Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

How will the transition from flying clubs/schools to ATOs work in other countries than the UK?

EuroGA has a great wealth of knowledge which comes from GA pilots across the continent. I wonder if I could ask those with local knowledge in their country about the impact of EASA's requirement for all flight training to be conducted by ATOs?

There's been a lot of active discussion about how UK flying clubs/schools will become ATOs (Approved Training Organisations) as required by EASA regulations. Commercial pilot training organisations (previously called FTOs in the UK) seem to mostly have the procedures and paperwork in place in order to be reclassified as such. Smaller flying schools and clubs thought they'd have to write huge sets of manuals and submit them for CAA scrutiny, all at great expense and heartache. The UK CAA plans to publish a set of template manuals which (hopefully) would take only a few days of tweaking to tailor them for each school. An initial fee of £100 will be required to convert any existing RTF (Registered Training Facility) across to an ATO. Inspections aren't required at this stage, but will be in future. The UK CAA plans to run several seminars explaining the process to flight schools over the next couple of months. I'd hope we should see the first approvals come through before Easter 2014 or earlier. The timetable is for all RTFs to make this transition before April 2015.

Expect to see this discussed a lot over the next couple of months!

This made me wonder what the situation is like in other countries. Few debating the issue on UK forums seem to know much about it. I believe that some countries (e.g. Belgium?) only have ATOs anyway, so there won't be any transition required. Others (e.g. France?) have lots of local flying clubs and would need some change.

Are there any other similar schemes by other CAA's to help with the transition, and how serious is the impact of this change elsewhere in Europe?

FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom

In Germany, the drama is quite the same. I have not heard about template manuals from the germann CAA. The german AOPA has worked out a slightly different approach; in cooperation with the DAec (german aeroclub) they want to create a "master ATO" which the local aeroclubs can become affiliates of.

However, this is only for aeroclub flying schools. Non-aeroclub schools (and there a quite a lot of them) can not participate.

Let's not forget the the manuals is not the only problem. What is more problematic is the sheer number of "roles" called for and the fact that most roles must be "played" by different persons. It's insane. I don't know in how far the german model alleviates the "roles" problem by centralizing certain roles at the master ATO.

All in all, this ATO thing will bring huge damage to the lower end of GA in Europe. It's also a complete 180 degree turnarond from the early days of JAR-FCL when it seemed as though a single flight instructor could become a flying school by fiiling out a form and sending it to his CAA. When, even if this never quite become reality, I still wonder what exactly made EASA decide that RFs had to be abolished. Did they have any evidence that RFs did a poorer job than ATOs? I am sure they didn't, also because I am sure this is not the case.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Even if little can be done about it, it's always entertaining to speculate on WHO wanted this stuff.

Who stands to gain?

As some famous person said about the communist demonstrations in the UK in the 1970s, ask "who paid for the buses"

The traditional work-around for situations where multiple posts need to be staffed by different persons is to do sham appointments e.g. use up the various members of your family. Another one is to share people across businesses in close proximity e.g. the ISO9000 quality manager can fill that post at every company on a trading estate.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

e.g. use up the various members of your family

EASA is not that dumb. Of course they specify that roleholders need to be employees of the ATO, or something to that effect.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Of course they specify that roleholders need to be employees of the ATO, or something to that effect.

Of course, make them employees. Nothing prevents somebody working for multiple companies.

The point is that there are ways to get around the "multiple person required" problem. It is done all day long in the ISO9000 scam which has plagued small businesses in Europe for many years now.

Anyway, employing members of your family is extremely tax effective. Why finance your son's university fees out of your taxed income when your son can be paid up to the tax threshold for being the quality manager for the ATO's documents (or whatever).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

France seems to have adopted a reasonably simple approach. The DGAC has prepared two manuals and a third comes from the FFA. The Aeroclub details are entered and the manuals submitted to the DGAC for approval, all activities take place in one club and the cost is minimal.

In contrast, the UK has an absorbent fee structure with additional charges for every activity from teaching PPL to blowing your nose. Flying clubs abound and generally only participate in one discipline, we also have lots of one man bands, many of whom have provided good service over the years. The UK industry will be decimated by the costs and bureaucracy forcing many to give up and larger schools to combine. The CAA which has entered a period of self destruction at the very time all theses changes are going through does not have the resources to inspect however many schools are left; it plans to outsource this activity to industry creating another tier of fees. The CAA is now totally devoid of any leadership and resembles a headless chicken. They proposed to issue manual templates a month ago but so far have failed to do so.

Its a shocking state of affairs really.

There is NO icao requirement for any of this FTO/ATO or rf business in the first place and the proposed changes will have one hell of an impact on flight training in the UK.

The rf that I work at is simply planning on closing down when the costs of this regulation comes in force.

interesting to here about France. I did email a couple of French schools to see what the process might be. I wonder if the CAA could adopt a similar approach?

There is NO icao requirement for any of this FTO/ATO or rf business in the first place and the proposed changes will have one hell of an impact on flight training in the UK.

I think it's an extension of the European driving school model. Virtually nobody in the US learns how to drive a car in a school, so I suppose it didn't occur to anybody that you needed a school for flying either.

I mostly taught myself to drive, starting at age nine on a little motorcycle I rode every day obsessively. Similarly I learned to fly with highly experienced instructors working part time, no school. The first was at age 15, I soloed then quit. Many years later it was an instructor recommended to me by a friend of a friend, on the basis of his tail wheel instruction. He is still teaching me stuff today. After I was competent to fly solo again and was making little solo flights, in my own aircraft, he sent me off to briefly join the sausage machine at a school, to get me through the FAA written test and practical (flight) test. Most of the students were foreign. That was a good experience too. None of it was subject to any lesson plans or much regulation of process. Each instructor had their own priorities and approach - the one at the school was a former Olympic athlete who was very good indeed at training to pass a test, but had less to teach about flying than the thousands of hours tailwheel guy. The informal mixture worked well for me and as a result I think the only thing that should be required is to meet the published practical test standards on the day of the test.

I think the only thing that should be required is to meet the published practical test standards on the day of the test.

Ditto

That can never happen in Europe, because it would imply the return to freelance instruction for ab initio licenses and ratings, which cannot be allowed in the "European scheme" which runs on approving / certifying an organisation, not an individual.

Only in the USA is that possible.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
27 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top