CAA Set to abolish Registered Training Facilties
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Set to abolish Registered Training Facilties
I receive a flyer from training.com CAA it says this may effect your business
They are considering allowing JAR to remove all (RTFs) and convert them to (TRA)
This will seriously effect all flight training in the UK training costs will double,
It will be difficult to find a training facility.
All instructors with a PPL with grandfather rights will be forced to stop instructing or work under a CPL chief pilot and the next thing will be the need to have a CPL to instruct. I along with most of the (RTFs) will be forced out of business. I will seek compensation for the removal of my ability to use all my ratings.
The next thing will be no SVFR at night and no IMC rating.
We need to all get together to stop these fools killing our PPL flying world.
Please note that consultation period for NPA-2008-22d "Authority and Organisation Requirements - Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices "CS-FSTD(A)"" has been extended until 15 Apr 2009.
See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_55
To place comments please logon at EASA CRT application
For further information please contact Rulemaking Process Support at [email protected]
They are considering allowing JAR to remove all (RTFs) and convert them to (TRA)
This will seriously effect all flight training in the UK training costs will double,
It will be difficult to find a training facility.
All instructors with a PPL with grandfather rights will be forced to stop instructing or work under a CPL chief pilot and the next thing will be the need to have a CPL to instruct. I along with most of the (RTFs) will be forced out of business. I will seek compensation for the removal of my ability to use all my ratings.
The next thing will be no SVFR at night and no IMC rating.
We need to all get together to stop these fools killing our PPL flying world.
Please note that consultation period for NPA-2008-22d "Authority and Organisation Requirements - Certification Specifications for Aeroplane Flight Simulation Training Devices "CS-FSTD(A)"" has been extended until 15 Apr 2009.
See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_55
To place comments please logon at EASA CRT application
For further information please contact Rulemaking Process Support at [email protected]
Last edited by eddietcapt; 11th Feb 2009 at 01:49.
It's not our CAA 'allowing' anything!
The trouble is the endless flow of Colognic irritation flowing from these absurd €urocrats.
We were originally told that all EASA would do would be to add legal strength to previous JAA practices and that there would be no significant changes.
We were comprehensively lied to.
The trouble is the endless flow of Colognic irritation flowing from these absurd €urocrats.
We were originally told that all EASA would do would be to add legal strength to previous JAA practices and that there would be no significant changes.
We were comprehensively lied to.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is nothing good about being part of Europe. In every aspect of life Britsh standards - which were those by which the world worked - are being lowered to the lowest common denominator for no good reason.
The problem is that the only real way to fight it is to become one of them, and like becoming a lawyer, you may as well just kill yourself first.
If I were in the CAA just now I would feel a deep, deep sense of shame and can only assume that those responsible are the nasty little middle management types with no heritage in British aviation, not anyone who has been in the RAF or UK airlines for any length of time.
Truly contemptible.
The problem is that the only real way to fight it is to become one of them, and like becoming a lawyer, you may as well just kill yourself first.
If I were in the CAA just now I would feel a deep, deep sense of shame and can only assume that those responsible are the nasty little middle management types with no heritage in British aviation, not anyone who has been in the RAF or UK airlines for any length of time.
Truly contemptible.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been comprehensively lied to since we joined up with that lot over the Channel, in the mid '70's. Mark my word, if you think it is bad now, wait for another 20 years or so! It will be unbearable.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposals from EASA for the licensing of pilots has been available for ages.
There is no mention of RTF in those proposals - all trainng oganistions will have to be approved from LPL training providers to ATPL providers (however the requirements are different).
Anyone who had read the proposals will be fully aware of that.
The proposals from EASA for training organisations is also available on their website and has been for quite some time.
It is clear that current reputable RTFs provding decent professional training in accordance with the industry standards will have nothing to worry about.
Of course, there is going to be profiteering by organisations who try to convince people who don't know about the system - prospective students - that months of expensive work went into getting the approval to train them and consequently they are havng to pay an extortionate rate.
Advice to student - if you hear that it is probably true which means that the organisation was below the minimum standard before - and probaly will be again.
The CAA, AOPA and several other organisations were involved in the draftng of the proposed requirements and also everyone still has time to comment - see the EASA website.
