EASA PPL Ground School

[Esperanza]

I've just been having a think about the EASA PPL ground school requirement. I'll stand corrected, but without looking it up I seem to remember that it's 100 hours, of which 30 hours can be self study.
Now for some maths...
70 hours / 6 hours per day = 12 days (rounded up)
Let's say that I have 15 students during the year.
15 x 12 = 180 days. So 36 weeks.
I work something like 47 weeks per year, so that leaves me 11 weeks per year to fly. So I may get in something like 220 hours of flying per year. Currently I'm doing something like 550-600 hours per year.
So it would appear that I'm going to have very well educated, but earthbound students.
I know that in reality I'll be teaching towards an EASA LAPL because there isn't this ground school requirement.
Bonkers or what?
Now I like giving ground school, and it's easier money than flying, but I reckon that I would struggle to give 70 hours of ground school. Your average student is going to lose interest, and they're not going to want to pay the extra £1400 or so. I fail to understand what the CAA are thinking of.
Having given it some more thought, I could solve the problem by getting two or three students together for lessons. However it would be difficult to coordinate everybody's schedules. It would only work if people buddied up on intensive courses.

[Whopity]

I'll be teaching towards an EASA LAPL because there isn't this ground school requirement. Oh yes there is!AMC1 FCL.115; FCL.120 SYLLABUS OF THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR THE LAPL

(b).... The syllabi for the theoretical knowledge instruction and examination for the PPL(A) and PPL(H) in AMC1 FCL.210 and FCL.215 should be used for the LAPL(A) and the LAPL(H), respectively.and there you will find:[AMC1 FCL.210; FCL.215 SYLLABUS OF THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR THE PPL(A) AND PPL(H)

An approved course shall comprise at least 100 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. This theoretical knowledge instruction provided by the ATO should include a certain element of formal classroom work but may include also such facilities as interactive video, slide or tape presentation, computer-based training and other media distance learning courses.

[Esperanza]

Umm....that's interesting.
I was given the impression by a senior FI Examiner, who spent some time working for the CAA, that the 100 hours was purely for the PPL.
It makes sense that the syllabus should be the same for both licences, as the same exams need to passed. It does appear to read that there's a 100 hour requirement for the LAPL. I wonder if it's meant to read this way...?
The phrase "computer-based training and other media distance learning courses" is an interesting one. I wonder if we can send them away with a bag full of the Oxford CD ROMs...?
To my mind there's a lot of uncertainty here.

[Esperanza]

[AMC1 FCL.210; FCL.215 SYLLABUS OF THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR THE PPL(A) AND PPL(H)

An approved course shall comprise at least 100 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. This theoretical knowledge instruction provided by the ATO should include a certain element of formal classroom work but may include also such facilities as interactive video, slide or tape presentation, computer-based training and other media distance learning courses.


Reading this I get the impression that nothing has really changed. Self study with ground school (formal classroom work) as and when required.

[Whopity]

I think the way the document is worded made a lot of people think that the 100 hours did not apply to the LAPL, its only when you read it carefully that you see they are the same!

The only significant difference is that an ATO must state in the training manual how it proposes to cover the 100 hours and a recommendation is required before sitting the exams. I believe the CAA have indicated that they expect 70 hours of classroom tuition however this may be over prescriptive. At the end of the day its for the ATO to document its intentions.

[Esperanza]

This makes sense. Hopefully we'll be getting our manuals written before the end of the year. I wonder if any schools out there intend to give 70 hours of ground school? It would seem unlikely.

[xrayalpha]

On the 9 exams thread, I asked, and got no reply:

***************

How does the student (or FTO) prove that 100 hours have been done.

Just passing the exam obviously doesn't count!

(thinking that I could self-study one page of Trevor T while watching a film, and no-one is the wiser. That's 90-mins in my logbook - do I need a training logbook?)

Of course, my FTO might insist on properly logged "face time" - it would earn them some cash, and I cannot do the ground school/exams elsewhere?

*********

Of course, I can do a CPL theory at Glasgow Nautical College - which doesn't own aircraft or have a runway!

But I couldn't do PPL theory there?

[Esperanza]

I wouldn't worry to much about the 100 hour requirement. You're not going to need to log the time. It should all become clearer once schools gain EASA approvals.
As for the ground school time. Currently I give on average somewhere between 5-10 hours of proper sit down paid for ground school for each course. Most people appear to be happy to self study. Personally I rate the Pooleys Air Training Manuals. If you want to go into more depth (a bit too deep sometimes) then the Oxford CD ROMs are really good.

[Whopity]

But I couldn't do PPL theory there?You could if they added PPL Theory to their approval!

[BillieBob]

The UK CAA are very reluctant to give any guidance to Registered Facilities in this area. Despite repeated requests for clarification, we have simply been told to submit a proposal that may or may not be approved. The committee's intention remains (on AOPA's recommendation) to delay the application for as long as possible in the expectation that the requirements will be eased before 2015.

I suspect that the 30% figure is plucked out of the air in desperation and is influenced by the old Standards Document 35 figure of 35% for CBT.

Knowing the influences currently at work in L&TS, I would not be too complacent about the need to record the amount of theoretical knowledge training provided. The AMC includes a requirement for the ATO to check that all of the appropriate elements have been completed to a satisfactory standard and, on the evidence so far, I cannot see the paper hungry bureaucrats at Gatwick letting that one go by.

[peterh337]

70 hrs is a huge increase on the typical amount of ground school done for the PPL.

When I did mine (2000-2001) we got about 5hrs, charged at £10 for a 1hr class. Of course it was optional, too.

What was the thinking behind making it mandatory, and so much of it? Most of the PPL theory is irrelevant, though it's not as bad as the IR theory which is 90% garbage.

[Whopity]

What was the thinking behind making it mandatoryCould it be that for the past 13 years PPL holders have been able to claim a 100 hours credit towards the professional exams? All they are being asked to do is record it!