the "bit back" is being picked over like it is some kind of treasure trove.
By whom? This is arguing against a point no-one has made. No-one has said that compared with the pre-FRA restriction world, the proposed conversion is a wonderful thing. It's just much better than the present FCL outcome, and much worse than an outcome where the whole FRA things gets dropped, derogated or bilaterally treatied away.
Note that the wording of the theory requirements is quite vague. It is clearly NOT the new full (ie. reduced) IR TK. At worst, it's 4 of the 7 IR exams (ie. Air Law, Met, Flight Planning and HPL and not Instruments, Radio Nav and Comms). Those 4 I think are about 70% of the work, so it's perhaps a third or so of the present IR TK (ie. ~~70% of ~~50%). This is a big improvement, since I believe QB-based studying will be available for the new IR TK, as it is for the present exams. BUT, I say "worst case" because the NPA doesn't say you "must take those 4 papers", it says you must "demonstrate acquired knowledge of". I am not sure if that will be implemented as
- taking the 4 exams
- taking a single, composite exam, but a formal EASA one
- taking a single, composite exam at an ATO, the way the single HPA exam is presently done
- demonstrating knowledge in an oral exam with the flight examiner
It's para 8 p22 of the NPA and may be worth people commenting on in the CRT!
brgds
421C