the pilot get certified rather than pilot+1 aircraft ? What do other think ?
andy
I'm confused - why is this better than what's already available? It does not matter whether the proposed organisation is "for profit" or "not for profit" - it's still subject to commercial pressures. And the "qualification", to be meaningful, must be official, i.e. created and administered by the CAA. So are you proposing a training operation? Or a rival to EuroUSC with lower prices?
Sorry - just need to understand.
Sorry - just need to understand.
Gary Mortimer
Member
Well Jes, my simple idea would be to create modules and get them approved. The CAA allows gliding, microlight types and balloonists to create their own exams hiring people from the disciplines to keep an eye on it so its not a foreign concept to them. Is it better, um not sure but there would be a chance to create something by operators that is fair and reasonable.
I am aware that committees rarely work!
As for the whys and wherefores. BLOS flights are already being allowed for suitably qualified people, they have ATPL's and I know three of them. For me a sub 20kg pilot certification is what is required. The airframe is another matter.
Gary
I am aware that committees rarely work!
As for the whys and wherefores. BLOS flights are already being allowed for suitably qualified people, they have ATPL's and I know three of them. For me a sub 20kg pilot certification is what is required. The airframe is another matter.
Gary
Bowley
Member
I fully support your concept Gary. What springs to mind though, when comparing it to the situation with microlights, gliders and balloons is that these are all recreational licences, (I believe commercial priveledges may be issued on them). I think rightly or wrongly, the situation changes when its commercial.
Web based self study is preferable to a crammed 2 day course which I did suggest to the current 'qualified entity' a while back.
Also I foresee practical difficulties in the assessment aspect especially for a non-profit making organization seeing as the logistics of this is going to incur costs for the examining body. also I do support competition in any industry but offering that sort of service at no cost would have an impact on any upcoming organisations planning to offer training and accreditation on a commercial basis.
However altruistic, it would be a unique industry where professional training and certification came free.
I checked out the link to Resource UAS you posted, looks impressive, longer and probably more comprehensive course. I cant imagine they would have too many students until they can offer a CAA accredited qualification though. surely they must be looking for this!
Steve
Last edited by a moderator: