EASA ATO smooth sailing?
 

What are people's views on the new ATO arrangements?

Are they working out ?

Are the requirements sensible and proportionate?

How do people feel about it?


Here from the CAA:

Regulation of training organisations

The EU regulations also introduce increased oversight of flight training organisations carrying out training for private licences. As we are satisfied that these schools currently achieve acceptable safety standards we are working with the industry to introduce the new requirement with the minimum regulatory burden.

We are still working on proposals but our initial thoughts on where costs for industry could be cut include:
• Delegating the oversight of the schools to a third party organisation, potentially an industry representative group
• Providing a free template manual for training schools to use. The manual is one of the key requirements for the approval, and a template will save organisations a considerable amount of time and reduce our oversight and costs
• Ensuring that we only use staff that are suitably qualified and experienced in the GA sector
We will also seek to impose the minimum amount of regulations allowable, including the option to extend the frequency the schools are audited from every two to every three years.
We aim to provide industry with our full proposals in July and will be running a series of road show events for organisations to find out more.

I think the biggest contribution to safety would be to remove the ability for the schools to set their own exams. They should be done by the CAA.

Phil

Phil

let's be honest the majority of caa exams bear no relevance to day to day flying eg pplh nav exam planned on a 1:500 chart practical exam on a 1:250 and 1:50k
Just got my new set of papers after complaing bitterly 4 months ago about the standard of questions to be told they had been set by top people in the industry who now work for the caa ! These top people thought it a good question to ask when the vacuum pump fails what happens, anyone seen a vacuum pump in a heli recently ?
Don't get me started on cpl exams, so what how a flux gate works, you can't fix it in aoc aircraft with your Swiss Army knife so what's the point in learning about it, the instrument either works or it doesn't !

I agree, the whole system needs a top down overhaul - why are we teaching Direct Mercator when nobody uses it and not teaching Transverse Mercator that everybody uses (UK grid, etc)? And MLS? Give me a break. Does a plumber need to know anything about fluid dynamics to do his job? No, and neither do pilots need to be engineers.

But my point is essentially that many schools are letting people through that shouldn't be, and the new 100 hour syllabus is only going to make people less inclined to study, particularly private owners. One good reason the CAA should do it - and with decent questions, of course. Did you see the one in Nav where they mention the Earth's disc should be 6 degrees below the horizon for twilight instead of the Sun's disc? Does nobody preafrood these things? :) Somebody had pulled most of the those questions from the professional exams - I mean, goal oriented captains? per-lease!!

Phil

Phil

Agree entirely, I have always wondered what part of the industry they consult, if they have then that part of the industry should be shut down !!!:ugh:

Bar the additional expenses in updating my FTO Manuals to be EASA compliant, Website Updates to show the correct Requirements of courses, Marketing Material updates, Consultancy Fee's, Fee's to the CAA; non of what I have seen so far makes any difference to how I fly or how I teach candidates to fly - a heli can only be flown in one manner - the correct manner!

But this EASA stuff is meant to improve safety! How? I agree with the comments above - the exam questions need a complete overhaul, get rid of the stuff that is not required, get some practical exam questions in there that relate to everyday operations.

Exams
 

I'm appalled by the some of the questions on the new exam papers.

Questions about meridians, declination, local mean time in other parts of the world, distances in the southern hemisphere far exceeding the range of any helicopter are completely irrelevant to a PPL H student in the UK.

Crosswind vs runway direction calculations in a PPL helicopter paper???
Really? Shouldn't we be teaching them to land into wind?

I agree with Rotorvation, who in industry was consulted about the relevance of such questions?

I think that the powers that be should be ashamed of themselves that they have squandered this chance to revamp the PPL papers to be more relevant to the modern world. As Paco observes, all they have done is create more of a barrier to candidates completing PPL exams and ask some truly daft questions (lazily nicked from the CPL's) which are neither appropriate or useful to a modern PPL.

Why is it so difficult for the authories to understand that there is life outside of airlines and that there is a whole sector of industry that relies on teaching recreational pilots to fly.

It merely confirms my suspicion that the Authorities want to drive all small flying schools out of existence and be left with one or two training organisations with lots of satelite operations that are easy to inspect.

It should not be the role of an overseeing authority to regulate the industry out of business until it fits what is easy to oversee.

I did ATPL H CAA exms last year and I found most of the questions to be irrelevant for helicopters.
Most questions are for for fixed wing aircraft.
I almost failed Human performance because out of 28 questions four questions were asking about cosmic radiation and when should I record time flown above 40000 feet for cosmic radiation purposes!!! F...ing stupid questions, f....ing stupid system, f...ing burocrats make me very angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway I'm still flying with my FAA license in Africa, my jar license so far has just been an expense.

Instructor FTLs ?
 

good idea?

