license woes

[gen]

Hi,

I wonder if I can borrow your wisdom here. I tried to convert a foreign
private pilot license to a US one, and hit a wall.

On 9/5, I applied for a conversion of Japanese glider license to a
US one at San Jose FSDO. On the application form, I disclosed that
I had a US ASEL license, and even verbally pointed it out when asked.
Then, they did issue me a US glider license. I brought it back home
happily, joined a flight club and did BFR on 9/9, and flew every
weekend since then.
However, on 9/25, they sent me a letter saying that they issued me
the license by mistake. According to them, they shouldn't have issued
the license because I have a US private pilot ASEL license
(14 CFR 61.75(b)(3)).

Not only I cannot fly, I had to leave the club because it required at
least private pilot license to be a member of.

Here is the law.

§ 61.75 Private pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign
pilot license.
(b) Certificate issued. A U.S. private pilot certificate that is
issued under this section shall specify the person's foreign license
number and country of issuance. A person who holds a current
foreign pilot license issued by a contracting State to the Convention

on International Civil Aviation may be issued a private pilot
certificate based on the foreign pilot license without any further
showing of proficiency, provided the applicant:
(3) Does not currently hold a U.S. pilot certificate;

Here are the licenses I have, and year I obtained them.

1989 Private Pilot glider (Japan)
1992 Private Pilot ASEL (US)
1992 CFI rating on glider (Japan)
1992 Private Pilot ASEL (Japan)

To summarize the discussion with FAA officers, I have a few options.

1) Surrender the US ASEL license, and FAA will immediately
issue me a US glider private license because 61.75(b)(3) no longer
applies. This idea was actually suggested by multiple FAA officers,

so I'm sure this works. Not too attractive, though.

2) Invent a time machine, go back to 8/13/1992 12:00am, drive up to
a small motel near Jefferson County airport in Colorado, and slip in
the following note under the door of the room I was staying.

Dear Gen,

Apply for the conversion of your Japanese glider license before
you take ASEL checkride tomorrow. It's free, and there is no
chance it is denied. This will save you a lot of hassle in your
future.

Truly yours,

Then, I will have both US glider license (based on Japanese one)
and US ASEL license now. FAA will not revoke the glider license
even after I obtain US ASEL. The order of application makes
difference.
I wish I applied, but I never thought having a US license becomes
disadvantage..

3) Take a checkride, and add glider rating on my existing US private
pilot license. Though this is the cleanest option, this is the most
expensive option. It costs more than $1000 (exam fee, aircraft
rental, tow fee, etc.) on top of $500 I already spent on BFR of the
mistakenly issued license. I wish they didn't issue me the license
in the first place.

So, my questions are:

- Does anyone know the background 14 CFR 61.75(b)(3) was
established for? (I asked FAA officers, but nobody knew.)
- What is the appropriate process to appeal for an exception?
- Any other idea to get a glider license issued?

Thanks,
-Gen

[Sylvain]

gen wrote:
<...part 61.75 woes...>

alternatively, 4) get your commercial glider; you already
have a private certificate issued under part 61 (your ASEL),
and you probably have all the required hours; it will probably
end up costing you the same as getting a private glider but
you'll get something extra...

--Sylvain

[BT]

That would be my suggestion..
let them take the US glider back.. keep your US ASEL Pvt,
Prepare for and take a Pvt or Commercial level Glider Check ride as an
add-on to your US Pvt ASEL
Ask the club for a "stay" (a suspended membership) while you sort through
the FAA tape.

BT

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> gen wrote:
> <...part 61.75 woes...>
>
> alternatively, 4) get your commercial glider; you already
> have a private certificate issued under part 61 (your ASEL),
> and you probably have all the required hours; it will probably
> end up costing you the same as getting a private glider but
> you'll get something extra...
>
> --Sylvain

[gen]

Yes, that's one of options. However, that doens't solve the root cause
here.

Note that,
- If I surrender ASEL, they will issue me a glider license without any
kind of exam.
- If I had applied for a glider license *before* I took ASEL (which I
could), they
coexist.

Then, why they don't issue me a glider license now? I do not understand
why
I have to spend $1000 here.

