I just got an email from EASA which has an interesting development for training.
One of the goals identified by the General Aviation (GA) Road Map is to create an option to provide training for GA-related non-commercial licences outside an Approved Training Organisation (ATO). With Opinion 11/2016, the Agency proposes to introduce a new regulatory framework which requires training organisations for LAPL, PPL, SPL and BPL not to seek prior approval but to simply declare its training activities to the competent authority. This new ‘declared training organisation’ (DTO) also benefits from simplified organisational and oversight requirements, all in all granting extensive alleviations to GA training providers.
Interesting. I wonder if there is any move towards allowing instructors who have undergone Instructor training, but do not have ATPL Theoretical Knowledge to teach for these same non commercial licences. I think it’s possible for the LAPL.
When I learned to fly there were many old and highly experienced aviators who were pleased to pass on their considerable knowledge for free in a club environment, but thesis days instructors are often youngsters with less experience on their way to professional licences.
OMG! Lowering the level of training even further. I always thought the “S” in EASA stands for “Safety”.
What happened to NPA15-20, which introduced the BTO (Basic Training Organisation)? The idea seemed identical… Maybe EASA just likes doing NPAs, etc. even if it is just for a changed name?
The thing with the BTO was as follows: the (damned) Basic Regulation (which seems an impossible thing to modify) calls for every flight training organisation to be approved by the respective CAA. The BTO concept still complied with this requirement, but made the approval process very very easy and straightforward for the applicant.
Now they call it a Declared Training Organisation, which, it would seem, goes against the principle of approving flight training organisations. Wonder how that plays with the Basic Regulation then?
Most of the world’s pilots receive their training outside of any approved or declared ‘training organization’. This seems to me like the typical half-assed recognition by a bureaucracy that it adds no value. Unfortunately the bureaucratic solution usually just another form of no value-added bureaucracy.
Sure.
But for now, we have to live with the dreaded Basic Regulation from 2008, which, in the meamtime, EASA has understood contains a lot of stuff which created a lot of damage to GA. For some reason, it seems impossible to modify it, so we (the entire GA industry here) just try to find solutions to circumnavigate it. @bookworm will probably be able to say more.
The BR is being amended. For example the definition of Complex motor powered aircraft is being removed which makes a nonsense of Part-NCC.
I agree that this is a good development. Instructors should be regulated not organisations. Although that is anathema to European regulators who love and believe in organisations over the individual.
Silvaire wrote:
This seems to me like the typical half-assed recognition by a bureaucracy that it adds no value
Bureaucracy, yes, but it is actually a “full-assed” recognition as far as I can see 
One single person can operate, and no more classroom instructions. The airplane can be owned by the student or anyone.
boscomantico wrote:
What happened to NPA15-20, which introduced the BTO (Basic Training Organisation)? The idea seemed identical… Maybe EASA just likes doing NPAs, etc. even if it is just for a changed name?
I read somewhere (Aircraft Owner & Pilot Magazine?) that proposal didn’t sit well with some NAA(s) due to some legal issues with the process (I believe a hint was made it was the French). EASA had this idea for quite some time (AIUI it’s meant to be a successor of Registered Facilities). They were working on it even before GA Road Map (Non-Complex ATO I believe). It gets rejected, then they rename it (first it was Registered, then Basic and now Declared), change something and try again.
Essentially it seems BTO concept wasn’t accepted well and RTO is a preferred solution.
boscomantico wrote:
Now they call it a Declared Training Organisation, which, it would seem, goes against the principle of approving flight training organisations. Wonder how that plays with the Basic Regulation then?
It seems amending the Basic Regulation was possible, but it would take time and so it was desirable to work around that problem. The DTO concept AIUI counts on changes to the BR which should be in the pipeline and should be in principle closer to RTO which was rejected because of the conflict with the current BR.
Neil wrote:
I wonder if there is any move towards allowing instructors who have undergone Instructor training, but do not have ATPL Theoretical Knowledge to teach for these same non commercial licences. I think it’s possible for the LAPL.
I believe you need CPL theory (except for LAPL(A)), not ATPL theory.
