CAA Set to abolish Registered Training Facilities

[eddietcapt]

I receive a flyer from training.com CAA it says this may effect your business
They are considering allowing JAR to remove all (RTFs) and convert them to (TRA)
This will seriously effect all flight training in the UK training costs will double,
It will be difficult to find a training facility.
All instructors with a PPL with grandfather rights will be forced to stop instructing or work under a CPL chief pilot and the next thing will be the need to have a CPL to instruct. I along with most of the (RTFs) will be forced out of business. I will seek compensation for the removal of my ability to use all my ratings.
The next thing will be no SVFR at night and no IMC rating.
We need to all get together to stop these fools killing our PPL flying world.
Please note that consultation period for NPA-2008-22d "Authority and Organisation Requirements - Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices "CS-FSTD(A)"" has been extended until 15 Apr 2009.

See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_55

To place comments please logon at EASA CRT application (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/)

For further information please contact Rulemaking Process Support at [email protected]

[helimutt]

Seems to me it might be a good idea, instead ofletting any 'fly by night' set up a training business by posting the relevant paperwork to the CAA.

Might make some people more accountable, especially those who seem to think bending the rules to suit themselves is fine.

[Whirlygig]

I'm sorry that you feel your business and livlihood is going to suffer but there'a a few points I don't follow. If RTFs are to abolished and "converted" to TRAs (?), then please explain what a TRA is (Temporary Restricted Area?).

When you say "training costs" will double, you surely just mean your overheads rather than the hourly rate at which you charge lessons. If you do mean the latter, then that's a gross exaggeration; there is no way that there is double the hourly rate for R22 PPL traning between RTFs and FTOs. RTFs cannot do type-ratings so I don't follow how you'll lose the ability to use all your type ratings.It certainly isn't difficult to find FTOs.

All instructors with a PPL with grandfather rights will be forced to ....... work under a CPL chief pilot and the next thing will be the need to have a CPL to instruct.
Personally I think it's a good idea that the Chief Pilot holds a CPL. And the current JAA rules are that an FI(H) must hold a CPL if he/she wants to be paid for instructing so that's nothing new.

If anything, it looks as though the rules are being relaxed in that there are proposals to allow experienced PPLs (i.e. 500+ hours) to instruct for remuneration with only CPL theory and not have to take a CPL course.

I thought night flying was IFR and that there is no rotary IMC.

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

I thought night flying was IFR and that there is no rotary IMC.


No rotary IMC? What was that I flew in last night then, scotch mist?

Edit:
Ah, I think you meant rotary IMC rating.. no, there is no such thing, never has been.

If you read between the lines in the UK regs, all rotary night flying (i.e under IFR) can effectively be pseudo SVFR.

[Whirlygig]

Knowing you, yes :} Alright then - IMC rating :ok:

Cheers

Whirls

[eddietcapt]

So why should we allow the CAA close down all the RFs?
Uk is the only country in Europe where a PPL with a night rating my fly at night under SVFR a PPL my instruct and get paid if he has a grandfather right. PPL A have been given a BCPL. It would be impossible for all the RF to set up and operate a TRO the aim of this thread was to inform RFs and Professional business people with PPLH and there own helicopter that the end is in sight for flying for fun. Soon all the instruction will given by young instructors building hours.

[nellycopter]

Although i may not fully understand the ins and out of all the abreviated terms as i am relativly new to rotary flying, (3years 400hrs)
i have to agree with eddietcapt... in that during my training i had three or four instructors due to my regular one being away on other business etc.
two out of the four didnt hold a cpl, the two that did hold their cpl - i refused to learn with after just a few lessons.
i suppose its like anything else - the one who has the experience ie: 1000's of hours has usually been there, done it, hat, tee shirt etc... and in my opinion is the better instructor.......
the low hour cpl's were learning as they were teaching - dont fly over water, lets not do too many auto's, trees oooh - keep away from them......
in short - i was taught the what if approach - by a very experienced pilot and to date still have that extra lesson as i feel you never stop learning how to fly.... much the same as your car test - you take your test - then you learn how to drive !!!
licenced airfields fto's, RF's abc's .......... fact is - most people (not all...) who want to learn to fly a helicopter has the dosh to own one and operate it from their home - or at the very least take it home from time to time !!! and plonk it in the garden...
whats the point of doing all the training from an airfield where theres a nice long strip of tarmak a cafe full of fixed wing people chewig the fat.....
the heli doesnt need all this, surley it would be better to be tought what you will actually do with the machine than do it after your test and risk it going tits up ?
like it does many times........ unfortunatly !!

