I am curious as to whether all European PPL FTO's currently either require their students to sit the same 7 exams as the UK (Air Law, Meteorology, Navigation, Aircraft Technical, Human Performance, Flight Performance, Communications) without mandatory ground school AND in the future will require all students to sit 9 exams with mandatory 100 hour ground school?
The reason I ask is that the UK CAA are making changes "...to accommodate new regulations from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)" suggesting all Euro locations have to abide by this silly idea.
The 100hr requirement has just been removed in the UK.
The CAA found an “alternative means of compliance”
Not that it matters to me , but I am glad the 100 hour requirement has been removed. That would be seriously off-putting to any new students, and highly likely to be fiddled anyhow I would suppose ;-)
Not that it matters to me , but I am glad the 100 hour requirement has been removed…
Really? Why? I don’t remember how many hours it was in 1998 or so when I got my PPL, but crtainly not far from 100. I attended every single one (even with a ph.d. in aerospace engineering behind me) because knowing how to build an aeroplane and how to fly one safely are entirely different things. And among the students I had over the years, the backgrounds were so completely different that everyone would have drawn some benefit from attending the course.
The UK has normally been self study. When I did the JAA PPL in 2000/2001 there was no mandatory study. One of the instructors ran some evening sessions for £10 each. There were 2 or 3. Then another one did one on map projections.
Opinions are divided whether there should be mandatory classroom. The FAA system has a same or better safety record but it is 100% self study. The FTO industry is normally in favour of mandatory classroom because it streamlines their pipeline and they can more easily cater for the spectrum of ability, while making it much easier to charge the amounts they charge for the zero-to-CPL/IR package.
As Peter says, it was self-study and there was no need to produce a logbook of study time, nor an opportunity for flight schools to make a ton of money out of a student who might not want ‘ground school’ and is mostly happy with the self-study route. Its not the amount of hours studying, its how much was official ground school.
Opinions are divided whether there should be mandatory classroom.
Here in Germany, it has always been either mandatory classroom or approved distance learning course with some classroom hours additionally. I did my ATPL that way because 800 (or whatever it was) hours beside a normal job were simply not possible. But 100 hours? That’s 10 half weekends, everybody can do that.
From the point of view of a flying (not ground!) instructor this is really good, because the students come to their flying lessns with some “certified” theoretical knowledge, and not everything needs to be explained and re-explained all the time. Even like this, there are enough students whose memory seems to expire the very moment they pass their written exams…
Unfortunately I think mandatory classroom raises the costs substantially because somebody has to pay for the ground instructor, and you need the classroom space and facilities. A PPL already costs about £10k, unless done at an airport with very cheap or free landings.
Many in the business will say that elimination of competition is a good thing. At my base there were eight fixed wing schools! Obviously they just drive each other into the ground. The best setup is an airfield with a good catchment area which sets up one school and bans all the others In later years, new leases at my base banned the setting up of a “flying club” but according to one local old-timer this could not be enforced.
OTOH if sitting in a classroom means one doesn’t have to learn the standard study books, that’s not so bad. In my days you practically had to learn the books (“Trevor Thom”, now they are under the “Pooleys” name) because the CAA exam questions were rigged to assume you did that. A lot of people look at these books and walk away. A classroom course could be an opportunity to teach stuff that is actually useful, with the minimum of the crap needed to pass the exam. Whereas if you pick up the book and open it and go through it page by page, I would say 90% of it is irrelevant crap. But it’s not obvious to a newcomer which 90% …
The FAA system has a same or better safety record but it is 100% self study.
The FAA ‘system’ for studying to pass the Private Certificate Written Exam is actually whatever you want it to be. Some people take classes, others don’t. The only thing that matters is the written exam test score.
I remember taking a class a week for month or something to memorize the ‘correct’ answers where ambiguity existed in the questions. I seem to remember if we could find four people it was $50 per class or $200 total plus the (one) book. Something like that anyway, and well worth it. The Swedish kid who taught it was obsessed with flying theory and did a great job. Obviously that’s one way to max out your score and pave the way for smoother check ride.
With the exception of learning the correct answers to slightly ambiguous questions, the content was pretty straightforward, but it needs to be – people of every background learn to fly. I ended up getting a 95% on the written, and that was good enough. The method to get there was not recorded, didn’t matter, and I don’t think it should.
OTOH if sitting in a classroom means one doesn’t have to learn the standard study books, that’s not so bad.
I do not own (or ever did) a single study book, from gliding to ATPL. And having attended classroom (or done the distance learning programme) means that one can go to the exam without much further preparation. A clear advantage in my eyes.