Foreign License

On Mar 28, 1:46 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
Seems the overwhelming numbers here are USA. And, it feeds into the
attitude that the USA is the only one that counts.
I'm curious as to how many visitors here have a non USA pilot
certificate and where from?
Further, how many pilots here have flown in countries other than the
USA?

I am a US certified PPL, and I've flown (with a local instructor) in
both the UK and South Africa.

In the UK we flew out of a grass strip (the Old Sarum Flying Club near
Salisbury), and never went above 1500 feet on the hour long flight, to
avoid having to deal with ATC (which I think would have incurred
fees). Small country, we flew down to the channel and back and
toured some stately homes and got back all in about an hour, in a
Warrior.

In South Africa it's pretty much anything goes VFR, as long as you
stay out of the controlled airspace around military bases and major
airports. And even then, we asked for (and got) permission to overfly
the parliament and presidential palaces in Pretoria.

the discussion elsewhere in this thread about other countries
where flying is realtively cheap and free, I think South Africa would
qualify. The instructor I flew with told me that the U.S.,
Australia, and South Africa are pretty much the world's training
countries. My experience on a round the world business trip confirmed
that, lots of Aussie accents in the cockpits of Asian airlines.

The South African instructor also told me I fly "like a typical
American" which he said was a complement, because GA is relatively
cheap and free in the U.S. so most American GA pilots fly better than
from other countries because we practice more, because we can afford
to (comparatively). For example, we don't pay fees for landings at
most GA airports.

He runs a bush flying service and told me when a foreigner wants to
rent one of his planes, he asks what country they are from. If it's
Germany, France, or another European county where most flight training
is military or airline based and GA is so expensive most pilots can't
afford to stay current, he budgets a whole weekend plus the following
Monday for the checkout. If it's an American, he figures he can do it
all in a Saturday morning.

Mike wrote in news:cf1b10e2-f476-4ac0-af87-
:


The South African instructor also told me I fly "like a typical
American" which he said was a complement, because GA is relatively
cheap and free in the U.S. so most American GA pilots fly better than
from other countries because we practice more, because we can afford
to (comparatively). For example, we don't pay fees for landings at
most GA airports.


They also have very few good handling exercises there and most brits
have no clue as to how to do a crosswind landing.
They don't do things like turns around a point, and for the commercial
and other advanced ratings, have no equivelant of the lazy eight,
chandelle and what not. It shows in their flying. They're REALLY BIG on
mindless procedure. for instance, when I did my UK instrument rating, in
a twin, we did a simulated engine failure, clean,at altitude which was
announced beforehand. In addition, i regularly had to announce that I
was looking for ice ( in july) I wasn't allowed to land the airplane at
the end of it, the inspector did that. Just bizarre.
The instrument ride in the sim, multi crew, is equally bizarre. You're
not alowed to "help" each other during the instrument ride. IOW, no CRM
at all.


Bertie.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 1:46 pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
Seems the overwhelming numbers here are USA. And, it feeds into the
attitude that the USA is the only one that counts.
I'm curious as to how many visitors here have a non USA pilot
certificate and where from?
Further, how many pilots here have flown in countries other than the
USA?

I am a US certified PPL, and I've flown (with a local instructor) in
both the UK and South Africa.

In the UK we flew out of a grass strip (the Old Sarum Flying Club near
Salisbury), and never went above 1500 feet on the hour long flight, to
avoid having to deal with ATC (which I think would have incurred
fees). Small country, we flew down to the channel and back and
toured some stately homes and got back all in about an hour, in a
Warrior.

This is complete ******** - there is no charge for talking to ATC for a VFR
flight and only if you are over two and a half tonnes for IFR.

The reason for staying below 2000 ft is to avoid controlled airspace on the
run to the Isle of Wight and back.

On 2008-03-31, Mike wrote:
In the UK we flew out of a grass strip (the Old Sarum Flying Club near
Salisbury), and never went above 1500 feet on the hour long flight, to
avoid having to deal with ATC (which I think would have incurred
fees).

Highly unlikely, no fees are charged for aircraft less than 2 metric
tonnes gross. In all probability the pilot probably just didn't want to
bother talking to ATC.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On 2008-03-31, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
They also have very few good handling exercises there and most brits
have no clue as to how to do a crosswind landing.

And it's utterly lamentable.

They don't do things like turns around a point, and for the commercial
and other advanced ratings, have no equivelant of the lazy eight,
chandelle and what not. It shows in their flying. They're REALLY BIG on
mindless procedure.

