FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1975
1975 - 0051.PDF
FLIGHT International, 2 January I97S Letters The CPL steeplechase: another obstacle SIR,—I feel that all existing and aspiring commercial pilots should be informed of the situation which now exists con cerning public assistance towards the cost of obtaining commercial licences In August 1972 the Training Division of the Department of 'Employment instituted what came to be known as the "topping-up" scheme. Under this scheme, which was a part of the Government's Vocational Training Scheme, it became possible for pilots to obtain financial assistance from public funds to defray the cost of obtaining or upgrading civil commercial licences. It was designed to ensure a flow of pilots into civil aviation by supplementing the throughput of the training schools and Hamble, and by requalifying to civil standards retired military pilots in order to enable them to continue to earn their living in flying. The scheme clearly defined two categories of pilot who were eligible to apply for grants. The first category served the ex-military pilot who required a course of mainly academic training to obtain a civil commercial licence; and the civil licence holder who was qualified to upgrade his licence from, for example, GPL to ATPL. The second category served those who, having been accepted by a Selection Panel comprising five members (drawn from DoE, CAA Approved Flying Schools, Balpa and the ATTITB), still required further academic and fly ing training to bring them up to CPL standard. It is clear that the second category, unless it was very carefully controlled, would be very costly because of the flying training involved, and this is why the Panel was established. It is also clear that the second category, through the approved schools, would be producing pilots in direct competition with Hamble. A bare four months later the DoE sent out a letter which notified the suspension of the scheme "in respect of the selected pilots." This wording is very significant because the notification did say "selected pilots"; it did not say "all pilots." In legislation and policy-making of this impor tance where public money is being disbursed, the DoE would have said "all pilots" had it been its intention to impose a blanket suspension of the scheme. From its own wording, it is clear that this was not the intention. The suspension, as written, applied only to the second category. In the event, from November 30, 1972, the suspension order was interpreted and implemented as applying to all pilots. All pilots from the first category were turned away empty- handed. The DoE claimed that it acted on the advice of the Panel when it issued the suspension notice. Balpa admits to subscribing to the advice given in consultation and agreement with the ATTITB. The ATTITB incredibly states: "At no time did we supply a member of a panel to advise the DoE as to whether or not aspiring commer cial pilots should derive benefits from their grants." The upshot of this is that for the last two years the pilots of the first category have needlessly, and possibly illegally, had legitimate applications for vocational train ing grants turned down by employment exchanges up and down the country. The effect of this, apart from causing considerable financial hardship, has been to make the professional pilot a breed apart from his fellow citizens. Educational and vocational training grants are available for any calling or profession except pilots. It seems incredible that this can have happened at all, let alone under the noses of the so-called watchdogs and guardians of our industry. The situation hitherto described was documented and represented to several MPs. They felt that the case carried sufficient equity to be placed before Sir Alan Marre, the Omsbudsman, for investigation. He accepted the case on the grounds of possible maladministration by a government 19 department (and its professional advisers?) and his investi gation is now well advanced. Whatever his findings may be, there is little hope of retrospective payments being made to those who qualified entirely at their own expense during the last two years; but at least there is hope for ex-military pilots of the future, and for those who have to take ten weeks unpaid leave to study for a more senior licence in order to further their careers. 21 Swanston View, CAPT W. R. R. ANDERSON Edinburgh EH 10 7DG BAA Gatwick Master Plan SIR,—May I reply to a particular point made by M. N. Jackson in Flight for December 5 about the BAA's current Master Plan for Gatwick? He says that the Plan does not mention the need for a second runway and suggests that this is a tactical silence. A letter published in Flight for October 31 from our Planning Director, Mr Don Turner, stated: ". . . our plan ning is based on the assumption that there will be only one major runway in the foreseeable future." Here he was quoting from the first page of the Master Plan. I hope that Mr Jackson will now appreciate that there is no tactical silence on this issue. We cannot confirm that there will never be a second runway built at Gatwick—that is for the Government to decide—but we can reiterate that our Gatwick plans are based on only one major runway in the foreseeable future. British Airports Authority, DOMINIC LEAHY 2 Buckingham Gate, (Head of External Relations) London SWIE 6JL Balloon ? What balloon ? SIR,—I was flying through the Stansted "cheese" on November 17 with the usual willing radar assistance from the Approach Controller. Imagine my surprise when, having been advised that there was no traffic in my vicinity, I found, not too far away, a hot-air balloon drifting on its no doubt entirely lawful business. I hasten to add that the balloon was in fact well outside the Stansted Aerodrome traffic zone, but it is a fact that despite my fixing its position to Stansted radar they were unable to< establish any radar contact with the balloon. As a keen supporter of all general-aviation activities, from gliding up to executive aircraft, I am reluctant to suggest any additional imposts, but would it not be possible to improve the radar reflectivities of balloons, possibly by wrapping some aluminium foil around the inside of the baskets or by carrying a yacht radar reflector? The Limes, PETER HEARNE Wateringbury, Kent Non-approval disapproved SIR,—I agree wholeheartedly with the views expressed by Martin Cass (Flight, December 12, 1974) on the CAA approval of Flight Training Schools. In the current economic climate it is difficult, however, to suggest any measures which would improve the advantages of approval. Nevertheless, to ensure that private flying is conducted lawfully and safely, it is surely time that all organisa tions wishing to offer flying training were subject to CAA inspection. Establishments which over the years have maintained high standards, and which wish to continue to do so, would then not have to suffer competition from schools which either deliberately or unwittingly fail to reach the mini mum standards. The lay mind does not readily differentiate between an efficient approved school and an inadequate, non-inspected one. Sometimes the unfortunate consequences of the latter's conduct detract from the image of flying training as a whole. Ghyllroyd, A. WEBSTER Warm Lane, Rawdon, Leeds
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
