NPA 2015-20 : a chance to get rid of dead wood
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPA 2015-20 : a chance to get rid of dead wood
Proposing to have BTOs (Basic Training Organisation) replacing Resitered Facilities.
I see that Option 3 is no training structure at all.
Let's go for this !
Training can be done by any suitably qualified instructor.
It gets us away from all this dealing with "corporate bodies" bu**sh1t , many of which are owned or run by people who do not have any instructor qualification at all.
Clubs can provide the aircraft, or an individual / group of owners can, but the responsibility for training can now be with the people with the expertise. They have, after all, taken the FIC course and passed a test.
What counts is licensed people, not some paper entity and a couple of manuals that no-one ever reads.
The NPA points out that costs to students would be lowered and make the PPL more accessible.
I see that Option 3 is no training structure at all.
Let's go for this !
Training can be done by any suitably qualified instructor.
It gets us away from all this dealing with "corporate bodies" bu**sh1t , many of which are owned or run by people who do not have any instructor qualification at all.
Clubs can provide the aircraft, or an individual / group of owners can, but the responsibility for training can now be with the people with the expertise. They have, after all, taken the FIC course and passed a test.
What counts is licensed people, not some paper entity and a couple of manuals that no-one ever reads.
The NPA points out that costs to students would be lowered and make the PPL more accessible.
That would get my vote for sure, but I doubt if the powers that control these things will allow any relaxation of control they already exercise. Once the bureaucratic ratchet has clicked over a tooth, it can't, it seems, go back.
I just hope that the bureaucracy for 'Approval' can be kept to no more than that required for 'Registration', which had already been overdone, and that all additional PPL Ratings can be treated in the same way.
MJ
I just hope that the bureaucracy for 'Approval' can be kept to no more than that required for 'Registration', which had already been overdone, and that all additional PPL Ratings can be treated in the same way.
MJ
NPA 2015-20 proposes only very light oversight requirements, but the scope of training isn't as comprehensive as that proposed by NPA 2014-28, which would have covered all associated ratings and certificates which could be included in a PPL - such as MEP and IR. However, the UK CAA is planning to release an AltMoC for noncomplex ATOs to meet that need.
A complete free-for-all such as B61 proposes will never be acceptable to most Member States. The EASA tactic is to include various options so that they can identify the most appropriate and reject those identified as having a negative impact on safety. Hence Option 3 is only included so that they can explain why it has been rejected.
B61 wrote:
Oh I can just see that happening! Some wet-behind-the-ears hours-builder approaching a Club to hire one of its aeroplanes to teach some unknown student to fly....
Option 2 seems a reasonable 'light touch' compromise and is achievable by the end of the opt-out period. If the on-going discussions between Member States and the Commission lead to an amendment of the Basic Regulation, Option 1 would also be achievable, but currently there's no guarantee of this.
The only real quibble I have with NPA 2015-20 is that it hasn't considered inclusion of training for the 'Basic IR' (being developed by the RMT.0677 Task Force) within the scope of a BTO.
A complete free-for-all such as B61 proposes will never be acceptable to most Member States. The EASA tactic is to include various options so that they can identify the most appropriate and reject those identified as having a negative impact on safety. Hence Option 3 is only included so that they can explain why it has been rejected.
B61 wrote:
Clubs can provide the aircraft, or an individual / group of owners can, but the responsibility for training can now be with the people with the expertise. They have, after all, taken the FIC course and passed a test.
Option 2 seems a reasonable 'light touch' compromise and is achievable by the end of the opt-out period. If the on-going discussions between Member States and the Commission lead to an amendment of the Basic Regulation, Option 1 would also be achievable, but currently there's no guarantee of this.
The only real quibble I have with NPA 2015-20 is that it hasn't considered inclusion of training for the 'Basic IR' (being developed by the RMT.0677 Task Force) within the scope of a BTO.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But B61 didn't propose a complete free-for-all. The training would be conducted by a 'suitably qualified instructor' who, by this circular definition, would be suitably qualified.
I totally agree with you on the wet behind the ears thing, but that says more about the suitability of the FI qualification when issued. Perhaps a half-way house of only operating under the auspices of an ATO until the (R) is lifted and then Option 3? Other then that, I'm with B61.
I totally agree with you on the wet behind the ears thing, but that says more about the suitability of the FI qualification when issued. Perhaps a half-way house of only operating under the auspices of an ATO until the (R) is lifted and then Option 3? Other then that, I'm with B61.
NPA 2015-20 proposes only very light oversight requirements, but the scope of training isn't as comprehensive as that proposed by NPA 2014-28, which would have covered all associated ratings and certificates which could be included in a PPL - such as MEP and IR. However, the UK CAA is planning to release an AltMoC for noncomplex ATOs to meet that need.
BEagle: Is the target date for this when the present state of limbo expires in 2018, or could we possibly see the new rules introduced earlier? And are new applicants for 'Approval' going to be treated the same as existing RFs?
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 19th Dec 2015 at 12:56. Reason: Added question for BEagle
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
The average club provides an FI with very little beyond aircraft and a supply of students. Certainly nothing of value in instructional terms.