-Gen

BT wrote:
> That would be my suggestion..
> let them take the US glider back.. keep your US ASEL Pvt,
> Prepare for and take a Pvt or Commercial level Glider Check ride as an
> add-on to your US Pvt ASEL
> Ask the club for a "stay" (a suspended membership) while you sort through
> the FAA tape.
>
> BT
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
> > gen wrote:
> > <...part 61.75 woes...>
> >
> > alternatively, 4) get your commercial glider; you already
> > have a private certificate issued under part 61 (your ASEL),
> > and you probably have all the required hours; it will probably
> > end up costing you the same as getting a private glider but
> > you'll get something extra...
> >
> > --Sylvain

[BT]

> why
> I have to spend $1000 here.

BEcause you want to fly and keep both your US ASEL and Glider rating?
BT

[gen]

Thanks for reply, but you are missing my point..

IMHO, a pilot license should be awarded solely based on the flight
proficiency, aeronautical knowledge, and flight experience.
Surrendering ASEL clearly does not affect my flight proficiency,
aeronautical knowledge, and flight experience, but they will issue me a
glider license if I do so. Then, I should have a glider license now. Am
I wrong?


BT wrote:
> > why
> > I have to spend $1000 here.
>
> BEcause you want to fly and keep both your US ASEL and Glider rating?
> BT

[Sylvain]

gen wrote:

> Note that,
> - If I surrender ASEL, they will issue me a glider license without any
> kind of exam.

If I understand your situation correctly you have indeed the option
of surrendering your FAA ASEL and then apply for both ASEL and Glider
certificates under 61.75 without having to pass any exam (since you
have both ASEL and Glider Japanese licenses);

However, keep in mind that things have become a lot more complicated
since 9/11 and the days of just walking in the local FSDO unannounced
with your logbook, license and 8710-1 in hand are over; and it will
take a while to get through the process (and it will involve both FAA
and Japanese equivalent since they have to validate your credentials)...
it might end up being easier/faster (and may be even cheaper) to just
take the commercial glider exam, hence my suggestion;

> - If I had applied for a glider license *before* I took ASEL (which I
> could), they coexist.

that's what I did lucky me, and the FAA has indeed no problem with
it... If this is the first odd thing you noticed in the FARs, you
have plenty more fun to look forward to...

--Sylvain

[gen]

Sylvain wrote:
> If I understand your situation correctly you have indeed the option
> of surrendering your FAA ASEL and then apply for both ASEL and Glider
> certificates under 61.75 without having to pass any exam (since you
> have both ASEL and Glider Japanese licenses);

Yes, that idea poped up during discussions with FAA officers. Thanks
for pointing it out. This might be indeed the option I take, if I will
have the same privilege. I'm looking into minor details now.

But again, my point is that a pilot license should be awarded solely
based on the flight
proficiency, aeronautical knowledge, and flight experience. If there is
no good reason, I'd even dare to say that 61.75(b)(3) is
discriminative..

-Gen

>
> However, keep in mind that things have become a lot more complicated
> since 9/11 and the days of just walking in the local FSDO unannounced
> with your logbook, license and 8710-1 in hand are over; and it will
> take a while to get through the process (and it will involve both FAA
> and Japanese equivalent since they have to validate your credentials)...
> it might end up being easier/faster (and may be even cheaper) to just
> take the commercial glider exam, hence my suggestion;
>
> > - If I had applied for a glider license *before* I took ASEL (which I
> > could), they coexist.
>
> that's what I did lucky me, and the FAA has indeed no problem with
> it... If this is the first odd thing you noticed in the FARs, you
> have plenty more fun to look forward to...
>
> --Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"gen" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> IMHO, a pilot license should be awarded solely based on the flight
> proficiency, aeronautical knowledge, and flight experience.
> Surrendering ASEL clearly does not affect my flight proficiency,
> aeronautical knowledge, and flight experience, but they will issue me a
> glider license if I do so. Then, I should have a glider license now. Am
> I wrong?

From what you've written, it appears as though you expect a government
bureaucracy to behave in an efficient, rational manner.

What are you smoking?