One of the primary reasons why you have longer to comment on the licensing proposals is that some of us were awake to the issues and were unhappy to have the licensing proposals considered in isolation from the organisations proposals.
If organisations actualy need to make serious changes to conform to such a basic standard as is required under the proposals for approval to train PPLs then those organisations should not be doing that training now.
Regards,
DFC
There is no mention of RTF in those proposals - all trainng oganistions will have to be approved from LPL training providers to ATPL providers (however the requirements are different).
Anyone who had read the proposals will be fully aware of that.
The proposals from EASA for training organisations is also available on their website and has been for quite some time.
It is clear that current reputable RTFs provding decent professional training in accordance with the industry standards will have nothing to worry about.
Of course, there is going to be profiteering by organisations who try to convince people who don't know about the system - prospective students - that months of expensive work went into getting the approval to train them and consequently they are havng to pay an extortionate rate.
Advice to student - if you hear that it is probably true which means that the organisation was below the minimum standard before - and probaly will be again.
The CAA, AOPA and several other organisations were involved in the draftng of the proposed requirements and also everyone still has time to comment - see the EASA website.
One of the primary reasons why you have longer to comment on the licensing proposals is that some of us were awake to the issues and were unhappy to have the licensing proposals considered in isolation from the organisations proposals.
If organisations actualy need to make serious changes to conform to such a basic standard as is required under the proposals for approval to train PPLs then those organisations should not be doing that training now.
Regards,
DFC
Eddietcapt
I take it that you have registered your concerns with EASA because unless we all make our concerns known Europe will take over on their terms! You have until the end of February. This might be of interest!
http://www.halldale.com/Assets/Files.../Petteford.ppt
If you actually read the EASA proposal you will see that it actually makes it easier to instruct on a PPL, no CPL knowledge required and you can be remunerated!
I take it that you have registered your concerns with EASA because unless we all make our concerns known Europe will take over on their terms! You have until the end of February. This might be of interest!
http://www.halldale.com/Assets/Files.../Petteford.ppt
All instructors with a PPL with grandfather rights will be forced to stop instructing or work under a CPL chief pilot and the next thing will be the need to have a CPL to instruct.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I can't be the only one who glazes over everytime this topic comes up?
The problems seems to be that everyone has their own take on how this European malarky is gonna affect Joe Instructor in the UK.
Just wish someone would spell it out in plain english instead of posting scaremongering soundbites to attract attention.
VFE.
The problems seems to be that everyone has their own take on how this European malarky is gonna affect Joe Instructor in the UK.
Just wish someone would spell it out in plain english instead of posting scaremongering soundbites to attract attention.
VFE.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is spelled out in english, here:
Rulemaking | Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs)
I pointed out the issue of RF/FTO/ATOs to the CAA at the initial meeting with the industry. The additional burden, both in terms of paperwork and cost, on the UK Flight Training Industry is unnecessary and at no proven safety benefit.
It is the responsibility of all CFIs at RFs to make representation to EASA before the deadline (currently 28th February 2009), in a sensible coherent manner. The link above also takes you to the Comment Response Tool where you can register your agreement or otherwise to the various EASA NPAs.
Regards,
ifitaint...
Rulemaking | Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs)
I pointed out the issue of RF/FTO/ATOs to the CAA at the initial meeting with the industry. The additional burden, both in terms of paperwork and cost, on the UK Flight Training Industry is unnecessary and at no proven safety benefit.
It is the responsibility of all CFIs at RFs to make representation to EASA before the deadline (currently 28th February 2009), in a sensible coherent manner. The link above also takes you to the Comment Response Tool where you can register your agreement or otherwise to the various EASA NPAs.
Regards,
ifitaint...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Redhill
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with DFC, any RF , properly run will only be subject to minimum changes. The NPA goes though the obvious provisions and requirments that would be normally found at a flying school/ club. There may be an audit of premises, qualifications, paperwork and aircraft etc but as I say , that shouldn't be a problem. Students pay a lot of money for a PPL and if it avoids some of the splapdash and unprofessional outfits I see occasionally, all the better.
The big advantage in this NPA is that it will require a Head of Training or CFI as a "post holder", for all training including RF,or what they will then be called. Often on these forums the word CFI is used and assumed at RF's but it has never been a statutory requirment, and this for a key member of any training team, and often the necessary counterbalance to flying school owners!