Spot on. And it's why I will never bother getting a UK-issued rating,
and stick with my FAA ratings.

In my opinion, the regulatory system here practically has blood on its
hands - the regulations are making things significantly LESS safe, not
more safe. And then they try and fix that by adding MORE regulations,
that makes things less safe again.

Handling is made second class to how to talk on the radio, for instance.
Last time I looked, aircraft flew using the principles of Bernoulli and
Newton, not Marconi and Faraday. Stupidity like having to fly a 2nd
altimeter to fly airways, but not allowed to give it a separate static
system - and if we have to fill a hole in the instrument panel, I'd far
rather it be a backup attitude indicator.

When I returned here from living in Houston, I had planned to get my
commercial and flight instructor tickets so I could do some flight
instruction here. I soon found out all the mindless bureaucracy involved
and decided not to bother.

I *love* flying here, though, it's a beautiful place to fly, and in the
real world, it works pretty much as everywhere else, and ATC aren't the
monsters that flight instructors would have you believe. However, if
anyone asks me what they should do to learn to fly - I tell them to take
2 months off and go to the USA, and don't even bother with a JAA ticket
unless you want to fly for the airlines.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-03-31, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
They also have very few good handling exercises there and most brits
have no clue as to how to do a crosswind landing.

And it's utterly lamentable.

They don't do things like turns around a point, and for the
commercial
and other advanced ratings, have no equivelant of the lazy eight,
chandelle and what not. It shows in their flying. They're REALLY BIG
on
mindless procedure.

Spot on. And it's why I will never bother getting a UK-issued rating,
and stick with my FAA ratings.

In my opinion, the regulatory system here practically has blood on its
hands - the regulations are making things significantly LESS safe, not
more safe. And then they try and fix that by adding MORE regulations,
that makes things less safe again.

Handling is made second class to how to talk on the radio, for
instance.
Last time I looked, aircraft flew using the principles of Bernoulli
and
Newton, not Marconi and Faraday. Stupidity like having to fly a 2nd
altimeter to fly airways, but not allowed to give it a separate static
system - and if we have to fill a hole in the instrument panel, I'd
far
rather it be a backup attitude indicator.

When I returned here from living in Houston, I had planned to get my
commercial and flight instructor tickets so I could do some flight
instruction here. I soon found out all the mindless bureaucracy
involved
and decided not to bother.

I *love* flying here, though, it's a beautiful place to fly, and in
the
real world, it works pretty much as everywhere else, and ATC aren't
the
monsters that flight instructors would have you believe. However, if
anyone asks me what they should do to learn to fly - I tell them to
take
2 months off and go to the USA, and don't even bother with a JAA
ticket
unless you want to fly for the airlines.


Yeah, it is a shame. I went for a trip up to Scotland with a flying club
guy, who is actually quite sharp, and he was clearly very intimidated by
ATC. He was given, i think it was RWY 13 in Prestwick, and with the
airplne traffic it would have added about 20 minutes to our flight ( at
about £140 an hour!) so I suggested he just ask for a straight in for
the runway closest to our inbound track, i think it was 36 or so. He was
amazed that we should attempt such a thing, but duly asked and did
recieve. What a revelation for him! And he's an experienced private
pilot with about 400 hours. He also did not know how to slip an airplane
at all. Nadda Nothing. Not to lose altitude and not to correct for a
crosswind. He had been taught to "kick it straight" because that's how
the big boys do it. I've since taught him how to do both.
Must be the same in Germany. I recently got to watch a Lufty MD-11
attempt a crosswind landing with a 90 deg 15 knot crosswind and they
went around twice, once off each runway. Then they diverted. Absolutely
amazing. the airplane has a limit of 35 knots!
I've done the UK writtens, though, and the US could definitely take a
few leaves out of that book. While a lot of is is BS, a lot of it most
definitely is not. Some of the CAA's info books are excellent as well. I
have a CAA book on radar usage, for instance, which is superb. I suppose
the biggest pity is national chauvinism which precludes any kind of
exchange of ideas. I'm sure you've heard flying club Nigels muttering
things about the US licence being a "licence to kill" when you and I
know the inverse is more the case. Many Americans don't want to know
about fuzzy furrin idees regarding flying and do themselves out of a
good education because of it. I'm sure you could pick out every nation
in turn and see how an exchange could benefit each.


Bertie

On 2008-04-01, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
pilot with about 400 hours. He also did not know how to slip an airplane
at all. Nadda Nothing. Not to lose altitude and not to correct for a
crosswind. He had been taught to "kick it straight" because that's how
the big boys do it. I've since taught him how to do both.