[Sylvain]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "gen" > wrote in message
>> IMHO, a pilot license should be awarded solely based on the flight
> From what you've written, it appears as though you expect a government
> bureaucracy to behave in an efficient, rational manner.

To be fair, the FAA is a lot more accommodating and helpful (and
efficient and rational) than any of the other four civil aviation
authorities with which I have dealt in the past (Irish, British,
Swiss and French -- guess which is the worst by a long shot?)

As tricky and slightly absurd as Gen's situation may appear to be,
he (or she?) has at least two pretty good options available to
solve the problem...

--Sylvain

[gen]

Peter wrote:
> What are you smoking?
Ha ha, I'm not smoking.. bad for flying.

Sylvain wrote:
> To be fair, the FAA is a lot more accommodating and helpful (and
> efficient and rational) than any of the other four civil aviation
> authorities with which I have dealt in the past (Irish, British,
> Swiss and French -- guess which is the worst by a long shot?)

I hear the same comments from other pilots. When I tell my story at
airports or seminars, their first reaction is always, "Huh? that
doesn't make sense..." But when I say, "so, I'm thinking of asking for
an exception", most people say, "Yeah, I'm sure FAA will make an
exception for your case. They are much better than my home country
xxx's CAA." No one successfully explained me what public good
61.75(b)(3) has.
I indeed asked for an exception to an examinar at FAA HQ in Oklahoma
last month, and was rejected, but I might try again with all these
encouragements. If they don't, FAA is going to lose trust of many
pilots, I'm afraid.

-Gen

[Larry Dighera]

On 7 Nov 2006 21:10:06 -0800, "gen" > wrote in
om>:

>- Does anyone know the background 14 CFR 61.75(b)(3) was
> established for? (I asked FAA officers, but nobody knew.)


Part 61 Sec. 61.75 - Eff. 12/01/1978
There's supposed to be historical information here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/SearchAllFAR?SearchView&Query=part%20AND%2061&SearchOrder=1&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchFuzzy=FALSE&Start=1&Count=1000#

But I wasn't able to retrieve the page at that URL.

Here is the parent page:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
It purports to provide a means of searching FAR history.

There is an 'Ask FAA' button at the top of the page, but I got a 401
error when I clicked it.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

gen wrote:
> But again, my point is that a pilot license should be awarded solely
> based on the flight
> proficiency, aeronautical knowledge, and flight experience. If there is
> no good reason, I'd even dare to say that 61.75(b)(3) is
> discriminative..



I feel for your situation... I really do. But your last statement.... as if
your country doesn't raise discrimination against gaijin an art form.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Sylvain]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> I'm not convinced this is true. Yes, you could have gotten
> the U.S. license based on the Japanese glider license first,
> but I would have expected it to become invalid as soon as
> you received a U.S. private ASEL. You can only have one
> private license in the U.S. and it lists all your
> privileges.

you are incorrect. The only thing that 61.75 says on
the subject (61.75(b)(3)) is that you must not already
have a US certificate when you are issued a certificate
under 61.75; but nothing prevents you from getting a FAA
certificate afterwards;

This is precisely my situation, and the FAA has no problem
with it. Reread the rule, it is quite clear actually.

> rules here. You can't mix and match.

actually you can.

> Surrender the U.S. ASEL license. You already have the 1992
> ASEL in Japan and the glider in Japan. Then the U.S. will
> issue you a U.S. license based on the Japanese license with
> both ASEL and glider privileges since you have both in
> Japan. Provided they are still valid, you get both
> privileges here without more expense and your BFR will still
> be valid. (BFR's don't correspond to any specific license
> and your time and logged training are still valid and
> applicable)

this on the other hand is correct, though you want to be
careful about it; some foreign licenses do expire some
don't, and keeping them current can be a pain when you
live abroad; I was lucky that the foreign license I used
-- a pre-JAR British one -- does not expire; I mean, as
long as it isn't revoked it remains valid as far as
61.75 is concerned; someone with a German license on the
other hand would not be so lucky and it would involve more
headaches. Also, getting a certificate under 61.75
nowdays is a lot more involved that it used to (you have
to get the country that issues it to validate it -- i.e.,
you have to get two administrations from two different
countries to successfully communicate with each other, not
a trivial step...);

oh and you loose the privilege of doing agricultural work :-)

--Sylvain

[Jose[_1_]]

Were it me in this situation, I would not surrender any certificate. I
would not count on getting any of the privilages back, despite the
rules. Bird in the hand and all. Bureaucracy can be maddening.

