GROUND SCHOOL LECTURES FOR JAA PPL

[mosquito077]

I seek advice from the many experienced instructors on this forum. I am a JAA FI(A), with CPL/MEP/SEP IR (ATPL theory from BGS), 700 hrs TT, 225 multi. My FI is restricted (60 hrs). I work part-time at a flying school which still operates under JAA ie not in UK. The HOT/CFI has indicated that I am 'not qualified' to give ground training lectures for the PPL course. I believe he is wrong. JAR FCL Appendix 1 indicates;

THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE INSTRUCTORS
20 Theoretical Knowledge Instructors in licence and ratings examination subjects shall have
appropriate experience in aviation and shall, before appointment, give proof of their competency by giving
a test lecture based on material they have developed for the subjects they are to teach.

I am more than happy to attend any standardization sessions and comply with the last sentence, it is slightly frustrating to be told I am 'not qualified'. Am I wrong - advice appreciated - please note I am happy to attend standardization sessions but these are differant to 'not being qualified' - advice please?

Mos

[Whopity]

The HOT/CFI has indicated that I am 'not qualified' to give ground training lectures for the PPL course.Part of the job of a FI is to give ground training lectures which is why it forms part of the FI test. You are more than adequately qualified. In reality, no specific qualifications are required to give PPL theoretical instruction. The paragraph 20 that you quote from Appendix 1a to JAR–FCL 1.055 relates to training for professional licences at an FTO; it has nothing to do with PPL training.

[mosquito077]

Whopity, thank you very much. I was hoping you or Bose X amongst others would respond. Could I please ask regarding JAR FCL certain elements do apply when teaching PPL(A), thus why is it Appendix 1 does not apply? Or perhaps a better question is in UK we used LASORS now CAP 804; in this overseas location I operate the national authority has neither of those and uses JAR FCL for its audits of RTFs and FTOs (teaching PPL only) - what could I show them that might indicate they are being excessive using JAR FCL for PPL training?
Many thanks,
Mos

[BillieBob]

They is nothing excessive in using JAR-FCL, LASORS had and CAP 804 has no legal basis as a standard against which to conduct an audit.

The question is, what kind of facility are they auditing? If it's an FTO then it is subject to Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 1.055, irrespective of the course(s) that it offers. If it's a Registered Facility then it is not subject to Appendix 1a and the requirements for theoretical knowledge instructors contained therein do not apply.

I would take issue with Whopity in his statement that Appendix 1a relates only to training for professional licences - there is nothing in JAR-FCL to support this contention. The confusion may arise from the fact that in the UK this issue never arose as the CAA (outwith the requirements of JAR-FCL) required an FTO offering PPL training to also be a Registered Facility. This was an effort to save resources by ignoring PPL training, arguably with fatal consequences.

[mosquito077]

BillieBob, the facility where HOT said I was not qualified is an RTF, the second facility is an FTO.
If I understand you correctly JAR FCL does apply to FTO but not to RTF (in UK pre-EASA).

What is the definitive written guideline now in UK on this matter, I have searched CAP 804 (though this does not apply in country I am operating) and can find nothing and thus must revert to JAR FCL (as I operate in a State that is still JAA). When I read the old LASORs, CAP 804 and EASAs documentation they indicate what an FI(A) effectively can do but none based on my research actually use the words teach ground school but it is clearly implied.
The 125 hrs theory on the FI course is there for that reason I am confident but grateful for the best written word; or is the best para 20 JAR FCL?
Mos

[Whopity]

there is nothing in JAR-FCL to support this contentionIndeed there is not, but as no theoretical training for the JAR-FCL PPL was stipulated either, only a requirement to demonstrate a level of knowledge, there is equally nothing to suggest that it applies to the PPL either. Any FTO producing training manuals can specify its own requirements however; why would it wish to be more stringent than JAR-FCL requirements. If they have been they would clearly be written down and approved. indicate what an FI(A) effectively can do but none based on my research actually use the words teach ground school but it is clearly implied.The privilege of a FI is to allow the holder of the rating to give flight instruction which would otherwise be illegal; it does not mention ground instruction because no law requires it.

[BillieBob]

If I understand you correctly JAR FCL does apply to FTO but not to RTF (in UK pre-EASA).Not quite what I said. JAR-FCL applies equally to FTOs and RTFs, just not the same bits of it. Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 1.055 applies to FTOs but not RTFs, which are covered by Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.125.

CAP 804 does not provide a definitive written guideline for anything, for that you will have to go to the EU Aircrew Regulation, specifically to ORA.ATO.110(c), which applies to all ATOs, and says:Theoretical knowledge instructors shall have:

(1) practical background in aviation in the areas relevant for the training provided and have undergone a course of training in instructional techniques; or

(2) previous experience in giving theoretical knowledge instruction and an appropriate theoretical background in the subject on which they will provide theoretical knowledge instruction.

As an FI you have, by definition, a practical background in aviation in the areas relevant to the PPL and therefore comply with the requirements of both Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL and the EU Aircrew Regulation as they apply to theoretical knowledge instructors.

Whopity - The title of Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 1.055 is "Flying Training Organisations for pilot licences and ratings". What is the PPL if not a pilot licence? JAR-FCL 1.055(c), in relation to registration, states "Facilities wishing to offer training for the PPL only...shall register...", implying that facilities wishing to offer the PPL in addition to other licences and ratings should not register but should seek approval as an FTO. Bear in mind that this discussion relates not to the UK but to a JAA member state that, apparently, follows JAR-FCL to the letter.

[Whopity]

Does anyone follow it exactly? There was a broad assumption, which included the UK CAAs Head of Requirements at the time, that any FTO could conduct PPL training simply because they were an FTO and some overseas schools were advised accordingly!

[RVR800]

Does anyone know if any EASA changes are due with respect to the guys that dish out the PPL Exam sheets and add up total and then submit the answer sheets etc? -

Is it true that they still dont need to hold an FI(A)