Bathman wrote:
I thought that in the past schools that offered easa training in the USA did so off the back of UK national approvalApprox 18 months ago this changed and now any approval outside of member states such as the USA could no longer use a member state and had to use EASA themselves to obtain approval.
Apparently the cost, bureaucracy and time required to get approved by EASA is so great that it’s no longer financially viable for USA based schools to obtain it that they don’t bother.
This commonly held view is not entirely correct. Satellite training bases located outside the EASA Member States will come under the oversight of the competent authority responsible for the parent organisation. A practical example is Naples Air Center in Florida. It provides EASA training under the approval certificate for Andrewsfield Aviation in Essex. Only when the principal place of business is outside of the Member States must EASA act as the competent authority. See art 78(1) of the Basic Regulation. Some UK training organisations also have an arrangement of this kind, eg Bristol Ground School for which the IAA is the competent authority.
Well some pilots are asking for more regulation apparently, so…
what_next wrote:
OMG! Lowering the level of training even further. I always thought the “S” in EASA stands for “Safety”.
Bathman wrote:
This will cost way more than the current RTF fee of 100 quid a year. The direct fees for “annual audit”s and “site visits” even at their “Proportional fee” (plus the additional hours required to review your application even though you got 100% compliance at 200 quid an hour). Will cost thousands.
That will depend on the national authority, will it not? The Swedish CAA has already published the fees for DTOs and they will be exactly the same as the present fees for RFs. (€440/year which will hardly cause anyone to go bankrupt.)
This is nothing but a disappointment with the only silver lining being RTF don’t have to be an ATO.
This will cost way more than the current RTF fee of 100 quid a year. The direct fees for “annual audit”s and “site visits” even at their “Proportional fee” (plus the additional hours required to review your application even though you got 100% compliance at 200 quid an hour). Will cost thousands.
Then there will be the indirect costs which will have to be passed on to the student or the CFI having to do more for free to keep the industry going. They will need the details of every student (including EX3?), every aircraft used (That will stop us teaching in owners own aircraft), a list of every written exam passed or failed, Skill tests passed all failed (even though the already have that data as we have to submit permission for initial tests) all refresher training provided etc. It will go on and on.
And yet no ICAO requirement for any of this and not a shred of evidence that this will improve standards or safety.
Perhaps its time to lock the door and through the key away.
Lets just hope I am wrong.
boscomantico wrote:
I thought that there weren’t any RFs anymore, for a number of years…
Sweden right now has 41 RFs and only 18 ATOs (for airplanes).
I thought that there weren’t any RFs anymore, for a number of years…
carlmeek wrote:
Any idea on when this could happen?
The DTO rules were voted through EASA Committee in late October 2017. That means that they will come into effect from April 2018. RFs will have until April 2019 to convert.
I was a presentation c. 2005 by Fergus Wood who used to be a JAA director and he said a detailed plan was worked out back then for adopting FAA regs, but was killed due to political pressure. There are many reasons Europe will not adopt a pragmatic system like the USA has. A few of them are genuine and to do with the different funding system. Most however are just protection of jobs and established practices etc.
Tumbleweed wrote:
The DTO is a revamp of the RTF which we have endured since 1999, in that time it has contributed nothing to safety or standards of training. In 1994 the number of licences issued by the CAA was four times the number issued last year, so in 21 years the industry had declined by 75%, with no noticeable gain from over regulation. Wouldn’t it be nice if we just followed the FAA and allowed instructors to do what they are trained to do without all the interference from those who don’t know the first thing about it!
So Tumbleweed if that was the case why was such a system not proposed to EASA?
Any idea on when this could happen?