how many of you others were tought - up for a think not down for a look ! when you accidently get into cloud or low vis....?????
the cpl's responce was rubbish - get it down -.......

not saying all flying schools are the same that are based at airfields there probably are some really good ones with very experienced pilots -
but in the short time i have been flying most i have visited seem to be on some sort of ego trip - stiring the brown stuff at everone else in the industry who is just trying to make a living !!

just my opion -

[Camp Freddie]

I think what mr capt is talking about is here:-

http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-22c%20-%20Part-OR.pdf see page 9

unless someone can direct me somewhere else as what he is saying is hearsay without a valid link to confirm it.


All instructors with a PPL with grandfather rights will be forced to stop instructing or work under a CPL chief pilot

where does it say that?

regards

CF

[SASless]

I am still grasping the rightness of a PPL being allowed to give instruction....much less get paid for it.

But....understanding the CAA system as I do....there would be an almighty shortage of instructors otherwise.

[eddietcapt]

Please look at page 11 OR.ATO.210 the head of training must hold a CPL this excludes a PPL H with a grandfather exemption being head of training therefore removing his ability to continue to be his own boss and run his own training facility.
Where would such a person go to get a job? all the current permissions to train will be withdrawn and the students receiving training now will have to stop or find a TRO
If this happens will these instructors with RF be given jobs with the CAA or compensated?

[SASless]

If this happens will these instructors with RF be given jobs with the CAA or compensated?

Now there is a deal!:uhoh:

Here's your ticket to board the "Gravy Train"!:ugh:

[Whirlygig]

Section 2 Additional
requirements for ATOs providing training for licences and
ratings other than the LPL, PPL, SPL and BPL.

OR.ATO.210 Personnel requirements

(a) Head of Training (HT). The nominated HT shall:
(1) have overall responsibility for ensuring satisfactory integration of flying
training, synthetic flight training and theoretical knowledge instruction, and
for supervising the progress of individual students; and
(2) have extensive experience in training as a flight instructor for professional
pilot licences and possess a sound managerial capability.
...........

I've highlighted the heading in red - an RTF carries out training for PPLs and therefore isn't included in this paragraph. Secondly, there's nothing to say that owner/boss couldn't still be owner/boss :confused: HoT does not have to be the most senior personnel.

Cheers

Whirls

[HillerBee]

Maybe just get a CPL, couple of months study and it's done. Don't see the problem.

[Whirlygig]

Point (2) above states that the HoT should have extensive experience instructing for professional licences i.e. should have instructed to CPL level and more so it's not as simple as just getting a CPL.

Actually, it doesn't specifically say that HoT needs to have a CPL but I can't think of any circumstance where one could have said "extensive experience" and not hold a CPL.

But, I still think it's irrelevant for a school which only wants to instruct up to PPL level.

Cheers

Whirls

[helimutt]

nellycopter, I don't suppose that eddietcapt was your instructor by any chance? Or are you one and the same?

1000's of hours don't neccesarily mean a better instructor.

Find an instructor with the knowledge, skill and ability to teach well. Also, believe it or not, dynamic take-offs every time and low level arse-ing about aren't just what helicopers are about.

I personally feel that if you wish to be a professional helicopter instructor, then you should hold at the very least, a CPL level qualification.

[Camp Freddie]

I agree with ms whirlygig.

it doesnt say that the HoT needs a CPL
it doesnt say that instructors who qualified under the former national arrangements will be forced to stop instructing for PPL

CF

[biggles99]

Nellycopter,

fantastic post, and you are SO right. Completely agree with your point of view.

But don't expect a lot of sympathy on this forum.