Announcement
 

"The government and the CAA have announced plans to strip away unnecessary bureaucracy for the UK general aviation sector. Oneof the key changes will bethe setting up by April 2014 of a new GA Unit within theCAA dedicated to more proportionate, effective regulation that supports and encourages a dynamic GAsector for the UK.

Red Tape to be slashed for GA sector "

Maybe not mandated ATOs for PPL training then?

The engineer's licence exams are no better. When was the last time you saw a helicopter with a fly by wire system or a data bus to Arinc 429.

Hmmm...send key setting over.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. It is EU law that mandates ATOs for PPL training and the UK regional government at Westminster does not have the power to change that.

EASA, and another thing....
 

Having just finished reinventing my UK ATPL (A) and JAR ATPL (H) into the EASA equivalent, strangely I feel no better off. Never mind, the CAA eeked £400 from me for the privilege of sitting around in their waiting room while their people processed enough paperwork to achieve this.

My question to them was how to revalidate / renew (whatever you call it) my lapsed type ratings, should I wish? Any minimum training or testing required? Their reply was 'at the discretion of the flying training school' - I kid you not. Regardless by how long said ratings had lapsed. All renewal requirements under EASA would be decided by the training school, regardless of whether the C of T was expired by one hour, one month or one year. Or ten years. Not wishing to suggest otherwise, but it does seem a little random I thought, walking away from the Belgrano with two new licences and several lapsed ratings.........

Pray tell, are their any other views out there to confirm or deny this advice from the CAA.....??

In general you look at

AMC1 FCL.740(b)(1) Validity and renewal of class and type ratings
RENEWAL OF CLASS AND TYPE RATINGS: REFRESHER TRAINING

• (a) Paragraph (b)(1) of FCL.740 determines that if a class or type rating has lapsed, the applicant shall take refresher training at an ATO. The objective of the training is to reach the level of proficiency necessary to safely operate the relevant type or class of aircraft. The amount of refresher training needed should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATO, taking into account the following factors:
  • (1) the experience of the applicant. To determine this, the ATO should evaluate the pilot’s log book, and, if necessary, conduct a test in an FSTD;
  • (2) the complexity of the aircraft;
  • (3) the amount of time lapsed since the expiry of the validity period of the rating. The amount of training needed to reach the desired level of proficiency should increase with the time lapsed. In some cases, after evaluating the pilot, and when the time lapsed is very limited (less than 3 months), the ATO may even determine that no further refresher training is necessary. When determining the needs of the pilot, the following items can be taken into consideration:
    
    • (i) expiry shorter than 3 months: no supplementary requirements;
    • (ii) expiry longer than 3 months but shorter than 1 year: a minimum of two training sessions;
    • (iii) expiry longer than 1 year but shorter than 3 years: a minimum of three training sessions in which the most important malfunctions in the available systems are covered;
    • (iv) expiry longer than 3 years: the applicant should again undergo the training required for the initial issue of the rating or, in case of helicopter, the training required for the ‘additional type issue’, according to other valid ratings held.
• (b) Once the ATO has determined the needs of the applicant, it should develop an individual training programme that should be based on the initial training for the issue of the rating and focus on the aspects where the applicant has shown the greatest needs.
• (c) After successful completion of the training, the ATO should give a certificate, or other documental evidence that the training has been successfully achieved to the applicant, to be submitted to the competent authority when applying for the renewal. The certificate or documental evidence needs to contain a description of the training programme.

Is 1 training session = 1 flight hour ?

I guess you also need a skill test or profieciency check with an examiner other than the instructor?

A training session is just that. Some training. It could be an hour on the ground discussing emergencies, or half an hour in the air practicing PFLs. I think it's a good thing they've done here. It's essentially training as required to bring you up to test standard. And as long as the examiner doesn't feel his or her independence is compromised, it could be the examiner doing the training. Altogether quite grown up !

Having had 4 type ratings removed from my licence and to see them described on the back as "previously held ratings", I have to say I am not a big fan of this new system as they would be super expensive to get back as 2 were on light twins, 1 on a medium twin and 1 on a heavy twin.

In my view the people who make these rules are very disconnected from the poor sods trying to make a living flying these things.

Also it is very hard to estimate how much it would cost to get any of them back as the "discretion" of the ATO would vary considerably from one to the other I am sure.

I guess I should consider myself lucky that I still have 1 twin rating current and am actually flying it despite all this nonsense.

Previously held, now to become expensive ratings page:
 

Camp Freddie, I'm in full agreement with you.

And further, for those of us with rather elderly UK instrument Ratings of the helicopter variety, is there any crossover allowance for having a current fixed wing IR? For example, does a current fixed wing IR allow reactivation of the rotary IR under the EASA system?

RTF
 

Hi lads ... can someone tell me why I'm regarded as proficient to conduct a PPL(H) at the airfield base shown on my certificate, but need to pay a CAA certificate amendment fee of £108 to use an alternative licenced airfield.

Also so sad to say, but the current RTF to ATO requirements simply mean I'll cease giving flying instruction. Dennis K.