MPs debate implications of insolvent ATOs
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,805
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPs debate implications of insolvent ATOs
UK MPs have been discussing the failures of FTA and Tayside, the inactivity of the CAA and the implications for those who lost their money. The record in Hansard is worth reading in full, and there is a You tube snippet below. In particular Tim Loughton, the MP for Shoreham, calls out the CAA's approach to regulation which ignores its responsibility for financial oversight.
They also press for funding support along the lines of other further education.
BALPA contends that the CAA has a statutory responsibility, under retained EU law, to operate an ongoing oversight programme for UK-approved flight schools, which includes requiring “evidence of sufficient funding”. BALPA does not believe that, to date, the CAA has discharged that responsibility diligently or at all, and I agree. There is a financial oversight aspect of the CAA’s regulatory role. Clearly, demanding fees up front to keep operations afloat does not smack of flying schools having sufficient funding. The CAA needs to step up and step in.
de minimus non curat lex
I have listened to the Westminster debate and clearly HMG needs to progress matters. You can train at FTE Jerez for a UK licence, but without any VAT charged. This needs to be the case in the UK as well for professional training.
The time will come when financial protection exists similar to airline passengers when the operator ceases trading.
Interesting how BA, Aer Lingus & Tui now recognise the need to sponsor pilots on ab initio courses.
For those without ready funds, obtain your class one medical, get a job, and go down the far cheaper route of modular training.
Asking parents to remortgage the house has been shown to be a risky business. I suspect parents haven’t done sufficient research as to the option for licence issue. Integrated courses are expensive & not the only option, whereas Modular can work equally as well.
The choice of modular school is important. An abundance of previous advice has been provided (note 1)
Junior birdmen should study it carefully.
Disclosure: I was a “self improver” prior to JAR/EASA under CAA CAP54 last century. Worked shifts, instructed part time, sat the written exams & the flying tests for licence issue. If you are determined enough to do it, you will succeed WITHOUT parental support.
note 1: apart from my previous posts (due diligence etc) ‘rudestuff’ and others provided sound advise on training matters.
The time will come when financial protection exists similar to airline passengers when the operator ceases trading.
Interesting how BA, Aer Lingus & Tui now recognise the need to sponsor pilots on ab initio courses.
For those without ready funds, obtain your class one medical, get a job, and go down the far cheaper route of modular training.
Asking parents to remortgage the house has been shown to be a risky business. I suspect parents haven’t done sufficient research as to the option for licence issue. Integrated courses are expensive & not the only option, whereas Modular can work equally as well.
The choice of modular school is important. An abundance of previous advice has been provided (note 1)
Junior birdmen should study it carefully.
Disclosure: I was a “self improver” prior to JAR/EASA under CAA CAP54 last century. Worked shifts, instructed part time, sat the written exams & the flying tests for licence issue. If you are determined enough to do it, you will succeed WITHOUT parental support.
note 1: apart from my previous posts (due diligence etc) ‘rudestuff’ and others provided sound advise on training matters.
Last edited by parkfell; 13th Sep 2023 at 22:15. Reason: Additional information
Well, that's 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Ill informed opinion meets disinterested obfuscation. I doubt the industry will gain anything from that little exhibition.
There is nothing in the Basic Regulation or in Part-ARA that places any responsibility for financial oversight on the Authority beyond an indication in AMC1 ARA.ATO.105 that an oversight inspection should seek evidence of sufficient funding. I have never known this to happen and it is unlikely that any inspector would have the knowledge or experience to judge such evidence if it were to be provided.
There was a requirement in JAR-FCL for an FTO to satisfy the Authority that sufficient funding was available to conduct training to the approved standards but this was not carried forward into the EU regulations. The UK CAA initially tried to insist on a financial statement, current balance sheet and 3-year business plan as part of the initial ATO approval application and this requirement was included in the first issue of Standards Document 55. However, as there was nothing in the Regulation to support this, it had to be dropped.
There is nothing in the Basic Regulation or in Part-ARA that places any responsibility for financial oversight on the Authority beyond an indication in AMC1 ARA.ATO.105 that an oversight inspection should seek evidence of sufficient funding. I have never known this to happen and it is unlikely that any inspector would have the knowledge or experience to judge such evidence if it were to be provided.
There was a requirement in JAR-FCL for an FTO to satisfy the Authority that sufficient funding was available to conduct training to the approved standards but this was not carried forward into the EU regulations. The UK CAA initially tried to insist on a financial statement, current balance sheet and 3-year business plan as part of the initial ATO approval application and this requirement was included in the first issue of Standards Document 55. However, as there was nothing in the Regulation to support this, it had to be dropped.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,805
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This, of course, is the CAA view. They choose to regard the requirement of AMC1 ARA.ATO.105 that they should continually monitor ATOs for evidence of sufficient funding as an inconvenient EASA AMC that nobody really wants to do and they don't have the capability anyway. They disregard the changed legal status of these previous EASA rules since Brexit. Thanks to Boris, and the CAA's failure to prepare properly by writing their own set of rules, full compliance with this retained AMC by the CAA is now a statutory requirement, written into UK law. The Department of Transport or the government could have changed the law if they didn't like it, but they did not.