What I would do is pursue an add-on to my existing cert, and try to get
the club to make an exception based on circumstances (to their "PP
license or better" rule, esp since you =do= have a PP, albeit in powered
craft).

All the training is still flying.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gen]

I appreciate this info, Larry. A little progress toward understanding
61.75(b)(3).

-Gen

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2006 21:10:06 -0800, "gen" > wrote in
> om>:
>
> >- Does anyone know the background 14 CFR 61.75(b)(3) was
> > established for? (I asked FAA officers, but nobody knew.)
>
>
> Part 61 Sec. 61.75 - Eff. 12/01/1978
> There's supposed to be historical information here:
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/SearchAllFAR?SearchView&Query=part%20AND%2061&SearchOrder=1&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchFuzzy=FALSE&Start=1&Count=1000#
>
> But I wasn't able to retrieve the page at that URL.
>
> Here is the parent page:
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet
> It purports to provide a means of searching FAR history.
>
> There is an 'Ask FAA' button at the top of the page, but I got a 401
> error when I clicked it.

[gen]

> > rules here. You can't mix and match.
>
> actually you can.

I heard the same thing from an Inspector at San Jose FSDO and an
Examinar at FAA HQ in Oklahoma, so I believe that Sylvain's experience
is legitimate. And I COULD do so because I already had a Japanese
glider license in 1989, way before I took US ASEL in 1992.
Thanks Todd for raising a warning, though.

> live abroad; I was lucky that the foreign license I used
> -- a pre-JAR British one -- does not expire; I mean, as

Same thing for Japanese licenses, too. The license themselves don't
expire. Also, they don't require flight reviews to be current.
Of course, medical does expire and you cannot fly without medical, but
to my best knowledge I don't need to go back to Japan to take medical
but I can use Third Class medical here.

-Gen

[gen]

Jose wrote:
> What I would do is pursue an add-on to my existing cert, and try to get
> the club to make an exception based on circumstances (to their "PP
> license or better" rule, esp since you =do= have a PP, albeit in powered
> craft).

Unfortunately the club rule states that I need to have FAA glider
private pilot certificate to be a member, so they had to terminate my
membership. Otherwise, they have to open the door for all power pilots.
However, they were sympathetic about my situation and refunded me the
full membership deposit which they normaly don't.

-Gen

[Jose[_1_]]

> Unfortunately the club rule states that I need to have FAA glider
> private pilot certificate to be a member, so they had to terminate my
> membership. Otherwise, they have to open the door for all power pilots.
> However, they were sympathetic about my situation and refunded me the
> full membership deposit which they normaly don't.

That's twisted logic. And if a club of twenty or so people uses twisted
logic that they won't untwine, I'd hold little hope that the FAA would
do better.

> the club rule states...

That's why you are asking for an exception.

> Otherwise, they have to open the door for all power pilots.

No, just all power pilots who also have a foreign glider cert that is
equivalent, as proven by having had a US glider certificate whose
withdrawal was for arcane bureaucratic reasons.

> they were sympathetic about my situation

Doesn't really sound like it.

Jos
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Part 61 Sec. 61.75 - Eff. 12/01/1978
>> There's supposed to be historical information here:
>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/SearchAllFAR?SearchView&Query=part%20AND%2061&SearchOrder=1&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchFuzzy=FALSE&Start=1&Count=1000#
>>
>> But I wasn't able to retrieve the page at that URL.