Baby Pilots being taught by Baby Instructors - no wonder the drop-out rate is so high for PPLs that can afford to buy a helicopter. The fear and anxiety seeps from teacher to teachee - just as you imply.

As for the RTF and FTO changes, this has been in the public domain for a long while. Get used to it.

If any of you care to check out the number of training centres (all types) for pilots (rotary) in the UK compared to all other countries, particularly the USA, you'll be staggered to see how over-supplied we are in the the UK.

Apologies in advance to any one who takes exception to this post, please feel free to PM me.

Big Ls. (2,500 hours TT and still a PPL)

[FloaterNorthWest]

Nellycopter,

There is a good reason that training has to take place on an airfield and it is nothing to do with long runways.

Proportionately more accidents and incidents happen whilst training. If you train at an airfield you are going to have someone watching what you are doing, be it a Flight Information Officer or full ATC. If you get it wrong even in a small way, they can raise the alarm or simply enquire if you are OK. Even better if it does go very wrong there will be Fire and Rescue cover available to quickly come to your aid.

If you fly around in fields, they are likely to be away from habitation so you do annoy anyone. If it goes wrong then, even if it is a survivable accident, you may not get help for hours and I have even seen it turn into days. It is surprising how a forest can swallow an aircraft and leave no trace.

Thats why the CAA (and any sensible Authority) stipulate training at licenced airfields. It isn't designed to generate them funds (for a change) it's for your safety.

So once you have learnt to handle the aircraft in a large safe area then get your instructor to take you to your operating area and show you how to safely operate in and out of it.

FNW

[HillerBee]

Why would it improve safety to train on an airfield? It's just a bogus rule, 'Big Brother' is watching you all the time. General Aviation and the flight training industry would be much better of without all these costly rules.

It's simply going from bad to worse with GA / Flighttraining, and in a few years there won't be much left. It's such a pity.......

[VeeAny]

HillerBee

I don't believe you are any more or less likely to have an accident if training on an airfield or any other big open space (although you would hope the likelyhood of encountering any FOD would be reduced on an airfield). What you do have is a much greater chance of somebody noticing and doing something about it which must surely improve the overall safety of the operation.

For once (perhaps once only) its quite a sensible precaution to train almost entirely on an airfield for the near ground stuff, I do think we should be able to carry off airfield landings during PPL training to the ground to anywhere which would usually be legal, its a bit daft to be allowed to do so on qualification and not have had the opportunity (officially) during training.

I do however think you are right about the future of GA unfortunately :sad:

GS

[Camp Freddie]

mr floater

There is a good reason that training has to take place on an airfield and it is nothing to do with long runways.

personally, i agree with you but i am not sure the CAA does anymore hence the consultation here:- Consultation - LAASG FTSG Proposals | Consultations | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1710&pagetype=90) to change to training at unlicensed sites

i think if every person who fancies it can train out of a field, that often shoddy standards now will go down even more.

CF

[SASless]

Thats why the CAA (and any sensible Authority) stipulate training at licenced airfields. It isn't designed to generate them funds (for a change) it's for your safety.


How so?

If I practice EOL's....even if it is power recovery....does it matter where I do that? I am sure engines fail during cruise while between airfields.

If we use the conventional wisdom here...then practice force landings outside the traffic pattern would be unsafe, unapproved, and not a done thing.

How do you practice confined area operations without finding a hole in the woods somewhere? Any pinnacles found on airfields?

Or....do we just do a verbal brief and simulate confined areas and pinnacles?

Any airfields on ridgelines?

Any mountain airfields handy for learning to fly in the mountains?

[Camp Freddie]

mr sasless


If I practice EOL's....even if it is power recovery....does it matter where I do that? I am sure engines fail during cruise while between airfields.

unfortunately we have a bad system that if you come within 500ft of a vessel/person/vehicle/structure at an unlicenced site (such as a field) as you might do on a practice approach during your practice forced landing that you are breaking the law, unless it is a normal takeoff and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice.

a structure may be just a fence or a telephone line, it is very difficult to always be more than 500ft away from anything, even out in the countryside

so why not land you say in accordance with normal aviation practice? well you are not allowed to land either during a training flight at an unlicenced site.

