Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

NPA 2016-16

Old 5th Dec 2016, 14:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 606
NPA 2016-16

NPA 2016-16 issued 30NOV16 - Regular update of Part-FCL - Regular update of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 regarding pilot training and licensing and the related oversight, contains new guidance material as part of FCL.900 concerning instruction outside of Member States, (which I take to mean non-EASA FI's teaching Part-FCL outside of Member States on the basis of an approval). The GM states that an FI applicant with 100 hours flight instructional experience and 25 hours solo-supervision should be issued with an unrestricted FI(A) or FI(H) as appropriate.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-...nt/npa-2016-16

The big integrated ATO's tend to conduct the majority of their instrument training outside of Member States with the remaining MEIR preparation and Skill Test being completed in the EU. Historically, both under EASA, JAA and previously under NAA oversight, FI's teaching to intermediate instrument standards required additional training (following an assessment and course of FIC training of not less than 15 hours practical and 30 hours theoretical then some experience teaching the VFR component) to enable them to teach to the required EU school standard with emphasis on European differences.

Anyone who has experience of instrument training in places like the U.S. for example, will probably be aware that there are significant differences in both the style and content of instrument training courses; an example being that there is not one standardised scan technique prescribed in any FAA publication (there are a number of suggestions though). This is not to say one is better than the other, they are simply different. Is EASA suggesting that integrated student's can be taught applied instrument flying by someone with only 100 hours instructional experience and no exposure to the EASA instrument environment?

Perhaps it is felt that the more formalised MCC/JOT course proposed as the 'Enhanced MCC Training to Airline Pilot Standards (APS)' will compensate? I understood this was going to be an opportunity to address the weaknesses in integrated training outside of Member States and in particular how basic attitude control is taught but instead, it appears to be a further erosion of the standard of the integrated course while saving the training provider from the expense of instructor upgrade training and adding weight to, until now, non-required jet orientation and airline procedure training - thus providing more opportunity for the ATO's to increase charges. Or am I just being cynical?
Reverserbucket is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.