ATO means that you can apply for any course you like, i.e. bringing RFs up to FTO/TRTO level.
You always have been able to apply for any course you like however; to do so, you must have the expertise to run the courses. Simply being an ATO does not give you carte blanch to run any course you like. Each course is approve in its own right and if you are only capable of conducting PPL training it is of no consequence to ATOs conducting more advanced training.
Ok. Maybe it’s just me but I can imagine that established FTOs and TRTOs may find a conflict in AOPAs approach. ATO means that you can apply for any course you like, i.e. bringing RFs up to FTO/TRTO level.
Survival of the fittest…
In Sweden the CAA has created a very simple template for RFs to transfer their manuals into the new format, leaving a significant portion for the RF to complete.
It will be interesting to see how many take the plunge and emerge on the other side… I predict the death of more than a few established training organizations.
> Does this include RFs, FTOs and TRTOs alike?
Hi Krister, it includes only RTF’s at the moment. From the link I posted above:
The current RTF’s (registered training facility) who train for LAPL (A), PPL PPL SEP and TMG are initially equipped with the standardized textbooks. If there is sufficient interest and involvement of schools, this can be expanded with multiple modules such as VFR night, Aerobatic rating, instrument rating, PPL Heli etc.
Talking to the local flying school (a Father and Son setup) at EGNS last week and they have decided to pack up and find something else to do because of these new rules on flight training schools. They estimate it will add a straight £20k of annual costs for nothing (don’t ask me how this figure was calculated because I did not ask). This means the Isle of Man will have lost both flying schools in a three year period.
The island has a disproportionate number of pilots because the flying schools were here. Potential pilots will not travel away to learn to fly so it’s a bad situation all round.
EASA is introducing more detailed syllabi for flight training than JAR-FCL did, but will not change the training syllabi much as I see it. What EASA does, is to introduce bureaucracy into the small flying schools (RFTs > ATO). I do not think there is much of a tradition in the PPL training community about “going somewhere useful”. Currently our RTF’s PPL training includes landing at 2 small strips and 2 airport, all within 100 NM. The JAR-FCL requirement of going solo to 2 “distant” airfields is unchanged in EASA-FCL; with the new LAPL this is reduces to going to only one airfield, with reduced distance requirement.
Most of the training focuses on handling and procedures, not on going anywhere. I do not see that change with the EASA syllabi. I think it is mostly scheduling of both student and instructor that stands in the way, and the perception that “going somewhere useful” during training would add to the minimum flight training hours.
Denmark is also in the proces of developing templates to be used for all RFT’s to apply for ATO status. Our flying community is limited, and the work is in the hands of only two persons from the national flying union and the equally few persons in the transport authority; which has been permanently overburdened since the Danish CAA was closed down 2-3 years ago. Deadline for starting JAR-FCL training here is April 2014, so we fear having to halt all club level pilot training in 5 months. The work was essential completed more than half a year ago, but the flying union and the Transport Authority apparently have not reached agreement on all the details yet. Due to the very few people involved this seem to be a vulnerable process.
> In The Netherlands, there is an AOPA initiative to collectively convert all flight schools to EU ATO.
Does this include RFs, FTOs and TRTOs alike?
In The Netherlands, there is an AOPA initiative to collectively convert all flight schools to EU ATO.
A new foundation is established (AFF, AOPA Flightschool Foundation) and this foundation will create the training manuals and syllabi. Once this documents are approved, they can be re-used by the flying schools.
Article in [Dutch](http://www.aopa.nl/2013/03/vliegopleidingen-sluiten-zich-aan-bij-het-aopa-initiatief/) [Google translate](http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aopa.nl%2F2013%2F03%2Fvliegopleidingen-sluiten-zich-aan-bij-het-aopa-initiatief%2F&act=url)
Are the templates useful to a small RF in their ATO conversion compliance process?
I have never been an instructor so can’t judge the instructor training requirement but the thing I have always viewed (as a customer) as the biggest “instructor experience” problem is that most of them have never been past the crease in the map, and they are unable or unwilling to pass on knowledge of how to fly somewhere useful. Consequently most people that get a PPL have no confidence about flying somewhere, and give up fast. The problem is compounded by the unwillingness of most schools to have experienced PPLs hanging around.
Nothing in these templates contributes anything towards safety. Meanwhile, the experience requirements for instructor training and Examiner certification are reduced by 80%, a clear indication the Eurocrats have no idea what they are doing.
Update: The UK CAA gave out CDs with the ATO template documents to RTF owners attending a Gatwick meeting on Friday.