I was able to retrieve the page, and the rule was there, but there was
no historical info. There was an (empty) drop down menu.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sylvain]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> FAA agrees. I know two specific cases where the FAA *did*
> object. If you did not encounter a problem, and have two
> U.S. licenses, then I'll add that bit of information to my
> store of knowledge. I'm still not totally sure whether your
> situation is the oddity or their's was.

here is how I found out: I went for the checkride for
my multi- commercial, with my private established under 61.75;
private had ASEL and Glider rating on it, and IFR (but FAA
exam -- which could be added to a certificate established under
61.75); I passed the exam, and handed over my certificate which
you usually do in that case; the examiner and I were a little
confused as to what we were supposed to do because in doing so,
I not only gained a new rating, but lost two others (ASEL and
Glider) which seemed to be odd; the FAA sent my certificate back
in the mail saying that I should keep it. They have different
numbers. On my online recod, both certificates show (I since
passed the FAA ASEL thing, but I still have the glider rating
on the old certificate; I haven't used it much but didn't want
to loose it);

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

gen wrote:

> to my best knowledge I don't need to go back to Japan to take medical
> but I can use Third Class medical here.

that's my understanding too; the FAA requires that you have a medical,
and they don't seemm to care whether it is a FAA one or the one from
the country that issued the license under which you 61.75 certificate
has been issued; I used both.

--Sylvain

[gen]

Jose,

I cannot thank you too much for defending me against the club decision.

> No, just all power pilots who also have a foreign glider cert that is
> equivalent, as proven by having had a US glider certificate whose
> withdrawal was for arcane bureaucratic reasons.

That's what I'd think too, but that was the conclusion the club
president made, so I have to respect it...

But thanks again for defending my position.

-Gen

[Jose[_1_]]

> that was the conclusion the club
> president made, so I have to respect it...

You could have it brought up for a vote, unless the club is set up as a
dictatorship.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[gen]

> > FAA agrees. I know two specific cases where the FAA *did*
> > object. If you did not encounter a problem, and have two
> > U.S. licenses, then I'll add that bit of information to my
> > store of knowledge. I'm still not totally sure whether your
> > situation is the oddity or their's was.

I was digging web, and found an official document addressing this
specific issue.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_029_00.pdf

Here is an excerpt.
NOTE: A person who applies for a U.S. pilot certificate by
accomplishing the appropriate pilot certification requirements of part
61 and also holds a pilot certificate issued under 61.75 need not
surrender that U.S. pilot certificate. There have been isolated
incidences where examiners have erroneously required a person to
surrender the 61.75 pilot certificate when applying for the standard
U.S. pilot certificate. In this instance, it is permissible for a
person to hold both a pilot certificate issued under 61.75 and a
standard U.S. pilot certificate.

-Gen

[Larry Dighera]

On 9 Nov 2006 07:58:01 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>:

>That's what I like about this group, we really do
>manage to ferret out the right answer eventually.

http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/4157
There is no failure except in no longer trying.
-- Elbert Hubbard

[Sylvain]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> errors. Still, I would have expected them to issue you a
> single cert with your new multi privileges and the previous
> private glider privileges based on 61.75 set forth.

that's what I thought would have happened; but they apparently
don't want to mix on the same certificate the two things; the
certificates are also slightly different; the logo on the top
right corner is black on the 61.75 rather than blue.

Now, I still have the old fashion paper thing for the 61.75,
and the new plastic certificate with shiny hologram for the
commercial; I asked how I could get the shiny new one for
both, but it would have required going through the whole
process of asking the foreign civil aviation authority to
verify the credentials, etc. and I was a bit concerned of
ending up in the same situation as Gen's so I didn't bother.

--Sylvain

[gen]

Amazingly, I was able to find Simon Wheaton-Smith, one of FAA officers
who wrote 61.75.
http://www.illustratingshadows.com/dpe.html

Here is his first reply to my questions.

---
As I understand the issue, you already have a US
unrestricted license, with no glider rating. And you
have a Japanese unrestricted with a glider rating.

It is true that the rule prohibits you getting the
glider moved over administratively.

The options that exist are...
1. voluntarily surrender your unrestricted US
then
get a restricted US license with just the
Japanese ratings

or

2. Take the US test for glider.

A point to note is that a normal US pilot would need a
recommendation to take the checkride, whereas you, as
holder of an ICAO rating for glider, can self
recommend yourself. So, you still do have some
privilege with that ICAO glider rating.

You wanted to know why we did things that way.
Everyone involved in the rule, and the Notice, and
then the Order covering those issues probably had
different reasons. The rationale I have to support the
reasoinign lies in (1) consistency with other
agencies, (2) managing a complex certification system,
(3) maintaining a standard, (4) and so on.

