EASA NPA on non ATO training

NPA 2015-20
So RF (Registered Facility) is back under the new name BTO (Basic Training Organization)?

[ post moved to existing thread ]

Interesting

IN–2015/120
Issued: 23 December 2015
EASA Notice of Proposed Amendment NPA 2015-20
Private Pilot Training Outside of an ATO

2.3 Under the proposal a BTO may provide training for the following licences and ratings:-

a) Aeroplanes:

Is there any reason why the UK IMC and EASA “Instrument Rating (Restricted)” ratings are not included as both useful ratings for private pilots who are by definition non-commercial?

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015120.pdf

The UK IMC rating isn’t part of EASA FCL and thus could not be part of the NPA and the E-IR or CB-IR are already implemented to allow for a part non-ATO training.

Thank you.

I think this BTO-thing is a good step forward and will be a fair alternative to the expensive ATO. However I was a bit depressed when I heard the other options that was revoked in the task force group of this rulemaking. There were at least two of them:

• The FI can instruct freelance without any organisation approval or,
• The organisation does not need an approval, just a declaration and send a notification to the CAA that they are conducting training.

AFAIK, option 1 is already used in America to some extent. I would say that is liberal and also pretty ground breaking for EASA, perhaps too much since it never went through. But the second option would have been a very good solution. A good way to get rid of ridiculous fees/charges from the CAA.

It is also sad to see that none of the instrument ratings are included in the NPA, I will definitely comment on that since I believe it is the only way to get where we need to get with the instrument part. We need to get close to the US systems where the majority of PPL holders have an instrument rating. It does add a lot to safety.

Peter wrote:

Freelance training and checkrides are available in the USA for everything up to and including the ATP.

It’s a difference in philosophy. The USA vests authority in an individual (up to a certain level; in this context all the way to the very top). Europe distrusts individuals as a default position and vests authority in organisational approvals.

You get this in every other aspect of European business and life in general. Europe is full of companies which hold such and such an “approval”. A lot of them are potentially completely bogus (e.g. ISO9000) but they are good marketing tools so there is a lot of support for this policy.

Yes, that is a big problem. But there was a good chance now to fix that. Light Part-M will see a lot of responsibilities transferred from organisations to individuals and I think that FCL-stuff should follow that same path. It is unfortunate that we are not getting proportional rules.

However, BTO will be a good leap forward from an ATO so I am very happy about it still.

Peter wrote:

Europe distrusts individuals as a default position and vests authority in organisational approvals.

That is only true for certain parts of Europe, and I’m not really sure where it comes from. But it is typical of corporate culture in large corporations. I do see it sneaking in everywhere though, in all sorts of shapes during the last 20 years. It is a rather new phenomenon (at least in Norway). Teachers are using more time to write reports and fill in forms than to teach, and have no saying in how things are to be done, and similar things. It seems to be a short lived trend that is already coming to an end though.