Yet another EASA complication......

[silverknapper]

Apologies if posted already.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informa...ice2014200.pdf

Yet another complication for those of us holding EASA licences.

To save clicking on the link the crucial sentence is:

The purpose of this Information Notice (IN) is to advise that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) now interprets Part-FCL to mean that the take-offs and landings in the aeroplane that must be completed before a Type Rating is issued, must be carried out under the control of an Approved Training Organisation (ATO). The completion of the take-offs and landings is commonly referred to as ‘base training’.

Following discussions between EASA and the Member States, EASA undertook a review of the meaning of the requirements for base training. They concluded that the base training is part of the approved Type Rating course and therefore, according to Part-FCL, it must be completed under the control of an ATO. This clarification means that the previous UK practice of accepting base training with a Type Rating Instructor (TRI), completed independently of any training organisation, must cease.
2.4 According to EASA, base training may be conducted: by the ATO that provided the simulator-based Type Rating course; or by another ATO that is approved to provide at least the base training part of the Type Rating course for the type of aeroplane. In the latter case, there does not have to be any agreement, connection or contract between the two ATOs.

First the three year rule now this. Call me a conspiracy theorist but given the amount of business ATO's will gain from all of this can we assume they have been lobbying hard? Utterly frustrating.

[Kelly Hopper]

We are being done up like a kipper by this EASA lot! In GA which ATO has aircraft? None! Now they will get into bed with operators and the costs skyrocket again. I have already seen a rating renewal quadruple in price thanks to these idiots. If you ask me it is a concerted effort to destroy GA and it is working!

[Martin Barnes]

Centreline Air/BFC have an ATO and Aircraft CE525 BE200

[Sop_Monkey]

Yeap. The Europeans are masters at complicating things aviation and destroying GA in the process.

The sooner the UK extract itself from the EU the quicker we can get back the old CAA mindset, if it ain't too late. No the old CAA weren't perfect by any means but they did show some flexibility.

One thing is for sure, if we just roll over and let these clowns, the old master race and the new, (the French) run rough shod over us, it will only get worse. Much worse.

[silverknapper]

Centreline Air/BFC have an ATO and Aircraft CE525 BE200

But they have no simulator. Everyone knows an initial TR is far more productive in the sim. And the CAA express this desire regularly through the FOI's for recurrents. And at this rate how long till EASA stop airborne TR's anyway.

Handy to know though. 2.4 states that the ATO for the course and the ATO for the landings need not be the same. I'd guess this will mean you're busy with people returning from Flight Safety et al.

Nice advertising

[avionimc]

All this BS would not fly in the US!

Can't European GA/BA pilots organize and create powerful associations similar to AOPA, EAA, NBAA?

European airline pilots seem to know how to strike (Air France, Lufthansa, etc.).

GA pilots on the other hand are like a punching bags, and keep paying more. Why?

[JliderPilot]

Para 3.1 makes interesting reading. I wonder if how readily the CAA will grant exemptions for other biz jet types.

[cambioso]

Comfortably in the "Smug Zone" now that we have taken our entire operation on to the "N" reg.......................
How in heaven's name AOC operators (not BA of course!) can make money with these daily EASA attacks on their operations and finances is a mystery to me.
At least private operators can escape on to the "M" or "N" reg.
Any non-revenue/corporate operators still on EASA must be bonkers!.
Jez

[deefer dog]

Utter madness and just another very large cost addition to a new type rating.

I can only assume that the likes of Flight Safety and CAE will now have to contract in examiners, and these will then conduct the base training under the auspices of the ATO.

M, VP, VC, N etc are all soooooo much better than any EU reg for a private operator, and I agree with Cambioso that anyone operating under EASA when they don't need to requires their head examining.

[silverknapper]

I agree to the point of The Isle of Man registry. Awesome. And hassle free. Long term though I just have a feeling EASA will make life increasingly difficult for N reg aircraft in the EU. No doubt I'll be shouted down for this, and it's just my personal view. But look at the whole licensing debacle. I have both licences so don't really care. But I'm certainly keeping the European one up to date.

[Sop_Monkey]

The New world order, globalization or one world, whatever you want to describe it, path to destruction is coming to fruition. This and all the rest of the BS that comes out of the EU is just a taster.

[EMB170]

The other thing you must not forget is, the aircraft you do your base training with, has to be insured for training purposes.
In our case the ATO insisted that the policy stated that the aircraft was insured for specific training dates and also had to include the name of the TRI .

[Kelly Hopper]

So practically how is this going to work? ATO's now selling types complete with base training? It has to be that way I guess or a lot of guys are going to get tripped up after sim training.
This is going to double type rating costs!

[Welle]

..nothing new..

this has been going on in some EASA countries for quite a while.

I was contracted by a manufacturers ATO already in early 2013 to do the base training with a spanish pilot - the spanish CAA did not accept the companies own TRI due to above stated reasons..

I agree with the insurance point...
all in all - one more step to make our lives more complicated
welle

[Richard101]

So could all TRI's become freelance contractors to the ATO's? Thus the TRI's do the base training as before, but on paper as a contracted employee of an ATO?


What a hassle regardless.

[Klimax]

Does this imply changes to the type rating transfer from FAA to EASA - after having obtained 500H flying hours on type and the rest of the requirements for transfer from FAA to EASA?

[Welle]

Hi Richard,

in theory, yes -
practically the ATOs have to nominate "their" TRIs and TREs to the applicable CAA Authority.

So i guess there will be a little movement in the "market".

rgds
Welle

[jetopa]

common sense CAAs

I came across this problem the other day when being asked to conduct base training in a business jet to a newly qualified pilot in an EASA member state. Since the ATO, where the pilot had done his initial course, couldn't help with doing this, his employer came to me.

Their first question was whether I was affiliated with any ATO (which I was not). Then they contacted their civil aviation authority and - voilá - they granted me a one-time permission to conduct this base training.

Maybe other CAAs will start dealing with these 'challenges' in a similar way...

[Klimax]

Jetopa,

Thanks for that info

Kmax

[g5tom]

Base training outside of an ATO

In Switzerland one can ask for an exemption under Article 14.4 of Regulation (EC) 216/2008, to conduct base training according to AMC2 ORA.ATO.125 outside of an ATO.

Exemption request form (60.536) can be found under the following link:

FOCA - EASA Forms - Aeroplane

G5tom