Declared Training Organisation

boscomantico wrote:

For example, it will depend on the required maintenance regime for the aircraft used.

Full privileges and alleviations from Part-ML can be used. Which, by the way, is also true for all other training organisations that operate aircraft within the scope of Part-ML, up to and including 2730 kg MTOM. This is clarified in Article 5 in Part-OPS where they state that flight training organisations shall operate under Part-NCO and in Part-ML it is stated that aircraft within Part-NCO can use the alleviations and so on.

boscomantico wrote:

The other thing is exactly how the declaration will work. Whilst it is a declarations, the CAAs might ask for a truckload of mandatory attachments. For example, a training manual. (The old BTO proposal recommended a training manual, but didn’t mandate it…)

There is no need for manuals in the DTO. You need to send in a training programme to the NAA which I guess is more or less a lesson plan and it does not need to be approved in the same manner as previously.

alioth wrote:

At least if the BTO doesn’t have any unexpected stings-in-the-tail it will mean that there’s at least a chance you can be trained in your own permit aircraft.

In the eyes of EASA only EASA aircraft exist. Training done on any other aircraft is up to the CAA to decide about. They can chose to allow it or not. I think it is really nice that the UK CAA approves training in LAA aircraft, something that should be allowed in all states. But that decision has very little to do with EASA.

LeSving wrote:

The school can only operate within one country

I cannot find a reference to this in the rule. The only thing I see is that they the flight school can not operate outside the member state*S*, states in plural which I interpret that you cannot do it outside of the member states as a whole, for example not in US but there shouldn’t be any problem to have a base in Norway and another in Denmark(both member states, or fly between the two during training.

Fly310 wrote:

There was a lot of discussion regarding this since it the interpretation of approved seemed to differ. EASA said that it had to be an approved BTO whilst the lobbyists said that it was enough that it was declared. Apparently in the end, with lawyers involved, they managed to convince EASA that an approval in not required in the BTO sense but it is possible to declare the organisation instead.

That’s a pretty good summary — apart from the allegation that we needed to involve lawyers to correct EASA’s interpretation of the BR.

boscomantico wrote:

The other thing is exactly how that “declaration” will work. Whilst it is a declaration, the CAAs might ask for a truckload of mandatory attachments. For example, a training manual. (The old BTO proposal recommended a training manual, but didn’t mandate it…)

I don’t think the rules allow the NAA to goldplate the declaration.

Experience shows that it does not matter what EASA regs allow CAAs to do and not.

What matters for the humble individual is what CAAs actually do…

The school can only operate within one country

The UK CAA has always refused permission to do ab initio training outside the UK. Well, in the last 15 years or more.

Neil wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if there is any move towards allowing instructors who have undergone Instructor training, but do not have ATPL Theoretical Knowledge to teach for these same non commercial licences.

It’s certainly on my wishlist. The barrier is ICAO Annex 1, which requires an FI to have CPL TK.

How did the extensive FI grandfathering process get away with this, for all the years. In the UK before JAA, in France until c. 2012, etc.

Most FIs I had never did CPL theory. All grandfathered from PPL+FI via BCPL to a full FI.

In France the DGAC shafted everyone in FI training in 2012. As usual nobody took them on.

Peter wrote:

The UK CAA has always refused permission to do ab initio training outside the UK. Well, in the last 15 years or more.

That’s easy now – just declare the TO in the neighboring country as well.

Peter wrote:

The UK CAA has always refused permission to do ab initio training outside the UK. Well, in the last 15 years or more.

That’s interesting since there are schools outside the UK which use British examiners, students get UK CAA issued licences and the training is completely done outside the UK. E.g. Sloane offered training in Mallorca for years IIRC.

Peter wrote:

The UK CAA has always refused permission to do ab initio training outside the UK. Well, in the last 15 years or more.

That cannot be 100% correct, there have always been schools outside the UK doing CAA-approved ab initio training, the big one (don’t recall the name right now) in Jerez / Spain comes to mind, AFAIK also some in the US.