Possible issues for RFs with EASA ATO implementation by UK CAA

[FormationFlyer]

Ive been reading through standards Doc 39 which (i'm guessing based on nods towards this doc in the guidance in standards 11) is likely to be similar for ATOs only conducting PPL/LAPL etc training.

Ive noticed a few potential issues that maybe we should keep an eye on:

2.2.2 At least one of the posts of HoT or CFI will be employed full time.

This may be a problem for some RFs.

3.3 Instructional staff shall not act in any capacity at more than one FTO approved under jar-fcl, except with permission of the CAA

(This means I couldnt sweep the floors (as an illustration only - im not offering nor want to) of another FTO without the CAAs permission - Not quite what they intended me thinks but thats what they wrote.)

This is much more of an issue - I reckon a good many of part time instructors frequent more than one RF.

6.2 PPL training shall be so arranged that students do not receive instruction from more than 3 instructors.

Whilst we probably all agree that that is the way things should be done this may not be realistic at a small RF given holidays, illlness and general availability of instructors. Especially where a student wishes to do their course full time (such as it is) because they are taking holiday.

Im going to the the JAR FCL AMC/IEM to see if it agrees with the standards doc or whether these have been introduced by the UK CAA.

Just a thought.

[FormationFlyer]

I cannot find anything in JAR-FCL 1.055 nor the AMC/IEM therefore i conclude that these requirements have been introduced by the UK CAA. The issue will be down to what requirements the CAA are able to additionally specify on an ATO under EASA.

[jez d]

FF, while I defer to your superior knowledge, I'd be surprised if the CAA have added any requirements of their own given that under EASA the CAA are expressly forbidden from adding to or amending these new pan-European regulations. If this is the case then I would suggest a letter of query to the powers that be.

It does sound rather odd that instructors would be limited to instructing at one school only - not only is it damaging to an instructor's income but I also fail to see the 'safety' case behind it, which is presumably what this is about?

Regards, jez

[BillieBob]

Standards Document 39 relates to FTOs providing PPL training outside JAA member states. The CAA is not obliged by JAR-FCL to approve organisations outside the JAA and so is at liberty to set any additional standards that it sees fit. Nothing in Standards Document 39 applies to Registered Facilities.

So far as EASA is concerned, Part OR does not currently include, in the case of organisations training only for the PPL and LAPL, any restriction on instructors teaching at more than one ATO or on the number of instructors that may be allocated to a student. Neither does it require that the Head of Training should be employed full time. The CFI is not a required post under Part OR for PPL/LAPL organisations. The CAA will not be able to specify any additional requirements under EASA.

[Whopity]

I cannot find anything in JAR-FCL 1.055 nor the AMC/IEM therefore I conclude that these requirements have been introduced by the UK CAA.Stds Doc 39 evolved from the earlier CAP682 which replaced the pre JAA CAPS 588, 682, 509, 608, and 561. They are all based on very similar requirements and go back to the day when the CAA regulated training.

[FormationFlyer]

Jez_d:

It does sound rather odd that instructors would be limited to instructing at one school only - not only is it damaging to an instructor's income but I also fail to see the 'safety' case behind it, which is presumably what this is about?

This is as it is for FTOs now and also is in std doc 36 [3.3].

As under EASA we will all be FTOs (except called ATOs) I am speculating that the CAA *may* introduce a similar requirement and we (as instructors) need to be vigilant. I want people to be aware of this early so we can make sure no such requirements are enforced. It does not exist in the text of EASA PART-OR (nor did it under JAR-FCL 1.055 yet the CAA still requires it - although JAR-FCL was implemented in a different manner compared to EASA).

BillieBob - You are right and neither am I suggesting that it this is the case. I am suggesting that we need to watch the CAA carefully - in periods of transition we (the public) sometimes fall foul of the authorities 'sneaking' in extra changes.
Is it enshrined in law that the CAA would not be able to apply additional requirements on ATOs operating within the UK?

What is interesting is that this then suggests that EASA is a backwards step for UK FTOs. Currently instructor/student ratios are managed under standards docs 36-39 but there are no such requirements in the EASA documents. This is just one example.

Would this then be good news for FTO instructors perhaps then? Who under EASA could operate at multiple FTOs without having to have permission from the CAA?

[BillieBob]

....nor did it under JAR-FCL 1.055 yet the CAA still requires it
You cannot compare the status of the EASA IRs with JAR-FCL. The Joint Aviation Requirements were and are not law (except where they are adopted as such by the ANO). The JAA member states agreed to issue licences in accordance with common requirements in so far as their existing national legislation allowed. The result was differences in implementation between states and a great deal of 'wriggle room' for the NAAs.

