Cpl Syllabus

[mlee]

Hi, could anyone please tell me where I can find the CPL Syllbus from? I have been searching on the CAA website but can only seem to find literature on the skill test not the course itself.

I'm starting to teach the CPL and would just like to find an up to date syllabus.

Thanks for your help.

[Whopity]

I'm starting to teach the CPL and would just like to find an up to date syllabus.Then I suggest you read your FTO Training Manual where it is required to be detailed. One of the reasons that CPL and IR instructors have to be standardised is so that they are familiar with the Syllabus as submitted by, and approved to be taught at their FTO.
Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 1.055TRAINING MANUAL AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
31 A FTO shall prepare and maintain a Training Manual and a Operations Manual containing information and instructions to enable staff to perform their duties and to give guidance to students on how to comply with course requirements. A FTO shall make available to staff and, where appropriate, to
students the information contained in the Training Manual, the Operations Manual and the FTO’s approval documentation. The amendment procedure shall be stated and amendments properly controlled.

32 The Training Manuals shall state the standards, objectives and training goals for each phase of training that the students are required to comply with and shall include the following:
Part 1 – The Training Plan
Part 2 – Briefing and Air Exercises
Part 3 – Synthetic Flight Training
Part 4 – Theoretical Knowledge Instruction

For further guidance see IEM No. 3 to JAR–FCL 1.055.

[redbar1]

Hello Mlee,

All the detailed syllabi (not PPL) were moved from JAR-FCL to the corresponding AGM/JIP before the publication of JAR-FCL 1 Amd 7 & JAR-FCL 2 Amd 6. If you can locate a complete AGM/JIP from after 2006 you should find them there.

Cheers,
Redbar1

[Keygrip]

Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 1.055

....but there is no JAR any more.

You surely can't be expected to comply with something that doesn't exist, can you?

[redbar1]

Hi Keygrip,

It is the JAA itself that "passed away". The JAR's should be alive and well, as they were adopted nationally into each member state's legal system. They remain valid until changed by law/regulation.

Cheers,
Redbar1

[Whopity]

...but there is no JAR any more.
Wrong, The JAA do not exist but JAR-FCL is a document adopted by EASA and in the UK is enacted in part by the ANO. The JAA has never had any legal status, its always been a club so its demise is of no consequence. JARs continue as before.

The CPL syllabus material found in the AGM/JIP is only a list of requirements, it is not a working syllabus.

[redbar1]

Whopity,

I think what is missing are the learning objectives, they were never really produced for the CPL syllabus. The list in the AGM/JIP are the only indications published by JAA as to what a student should know about.

(..not to be picky, but the JAR-FCL is not yet adopted by EASA, but still in the NPA process, I think we will see quite some changes to the FCL prior to adoption... .. I hope ):ok:

Cheers,
Redbar1

[Whopity]

Perhaps I should have said being adopted.

It is for the FTO to submit a syllabus for approval based on the material published in the JIP. As that will vary from one FTO to another, the only way a FI can know what to teach is by reference to the companies approved manual, not by looking at the source material. As it is not an objective syllabus it is not surprising that there are no learning objectives. The learning objectives for the theoretical exams were written to match the questions, all rather back to front!

[redbar1]

Whopity,

Sorry if I sounded like a nitpicker :cool: just wanted to put details right...

And I agree 100% on your "back-to-front" description of the process. Writing the LO to match the CQB retroactively seems not overly impressing project management-wise. To add the fact that it was EAPPS who actually did the LO job, and gave it to JAA, just underscores the "creativity" applied.

Still, in spite of this, it seems to have worked not tooo bad for the last 10 yrs... remember all the hassle we used to have with validations and conversions within Europe... :ok:

Cheers,
redbar1