Once you are up there with a student, just what can be provided by way of "supervision" ? If the FI course ain't up to scratch, which seems to be your inference, then it should be sorted so it is fit for purpose.
How many clubs are more than virtual outfits reliant on contract and zero hour staff (who actually hold the required qualifications to teach the course ) ?
Time to cut out the middlemen and keep them in the place as no more than aircraft rental agencies. If you are an instructor, and can teach up to what you have, sticking in an intermediate layer of bureaucracy achieves nothing.
It's about time some of the ex-CFS characters who trot out this tripe about "standardisation" etc woke up, smelled the coffee and faced the reality of the civilian instructional world.
Fact is, there are few real jobs, the pay is naff, and clubs rely on the FI who is at least doing a job in aviation prior to get something that actually pays a return on his investment.
So give them a break and go for option 3.
The average club provides an FI with very little beyond aircraft and a supply of students. Certainly nothing of value in instructional terms.
Once you are up there with a student, just what can be provided by way of "supervision" ? If the FI course ain't up to scratch, which seems to be your inference, then it should be sorted so it is fit for purpose.
How many clubs are more than virtual outfits reliant on contract and zero hour staff (who actually hold the required qualifications to teach the course ) ?
Time to cut out the middlemen and keep them in the place as no more than aircraft rental agencies. If you are an instructor, and can teach up to what you have, sticking in an intermediate layer of bureaucracy achieves nothing.
It's about time some of the ex-CFS characters who trot out this tripe about "standardisation" etc woke up, smelled the coffee and faced the reality of the civilian instructional world.
Fact is, there are few real jobs, the pay is naff, and clubs rely on the FI who is at least doing a job in aviation prior to get something that actually pays a return on his investment.
So give them a break and go for option 3.
Last edited by B61; 19th Dec 2015 at 22:06.
Option 3 - Some negative impact on safety, as it will be more difficult to perform adequate oversight and standardisation of training.
Although I'm sure that it won't be accepted, I agree entirely with B61. The 'oversight and standardisation of training' is in reality, just an illusion, and no more than pointless bureaucracy.
Chasing this illusion has, over the last couple of decades, almost driven the flying training industry out of existence.
MJ
Chasing this illusion has, over the last couple of decades, almost driven the flying training industry out of existence.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 20th Dec 2015 at 05:38.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately, one national federation is actively involved in the process, the french one, backed by more than 600 aeroclubs, doing most if not all the Ppl training, 99% of them Registered Facilities (RF).
If nothing is done and RF's will need to convert to ATO's most of them will disappear.
Then there are the instructors, 99% of them coming from a peculiar selection within the system which has worked well over decades.
Instructors are mostly active club members who after decades of experience get the opportunity to share their knowledge.
For that there is a pre entry selection done in Paris, multiple choice questions exam from a PPL databank requiring 80% right answers to pass.
Successful applicants are then directed to the state academy SFACT for a 6 week full immersion training course. Applicant takes 60% of the training cost and french federation 40%. Upon completion they become FI's, the only limitation is that the cannot get paid, no big deal, small aeroclubs rely on volunteer staff, instructors or secretaries and they do a great job. Most of them work elsewhere and join the aeroclubs outside their working hours or on weekends.
The alternative is to go to a private flight school for the course but then there will be no financial subsidy.
Only big aeroclubs have the luxury of hiring few full fledged CPL or ATPL instructors.
If these aeroclubs have to become full fledged ATO's according to the existing system, the whole industry will be upset.
Aercoclubs cannot bear the expense, instructors will have to get a theoretical CPL or ATPL to carry on doing what they have done for years, often decades. And the requirements in terms of staff, paperwork, facilities for RF's to convert will be unbearable.
The result will be that surviving entities will have to rely on fresh 200 hr ATPL students willing to get an FI rating, getting a temporary underpaid job waiting for an airline to hire them.
Then, the existing system has allowed the french to excel in activities such as aerobatics and mountain flying, where experience is what counts, CPL or ATPL are of no use.
Let's hope that RF's will be allowed to become BTO's quickly as quickly as possible, or General Aviation will be wiped out, let's thank the french who are the driving force for this implementatiuon.
If nothing is done and RF's will need to convert to ATO's most of them will disappear.
Then there are the instructors, 99% of them coming from a peculiar selection within the system which has worked well over decades.
Instructors are mostly active club members who after decades of experience get the opportunity to share their knowledge.
For that there is a pre entry selection done in Paris, multiple choice questions exam from a PPL databank requiring 80% right answers to pass.
Successful applicants are then directed to the state academy SFACT for a 6 week full immersion training course. Applicant takes 60% of the training cost and french federation 40%. Upon completion they become FI's, the only limitation is that the cannot get paid, no big deal, small aeroclubs rely on volunteer staff, instructors or secretaries and they do a great job. Most of them work elsewhere and join the aeroclubs outside their working hours or on weekends.
The alternative is to go to a private flight school for the course but then there will be no financial subsidy.
Only big aeroclubs have the luxury of hiring few full fledged CPL or ATPL instructors.
If these aeroclubs have to become full fledged ATO's according to the existing system, the whole industry will be upset.
