EASA Part FCL
Thread Starter
EASA Part FCL
For those interested the latest NPA is available re EASA Part FCL
Please note that CRD of NPA-2008-17b "Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing - Part-FCL" is now open for consultation on EASA website.
See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_44
To place reactions please logon at EASA CRT application
Please note that CRD of NPA-2008-17b "Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing - Part-FCL" is now open for consultation on EASA website.
See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_44
To place reactions please logon at EASA CRT application
And I was infuriated to read (concerning Flight Instructor requirements):
Never mind whether or not they are appropriate, Befehl ist Befehl!, it would seem....
However, based on the comments received and after careful consideration the Agency has decided to re-introduce the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement. This decision is based on the fact that it was decided to stay as close as possible with the JAR-FCL requirements and the ICAO standards.
Thread Starter
And the LAFI still only needs 50 hours experience to remove the Restriction whereas a better qualified FI still needs 100 hours!
Note also the new Aerobatics, Towing and Flight Test Ratings!
Note also the new Aerobatics, Towing and Flight Test Ratings!
Why is everyone so surprised? EASA FCL was always going to contain exactly what the bureaucracy wanted it to contain. It was never going to matter one iota what you or I thought about it - we represent nothing more than insignificant irritations that have to be humoured. The whole NPA/CRD process is, so far as EASA is concerned, a necessary, if tedious, formality that will, in the end, be consigned to the dustbin. The same will be true of OPS, ATC and all of the other areas that EASA will take responsibility for. Last I heard, the agency (I won't dignify it with a capital letter) employed over 500 people just one of whom had any professional flight experience. Welcome to the brave new world and thank the Great Green Arkleseizure that I'm almost out of it!
........just one of whom had any professional flight experience
OK, some exaggeration there I admit but, when applied to the Rulemaking Directorate, not that much. It just gets extremely frustrating when the blind dogma of lawyers and bureaucrats continually overrules considered professional judgement.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Formal public exam for public role
>Agency has decided to re-introduce the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement
So to summarise the agency has decided that a flight instructor will still have to sit a formal professional pilot public written exam (in proper exam conditions) before being allowed to exercise his intended commercial role?
So to summarise the agency has decided that a flight instructor will still have to sit a formal professional pilot public written exam (in proper exam conditions) before being allowed to exercise his intended commercial role?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Exeter
Age: 48
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpl theory
I can't see why anyone would object to instructors having to pass the CPL knowledge. After all, they're not hard exams now, not like the old days
I am hoping to go full time into being an instructor over the next few years.
Another vote for GTS at Bournemouth for CPL ground course 
However, unless you are sure you just want to instruct it is probably better to do the ATPL exams (not a lot of extra studying) as it keeps your options open for other professional flying careers
( Edward, we overlapped at GTS - we'll meet up at Sherburn no doubt)
Stuart Chater
However, unless you are sure you just want to instruct it is probably better to do the ATPL exams (not a lot of extra studying) as it keeps your options open for other professional flying careers
( Edward, we overlapped at GTS - we'll meet up at Sherburn no doubt)
Stuart Chater
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a reminder that tomorrow (Wednesday 9th) is the closing date for comments on the responses to comments. Gawd knows whether anything will make any difference, but at least one can try.
Go to the EASA CRT application, log in or register, 'View documents', and find NPA 2008-17b on the fourth page; right click and add general comments.
Windrusher
Go to the EASA CRT application, log in or register, 'View documents', and find NPA 2008-17b on the fourth page; right click and add general comments.
Windrusher
Gawd knows whether anything will make any difference
Of course the Basic Regulation can be changed. But not by EASA - it would require EC political will and effort:
Just delete the part in blue, then 'devolve' competence for sub-ICAO licensing to national authorities under the principle of 'subsidiarity' which €urocrats are always quacking about!
Such measures shall also include provisions for the issuance of all types of pilot licences and ratings required under the Chicago Convention, and of a leisure pilot licence covering noncommercial activities involving aircraft with a maximum certificated take off mass of 2000kg or less and which do not meet any of the criteria referred to in Article 3(j).
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Jun 2010 at 07:27.
Of course the Basic Regulation can be changed. But not by EASA
EASA have stated, officially, that the justification for retaining the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement for PPL instructors is because it is required under ICAO Annex 1.
This was the argument put forward by the Belgium national aviation authority which, ultimately, EASA acquiesced to.
There are a number of things wrong here.
First, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with flight safety - EASA's primary remit. Why? Because the LAFI rating to teach the LAPL doesn't require the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement, so clearly EASA doesn't see the CPL theory requirement as a boon to flight safety as it pertains to instructors.
Second, to date, the differences filed against ICAO Annex 1 is larger than the Annex itself, so any excuse that they have to toe the ICAO line is specious, to say the least.
Third, in my opinion, instruction should not classed as aerial work - which is the ONLY justification I can see for the CPL requirement.
The Basic Regulation MUST be re-written; EASA must be properly funded and staffed, and if these ridiculous new regs are to remain then they MUST be written as soft law - i.e. written in such a way that an 'alternative means of compliance' can be filed by our CAA. If these regs are put into hard law then only European Parliament can change them.
Regards, jez
This was the argument put forward by the Belgium national aviation authority which, ultimately, EASA acquiesced to.
There are a number of things wrong here.
First, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with flight safety - EASA's primary remit. Why? Because the LAFI rating to teach the LAPL doesn't require the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement, so clearly EASA doesn't see the CPL theory requirement as a boon to flight safety as it pertains to instructors.
Second, to date, the differences filed against ICAO Annex 1 is larger than the Annex itself, so any excuse that they have to toe the ICAO line is specious, to say the least.
Third, in my opinion, instruction should not classed as aerial work - which is the ONLY justification I can see for the CPL requirement.
The Basic Regulation MUST be re-written; EASA must be properly funded and staffed, and if these ridiculous new regs are to remain then they MUST be written as soft law - i.e. written in such a way that an 'alternative means of compliance' can be filed by our CAA. If these regs are put into hard law then only European Parliament can change them.
Regards, jez