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

And I was infuriated to read (concerning Flight Instructor requirements):

Never mind whether or not they are appropriate, Befehl ist Befehl!, it would seem....:mad:

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!

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!

Thanks for not letting facts get in the way of your point :ugh:

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.

After 10 years of practicing EUROCRAP has finally arrived then!

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?

:eek:

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:ok:

cpl theory
 

On that point does anyone know where its possible to do, or can suggest a school to study the CPL theory in the UK now ? Rather than do the ATPL's.
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 :D

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

CATS is good value for money.

Any info on when we can expect the new EASA Part-FCL and Part-Medical to pass legislation and thus fully replacing JAR-FCL?

March/April 2012

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

This may be relevant.

I think anyone who has had any meaningful dealings with the EASA bureaucracy will know exactly how much difference it will make. It is significant that EASA is currently lobbying the EC for exemption from the requirement to submit future amendments to the NPA process. Bear in mind also that anything that is in the Basic Regulation cannot be changed and anything that can be linked directly to an item in the Basic Regulation will not be changed.

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!

Which, whilst true, is entirely irrelevant since the statement was made solely in the context of the deadline for reactions to the CRD for Part FCL which process, as you concede, cannot result in any changes to the Basic Regulation.

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