Other federal agencies allow a reciprocal license but
with limitations. For example, the FCC reciprocal
amateur licensing system allowed a foreign amateur to
operate in the USA. That reciprocal license was good
for one year, renewable as long as the holder was a
bona fide visitor. As soon as the visitor was a
resident then the FCC would requires the person to
take the US tests and would disallow future reciprocal
licenses to be issued to them.

In the FAA case, there are several thousand pilot
certificates printed a week. There is a very limited
budget, and only three people working the fireign
desk, and they handle 50 cases a day. Roughly.

The FAA lets a foreign license under 61.75 stand for
ever (unlike the FCC) regardless of residency.
However, once a pilot holds a US license, the FAA
expects all future licenses to be to the FAA
standards. The FAA is not saying that they are better
or worse, just different. Further the FAA does not
charge for the conversion process, nor for the license
itself.

Thus my thought process was that we needed an
efficient system, one that was standard, one that
placed the US certificate as the highest standard
within the USA, to not have multiple standards, while
still allowing a visitor to fly in the USA.

The 61.75 process was originally for visitors only,
and since then it grew.

With 9/11, there was significant pressure to drop the
entire program.

I am now retired from the FAA, and having myself gone
through the England to USA process, I still support
the regulation.

If the FAA had the ability to charge for certificates
and recoup costs, I still believe that a single
standard should be the goal, and that the efficiency
of the process is important.

My recommendation for you would be to self recommend
and take the checkride.

I hope I have answered your questions, and I
appreciate your comments.

Simon
FAA retired






--- Gen Shibayama > wrote:

> Hello Sir,
>
> I found your email address on this page.
> http://www.illustratingshadows.com/dpe.html
>
> The page says, "I was one of the three who wrote the
> notice and order
> re 14 CFR 61.75."
> I'm in a situation that 61.75(b)(3) is blocking a US
> pilot certificate
> to be issued based on my foreign pilot certificate,
> and would like to
> know the logic behind it. Are you the right person
> to ask? If not,
> could you kindly let me know whom I should ask?
>
> Here is my situation.
>
> I'm originally from Japan. I started flying a glider
> at college in
> Japan, got private pilot license in 1989, CFIG in
> 1992, and flew 2000
> flights over 14 years all in Japan. During that
> period, I came to US
> for just one month in 1992, took ASEL license, and
> went back to Japan.
> That was the only time I flew US sky. Now I live and
> work in
> California, and would like to covert my Japanese
> glider license to a
> US one, but 61.75(b)(3) does not allow me to do so
> because I have US
> ASEL.
>
> Thanks,
> -Gen
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-08, Sylvain > wrote:
> To be fair, the FAA is a lot more accommodating and helpful (and
> efficient and rational) than any of the other four civil aviation
> authorities with which I have dealt in the past (Irish, British,
> Swiss and French -- guess which is the worst by a long shot?)

The British CAA of course. CAA stands for 'Campaign against aviation'.
They habitually implement EU directives in the most restrictive manner
they can think of.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> The British CAA of course. CAA stands for 'Campaign against aviation'.
> They habitually implement EU directives in the most restrictive manner
> they can think of.

Planes can carry terrorists. And pilots cannot be seen from the
closed-circuit TV cameras that cover the UK territory, nor can the
chips imbedded in pilots' arms be easily read while they are at
altitude. Since they are not under the constant control and
surveillance of the government, they must be up to no good.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Dylan Smith wrote:

>> authorities with which I have dealt in the past (Irish, British,
>> Swiss and French -- guess which is the worst by a long shot?)
>
> The British CAA of course. CAA stands for 'Campaign against aviation'.
> They habitually implement EU directives in the most restrictive manner
> they can think of.
>

actually, out of the four with which I dealt with, the British
CAA is pretty good; annoying I grant you, bloody expensive (there
is a fee for about everything), but by a long shot not as bad as the
other three; remember, it's in UK that you have things like PFA (a
bit what sport pilot is supposed to be), the 'IMC' rating (a 'poor
man' IFR rating) and self regulated gliding...

--Sylvain