alioth wrote:
I just wish EASA would accept that flight training (and other things) didn’t have to all be part of an “organisation”.
They already have.
Peter wrote:
Most FTOs won’t touch an aircraft owner even if it is certified
That has nothing to do with EASA but with local procedures. We do this quite often in our non-complex ATO and when a student wants to become owner I think it will be best for him to be trained on his aircraft. If the aircraft meets the requirements (e.g. I only train very very trustworthy pilots in planes with no complete dual control, like taildraggers with just one set of brakes. Or you just can’t teach basic instrument flying when there is no directional gyro or artificial horizon) it is half an hour work to amend the OMM and have it send to the local aviation authority (via email, they don’t accept anything other than digital now. Every paper mail gets scanned and emailed to the person in charge.) I know this has been done for IR training with the flight school in Marl, too. And I know a couple more aeroclub-owned ATOs who would do this.
Peter wrote:
but you need to find an instructor willing to sit in your plane
True, and that might be the most apparent reason, plus insurance (but that is usually done with one phone call).
Malte,
do you know if the plane has to be in a CAMO in order to be added to the OMM for a one off personal training of the owner via that ATO?
I’ve been told by two schools that it has to but by the FOCA that “it depends”. So I wonder how this is being dealt with elsewhere. I understood you only need a CAMO if other people use it as well, that is if it’s rented out by the flight school. (In which case also ELA1 does not apply).
The rtf where I spend the majority of my time are more than happy to train people in their own aircraft. In fact it must represent 15 percent of all there work. And I am presently teaching IMC ratings in a self owned C172, jodel 1050 and a RV. And I’ve just finished an nppl in a self owned pa28.
The school itself does not make a penny out of this.
The ATO that I also moonlight at point blank refuses to teach anyone in there own aircraft but then their fees to the CAA for all their approvals are in excess of 20 thousand pounds a year.
The ATO that I also moonlight at point blank refuses to teach anyone in there own aircraft but then their fees to the CAA for all their approvals are in excess of 20 thousand pounds a year.
Well, there you are. 
So, what are they paying the 20k for? It cannot be approvals to train Joe Bloggs in his plane.
True, and that might be the most apparent reason
There are uncertified types which I would never fly with if I was an FI, due to dodgy handling at anything below about 85kt, dodgy stall behaviour, unpredictable spin entry and unrecoverable spins… Just because one “can” get training in an uncertified plane doesn’t mean that you will find an FI to do it, and I wouldn’t blame the FI. Most FIs have no experience of the less than common types and all of them are certified. The worst in the PPL business is the PA38 and thankfully most of them have disintegrated since I did half my PPL in them and they were utterly shagged back then (2000). For instrument training you can forget it, in most types.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
do you know if the plane has to be in a CAMO in order to be added to the OMM for a one off personal training of the owner via that ATO?
Yes and no, I don’t know of any such requirements in part ORA.ATO. Although I think you might confuse the CAMO with a Part 145 maintenance company? Because we have figured it is much easier and cheaper to have the CAMO issue the ARC than the workarounds. Maintenance, however, has little or nothing to do with airworthiness and can be done like on any other privately owned aircraft.
This might be different for complex ATO though.
mh wrote:
I just wish EASA would accept that flight training (and other things) didn’t have to all be part of an “organisation”.
They already have.
Oh really?
So is it possible for a completely freelance instructor (not part of or associated any organisation FTO, RTO, whatever – in other words “sole trader”) to train someone for an EASA PPL? In other words, exactly like a freelance FAA instructor in the USA?
Similarly, can you now maintain an EASA aircraft type indefinitely, without ever seeing a CAMO or any other type of organisation, using only a “sole trader” engineer who has no association with any kind of organisation? In other words, exactly like a freelance A&P/AI in the USA?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Much too unreflected. And inaccurate in most things
I’m only observing the results. The results are visible all over.
So is it possible for a completely freelance instructor (not part of or associated any organisation FTO, RTO, whatever – in other words “sole trader”) to train someone for an EASA PPL? In other words, exactly like a freelance FAA instructor in the USA?
No chance whatsoever for the PPL. Microlights maybe – see link I posted earlier. That may offer a route which involves a school for fewer hours than the full 45 minimum.
Freelance PPL training was possible in the UK until the 1980s or somewhere around that. However it may have still been via a school, but modified to appear freelance to the customer. That may still be possible; for example there are outfits that do instrument overhauls who use a “friendly” 145 company to print off an EASA-1 form. I can’t see why you have to turn up physically at the school. Well… maybe the training has to start and end at the approved location?
Similarly, can you now maintain an EASA aircraft type indefinitely, without ever seeing a CAMO or any other type of organisation, using only a “sole trader” engineer who has no association with any kind of organisation? In other words, exactly like a freelance A&P/AI in the USA?
Some stuff e.g. here so I think with ELA1/ELA2, when they arrive, it may be Yes
Peter wrote:
No chance whatsoever for the PPL
With the new regulations it should. A single person can start a “school”. We discussed it here some months ago.
I have no problem with people stating what applies in their own countries where I would expect them to know, or citing references, but I would find it useful if there were a bit fewer inaccurate statements of “fact”. Simply qualifying a statement with something like “I believe” would make it clear that the statement is an opinion or belief, not a fact. I use the forum as a source of information about what is happening across the European landscape, and statements of opinions as facts leads me to take a lot of such statements with a grain of salt and not sure what really to believe. But I suppose that is a general problem with modern social media.
In this chain there were separate entries stating that NCO is only implemented in the UK, and that NCO is only implemented in Norway, and not in effect in many places. I have no idea where NCO is really in effect across Europe, but it IS implemented in Switzerland:
Implementation of EASA Part-NCO in Switzerland
Also, according to the above Swiss FOCA information, the new EU Part-NCO directive overrides national law which would mean that it is in effect in all EASA countries since Aug 25. At least, it seems to be the Swiss government opinion …
As of 25 August 2016, (EU) Directive 965/2012 amended will apply for non-commercial air operators with other-than complex motor-powered aircraft (further called NCO operators) with a principal place of business or residing in Switzerland or any EASA member state.
I suspect other EU countries don’t all see it that way, 
Or perhaps there is an opt-out ability that is being invoked by some but conveniently ignored here.
