RFTF to ATO Progress
 

Hi All,
Just wondering how people are getting on with the CAAs template manual? particularly if your a small one man band type operator...have you successfully submitted your application yet ?

mines still on the slow side :)

Dan

Leaving it as late as possible, bound to be some changes, look at the last week or so regarding TK.

Yes I can see the point to leave it as long as possible, but at the CAA road show they where encouraging RFs to do it asap...

Just hoping to get a few more replies to my original post...

How are the small operators getting on with their template manuals ?...there must be some news out there... especially with the weather being bad at the minute.... :rolleyes:

Hi Danny.

I think anyone would be nuts to rush into converting from a RTF to an ATO anytime soon!

I went to one of those. Complete waste of a day. :*

I understand that the former colleague commissioned by the CAA to write the template manuals for them, is now offering to re-write them for individual FTOs, for a large fee of course! :yuk:

Things are going to have to change significantly, or I doubt that more than around 10-20 of the 400+ RTFs will survive the process. :ugh:

I wonder how anyone could ever start up a new school under the CAA's version of the new rules. 'First write your own set of manuals without any template, then pay us £1,000?@ :uhoh: I don't think so!

MJ:ok:

RTF-ATO
 

And not forgetting that the new PPL Syllabus will be published "during the first half of 2014"......that was from the horses mouth GA Programme at CAA 4 weeks ago.
So if one submits an application now, one would have to resubmit to contain the new syllabus and then fall foul of the "normal" ATO application charges??
We are holding off as long as possible....as I suspect most RTFs are.

Not whilst it remains in the AMC! Do you really think a "new" syllabus is going to have any significant effect on the overal requirement!

Would that not depend on the content of the "New" syllabus???

Not at all. A new syllabus is just a shuffle of pages in the TM, the rest remains exactly the same. You can't fundamentally change the content of a PPL which is laid down in ICAO Annex 1. You can only change the appalling way its written.

Appreciate that. But does not a shuffle of pages in the TM require further approval by the CAA ??

Indeed it does, but you don't have to do it because the existing syllabus is not going to disappear.

A few years ago we had the Longman Syllabus; the Pitman Syllabus; the Cessna Syllabus; the AOPA syllabus; the Trevor Thom and Jerremy Pratt variations of it, all of which were in accordance with Annex 1. Changing the bible doesn't change what you do in chuch!

That being the case the GA Programme's intent is clearly open to misinterpretation and at least justifies an I/N for clarification. New Pooleys, AFE et all syllabus books due out soon? So your TM says you are going to do one thing and then actually do another. What a mess.

Welcome to Europe! You say what you are going to do in your Manuals and do it. Its up to you! The current syllabus is so vague you could do pretty much anything!

These proposed changed will have a devastating effect effect on the industry. Even the CAA themselves state that there is no safety benefit to any and lets not forget there is NO ICAO requirement for any this approved rubbish in the first place.

I'm hoping some common sense will prevail or perhaps the best we can hope for is some politician will get wind of the fact that it will mean loss of jobs in their constituency and a reduction in tax revenues.

Or perhaps the new GA unit could get their teeth stuck into this. All the "manuals" to open a microlight school is available on the BMMA website and downloaded for free and with less than a days work you are up and running.

Yet we have a system that will costs thousands and will take multiple months to get approval for a new start up.

I already know of two instructors who wanted to open flying schools but were unable due to these regulations.

Does anyone know what the requirements are in say France?

Its not within their remit, different department.

The DGAC provide two Manuals and the FFA a third. Fill in the blanks, submit, wait for approval. No charge! But you must have Level 6 French!

Then it obviously needs to be brought within their remit.

It's not difficult, so long as the new GA Department is a genuine attempt at a real culture change, and not just a fascade.

MJ:ok:

The last time they got involved with licensing was the implementation of the NPPL and they couldn't even implement the decisions of the committee. GA by definition picks up all the items not covered by AOCs, Licensing and Approvals etc. GA was disbanded because it contributed nothing to the CAA's revenue stream and cost a lot. Its return is welcome, but unlikely to have any impact on the work or operation of other departments.

Elaborate window dressing then? :*

MJ:sad:

Great reading all the replies, still wondering if any RFTF have actually used and completed there ATO approval using the CAAs template manual...:confused:

The ICAO Annex 1 PPL syllabus is a bit thin on detail. The Principles of Flight section says "The principles of flight relating to aeroplanes". Not much guidance there.