Benefits of EASA/Part FCL
Thread Starter
Benefits of EASA/Part FCL
So, here in the UK, we have had some time to assess the effect of introducing part-fcl. As yet, I haven't seen too much that has improved safety or efficiency but I'm probably biased!
So if you are aware of any benefits please post them here (along with what is worse) I'll start it off with:
Better:
Worse:
So if you are aware of any benefits please post them here (along with what is worse) I'll start it off with:
Better:
- Your licence doesn't expire.
Worse:
- Crappy one sheet licence in a tacky plastic case
- Multiple copies of licence paperwork need to be made and distributed
- Examining other Europeans now can't be done without going to their authority for a briefing first
TREs not employed by an ATO/TRTO cannot conduct Type/Instrument rating renewals now - revalidations only. Plus, they need to apply for individual approval to conduct LSTs for an ATPL(H).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting preciously close to the point where the paperwork burden required to be carried causes the aircraft to exceed the MAUM with zero fuel and no payload.
All this pan-EU level playing field regulation nonsense was forced on us to allow "free competition", but even though that was a pretty poor justification,it proves not to be true. A non-UK but Part-FCL TRE cannot even do an LPC on a UK licence holder, it would seem (without fees and seminars).
The plank (airline) world may be able to carry this burden, but it will kill helicopters, with one or two exceptions.
All this pan-EU level playing field regulation nonsense was forced on us to allow "free competition", but even though that was a pretty poor justification,it proves not to be true. A non-UK but Part-FCL TRE cannot even do an LPC on a UK licence holder, it would seem (without fees and seminars).
The plank (airline) world may be able to carry this burden, but it will kill helicopters, with one or two exceptions.
Last edited by Helinut; 22nd Oct 2012 at 10:09.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boundary Layer
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heads of Training as Examiners
It is not now permitted for an examiner to test a candidate if (s)he has done ANY training at all. Even if it was an Ex 3 Air Experience several years ago, the examiner may not test that candidate. Heads of Training who are /should be encouraged to fly with students a couple of times during their course to monitor instructor performance/standardisation are also precluded from examining. When monitoring a FI (restricted), a senior instructor has to authorise first solo and first solo x/c, that would usually involve flying with them. Again that person is precluded from examining even if they have only flown only one hour out of a course of 75 hours. On the one hand a duty of care requires an organisation to ensure that a student has been properly trained but on the other this ruling prevents school examiners from exercising their priviledges, which has significant commercial consequences.
This is a typical bureaucratic over reaction to an abuse by certain organisations where one or two examiners had examined candidates have conducted up to 50 % of a student's training, which is clearly a nonsense. T/L's or Check flights should be excluded and examiners should be only be precluded if they have flown more than say 5% of total
training.
This is a typical bureaucratic over reaction to an abuse by certain organisations where one or two examiners had examined candidates have conducted up to 50 % of a student's training, which is clearly a nonsense. T/L's or Check flights should be excluded and examiners should be only be precluded if they have flown more than say 5% of total
training.
and lets not forget that having worked tirelessly over the last 12 years to get PPLs (and professionals) up to scratch with JAA regulations we now have to spend the next however many years re-educating them! Even the CAA still seem to be a tad confudled about EASA!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ross-on-Wye
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL training
Not sure I agree with the requirement that the trainer should not conduct a final test when so qualified. Out of interest and being an oldie ... I come from the era of no GFT (General Flight Test) for rotary circa 1970s/1980s. On satisfactory completion of the CAA approved 35/40 hour course, a 'type rating test' only was required. Out of further interest and as a TRE from 1974, my logs tell me my business trained some 118 students (including my 17 year old son) under the system and, as far as I know, none subsequently got into trouble. Regards to all. Dennis K.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There aren't that many changes.
The instructor has to hold at least the license he's giving instruction for.
A foreign EASA/JAA examiner can conduct LST's or LPC's if received a briefing from the competent authority and notifies the competent autority of his intention do perform the test.
