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.

"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!"


Now what I can't figure out here is if this is good enough for the french why isn't it good enough for us. Are we not now all supposed to be singing from the same EASA hymn sheet?

Dare I ask are we gold plating?

Be careful what you wish for! The rate currently charged by EASA at Cologne for processing ATO applications is £214.60 per hour! Then there’s the additional add-ons … travel and accommodation costs etc etc. Might be worthwhile checking how much the French charge?

The Irish model seems the most sensible solution by far. All RTF’s were automatically accepted as ATO’s – without incurring any fees. So,why can’t the CAA do the same?

We might think that we should be singing from the same hymn sheet but some member states seem to have achieved Level 6 at gold plating.

To MK from DK
 

On a personal basis, I find the whole process a bit sad. I've been an FE/FI since 1975. Nearly 200 pilots taught and 14,600 hrs. so I'd like to think I must have been doing something right. But the process from RTF to ATO and the subsequent regulation has persuaded me hand in my instructor rating when the deadline arrives. I'll keep up the DA work tho. DRK.

We're all sorry to hear that Dennis. :sad: I'm sure you won't be the last pillar of the GA training world driven out of the industry by bureaucracy and dogma. :ugh:

MJ:ok:

Agree with Mach in that we are all sorry to hear that Dennis.
Sad fact is that it's not only the pillars of the industry like Dennis that feel the same way.

Dennis I am sure you will carry on with your Display's etc you still have a spring in your step.
See you soon.
Tim

With the various recent reshuffles at the CAA it appears that FCL/PLD/Approvals has largely disintegrated with PPL ATOs now coming under the remit of the new GA Department and the larger ATOs under Flight Ops Dept.

:hmm: So, the means to change has been provided, now we will see if the will to change is really there.


MJ:ok:

Battling away completing our manuals as requested by the competent Authority, just been to another School where the competent Authority had recently completed an inspection and they held up a certain company's SMS manual as a shining example, the school then pointed out that certain company had recently had a serious accident killing quite a few people, does not matter how good the paper work, its the training that counts.
They may well be able to talk the talk, but its the walking that counts.:ugh:
Noticed last application 6 pages this time 15 pages plus requesting photo ID of all instructors.:ugh:

By whom and for what purpose?

The CAA claim that their conversion process is 'the most simplified in Europe.' Anyone know of simpler versions elsewhere? For instance, it seems that in Ireland there is no process, with RTFs automatically becoming ATOs. Perhaps someone from Ireland can confirm that?

Let's hear about some of the others and find out who really has the 'most simplified' conversion.


MJ:ok:

You really do wonder which planet Andrew Haines (Chief Exec of the CAA) inhabits, when you read of his claim that the CAA ATO application process is 'probably now the most simplified process in Europe'. (A statement which, in itself is questionable!)

What is it that the CAA still doesn't understand about General Aviation?

The 'off the shelf template' is both unnecessarily complex and very time consuming for many small flight training organisations. Can anyone at the CAA explain the safety benefits of forcing this on RTF's, because at the moment it just seems like yet another expensive unwanted EASA/CAA paper exercise with no real purpose. What it is succeeding in doing is to drive some extremely experienced and highly respected RTF's out of business - experience that GA can ill afford to lose.

I am not alone in thinking that the new GA Unit will make no difference whatsoever to the demise of GA in the UK. It's the usual case of the same old CAA culture. Nothing seems to change!

Mr Haines is a PPL student so hopefully someone will bend his ear a bit. Hope he does better than driving trains!

If Mr. Haines' Instructor is reading this, maybe he can persuade him to register here and tell us what we can expect from the CAA in the next few months, as their comunication skills seem sadly lacking.

Can anyone confirm the situation in Ireland with regard to thr ATO conversion?


MJ:ok:

IAA transition from RTF to ATO.
 

Before being able to provide training for any other Part-FCL licence, such as the Light Aircraft Pilot Licence (LAPL), a RTF must have obtained certification as an ATO in full compliance with Part-ORA and Part-FCL. Any organisation intending to provide training for the Part-FCL PPL, that does not hold RTF approval prior to 07 April 2013, must apply for and achieve ATO certification in full compliance with Part- ORA and Part-FCL prior to training being commenced.
The final date for completion of a RTF application under JAR-FCL will be 07 March 2013, however, applicants should ensure that any application or submission is completed in full in order that the approval can be processed and granted prior to 07 April 2013. Any registration applied for but not completed by 07 April 2013 will not be granted. In such cases a new application for approval as an ATO under Part-ORA will be required.
The arrangements for transition from RTF to ATO status will be subject to a conversion report which will be submitted by the IAA to EASA and subject to that organisations agreement.
It must be emphasised that any organisation which intends to continue as a RTF, until 08 April 2015 at the latest, will be able to offer training for the Private Pilot Licence only, they will not be able to offer training for any other EASA Aircrew Licence, rating or certificate such as the Light Aeroplane Pilot Licence or Aerobatics Rating.

Thanks DFS. But what does the RTF actually have to do to convert?


MJ:ok:

Comply with the applicable requirements of Part-ORA

Ok.....:ugh:

I thought I was making myself clear, but perhaps not. Let me try again.

What, exactly, are the IAA making the RTFs do in order to;
MJ:ok:

The assumption is that the Irish Aviation Authority is somehow making the process of an Irish RF becoming an ATO somewhat less onerous vis-a-vis that which pertains in the UK; If that is the case I wonder why so many Irish RFs have sought a copy of UK CAA RF-to-ATO template. So, perhaps some Irish RF or indeed the IAA can enlighten us to the actualities, as opposed to a glib quip of 'comply with Part ORA'

DGAC requirments if you can read french..

http://www.egu-info.org/dwnl/2013h%2..._sectionII.pdf