Thanks Dimme
Snoopy wrote:
Translated this means you need a CPL to instruct anything more than LAPL as FI?
No. It means that you still have to take the CPL TK exams, but you don’t have to take a CPL ground school course — you can study yourself. This is actually a great help for people who already have an IR.
The backside is that if you do it that way, you can’t use the exams to get an actual CPL.
Snoopy, a PPL is sufficient for an FI certificate. The CPL exam passes are required for an FI to instruct beyond the LAPL(A). Generally, all instructors are required to hold the licence or rating for which instruction is given. FCL.915(b)(1). If instruction will not be given for a PPL then a CRI might suffice.
Dimme, it appears the Swedish language requirement has been omitted.
That is an unbelievable concession. Very useful to many who want to instruct in their “old age” 
while being a total p1sstake of the old system. Clearly a CPL without planting one’s bum in the classroom is not a real CPL.
Actually Swedish is required :S
It part of “Högskolebehörighet”.
@Qalupalik – don’t think it will kill of FI seminars – the refresher traIning at an ATO is the FI seminar
Under the rule change a seminar will be merely one way of satisfying the refresher training requirement. More suitable and economical forms of that training are bound to emerge.
Dimme wrote:
Clubs are usually DTOs. Can DTOs teach IR?
The French aeroclub federation has made a template for ATO paperwork, well before the DTO concept was approved, so many clubs went from RTF to ATO :)
Qalupalik wrote:
Here is a relevant upcoming amendment to Part-FCL accepted by the EASA committee 26–27 June 2019.(27) Point FCL.915.FI is amended as follows:
(a) point (b)(2)(i) is replaced by the following:
“(i) except for an FI providing training for the LAPL(A) only, passed the CPL theoretical knowledge examination, which may be taken without completing a CPL theoretical knowledge training course and which shall not be valid for the issue of a CPL; and”
I fail to see what changed. For full-FI, one didn’t have to complete a course before, one still doesn’t. Only show knowledge, i.e. pass the exams. Without CPL TK, one was LAPL-restricted. One still is. Or did some member states interpret the current rule differently?
Interpretation varied on whether the course formed part of the requirement. The working group for NPA 2014-29(A) addressed this by proposing to require the completion of a course in accordance with FCL.315 and the change was contained in the draft rules annexed to Opinion 05/2017. In spite of this the most recent committee meeting has opted for a more relaxed amendment.