The big advantage in this NPA is that it will require a Head of Training or CFI as a "post holder", for all training including RF,or what they will then be called. Often on these forums the word CFI is used and assumed at RF's but it has never been a statutory requirment, and this for a key member of any training team, and often the necessary counterbalance to flying school owners!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What utter nonsense ! This will mean unnecessary increased bureaucracy and cost. Do you think that they will audit for free ? Bad news for flight training.
If it ain't broke
don't fix it !
If you think that this is a good idea why not read the proposed rule change and then post a comment, that will take up an evening of your time. The proposed change and feedback process is ridiculously difficult to read, understand and action.
If it ain't broke
don't fix it !If you think that this is a good idea why not read the proposed rule change and then post a comment, that will take up an evening of your time. The proposed change and feedback process is ridiculously difficult to read, understand and action.
Last edited by belowradar; 2nd Feb 2009 at 19:03.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belowradar said:
Really, I did not have much trouble understanding it. Perhaps the problem is you. I bet you take your socks off when you want to count beyond ten too.
If you think that this is a good idea why not read the proposed rule change and then post a comment, that will take up an evening of your time. The proposed change and feedback process is ridiculously difficult to read, understand and action.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuff it, I'm off to microlights...................
Some people just don't get it!
The EASA is not trying to improve things - although in some places it will be an improvement - but to harmonise and basically remove all the differences that remain even after the JAA has been round for years.
Unless the UK removes the requirement to hold a licence from some part of the pilot community then everyone will eventually be trained and tested under EASA.
-------------
Whopity,
I laughed the first time I saw that presentation and even without the talk to go with the pictures it is still a joke.
Who in their right mind stands up in front of the regulator and peers to say that they have to train in a country outside the UK because there are not enough instructors in the UK but there are plenty of instructors in this other country..........did they never investigate employment legislation specifically the bit about what one can do when one is not able to find suitable candidates in the EU?
Seems that these very suitable instructors available in the US are not suitable enough to be offered positions in the UK! Which by definitin makes then unsuitable for what they are doing already.
If these US instructors are truly knowledgable in what they are teaching then it should be no problem to pass the EASA CPL or ATPL exams. Especially after completing the bridging course.
Revolver - Foot - Aim.
The only part of the proposals that they could have had a legitimate issue with and they made a total ass of their complaint to the point where mouch of it is dismissed.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All RF have had to register and follow all the rules all is running smothly we all take our students for the GFT they pass or they dont. We all had to jump through all the hoops to get our permisions to train. Now our CAA are set to allow the rules to be changed. I along with everyone in the industry are strugling to earn a living. NOW if all you do gooders are making a fortune from trainning you must be cutting corners or sitting there and topping the hours up or subsidising your wages sum way. I have no big outgoings I have no outstanding bills running on I pay as I go my students get value for money and have done for 23 years. If the CAA impliment these or any changes to the rules I will be forced to close and I will take the CAA to court for allowing this to happen. If when I started building hours to be an AFI the CAA had said that one day we may send you a memo saying this may effect your business and after reading find that I will have to stop instructing, I would not have started down the long and expensive road. How many RFs will be prepared to start again jumping through hoops. We should be left alone and given an exemption on the grandfather rights. If you have a TRO keep your negative comments to yourself you would profit from this rule being enforced. E
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really DFC, have you seen any plans to make microlights come under EASA? According to NPA 2008-07 the intention is to not affect microlights, though there does seem to be some leeway to potentially force them to be moved into the ELA1 category at a future point.
eddie, I know what you mean, most RF's simply cannot afford any more expense and this will be a significant expense. It will utterly decimate this business.
I just hope that the proposals to allow teaching from unlicenced fields comes to pass. That would make a massive difference to the business.
eddie, I know what you mean, most RF's simply cannot afford any more expense and this will be a significant expense. It will utterly decimate this business.
I just hope that the proposals to allow teaching from unlicenced fields comes to pass. That would make a massive difference to the business.
If the CAA implement these or any changes to the rules I will be forced to close and I will take the CAA to court for allowing this to happen.
