I don't think anything stops you flying with any instructor, for currency reasons. If he has in the past passed the JAA CPL ground exams, he can even charge for it.
We are not yet at a stage where ALL instruction has to be via a school, thankfully! If that ever came, a CRI would be almost useless, for a start.
What is interesting is that you can do an IMCR entirely with a freelancer. I think that is great because it greatly reduces the cost of doing it. If you get it by April 2014 (entirely feasible) then you are in a good position to take advantage of any last-minute finger-up to EASA which the UK CAA might do.
I think training for any rating or qualification or endorsement that needs signoff by an approved examiner or instructor, is best done with the same organisation. Each FTO has their own ways of teaching things and its not always helpful to learn different (or even better) ways of doing things that arent preferred by the examiner.
But, if I took the FAA or EASA IR, or more likely the CBM IR if it ever happens, then once I passed I would rather hook up with someone on here for a 'real' IFR flight, learning their methods and the nuances of 'working the system', than booking more time with an FTO instructor.
What happened to EASA's promise to reduce needless regulatory burden? The requirement that training only be given via an FTO is (IMHO) not only needless but may have the unintended consequence of generally worse training.
Yep its already becoming a nightmare already and it simply should be scrapped.
Every time I need to do an hours instruction on a non school aircraft I have to inform the CAA. Even if its just one hour. I've added 5 aircraft to our approval in the last 6 weeks. Its a joke.
I've also go FI and CRI based at little sleepy grass strip who also want to be added to our approvals as they are no longer able to do what they have been doing for decades.
We have managed to generate a complete regulatory nightmare for something that there is no ICAO requirement for at all. Madness.
And it simply makes flight training less competitive with non EASA countries eg USA.
Do they not realise they are destroying the industry?
Every time I need to do an hours instruction on a non school aircraft I have to inform the CAA. Even if its just one hour. I've added 5 aircraft to our approval in the last 6 weeks. Its a joke.
That's the way it always was in Germany. At least during the last 30 years. And it didn't destroy the industry.
The "correct" way to approach this is as with ISO9000. You play the system. Generate the forms, fill them in...
One problem is if the CAA wants a load of money to process the application. Most European CAAs are taxpayer funded and don't charge for stuff like this.
The bottom line however is that somebody voted for this in some CAA or EASA committee. Who was it and how do they benefit from it?
Logging: In Denmark the pilot who revalidates his SEP(L) with a training flight logs "Dual Instruction" with the FI being PIC. That has been stated specifically by our CAA. So differences between stated exist regarding this. I wonder why this does not seem to be regulated by EASA-FCL. Or maybe it is?
More without ATO: If ever the new EASA IR/EIR training gets the EU approval, some of the EIR/IR flying instruction can be given by an FI outside any ATO. If I remember right, only 10 hrs will need to be within the ATO system.
The type where one wishes to receive IMC training but not with a view to initial issue of a rating
So it doesn't even need an instructor qualification if its not for the issue of a rating.
That's the way it always was in Germany. At least during the last 30 years. And it didn't destroy the industry.
Well it certainly didn't promote it. I have never seen a UK resident walk into the flying school in the UK who has been to Germany to do their PPL because it is cheaper less hassle etc
Whereas I have seen literally thousands of people walk in with FAA licenses.
What do they do with all this info? I'm tempted to simply register every permit aircraft at my home base as in theory I could do some instruction on them at any time.
If there is any evidence that it increases safety then keep it. If there is no evidence then it should be scrapped.
As the UK never had such a requirement and Germany did then there must be a massive amount of evidence that can be compared.
If there is any evidence that it increases safety then keep it.
It has nothing to do with Safety; its all about keeping 3rd rate lawyers gamefully employed. Has anything ever come out of the EP in Brussels that makes any sense. If you blew it up the only people who would notice are those turning up with expense claims on Monday morning!