Aercoclubs cannot bear the expense, instructors will have to get a theoretical CPL or ATPL to carry on doing what they have done for years, often decades. And the requirements in terms of staff, paperwork, facilities for RF's to convert will be unbearable.
The result will be that surviving entities will have to rely on fresh 200 hr ATPL students willing to get an FI rating, getting a temporary underpaid job waiting for an airline to hire them.
Then, the existing system has allowed the french to excel in activities such as aerobatics and mountain flying, where experience is what counts, CPL or ATPL are of no use.
Let's hope that RF's will be allowed to become BTO's quickly as quickly as possible, or General Aviation will be wiped out, let's thank the french who are the driving force for this implementatiuon.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Option 3 - Some negative impact on safety, as it will be more difficult to perform adequate oversight and standardisation of training.
Which is why it won't be accepted.
Which is why it won't be accepted.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole of EASA philosophy is geared towards "Safety" and "Standardisation".
The infinite bureaucratic legislation produced is in support of this philosophy, created to fit in our society based on litigation.
Protection against potential litigation issues is the primary objective of lawyers bureaucrats within EASA.
Operation outside corporate bodies, without structure and oversight is very unlikely.
The infinite bureaucratic legislation produced is in support of this philosophy, created to fit in our society based on litigation.
Protection against potential litigation issues is the primary objective of lawyers bureaucrats within EASA.
Operation outside corporate bodies, without structure and oversight is very unlikely.
My quote came from the NPA - I was not an RMT.0657 Task Force member, so am not privy to the TF's discussions.
Have you read the NPA? If not, see http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...%202015-20.pdf .
The CAA plan to release a notice in the near future, which will summarise the main points of the new proposal and the requirement for new BTOs to gain approval.
Have you read the NPA? If not, see http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...%202015-20.pdf .
The CAA plan to release a notice in the near future, which will summarise the main points of the new proposal and the requirement for new BTOs to gain approval.
The whole of EASA philosophy is geared towards "Safety" and "Standardisation".
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
What saddens me most is the negative impact that all this uncertainty has had on our morale and the wicked waste of thousands of hours of instructors' time attending seminars. We were given a CD with 'how to do an ATO application' which is now useless (I'm pleased to say). The one I attended at Exeter must have had well over 100 people there.
Thankfully most of us put off actually wasting more time writing manuals which it turns out we'll likely never need.
Standardisation. This time around, we invited our FI examiner to visit with us - he spent a whole day with 2 of us and I must say it was FAR more valuable than the 2-day seminar I went to 3 years ago. We each did a 90-minute flight test, long and short briefings and an extensive de-brief - a long day for us and the examiner (2 hour drive each way) but much appreciated.
Perhaps we could go back to having AOPA running PPL training???
TOO
Thankfully most of us put off actually wasting more time writing manuals which it turns out we'll likely never need.
Standardisation. This time around, we invited our FI examiner to visit with us - he spent a whole day with 2 of us and I must say it was FAR more valuable than the 2-day seminar I went to 3 years ago. We each did a 90-minute flight test, long and short briefings and an extensive de-brief - a long day for us and the examiner (2 hour drive each way) but much appreciated.
Perhaps we could go back to having AOPA running PPL training???
TOO
This time around, we invited our FI examiner to visit with us
I am told the CAA no longer has anyone to run the next Senior Examiner Seminar, which they had insisted in keeping in-house, as the last remaining attempt at standardisation!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 62
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell EASA to include "Basic IR" in BTO
Everything in the NPA is pointing to option 2: establishing the BTO concept. So I guess that is what we should expect?
"The only real quibble I have with NPA 2015-20 is that it hasn't considered inclusion of training for the 'Basic IR' (being developed by the RMT.0677 Task Force) within the scope of a BTO."
Exactly my thought, BEagle. Consultation time is now and until Feb 29th. I hope you are going to write EASA about that - I am definitely going to. Basic IR is part of the "easier access to instrument rating for GA pilots" Task Force in EASA, and what could be more "proportionate" than to allow the Basic Training Organisations to train for that too.
Common Response Tool for the consultation is here:
EASA CRT application
"The only real quibble I have with NPA 2015-20 is that it hasn't considered inclusion of training for the 'Basic IR' (being developed by the RMT.0677 Task Force) within the scope of a BTO."
Exactly my thought, BEagle. Consultation time is now and until Feb 29th. I hope you are going to write EASA about that - I am definitely going to. Basic IR is part of the "easier access to instrument rating for GA pilots" Task Force in EASA, and what could be more "proportionate" than to allow the Basic Training Organisations to train for that too.
Common Response Tool for the consultation is here:
EASA CRT application
I've already spoken with the TF members who drafted NPA 2105-20 about including BIR training within the scope of a BTO.
The draft NPA for the BIR is being written on the assumption that BIR training will be permitted at a BTO.
The draft NPA for the BIR is being written on the assumption that BIR training will be permitted at a BTO.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: england
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B61 Best post I've seen for a long time. Yes rookie instructors can be a menace and should be monitored (which rarely happens in practise under the current system) but this standardisation rubbish comes straight from the CFS bible.. that and whizz wheels...don't get me started