Flying Instructors & ExaminersA place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!
Does anybody know of any changes to the PPL(A) theory exams over the past few years. i.e. has the involvement of EASA caused a change in the examinations?
The SRG1105 form list 9 subjects, but there are still 7 exam papers as in the JAR days.
EASA says there are supposed to be no more than 120 questions, which suggests they would be best consolidated into fewer exams, not more.
If you want to take them, send me a PM.
I think any change is unlikely - the CAA do not seem to have given any thought to their future whatsoever. The "common" and "category specific" papers split changed with EASA but when I called to see when they were due to be issued it created a stir since no-one at the CAA was even aware of the changes.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 20,180
Quote:
If you want to take them, send me a PM.
Not quite as simple as that these days - see Theoretical knowledge examinations for the issue of licences and note FCL.025(a)(2):
Quote:
Applicants shall only take the examination when recommended by the approved training organisation (ATO) responsible for their training, once they have completed the appropriate elements of the training course of theoretical knowledge instruction to a satisfactory standard.
You are inventing a complication that does not even exist.
No RFs have been approved as ATOs yet, so you can just forget about all this until 2015.
The CAA won't even say what is an "appropriate" course is and will approve whatever is put forward on a "case by case" basis.
I could just put forward a course which tells a student to go away and read for 100 hours. Except currently the policy seems to be that this has to be done by the place doing the flying, which leaves out the stand-alone T-K RFs which could actually make some provision out in the cold.
If any RFs have changed to be ATOs already then presumably they will have had approved what constitutes their 100 hours of theoretical knowledge training ?
Whatever they say they are going to do, they will have to stick to it as part of their approval.
I wonder how they have done this ?
JAR - Common exams: Nav, Met, HPL, RT. Category specific: FPP, AGK&POF, Air Law.
EASA - Common exams: Air Law, Met, HPL, RT. Category specific: PoF, Nav, AGK, Nav, Op Procs
How can they get an approval when none of the EASA standard exams have even been looked at yet, let alone issued.
Who are the RFs who are now ATOs then, Bose ? I mean real RFs, not previous FTOs who also offered the PPL. I would be interested to see what they have done.
[pedant]All FTOs (and TRTOs) became ATOs on 8 April 2012 and must become fully compliant with Part-ORA by April 2014.[/pedant]
According to our CAA Inspector, as of last Monday, no former RFs had been approved as ATOs, although a number of applications had been rejected. Given the financial penalty, I can't see why any RF would rush to become an ATO - the only advantage is the ability to offer the LAPL.
Bose - BBs information suggest that your statement is wide of the mark ?
It makes no sense for an RF to commit to be an ATO until the last possible moment in 2015.
An RF pays £102 P.A. , and ATOs much more than that (£1,000 P.A ?). Plus the cost to produce all the manuals and paperwork which was never required before.
Billiebob is incorrect. There are already approved ATOs that are compliant. While the RTF side of approval was a side line we made it compliant at the same time as doing the FTO and TRTO and now everything is covered under a single ATO approval.
I also know of two flying schools that were just RTF that I have helped produce manuals and procedures for in order to become compliant.
BillieBob what makes you think a current RF can not train, test and examine for a LAPL? They can do the same for an EASA PPL
Existing RFs were given from 17 Sept 2012 until 2014 to become ATOs (if they wish). During this period they could continue to provide the same courses as they did previously (PPL, Night, IMC, etc). LAPL did not exist prior to 17/9/12 so could not be "granfathered" in this way.
The inspector may have been incorrect, Bose, but I was not - that was the statement that he made. My response was, in any case, directed at G-RICH who asked specifically about what he termed 'real' RFs (i.e. those not associated with FTOs or TRTOs). Whilst you may have produced manuals for one or more such RFs, my understanding remains that none has yet received approval.
I also understand, from the same source, that there is a draft Information Notice doing the rounds that will address the 100 hours groundschool requirement.