The EASA Implementing Rules are completely different in that, once brought into force they are EU law (and hard law, at that). It is 'enshrined in law', as a result of numerous high profile judgements over the years, that EU law takes precedence over the national law of member states. The CAA will have no option but to comply exactly with the Implementing Rules, which means that they can ask for no more and accept no less than the standards that appear in the Basic Regulation and its Annexes. If an ATO complies with the letter of the Implementing Rules, the CAA cannot decline to issue an approval.

Of course EASA is a backward step, not only for the UK but for most north European states. Because the agreement of all EU member states was required, the EASA Implementing Rules represent a negotiated 'lowest common denominator' of safety and supervision. You only have to look at the CRD for Part FCL to see the naivety of individuals in EASA, most of who have no aviation experience but are merely money-grubbing bureaucrats.

[Whopity]

Would this then be good news for FTO instructors perhaps then? Who under EASA could operate at multiple FTOs without having to have permission from the CAA?In such a case it becomes almost impossible to monitor if an instructor is complying with working hour and rest limitations. Would it be good for the student if his instructor, who has been working in a STD all night at School A, before turning up for the eight o'clock lesson at school B, where he works all day, before going to school C to do some night flying. 3 separate logbooks, who would know? It is not unknown for a dual qualified FAA/JAA Instructor to reach his JAA maximum hours, and then go off and conduct FAA instruction.

Most of the UK requirements are there because someone at some time in the past has been doing exactly that, and the regulator had to make provisions to prescribe minimum acceptable standards for training to ensure that it is conducted professionally and safely. EASA is not a Regulator as such, it is a Bureaucratic Rule Maker with minimal knowledge of what it is doing.

[DFC]

In such a case it becomes almost impossible to monitor if an instructor is complying with working hour and rest limitations. Would it be good for the student if his instructor, who has been working in a STD all night at School A, before turning up for the eight o'clock lesson at school B, where he works all day, before going to school C to do some night flying.


Well there has never been so much of a problem elsewhere in Europe that this has had to be rfegulated further than it already is.

Pilots can work for several organisations but European requirements mean that they are required to inform each organisation of their duty time elsewhere so that the limitations are not exceeded.

The pilot is responsible for turning up fit and suitable rested.

The above argument makes no sense because if the instructor is prevented from STD training and night flying they can get a job as a taxi driver and the circumstances have not changed one bit.

Everyone should limit their reading to the appropriate EASA documents in regard to these future requirements because those are the only ones that are going to apply.

Note that the CAA will not be the only Authority certifying ATOs that will provide training in the UK.

Even under the current system it is possible for a non-UK FTO to provide training in the UK without having to deal with the UK CAA - it is just a bit unnecessary in the current suystem but in the pan-European system it will be just that - Pan European and while Mr A Examiner will tell the CAA that they are operating in the UK, they will not require UK CAA approval provided that they hold all the required EASA paperwork from an appropriate Authority.

Think of it like the current situation where instructors holding JAA licenses issued by any full member JAA state can set up an RTF in the UK and teach PPL plus associated ratings.....but on a bigger scale.

[FormationFlyer]

Here is an interesting thought then.

Although the regs ask for training manual and ops you could get away with tiny volumes that say nothing - provided it meets the requirements in the law.

For those conducting PPL training OR.ATO.130 is the applicable one which merely states

OR.ATO.130 Training manual and operations manual
(a)An ATO shall establish and maintain a training manual and operations manual containing information and instructions to enable personnel to perform their duties and to give guidance to students on how to comply with course requirements.
(b) An ATO shall make available to staff and, where appropriate, to students the information contained in the training manual, the operations manual and the ATO’s approval documentation.
(c) In the case of ATOs providing flight test training, the operations manual shall comply with the requirements for the flight test operations manual, as established in Part-21.
(d) The operations manual shall establish flight time limitation schemes for flight instructors, including the maximum flying hours, maximum flying duty hours and minimum rest time between instructional duties in accordance with Subpart OR.OPS.

Which doesnt even contain much at all. Im a winner:

"Training manual for PPL.
1. Students
Students must attend the flying club to receive training.
Students will follow their instructors guidance to complete the course.
2. Instructors
Teach them stuff as shown on your instructor course."


I know its facetious but according to what I am reading in the law (there are no AMC/IEM for OR-ATO.130) then I technically have just met the requirements of the law if I simply put this in a single document.

Thoughts? I would frankly be gobsmacked if the authorities let that through. But I have complied with the law. It will be an interesting argument - and a costly one in the courts.