Out of my fellow pilots here, the ones I trust are the ones who fly
tailwheel or who have glider experience. All the soaring clubs I've been
to here teach proper handling skills - and anyone who's flown tailwheel,
well, if their instructor didn't teach them proper handling skills, then
the tailwheel aircraft certainly did! (Especially if it's an Auster,
which just loves to bounce).

Gliding is the best though, you do need to have good handling skills for
things like ground reference if you ever expect to ridge soar, and you
need to be able to do proper slow flight (i.e. nibbling at the edge of a
stall) if you want to keep your turns tight enough to stay up on a
scratchy weak thermal day. And also know how to recover from spins
instinctively.

I've done the UK writtens, though, and the US could definitely take a
few leaves out of that book. While a lot of is is BS, a lot of it most
definitely is not. Some of the CAA's info books are excellent as well. I
have a CAA book on radar usage, for instance, which is superb. I suppose
the biggest pity is national chauvinism which precludes any kind of
exchange of ideas. I'm sure you've heard flying club Nigels muttering
things about the US licence being a "licence to kill" when you and I
know the inverse is more the case.

The CAA certainly isn't *all* bad, and there are some exchanges of ideas
- if you ever see the GASIL leaflets, they bear a marked similarity to
the NASA ASRS newsletters. The CAA also publish some good informative safety
stuff as you've noted. And, operationally, I like being able to receive i
VFR non-radar services such as flight information service, rather than
just being told that I'm no longer in radar contact, good day!

Fortunately the 'flying club Nigels' are in the minority. Most people
are acutely aware of the realities.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-04-01, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
pilot with about 400 hours. He also did not know how to slip an
airplane at all. Nadda Nothing. Not to lose altitude and not to
correct for a crosswind. He had been taught to "kick it straight"
because that's how the big boys do it. I've since taught him how to
do both.

Out of my fellow pilots here, the ones I trust are the ones who fly
tailwheel or who have glider experience. All the soaring clubs I've
been to here teach proper handling skills - and anyone who's flown
tailwheel, well, if their instructor didn't teach them proper handling
skills, then the tailwheel aircraft certainly did! (Especially if it's
an Auster, which just loves to bounce).


Well, the tailwheel thing is pretty much the same everywhere. The US
suffers from the same degradaion in basic skills, it's just that the UK
seems determined to bring it to an art form. The thing about most
taildraggers is the airpane does most of the instruction. Gliders too.

Gliding is the best though, you do need to have good handling skills
for things like ground reference if you ever expect to ridge soar, and
you need to be able to do proper slow flight (i.e. nibbling at the
edge of a stall) if you want to keep your turns tight enough to stay
up on a scratchy weak thermal day. And also know how to recover from
spins instinctively.

Preaching to the choir! I learned in a glider.

I've done the UK writtens, though, and the US could definitely take a
few leaves out of that book. While a lot of is is BS, a lot of it
most definitely is not. Some of the CAA's info books are excellent as
well. I have a CAA book on radar usage, for instance, which is
superb. I suppose the biggest pity is national chauvinism which
precludes any kind of exchange of ideas. I'm sure you've heard flying
club Nigels muttering things about the US licence being a "licence to
kill" when you and I know the inverse is more the case.

The CAA certainly isn't *all* bad, and there are some exchanges of
ideas - if you ever see the GASIL leaflets, they bear a marked
similarity to the NASA ASRS newsletters. The CAA also publish some
good informative safety stuff as you've noted. And, operationally, I
like being able to receive i VFR non-radar services such as flight
information service, rather than just being told that I'm no longer in
radar contact, good day!

Fortunately the 'flying club Nigels' are in the minority. Most people
are acutely aware of the realities.


Good! Maybe they'll do something about them! I think your biggest
problem over there is just getting enough flying in to get proficient.
Between the Wx and the horrific cost it's certainly not for everyone.

Oh yeah, and would you please tell your fellow countrymen to stop
****ing up perfectly good anteeks by painting them up as warbirds!

Bertie

On 2008-03-28 10:46:09 -0700, "Ol Shy & Bashful" said:

Seems the overwhelming numbers here are USA. And, it feeds into the
attitude that the USA is the only one that counts.
I'm curious as to how many visitors here have a non USA pilot
certificate and where from?
Further, how many pilots here have flown in countries other than the
USA?

I haven't for a long, long time -- and then it was all military, and
even then it was as a navigator.

Heck, I am having trouble even flying in the USofA. :-(

The only flying I have been doing lately is as an instructor of CFI
candidates, and not much of that.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor