EASA NPA for non-complex ATOs released
 

EASA has now released the Notice of Proposed Amendment for the Acceptable Means of Compliance & Guidance Material applicable to non-complex ATOs as developed by an EASA/industry task force. This is not the so-called ‘training outside an ATO’ idea which has yet to be fleshed out (if it ever will be....), it is basically a simplification of current RF-to-ATO conversion requirements following the EASA workshop on the topic held in mid-May 2014.

The direct link is NPA 2014-28 | EASA .

There is a download available at http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...02014-28_0.pdf .

Note the abbreviated response deadline of 9th Feb 2015; this is so the revised AMC & GM can come into effect in April 2015.

Thanks for posting this, BEagle.

I've just had a scan through it, without studying the detail, and I have to say that, at first glance, it doesn't come close to the massive changes required to make it workable/practical for small flying schools.

I think that on this basis we can expect few, if any schools to apply for conversion to ATO status, and no new schools to be opened anytime soon. (Bearing in mind that new schools usually start with just one instructor and a small office.)

Let's hope that we are not still struggling to make this concept workable in three years time.


MJ:ok:

Any 'new' school in the UK will be required to be at least a non-complex ATO at least until the eventual RMTxxx 'Training outside an ATO' NPA/CRD/Decision process is completed - which will certainly take 3 years, given that no work has started yet....

The UK CAA's AltMoC is almost ready and an associated Standards Document will be released which will clarify matters further.

Incidentally, the new AMC / GM covers the 'sole trader' and is a considerable improvement over the current situation.

What about those organisations with no sole traders and no employees i.e. members clubs?

What is the EASA (rather than the French) definition of such organisations, Whopity?

Our 'Members' Club' is a Limited Company, limited by guarantee. Each member is liable for £1. We Registered as a Training Facility 4 years ago and continue to pay our £100 or so each year when invoiced. At the time of registration, we stated who were our Chief Flying Instructor and Accountable Manager. As far as I am aware, no-one in the CAA checked up to see if we were who we said we were. In the past, I've seen the CAA correspond with a Club to confirm the above details from time to time.
We did get visited by the CAA when we applied to carry out Radio Telephony practical tests; the visit lasted most of the day and included an inspection to approve the premises for the taking of exams. I'm not aware of ANY other RTF being visited for any other purpose.
It is not necessary to be a Limited company of any sort in order to trade.
I would imagine that you could buy the name of a RTF that has chosen to cease trading and inform the CAA of a change of address, Head of Training and Accountable Manager, aircraft details etc and start flying.
I know of at least one RTF that has moved location and name and is 'trading as'.
If anyone is winding up, then their RTF status might be worth a bob or two.

TOO

The CAA do not allow this.

I know of two people who wanted to start flying schools and tried to do this the CAA wouldn't allow it. One never opened up (so much for promoting industry in this country) the other did and by ATO status. They had to wait many 4 months before everything was approved and thus start trading.

I also worked at an ATO who had a change of name XYZ flying school to XYZ Flying School Ltd and the owner remained the same. The CAA wouldn't even except that and made him reapply and pay as an initial application.

Neither a RTF nor an ATO can be transferred.
Any organisation providing training is well advised to do so as a Limited Company, simply to limit individual's liability should something go wrong. Operating as a sole trader would be foolish at best and is not relevant to any EASA definition. A non-complex ATO is based upon less that 20 fulltime staff; in the main, the average RTF comprises of only one or two people, none of whom are full-time or even paid staff, where management structure and most of the "corporate style" requirements are meaningless nonsense that generate more work than the training itself and render a small ATO unsustainable.

As an Accountable Manager of a complex ATO I can assure you that much of your statement is unfortunately equally pertinent.

Whopity wrote: As EASA confirmed last May, that is not true of organisations providing instruction for the LAPL, PPL, SPL or BPL and associated ratings/certificates. It doesn't matter how many staff they have, provided that they do not provide CPL training then they are invariably non-complex.

If an organisation providing CPL training has less than 20 full time staff then yes, it will also be non-complex.

I would suggest that apart from Integrated ATOs the vast majority have less than 20 fulltime staff.

Why should providing CPL training make an organisation complex?

We have less than 20 staff on the training side and provide PLL,CPL, IR, ME as well as turbine class and Type Ratings. It's not our primary business and certainly I would not seem it to be complex.

A PPL/LAPL/BPL/SPL ATO will always be considered non-complex

A CPL ATO with less than 20 full-time equivalent staff will probably be non-complex, depending on the scope of its operations.

A CPL ATO with 20 or more full-time equivalent staff will be considered to be complex.

According to AMC1 ORA.GEN.200(b), the complexity of an organisation depends primarily on the number of full time equivalent employees. Organisations may also be considered to be complex based on the extent and scope of contracted activities subject to the approval, certain named risk criteria, different types of aircraft used and the environment (offshore, mountainous, etc.).

There is no provision for an ATO to be considered non-complex on the basis of its non-contracted activities and, therefore, any ATO with fewer than 20 FTE employees should be considered non-complex. However, this may not apply in the UK since the CAA now seems to make up the rules as it goes along.

I have nice new ATO documents ready for transfer from RF application but have held off submitting in order to edit to remove the unnecessary red tape

Only problem is that I am finding it difficult to decipher the mumbo jumbo of the Notice Of Proposed Amendment. What happened to concise and logical plain English.

If anyone can explain the proposed changes to the ATO responsibilities with brief bullet points I would be very grateful. :ok:

Just wanted to clear a few points up here. Firstly the assessment of staffing is by "full time equivalent" ergo 41 part timers working on 50% contracts would be complex while 39 would not. The assessment by the Competent Authority (CAA) however will include other factors, contracted activities being just one of these. The CA may decide that an ATO is complex when it has just a handfull of part time staff if it has additional complexity through contracted activities and/or risk crietera (speci approvals, different types of AC used, environment).

Regardless of the above, if your training goes no further than PPL and associated ratings then you will always be non-complex and if your CA tries to tell you otherwise then you can cite AMC1 ORA.GEN.200(b), (c)(1). In EASA terms if you have complied with an EASA AMC then you have complied with the regulation and the CA can ask nothing more from you in relation to that point of regulation (however they may be able to high side you from other directions so don't get too cocky with them unless you are sure of your footing).

With regard to NPA 2014-28 and related 2014-29 (a - Part FCL) and (b - Part FCL AMC) and related parts of (c - Examiner standarisation), I am in the process of formulating comments to these NPAs and would value any dialogue and input. Please feel free to PM me if you have any ideas or concerns related to these NPAs.

NPA 2014-28

Expiration date for comments: 08/02/2015

ifitaint...

Consultation Last Chance
 

Has anyone managed to navigate the CRT tool?

Site here:

EASA CRT application

They mention the future possibility that private training might eventually be allowed to continue WITHOUT the training body being APPROVED.

The main proposal is still just as complicated and impractical as before with the same rules but it just pretends to simplify compliance. Who is behind this push for the authorities to OWN how private people engage in their leisure activity?

If you want to make a difference then now is the last chance, enroll and give the feedback on these proposals, designed to help, do they?

Tomorrow SUNDAY last chance, every vote counts.

AnFI, the possibility of LAPL/PPL/BPL/SPL training being conducted 'outside an ATO' is several years off. The rule making task programme will first need to decide on ToRs and scope, before forming a working group. Then any proposals would go through the statutory processes following comment response.

So you can reckon on about 3 years from the moment they begin any work.

Objecting to NPA 2014-28 now will merely make it much more difficult for RFs to convert to non-complex ATOs - a process which is considerably simplified by the NPA if you read it carefully and note the differences to the current requirements.

Aaah!

Missed out there - could have objected and helped secure a more prosperous future for my microlight school!