So perhaps a more realistic approach would be to use the ops manual and training manual criteria for CPL stuff...from OR-ATO-230 and the AMC/IEM....which is a bunch of headings at best for the ops manual (unless I there is something more rigid in PART-OPS but in the AMC/IEM in PART-OR its a bunch of headings).

For instance under Ops manual - Staff Training I can happily write:

"We will not conduct any staff training."

According to the black & white text of the law Ive met the requirements. Nowhere does it says I have to actually implement training merely make a statement about it.

Again I would be gobsmacked if the authorities let that through. Would this really meet the law?

Lets just look at the process by which these are accepted:

OR.GEN.115 Application for an organisation certificate
(a)An application for an organisation certificate or an amendment to an existing certificate shall be made in a form and manner established by the competent authority, taking into account the applicable requirements of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules.
(b) Applicants for an initial certificate shall provide the competent authority with documentation demonstrating how they will comply with the requirements established in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules Such documentation shall include a procedure describing how changes not requiring prior approval will be managed and notified to the competent authority.

Where the competent authority is:

OR.GEN.105 Competent authority
(a)For the purpose of this Part, the competent authority certifying or receiving the declaration shall be:
(1) In the case of organisations:
(i)for organisations having their principal place of business in a Member State, the authority designated by that Member State;
(ii) for organisations having their principal place of business located in a third
country, the Agency.

This is perhaps where the crux then comes. As an authority must approve an ATO it is up to the authority to approve the training and ops manuals. But I cannot see where the 'standard' against which the ops manual is measured is stated. So one authority might say. OK you meet the requirements because you have produced a manual which is what the law states (even in the AMC/IEM). Yet another authority may withhold approval unless it is happy with the contents - and thereby put extra constraints on the contents before it is willing to approve it.

You could of course change your main place of business to the more lenient authority...but I reckon that gap would be plugged pretty rapidly after appeals from the more rigorous NAAs in europe (and no doubt our own).

This is of course a speculation because I do not know how the authority would deal with the situation I have shown. The law (as it is proposed) states

shall be made in a form and manner established by the competent authority, taking into account the applicable requirements of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules.

And it is here is where I think the danger lies. This surely opens the door to the authority to place restrictions on the content (in a form and manner established by the authority) of the training and ops manuals and not just the actual filled in forms of the application process - it seems to me to not be a restrictive clause at all. Far from it - it states form and manner - and without definitions for these we are left with the English dictionary and potentially all possible interpretations of the words form and manner - thus (I suggest) relating to content and not just the means by which the organisation participates in the process (i.e. sending a hand-filled in form + hard copies of the 'manuals').

Maybe I'm being too literal here - maybe I am missing some huge piece of information about how authorities operate etc.

But think about it - would you seriously expect to put my minimal training manual before the authority and get it approved? If not then you must surely come to the conclusion that there will be additional controls and requirements placed on this process...at least that was my thinking.

[DFC]

I would not receomd that an ATO state in it's written procedures, manuals, or anything else official that it will not provide any staff training - unless it has clearly contracted out the safety training, standardisation, and everything else that one could normally expect from any organisation.

The manuals will be very small for an organisation limiting itself to PPL training or to take a good example, an "entity" which simply intends to provide class rating training a.k.a. coaching scheme.

Everything is available and a few minutes doing cut an paste can slap together a good manual - provided that one knows what is required.

Remember that unless the proposal is up to spec i.e. you have put in words what you are going to do safely then the approval process will go nowhere.

Any reasonable UK RTF will have everything in place and aside from changing a few words will have nothing new to add but may be able to rid itself from some of the excess UK CAA requirements.


You could of course change your main place of business to the more lenient authority...but I reckon that gap would be plugged pretty rapidly after appeals from the more rigorous NAAs in europe (and no doubt our own).




This should not be an issue. look at the Authority requirments.

Even if there is a published AMC, you are entitled to put forward your own means of compliance and provided that this is acceptable then you will obtain approval. When this happens, the relevant Authority must infrorm EASA and other NAAs and this means of compliance becomes an AMC everywhere.

Therefore if the CAA try to make a requirement more onerous they will acheive nothing because everyone applying to the CAA will use a different AMC from (as you put it) a more lenient authority and the UK CAA will have no choice but to accept it because it is an established AMC.

That is the whole idea - a level playing field and not one where the UK CAA can choose to do it their way.

If however, the CAA can convince EASA and the other NAA's that some AMC is not up to the required standard then it will be cancelled - for everyone in every country.

So there is no need to move the principle operation from country to country because the requirements will not be any easier or more difficult elsewhere.