If we use the conventional wisdom here...then practice force landings outside the traffic pattern would be unsafe, unapproved, and not a done thing.

in practice people do them but are always aware that they are taking a risk if they go below 500ft off airfield

How do you practice confined area operations without finding a hole in the woods somewhere? Any pinnacles found on airfields ?

in practice people either know a friendly farmer in the local area with a good confined area or they just take the risk of finding a confined area and hope nobody complains, especially if they are within 500ft of something. and once they are in the confined area, you have the crazy situation that you cant touch the ground as you would landing at an unlicenced site

regards

CF

[FloaterNorthWest]

SAS,

I am talking initial training to get the necessary handling skills required. Yes, once the individual has demonstrated proficiency then take them to other places as part of their approved training.

Fairoaks has a confined area just off airfield that can be seen by ATC.

How many PPLs do mountain flying as part of there basic training? So no need for a pinnacle on the airfield.

Unfortunately the helicopter industry in the UK is blighted by cowboys trying to buck the system and cut corners to make a quick buck and the rest of the industry is paying the price. So don't be surprised that the CAA have to write the regulations to cover every angle because as the flight safety poster says "You can't make it idiot proof because idiots are ingenious"

FNW

[SASless]

Unfortunately the helicopter industry in the UK is blighted by cowboys trying to buck the system and cut corners to make a quick buck and the rest of the industry is paying the price.

What is the "Pass" rate for students being trained at these "outlaw" outifts?

Are they a "blight" or folks who have found a way to do the same training at a much cheaper rate by avoiding the overhead costs incurred by operators who elect to use higher cost locations at "licensed" airfields?

The test should be in the quality of the operation.....not in its location.

Look back at our infamous Silverstate Helicopters as a perfect example of a bad outfit at good locations.

[nellycopter]

much the same i was was trying to say -
just different words !!:rolleyes:

[CarryOnCopter]

Well I have got around to reading TRAININGCOM - 3/2008, you could easily miss the change from Registered Facility (RF) to Approved Training Facility (ATO) by not paying attention, not good news.

Of course a RF is open to abuse but usefull in some cases. If the instructor is quilified, the aircraft legal and the course carried out as per the rules what else do you need? Some kind of accountability which was to become a RF, now the CAA are in the loop right at the start.

Now you can only train someone on first type up to PPL standard as a RF, so training someone on there own helicopter or your own was possible without the massive amount of money, time and paper work required for a TRTO which if you read what you have to do to become a ATO will kill anyone that did their teaching under the RF rules.

To give you an idea of when it could be usefull take the freelance instuctor, introduced to someone that has bought a helicopter and now wants to learn to fly it (don't ask why they just buy a helicopter and then find an instructor instead of going to a school, the buisness is magnet to some strange people).

Now the instructor could go to a school and ask to use their facilities, maybe the school isn't near, they want to take the lions share of the money, steal the student or the instructor likes to do his own buisness. Remember we are talking about doing the training the right way, what's wrong with the RF in this case?

On the PPL instructor subject in years gone by it helped a lot of people in to the industry. In a lot of cases people would go abroad to learn, get a CPL of that country and work untill their visa run out or they were found to have never had a visa. The reason why people went abroad was that it was a lot cheaper and they could get some experiance.

The rules a few years ago worked out that you could do an intergrated course of 150 hours or so either sponsered or you paid, so if you had to pay that was £60,000 and a year off work or 400 hrs was needed if you didn't do the intergrated course to take the CPL if I remember rightly.

So you would have people coming home with a CPL that wasn't worth the paper it was written on as far as the CAA was concerned and were faced with the exams and no flying till all of them had been passed plus some more training and a test or become a flight instructor and study for the exams while they were flying and getting some money in.

It worked well, the people that trained the instructors were very expieranced, the course taught the civvy pilot more about helicopters then all the CPL exams put together and assuming they were not a complete moron went on to instruct under the watchfull eye of expieranced people.

Some people just never wanted to do anything but teach and stayed as PPL's, they passed the instructor test why should they suddenly have to go off and do a load of exams?

None of this effects me by the way, just think it's a bit off.