FCL.1005 (a) states that for skill tests and assessment of competence for the issue
of the licence, rating or certificate, the examiner must not have provided flight
instruction. Therefore this paragraph applies for the issue of ratings, IRs or for the
instructor and examiner certificates but not for revalidation or renewal.
FCL.1005 (b) introduces the ‘proficiency check’ and obliges the examiner not to
conduct any test, check or assessment of competence if their objectivity may be
affected.
Therefore:
a) Examiners may not provide instruction on any applicant who requires a skill test
or assessment of competence for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate;
b) Examiners who may have their objectivity affected may also not conduct any skill
test, proficiency check or assessment of competence for issue, renewal or
revalidation;
(i) a declaration that the examiner has received information from the
applicant regarding his/her experience and instruction, and found that
experience and instruction complying with the applicable requirements
in this Part;
(ii) confirmation that all the required manoeuvres and exercises have been
completed, as well as information on the verbal theoretical knowledge
examination, when applicable. If an item has been failed, the examiner
shall record the reasons for this assessment;
(iii) the result of the test, check or assessment of competence.
(c) Examiners shall maintain records for 5 years with details of all skill tests,
proficiency checks and assessments of competence performed and their
results.
(d) Upon request by the competent authority responsible for the Examiner
Certificate, or the competent authority responsible for the applicant’s licence,
examiners shall submit all records and reports, and any other information, as
required for oversight activities.
May 2012
CAP 804 Part I Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory Requirements, Policy and Guidance
Section 4 Part K, Subpart 0 Page 6
c) An examiner may provide instruction on any applicant who requires a proficiency
check for the revalidation or renewal of a rating or IR;
d) An examiner conducting an LPC/OPC or IR revalidations or renewals may provide
refresher or remedial training to the applicant prior, during or post a proficiency
check.
I do think it's better to have Flight Crew Licensing in European Law instead of every JAA State doing their own thing with lots of exemptions possible.
The instructor has to hold at least the license he's giving instruction for.
A foreign EASA/JAA examiner can conduct LST's or LPC's if received a briefing from the competent authority and notifies the competent autority of his intention do perform the test.
FCL.1005 (a) states that for skill tests and assessment of competence for the issue
of the licence, rating or certificate, the examiner must not have provided flight
instruction. Therefore this paragraph applies for the issue of ratings, IRs or for the
instructor and examiner certificates but not for revalidation or renewal.
FCL.1005 (b) introduces the ‘proficiency check’ and obliges the examiner not to
conduct any test, check or assessment of competence if their objectivity may be
affected.
Therefore:
a) Examiners may not provide instruction on any applicant who requires a skill test
or assessment of competence for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate;
b) Examiners who may have their objectivity affected may also not conduct any skill
test, proficiency check or assessment of competence for issue, renewal or
revalidation;
(i) a declaration that the examiner has received information from the
applicant regarding his/her experience and instruction, and found that
experience and instruction complying with the applicable requirements
in this Part;
(ii) confirmation that all the required manoeuvres and exercises have been
completed, as well as information on the verbal theoretical knowledge
examination, when applicable. If an item has been failed, the examiner
shall record the reasons for this assessment;
(iii) the result of the test, check or assessment of competence.
(c) Examiners shall maintain records for 5 years with details of all skill tests,
proficiency checks and assessments of competence performed and their
results.
(d) Upon request by the competent authority responsible for the Examiner
Certificate, or the competent authority responsible for the applicant’s licence,
examiners shall submit all records and reports, and any other information, as
required for oversight activities.
May 2012
CAP 804 Part I Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory Requirements, Policy and Guidance
Section 4 Part K, Subpart 0 Page 6
c) An examiner may provide instruction on any applicant who requires a proficiency
check for the revalidation or renewal of a rating or IR;
d) An examiner conducting an LPC/OPC or IR revalidations or renewals may provide
refresher or remedial training to the applicant prior, during or post a proficiency
check.
I do think it's better to have Flight Crew Licensing in European Law instead of every JAA State doing their own thing with lots of exemptions possible.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The instructor has to hold at least the license he's giving instruction for.