Yes its all unnecessary and will contribute nothing to safety but unless we all tell the European politicians that, we will be stuck with it.
I just hope that the proposals to allow teaching from unlicenced fields comes to pass.
Microlights come under Regulation (EC) 216/2008 ANNEX II, page 32 Aircraft referred to in article 4 (4) and are excluded.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisbl
Really, I did not have much trouble understanding it. Perhaps the problem is you. I bet you take your socks off when you want to count beyond ten too.
Oh dear another fairly typical response from a pruner who hides behind anonymity and allows a bad attitude to interfere with open and honest debate.
The Notice Of Proposed amendment is definitely not clear and transparent, the mechanism for feeding back comments is not clear and transparent, as a result many people (myself included) will not waste hours trying to provide this cryptic feedback and so this nonsense will be passed into law. I guess that is why it is so convaluted.
I want to spend no more than a few minutes reading about a proposed change and I wish to comment quickly and easily. I don't wish to employ a lawyer, translator and consultant just to understand this rubbish.
Chrisbl - IF THIS IS EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY YOU THEN YOU MUST BE JUST AS BIG AN £$%SSH&*£ AS THE GUYS WHO WROTE IT !
Really, I did not have much trouble understanding it. Perhaps the problem is you. I bet you take your socks off when you want to count beyond ten too.
Oh dear another fairly typical response from a pruner who hides behind anonymity and allows a bad attitude to interfere with open and honest debate.
The Notice Of Proposed amendment is definitely not clear and transparent, the mechanism for feeding back comments is not clear and transparent, as a result many people (myself included) will not waste hours trying to provide this cryptic feedback and so this nonsense will be passed into law. I guess that is why it is so convaluted.
I want to spend no more than a few minutes reading about a proposed change and I wish to comment quickly and easily. I don't wish to employ a lawyer, translator and consultant just to understand this rubbish.
Chrisbl - IF THIS IS EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY YOU THEN YOU MUST BE JUST AS BIG AN £$%SSH&*£ AS THE GUYS WHO WROTE IT !
I was discussing the current UK Microlight weight limit with a senior BMAA chap and asked whether it would be an idea to press the CAA for an increase to the 600 kg 'Light-sport aircraft' limit used in the US. My thoughts being that this would make Microlighting more attractive to some people as it would be free of the idiocy of the ridiculously €urocratic 'Leisure Pilot Licence'.
However, he thought that this would actually be detrimental to his organisation as it would merely make it a more obvious target for the €urocratic legislators...... I can see his point!
The UK NPPL is (at last) a model of what can be achieved by synergy between legislators and industry. However, all the benefits of the NPPL will be swept away by EASA unless enough people object to the LPL.
All you have to do is to state that you 'recommend that EASA part-FCL shall only apply to ICAO licensing and that individual Member States shall retain competency for sub-ICAO pilot licensing where so permitted under national law'.
All that is required for €vil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Don't be one of them!
However, he thought that this would actually be detrimental to his organisation as it would merely make it a more obvious target for the €urocratic legislators...... I can see his point!
The UK NPPL is (at last) a model of what can be achieved by synergy between legislators and industry. However, all the benefits of the NPPL will be swept away by EASA unless enough people object to the LPL.
All you have to do is to state that you 'recommend that EASA part-FCL shall only apply to ICAO licensing and that individual Member States shall retain competency for sub-ICAO pilot licensing where so permitted under national law'.
All that is required for €vil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Don't be one of them!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really DFC, have you seen any plans to make microlights come under EASA?
However, microlights need certification, maintenance and on-going airworthiness- all outside EASA control for the moment.
Pilots on the other hand are a separate issue and need a licence of one sort or another plus some form of medical. All the issues related to getting and keeping such licenses are covered by the EASA NPA we are discussing.
You are not the first to assume that since microlights are outside EASA for airworthiness purposes that the pilots are likewise excluded. Unfortunately the Basic LPL and the LPL are designed with such pilots in mind.
I think that you will find that many of the microlight schools - especially those that teach instructor ratings (for which they already pay the CAA an approval / inspection fee) are looking forward to the changes and the opportunities that will bring when coupled with EASA no longer requiring that training be completed from licensed airfields in the case of anything heavier than a microlight.
Regards,
DFC