EASA PART-FCL PPL(A) Theoretical Examinations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA PART-FCL PPL(A) Theoretical Examinations
Does anybody know of any changes to the PPL(A) theory exams over the past few years. i.e. has the involvement of EASA caused a change in the examinations?
If you want to take them, send me a PM.
Applicants shall only take the examination when recommended by the approved training organisation (ATO) responsible for their training, once they have completed the appropriate elements of the training course of theoretical knowledge instruction to a satisfactory standard.
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Dec 2012 at 08:36.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: THE NORTH
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATO = RF
G-RICH
All (current) registered facilities are deemed to be ATO's
Any new applications must pass go and straight to an ATO.
Rf's have a until 2014/15 to do the ATO thing.
By then lets hope Gatwick have got some more staff and there is a lot more clarity on much of this bs!
All (current) registered facilities are deemed to be ATO's
Any new applications must pass go and straight to an ATO.
Rf's have a until 2014/15 to do the ATO thing.
By then lets hope Gatwick have got some more staff and there is a lot more clarity on much of this bs!
Last edited by JUST-local; 10th Dec 2012 at 20:54.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[pedant]All FTOs (and TRTOs) became ATOs on 8 April 2012 and must become fully compliant with Part-ORA by April 2014.[/pedant]
According to our CAA Inspector, as of last Monday, no former RFs had been approved as ATOs, although a number of applications had been rejected. Given the financial penalty, I can't see why any RF would rush to become an ATO - the only advantage is the ability to offer the LAPL.
According to our CAA Inspector, as of last Monday, no former RFs had been approved as ATOs, although a number of applications had been rejected. Given the financial penalty, I can't see why any RF would rush to become an ATO - the only advantage is the ability to offer the LAPL.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 52
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its going to cost way more that a grand.
night approval is 500 quid. you even have to pay 500 quid to upgrade a lapl to a ppl.
these are the direct charges on top of this you have the indirect cost of writing the manuals.
if these changes go through as it stands it Will be the death of the flight training industry in the UK.
night approval is 500 quid. you even have to pay 500 quid to upgrade a lapl to a ppl.
these are the direct charges on top of this you have the indirect cost of writing the manuals.
if these changes go through as it stands it Will be the death of the flight training industry in the UK.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Billiebob is incorrect. There are already approved ATOs that are compliant. While the RTF side of approval was a side line we made it compliant at the same time as doing the FTO and TRTO and now everything is covered under a single ATO approval.
I also know of two flying schools that were just RTF that I have helped produce manuals and procedures for in order to become compliant.
Not everyone has buried there heads in the sand.
I also know of two flying schools that were just RTF that I have helped produce manuals and procedures for in order to become compliant.
Not everyone has buried there heads in the sand.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillieBob what makes you think a current RF can not train, test and examine for a LAPL? They can do the same for an EASA PPL
During this period they could continue to provide the same courses as they did previously (PPL, Night, IMC, etc).
LAPL did not exist prior to 17/9/12 so could not be "granfathered" in this way.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The inspector may have been incorrect, Bose, but I was not - that was the statement that he made. My response was, in any case, directed at G-RICH who asked specifically about what he termed 'real' RFs (i.e. those not associated with FTOs or TRTOs). Whilst you may have produced manuals for one or more such RFs, my understanding remains that none has yet received approval.
I also understand, from the same source, that there is a draft Information Notice doing the rounds that will address the 100 hours groundschool requirement.
I also understand, from the same source, that there is a draft Information Notice doing the rounds that will address the 100 hours groundschool requirement.