[CarryOnCopter]

Well my last post didn't stimulate much response but I will carry on ragardless, first sign of madness talking to yourself.

The whole point is as we Brits know once a privilige (note that word) has been taken away it's not coming back and recourse is now to a faceless authority in a foriegn country rather than a faceless authority on another planet.

I can only think of one person that has an RF and he never uses it, be interesting to find out who still operates under them, it is rather restrictive so only had a limited use anyway, still would like to retain it though.

The PPL instructor is a thing of the past which did work in it's time, as I said before the rules were different and a lot of people went abroad, America for most, got some expierance and came home. Some just did the whole thing in the UK, PPL, added the instructor rating then went on to CPL. One of them was flying the London HEMS last time we spoke.

Well that's it for now as I get bored talking to myself, well I know all the jokes.

[eddietcapt]

Many people are reading but not commenting.
The RF is the only way a PPL instructor can opperate If the new rules are implimented all the PPL instructors will leave the industry the CPL instructors will then all be young hour builders or retired ex military pilots working for less than a bus driver gets paid. Anyone thinking of being a pilot now must be off there head! more so being an instructor £40 an hour 5 hours a week if your lucky no pay for reading all the bull on the web sites CAA JAR Europe FCL lasor dont forget the poor student he needs briefing at least 100 hours you do this in your spare time when you should be relaxing on the weekend. My advice if you wish to fly for fun in the uk get a USA licence have some fun learning to fly Dont get involved with these employed fools making mor and moor rules. Do your bit tell the CAA to leave thing alone.
Please note that consultation period for NPA-2008-22d "Authority and Organisation Requirements - Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices "CS-FSTD(A)"" has been extended until 15 Apr 2009.

See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_55

To place comments please logon at EASA CRT application (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/)

For further information please contact Rulemaking Process Support at [email protected]

[VeeAny]

Eddiecapt

Apart froim them relinquishing control to EASA in the first place (and I don't know what say they had in that) what has this got to do with the CAA ?

This is an EASA issue and the CAA aer encouraging the Heads of Training / CFIs to comment on the NPA, the impression I get from the letter they sent out on 05 February is that they don't want the Registered facility to die either, otherwise why write to us and ask us to comment on it specifically with guidance as to what to look for on the EASA website.

I believe the NPA you need to look at is NPA 2008-22c and that can be found here http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_59 , the one referred to above is about aeroplane synthetic trainers.

It seems to be just like when we whinge at the CAA with one man one voice, thats the way it is in Europe and the CAA have a small voice, the people in the industry need to comment in a balanced manner and hope that someone in Europe is listening, not just about this but about all the European NPA to do with licensing, ops,Training Organisations etc.

With regard to PPLs doing flight training, whats the problem if they meet the standard and know their stuff. However if the authority have to audit something is better to audit initial training, or the 5 hours of a type rating.

The comment made by someone else earlier in the thread with regards to a lot of the onerous requirements made in NPA2008-22c not applying to PPL ATOs is still valid.
Section 2 Additional
requirements for ATOs providing training for licences and
ratings other than the LPL, PPL, SPL and BPL.

Will it be more of a pain than just sending in a form ? Yes.
Will it perhaps get some facilities with undesirable qualities looked at more closely ?
Probably.
Will it change what really goes on when the CAA aren't looking ? Not in the slightest.
Will PPLs be stopped from carrying out flight training under EASA FCL ?
If NPA 17 goes through as proposed then no they won't, Subpart J allows for training up to the licence you hold [FCL.915] and specifies an additional requirement that prior to entry to an FI course a PPL shall have at least 200Hrs PIC and at least 250Hrs Total Time.

I support some bits of the proposals as a whole and not some others, but its up to each of us to comment on what we don't agree with.

We all have to keep up with EASA, CAA, JAA ICAO etc it just goes with the turf, as in all walks of life some people keep abreast of the changes more than others and one of the consequences of implementing a system where PPL training is auditable may be the RFs set up by people who did their FI training and then make no effort to keep up with the current rules might have to try and keep up with the more professional ones that are out there (not directed at anyone, an industry general observation).

Off to take the little one to school back soon.