This thread seems to have wandered from what was a valid and legitimate comment about the enforced residential component of a Distance Learning programme, and the expense incurred. I support your comment, Patience, and would go further, questioning the need for such micromanagement in the approval process.
I fail to see the need for the JAA or CAA or any other AA to dictate just how a course is to be conducted, particularly a DL course. There are numerous examples in the academic world of DL courses in which there is no residential component at all, without detriment to the standard of instruction or pass levels. The UK Open University is a good example; they reduced many of their formerly compulsory summer school components to voluntary attendance some years ago. It is known that these weeks are good value to many students, and attendance is recommended – but not enforced. If a student does not take advantage of them, and fails the course, then who is the loser? Very many US online courses do not require attendance either.
I support the oversight of training establishments by a standards authority, but they should be limited to training content, and not methodology. If I wished to offer a ‘course’ comprising a list of books from the library and a study guide, I should be able to do so. My future would be decided by the results of my students.
If candidates wish to take the exams, the examining authority should accept their application (and money). If they pass they have shown that they meet the expected standards of the exam; if they fail then they have wasted their money.
As Alex says:
“If the exams were of adequate quality they alone should be a test of your knowledge and capability. If you know your stuff you should be able to apply for and take the exams whether you have done a course or not.”
I wonder at the agenda being followed with the current approval system. Why insist on a school producing their own notes (often thinly disguised plagiarism of standard textbooks, or other schools’ notes)? Why insist that lessons are delivered in a particular fashion (based on military methods that are not necessarily suitable to modern pedagogical and technical advances)? Surely market forces will separate the winners from the losers?
RichardH said:
“JAA regulations clearly state that ALL of the training must be from an approved provider and some element of your training MUST BE classroom based.”
Since the JAA is the sum of the elements, and the CAA is an influential part of the committee dealing with FCL, the CAA must bear some of the blame for this statement. Until recently the classroom element was not mandatory, just advisory.
Fortunately the JAA is handing over its roles to the EASA, who will be considering FCL in a year or two (we hope). There should be time for any lobbying to take place to get this intrusive ‘regulation’ removed. Then schools will be free to meet their customers’ wishes. It will be for the examiners, those independent beings whose only goal is to seek out those with superior knowledge and understanding of aviation, to set the bar.
There will, of course, be a need for some rules; there always is. The current thoughts of EASA are in
http://www.jaa.nl/jaa_easa/Transitio...0Licensing.pdf
Paragraps 1b. and 1c seem sensible enough, setting requirements without saying how it is to be achieved. Can they stop at that?