boscomantico wrote:
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.
what_next wrote:
OMG! Lowering the level of training even further. I always thought the “S” in EASA stands for “Safety”.
Neil wrote:
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.
If you have a PPL without any “higher” theoretical knowledge you can have an FI rating and instruct students towards the LAPL. If you wish to instruct towards PPL you must have CPL or ATPL theory.
what_next wrote:
the “S” in EASA stands for “Safety”
It seems that while preparing the proposal EASA did not find general safety problems with the Registered Facilities. The DTO differs from the RFs in that there is some kind of authority oversight procedure, which should enhance safety and also make the concept compliant with the Basic Reg. I think if now EASA would sit down and breathe for a while and give everybody a chance to catch up with all the new concepts and rules, the DTO’s could work out to be a solution that might actually work for most of the little RF’s (RFO’s?) that have been waiting anxiously for years to find out what kind of bureaucracy they would have to endure to survive after 2018.
I think I agree with all that “Martin” wrote above.
Fly310 wrote:
If you have a PPL without any “higher” theoretical knowledge you can have an FI rating and instruct students towards the LAPL. If you wish to instruct towards PPL you must have CPL or ATPL theory.
I know that, I am not interested myself, but I just regret that some of the highly experienced old boys that taught me to fly 35 years ago would not be allowed to instruct in the current regulatory climate. Flying schools have a lot of instructors who are 200 hour kids who have done a PPL – CPL – FI but would they be able to teach you the necessary skills to land an Auster, or go on a long VFR tour of Europe?
The problem doesn’t exist, since PPL flight instructors from Pre-JAR times (2003) habe been grandfathered their rights to instruct for the PPL. The problem is more with creating the new generation of PPL instructors who are willing to invest all that time and money to then instruct in clubs for some beer money…
But this problem has nothing directly to do with DTO/BTO vs. ATO.
Does this mean an instructor with plane could take a PPL student through sign off (without affiliation with ATO) as a freelancer?
@whats_next
I don’t agree with your OMG comment. It’s not regulatory infrastructure or an ATO that leads to good training, but the quality of the instructor. I am have “consumed” this service (Flight training) in the US, UK, Ireland, Germany, Greece and Russia. The quality of instruction has ZERO correlation with the organization the instructor is affiliated with.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
Does this mean an instructor with plane could take a PPL student through sign off (without affiliation with ATO) as a freelancer?
boscomantico wrote:
The problem is more with creating the new generation of PPL instructors who are willing to invest all that time and money to then instruct in clubs for some beer money…
Well, I guess that he has to “declare” that he has an training organisation, even though it is a one man show, before he can do as you say. So he’s not freelance in the view of EASA.
Exactly.
Whether this whole DTO thing will “fly” or not will depend on several (important) things. As always, the devil is in the detail. For example, it will depend on the required maintenance regime for the aircraft used. If this can be ‘“to private standards” then I guess man FIs who happen to have an own aircraft will like to do it. If that’s not acceptable, then very few people will do it.
The other thing is exactly how that “declaration” will work. Whilst it is a declaration, the CAAs might ask for a truckload of mandatory attachments. For example, a training manual. (The old BTO proposal recommended a training manual, but didn’t mandate it…)
boscomantico wrote:
As always, the devil is in the detail. For example, it will depend on the required maintenance regime for the aircraft used. If this can be ‘“to private standards” then I guess man FIs who happen to have an own aircraft will like to do it.
In the UK it is now permissible to be trained in your own LAA Permit to fly aircraft – but you currently need to find an ATO that will accept that (and does such a thing exist?) At least if the BTO doesn’t have any unexpected stings-in-the-tail it will mean that there’s at least a chance you can be trained in your own permit aircraft.
Fly310 wrote:
So he’s not freelance in the view of EASA.
Yes and no. There is no approval involved. A person (or several persons) simply has to “declare” that he starts a school (which sounds very “freelancy” to me). The authority is then free to do inspections, at least once every 6 years. There is an article here (in Norwegian). The school can only operate within one country, and with max two bases, which in certain circumstances will pose restrictions, especially for the gliding community that travels from base to base.
