[Bathman]

As things currently stand if someone wants to open a new flying school they have to become an ATO at a significance expensive in both time and money.

However a recent vote by EASA has delayed this implementation until April 2018 and it would be fair to say that the present requirements will be relaxed, or even disappear altogether in the future.

Could I therefore propose that any new flying schools that want to open can do so by meeting the requirements and paying the fees of RTF.

[bookworm]

EASA Committee docs indicate that a fairly late amendments was made to allow new registrations up to April 2015:

(2) In Article 10a, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
‘3. JAR-compliant training organisations shall be allowed to provide training for a Part-FCL private pilot licence (PPL), for the associated ratings included in the registration and for a light aircraft pilot licence (LAPL) until 8 April 2018 without complying with the provisions of Annex VI and VII, provided that they were registered before 8 April 2015.ʼ

[Bathman]

As always bookworm thanks for your reply but sadly I am struggling to understand the legal lingo.

Does that mean new applications to be a flying school can do so as RTF's?

Or does it mean they can do so until April 2015? but after that no one knows?

And if it is the former would I be correct in thinking that this would have to be implemented by the UK CAA? and if so when?

[bookworm]

Does that mean new applications to be a flying school can do so as RTF's?

Or does it mean they can do so until April 2015? but after that no one knows?

Yes on all counts. The intention of the postponement to April 2018 is to allow new rules for training outside ATOs to be developed. I can't honestly tell you why 2015 rather than 2018 was chosen as a registration deadline, but I think the whole idea of allowing new registrations was a late-breaking amendment at the meeting. It wasn't in the draft I saw, though it's clearly a good idea.

And if it is the former would I be correct in thinking that this would have to be implemented by the UK CAA? and if so when?

They can't implement it before the amendment becomes law (probably a few months), but you'd hope that they might allow provisional registration before then.

[nickwilcock]

EASA's lighter regulation for non-complex ATOs should come into effect in Apr 2015 and the UK CAA's own AltMoC for non-complex ATOs perhaps before then.

The UK CAA announced several years ago that it wouldn't be accepting any new RF applications; as stated in Standards Document 30:

Organisations wishing to offer training who were not registered by 17th September 2012 must gain approval under Part ORA.

Which means as an ATO. In any case, what would be the point of starting up other than as a non-complex ATO - it would only delay the inevitable? Which will probably cost the same in any case.

Some member states might still allow new training organisations to start up as RFs, but EASA cannot mandate any such facilitation.

Wait until you see the revised Standards Document 55 would be my advice.

Incidentally, more recent utterances from EASA about 'training outside an ATO' includes the comment 'for example at flying clubs' - so they seem to be moving away from the idea of total deregulation and a race to the bottom.

[Bathman]

“Wait until you see the revised Standards Document 55 would be my advice.”

I know your intentions are well meant and I do appreciate your reply but how an earth can a person who is considering investing a not inconsiderate some of money wait? The industry on its **** and this dogs breakfast is hardly going to help is it.

So they are therefore have to comply with regulations and its associated costs for which there is zero safety case that has recently had its implementation delayed as they are inappropriate and no doubt will get scrapped or at best heavily amended.

Is this a joke or what?

[Bathman]

so they seem to be moving away from the idea of total deregulation and a race to the bottom

NW whats you evidence for the above?

[nickwilcock]

Evidence? Listening to comments from EASA rulemakers and others at recent major EASA conferences - and also the PR for the recent Annual Safety Conference in Rome.

Balloon and sailplane training might be a different matter, but the idea of totally deregulated flight training for aeroplanes and helicopters is finally beginning to ring alarm bells. As is the nonsense of ab-initio flight training in permit-to-fly aeroplanes.

[David Roberts]

Balloon and sailplane training might be a different matter, but the idea of totally deregulated flight training for aeroplanes and helicopters is finally beginning to ring alarm bells. As is the nonsense of ab-initio flight training in permit-to-fly aeroplanes.

Nick, what do you mean "Balloon and sailplane training might be a different matter"? Sailplane training has always been conducted in clubs in the UK, and indeed in virtually all other EU Member States, and it works ! Balloon training does not need RFs or ATOs.

[nickwilcock]

David, absolutely! Sailplane and balloon training does NOT need any regulation beyond that which has worked for years - I quite agree! There have always been 'umbrella' organisations for such training- as of course there is for Microlight training.

However, ab initio flight training for powered aircraft has never had any similar industry organisation, although a few associations do exist - but membership of which is not a prerequisite for a pilot training organisations. So there is at least some need for external regulation for ab initio aeroplane and helicopter flight training - but it doesn't need to be as heavy as the original ATO requirements proposed. Hence the recent draft NPA for non-complex ATOs, which should come into effect in April 2015.

[bookworm]

And if it is the former would I be correct in thinking that this would have to be implemented by the UK CAA? and if so when?

Having made some informal enquiries, I'm told the UK CAA has no intention of allowing any further registration of training facilities, even when the EU regulation permits it. So your original petition would appear to stand, Bathman.

[riverrock]

As is the nonsense of ab-initio flight training in permit-to-fly aeroplanes.

As someone who did their ab-initio Part-FCL PPL flight training in a Permit-to-fly aeroplane - why is that nonsense?
Other countries (specifically USA) don't require the concept of an ATO (or a RTF).
Non-owner flight training in a PtoF could be seen as an issue as the person being trained may have a different risk perception than reality.
However, what is the actual safety stats of PtoF vs CofA small aircraft? I'd understood that the safety stats are actually pretty much the same (hence the removal of overflight restrictions and the additional privileges appearing).

I'm also a bit confused. This sounds like potential CAA gold plating. I'm probably over-reading into others comments, but EASA is thinking about (no more than thinking at the moment) of allowing Flying Training via clubs as well as ATOs. Those sound very like RTFs to me. Why is there talk of powered flight being more strongly regulated than balloons or sailplanes?
Can there not multiple options: - part of a wider organisation (a powered equivalent of BGA); a stand alone RTF (perhaps with a limit on number of students to ensure attention can be paid to each one)?; an ATO.