Standards Document 55

[BigEndBob]

Looking into all this approvals stuff for RTF.
Saw mention of this Standards Document 55.
Is it published yet as i can't find it, or is it still on the merrygoround?

[Duchess_Driver]

RTF? or ATO?

PART-ORA and associated GM and AMCs' should give a good indication of what is required.

[Mickey Kaye]

well its on their website now.

doesn't seem that proportional to your small rf or club.

i maybe reading this wrong but it states that an instructor can have a max of six students. not sure how that's going to work or give me enough money to eat.

[JuicyLucy]

Do a search for standards document 55 - works for me.

Its not just the small guys that will suffer from this piece of regulation, but the AOC holders that have invested thousands of £s in their own TRI/TREs and now find they have to produce a complete extra manual to continue doing what they have always done.
Only winner is the CAA as the fees are not exactly cheap !

[timprice]

Look in CAA DOC'S believe it came out 1st July 55v1.

Tim:ok:

[Cows getting bigger]

That will scare a few clubs.

[nick14]

Juicy Lucy,

What is the extra manual you mention for an ATO providing type ratings?

[Whopity]

Yet another poorly produced document which is after all only guidance. Best throw it in the bin and comply with PART-ORA and associated GM and AMCs'

[JuicyLucy]

An AOC holder, that can at the moment revalidate and renew type ratings for their own pilots will need to become an ATO to continue to do this.
Extra regulation for no real advantage ....lots of work and cost to comply

[nick14]

Ah right that's ok, we have ATO status so no issue.

[BigEndBob]

I see part of the approval process is to submit accounts to show how viable the company is.
So is this to see how much money they can screw out of us, because they will be in for a shock when they see the minimum returns the average club is operating on.

Having processed several PPL flight tests, applications and paperwork, i'm thinking of billing the CAA for the paper, ink and wear and tear of our printer!

After 35 years in aviation, might be time to give up.

[Mickey Kaye]

are the caa aware of the damage that these changes are going to do to the uk flight training industry and in turn ga in the uk as a whole. these regulation will destroy it.

do they do any form of impact assesment when they introduce new regulation?

to me doc 55 seems an awful waste of time. why don't they just produce example manuals for rf to adopt. like the bmma have done for microlight schools?

[BigEndBob]

Because, as i have been told, if that was to happen, especially with sms, it will just sit on a shelf unread. Whereas if someone as had to collate the info. they would be more knowledgable and more likely to use the info. in the docs.

Unfortunately small flying clubs are being treated like the big commercial schools. Someones being very lazy and just copy and pasteing to create stds doc 55. Unless of course they come up with something different for RTF's.
Example being the 6 to 1 ratio student/instructor. That sounds sensible for a commercial school, but not a flying club.
One size doesn't fit all.

[Whopity]

I understand the French DGAC are likely to accept a 3 page disposition from an ATO conducting PPL training!

[BigEndBob]

IN-2013/131: The transition of Registered Training Facilities to Approved Training Organisations | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5697)

This is interesting. Play the game , fee £100, don't, fine £1000.

And this;
IN-2013/118: Guidance for ATOs conducting PPL(A), PPL(H), LAPL(A) or LAPL(H) courses, for which there are new Theoretical Knowledge (TK) requirements | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5658)