EASA NPA on non ATO training

Bathman wrote:

I wonder where they got 3 years from. I bet it was a number picked out of things air.

These numbers are always picked out of thin air. At least for the first time, after that it is only used because it has already been used. Very seldom can it be related to something that makes sense.

Tumbleweed wrote:

What possible relevance can 3 years have. Nothing changes after 3 years, the task is the same.

Tumbleweed wrote:

Why limit it it to SEP, by definition a Class Rating is used where the aircraft is not complex enough to require a Type rating. An initial MEP Course used to be able to be taught by a FI so what possible justification is there to have to go to an ATO for a renewal?

A step in the right direction but not a very large step!

I think that EASA will have a huge problem in the future when it comes to the high end single engine piston and turboprop aircraft up to 5700 kg(TBM, PC12, PA46, C208 and so on). There will simply be very few places(ATOs) that can afford to keep those aircraft in their training manuals and approvals. These facilities are already scarce today. I think these airframes have a good future but they will need some help along the way from EASA. Otherwise they will all end up on the N-register where training and maintenance is more relaxed(AFAIK).

I think the whole lot should be scrapped.

I wonder where they got 3 years from. I bet it was a number picked out of things air.

Fly310 wrote:

The NPA also suggests that one can regain a lapsed SEP with the help of an instructor(+PC) instead of going to an ATO. I think it is a step in the right direction. What you guys think?

What possible relevance can 3 years have. Nothing changes after 3 years, the task is the same.

Why limit it it to SEP, by definition a Class Rating is used where the aircraft is not complex enough to require a Type rating. An initial MEP Course used to be able to be taught by a FI so what possible justification is there to have to go to an ATO for a renewal?

A step in the right direction but not a very large step!

Seems as though we drifted a bit off topic here.

The NPA also suggests that one can regain a lapsed SEP with the help of an instructor(+PC) instead of going to an ATO. I think it is a step in the right direction. What you guys think?

RENEWAL OF NON-HIGH-PERFORMANCE SINGLE-ENGINE PISTON CLASS RATINGS WHEN THE RATING HAS EXPIRED FOR LESS THAN THREE YEARS, AT AN ATO, A BTO OR BY AN INSTRUCTOR:
REFRESHER TRAINING
(a) The objective of the refresher training at an ATO, a BTO or by an instructor is to reach the level of proficiency necessary to safely operate the single-engine piston class rating, except high performance aeroplanes, when the rating has expired for less than three years. The amount of refresher training needed should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATO, the BTO or the instructor, taking into account the following factors:
(1) the experience of the applicant by evaluating the pilot’s logbook;
(2) the amount of time elapsed since the privileges of the rating were last used;
(3) whether the applicant has a current rating on another aircraft type or class; and
(4) where considered necessary, the performance of the applicant during a proficiency check. It should be expected that the amount of training needed to reach the desired level of competence will increase with the time elapsed since the privileges of the rating were last used.

(b) Once the ATO, the BTO or the instructor has determined the needs of the applicant, it should develop an individual training programme that should be based on the initial training for the issue of the rating and focus on the aspects where the applicant has shown the greatest needs.

(c) After successful completion of the training, the ATO, the BTO or the instructor should issue a certificate, or other documental evidence to the applicant indicating that the training has been successfully achieved. The certificate or other documental evidence should be presented to the examiner prior to the proficiency check. Following the successful renewal of the rating, the certificate or other documental evidence, and the examiner report form should be submitted to the competent authority

Peter wrote:

Conflict Minerals Act

And when you’re done with that, you can start to think about how compliant you are with EICC

The difference in attitude towards individuals and their right to work cooperatively without government ‘management’ (read taxation) was the principal motivation for the 18th century American revolution. Private aviation is in many ways the most free thing an individual can do, so it’s an area where the resulting difference in regulatory philosophy is fairly spectacular. Another factor is that US aviation regulation was more-or-less complete in the 50s and the era since then hasn’t exactly been a highlight in the history of individual Liberty, on either continent.

I have taken instruction from both individuals and flight schools, mostly individuals but the flight school experience was useful when I needed to get something done fast. I can’t say from which I’ve learned more, and I think learning is an individual responsibility anyway, not something you turn on and off depending on whether you’re in ‘class’.

The guys in the hangar next to me share a C182 and are all working on their IR with the same instructor, an American Airlines check pilot in his day job. I think he’s pretty busy and the instruction sounds very exacting through the wall

PS Peter, we in the US are almost equally plagued with the ISO9000 nonsense and its parasitic losses, at least in mid-size and up companies. That is certainly a fad I hope dies an early death. I suffer with it at work but the people in charge of coordinating the audits generally make sure the audiors don’t know me or my guys exist, and for good reason. I’ve told them to look up creativity in the dictionary, and learn from it that our product depends on ignoring pre-ordained process

Peter wrote:

Europe distrusts individuals as a default position and vests authority in organisational approvals.

That is only true for certain parts of Europe, and I’m not really sure where it comes from. But it is typical of corporate culture in large corporations. I do see it sneaking in everywhere though, in all sorts of shapes during the last 20 years. It is a rather new phenomenon (at least in Norway). Teachers are using more time to write reports and fill in forms than to teach, and have no saying in how things are to be done, and similar things. It seems to be a short lived trend that is already coming to an end though.

Peter wrote:

Freelance training and checkrides are available in the USA for everything up to and including the ATP.

It’s a difference in philosophy. The USA vests authority in an individual (up to a certain level; in this context all the way to the very top). Europe distrusts individuals as a default position and vests authority in organisational approvals.

You get this in every other aspect of European business and life in general. Europe is full of companies which hold such and such an “approval”. A lot of them are potentially completely bogus (e.g. ISO9000) but they are good marketing tools so there is a lot of support for this policy.

Yes, that is a big problem. But there was a good chance now to fix that. Light Part-M will see a lot of responsibilities transferred from organisations to individuals and I think that FCL-stuff should follow that same path. It is unfortunate that we are not getting proportional rules.

However, BTO will be a good leap forward from an ATO so I am very happy about it still.