EASA PART-FCL PPL(A) Theoretical Examinations

[lukem08]

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?

[BEagle]

If you want to take them, send me a PM.

Not quite as simple as that these days - see Theoretical knowledge examinations for the issue of licences and note FCL.025(a)(2):

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.

[S-Works]

No RFs have been approved as ATOs yet, so you can just forget about all this until 2015.

Incorrect, there are a number of them already approved.

[JUST-local]

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!

[BillieBob]

[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.

[JUST-local]

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

[Mickey Kaye]

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.

[S-Works]

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.

[Level Attitude]

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

Existing RFs were given from 17 Sept 2012 until 2014 to become ATOs (if they wish).
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.

[BillieBob]

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.