RTF to ATO, what does it mean?

[tobster911]

Hi all,

Very quick question. I've just heard that my local flight school is now an ATO. What does this actually mean? Will there be a difference in the training they offer, or the prices, or is it literally just a title?

Many thanks

T

[Wuniform]

Isn't that simply the change from the old regulations to Part-FCL EASA compliant training management? From experience, whatever has an EU stamp is more expensive and less understandable.

[robin]

Shouldn't affect you.

It's just another thing that happens from time to time, when the CAA and/or EASA have nothing better to do than make changes where they aren't needed.

[S-Works]

What it means for you is nothing. What it means for the school is a massive amount of cost and paperwork and a much more rigorous audit scheme. Unless they are offering courses above PPL then they may have been better waiting for the replacement to the RTF which is in the pipeline. We transition to an ATO on day 1 at considerable cost and pain as we were a TRTO doing type rating and approved courses as well as PPL but it really was a hard road.

[Whopity]

What does this actually mean?It means that the training given is now approved and in compliance with the EU regulations and subject to audit and external oversight.
Will there be a difference in the training they offer,Probably not, but the details of it will be laid out in a manual!
or the prices,Presumably someone (the customer) will have to pay for the additional bureauracracy, approval fees, but think of the "additional safety" you now have!

Even EASA considered the ATO requirement over the top for recreational flying, and subject to further committee work, the RTF should be able to Declare its allegance to the Regulation and become a DTO without the expense of becoming an ATO!

[Capt Kremmen]

But he still doesn't know what is an RTF or an ATO !

[terry holloway]

But he still doesn't know what is an RTF or an ATO !
He does because I've told him!

[tobster911]

Thank you all for that really useful information, and thank you Terry for the messages :)

[alex90]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen View Post
But he still doesn't know what is an RTF or an ATO !

He does because I've told him!



Was a post deleted? I don't see any explanation posted on the forum... Or is this the "private message" taking over a thread? I was recently quoted £100 per hour of instruction on my own aircraft for the IR, and the company (who will remain nameless) said that this was due to the high cost of becoming an ATO - so I would find it interesting to have information that seems to be missing from this thread.

[Mickey Kaye]

I have heard and it would be nice if someone confirm that the full costs in fees to the CAA for a school that offers CPL and IR training including extras such as simm approval is a little over 20 grand a year. On top of that you have the indirect costs of audits and preparing and updating various manuals.

If that's true then 100 pound per hour in your own aircraft is probably not unreasonable.

[alex90]

a little over 20 grand a year

Figure to be confirmed of course... But that seems absolutely absurd! How can the UK CAA justify charging that kind of money!? (other than of course - they hold the monopoly in the industry and can charge anything they like for anything they want).

For what..? Approval to allow qualified staff to offer training to the level they themselves are licensed to offer? Why do they feel the need to make people's lives a misery / more difficult / much more expensive? Is there a process we can follow to force them to justify their costs, and perhaps overturn their prices?

[terry holloway]

Was a post deleted? I don't see any explanation posted on the forum... Or is this the "private message" taking over a thread? I was recently quoted £100 per hour of instruction on my own aircraft for the IR, and the company (who will remain nameless) said that this was due to the high cost of becoming an ATO - so I would find it interesting to have information that seems to be missing from this thread.
The original post was directed at the PPL level, and yes I sent a PM.

Figure to be confirmed of course... But that seems absolutely absurd! How can the UK CAA justify charging that kind of money!? (other than of course - they hold the monopoly in the industry and can charge anything they like for anything they want).

For what..? Approval to allow qualified staff to offer training to the level they themselves are licensed to offer? Why do they feel the need to make people's lives a misery / more difficult / much more expensive? Is there a process we can follow to force them to justify their costs, and perhaps overturn their prices?
I run an ATO which provides a wide variety of training within the "PPL arena". We also provide Competancy Based Modular IR Training. We did not increase costs/prices when we became an ATO two years ago. Our charges remain very competitive (when compared with RTFs) and we do not pay an annual fee to the CAA.

[MrAverage]

I'm a little confused. RFs pay £100 per year and you pay nothing?

[terry holloway]

I'm a little confused. RFs pay £100 per year and you pay nothing?
That confuses me too! We have always paid a fee for amendments/changes to the ATO when they have occurred.

[S-Works]

Our charges remain very competitive (when compared with RTFs) and we do not pay an annual fee to the CAA.

How do you manage that? We get a bill every year with eye watering numbers!

[terry holloway]

How do you manage that? We get a bill every year with eye watering numbers!
I've no idea! I'm not going to ask why and I'm keeping my head down!

[Whopity]

I was recently quoted £100 per hour of instruction on my own aircraft for the IR, and the company (who will remain nameless) said that this was due to the high cost of becoming an ATO It has always been a requirement to hold an approval to conduct IR courses. There is little difference in cost between becoming an ATO and the former FTO. An IR initial approval costs £1227 and then £1141 per anum. Other course will attract similar fees.

[alex90]

Whopity - so this means that the school I was talking to, essentially was talking rubbish...

If I needed 30 hours of instruction to pass my CB-IR, they would make back the cost of being allowed to do IR training, and still have £60 per hour for the instructor with no-one but me doing the course! Seems a little crazy to me...

But perhaps I am just bad at numbers, and maybe it is one of the few things required to make money out of general aviation training? I told them that I would need to save a little before even contemplating the training. (i have started the groundschool - but not sat the exams yet)

[S-Works]

So do you think an aviation professional who has paid tens up tens of thousands of pounds and significant time in gaining the skills to train you who knows naff all to do one of the single most dangerous courses in aviation is not worth the money?

[BillieBob]

I have heard and it would be nice if someone confirm that the full costs in fees to the CAA for a school that offers CPL and IR training including extras such as simm approval is a little over 20 grand a year.From the current CAA Scheme of Charges:

Initial approval of CPL: £1277
Initial approval of IR: £1277
Initial evaluation of FNPT II: £7334

Annual continuation charge for CPL: £1141
Annual continuation charge for IR: £1141
Recurrent evaluation of FNPT II: £1654

All of the required manuals can be produced internally (the format is in AMC1 ORA.ATO.230(c)) or farmed out to a consultant for, say, £2000.

The fee for an external auditor seems to vary between £400 and £700/day and you can probably get away with one audit/year.

Thus total costs for initial approval, assuming that you get everything right first time, will be about 12,000 and recurrent costs about £5-6000 per annum. Not exactly cheap but certainly nowhere near £20,000 p.a.

[alex90]

Thank BillieBob - that is quite a bit of money, it is true! Assuming that this is spread evenly between all courses though - I am hoping for the sake of the schools however, that this should easily be recouped!

Bose-X, after 14 years of professional experience in my field, having spent more than 3 years, spending more than a few tens of thousands in training, I am still no where near £100 per hour. I am not saying that the instructor is or isn't worthy of that money, that is for the individual to prove to me. I have been taught by fantastic instructors and pretty dire ones as I think you know from previous posts I have made. I don't particularly find the IR to be more dangerous than the IR(R) [unless I am missing something? please do tell me if I am!] and I only pay £48 per hour instruction including VAT. I do respect instructors, examiners and training organisations greatly as I do love my hobby, I most certainly don't want them to be short changed either. I understand that this is more specialised training, and I did expect the hourly costs to increase but for it to more than double? That DID surprise me. (as did the IR skills test fees)

ps: Sorry Tobster911 for threadshift