It negates the option of the sqn funding such flying / gliding. After 2FTS was persuaded to include gliding in ACTO35, I think we were the first sqn to get cadets gliding under the ACT35 provisions - but we paid for it. We want to do it again (BGA site is quite close to us), but of course, completely stymied by the current situation.
There are 2 types of flight school, either approved training organisations (ATOs) and registered training facilities (RTFs). You can train at either type of flight school. From Apr this year, a Registered Training Facility (RTF) had to be registered as either a Declared Training Organisation (DTO) or Approved Training Organisation (ATO) to be able to train for EASA licences and ratings. Of course, with Brexit, the future EASA options are very much cloudy in the crystal ball!
A flying âclubâ could be more of a shared aircraft facility where you can rent / operate an aircraft as part of club rules; they may, or may not have a pilot qualified as a flight instructor to revalidate skills testing, conduct PPL trg, etc.
However, a flight instructor rating would be the same at any such flying facility.
Yea, so it looks like I may be able to take cadets for some flying training next year if we hire an ATO aircraft.
Can we apply now for permission or must we wait for a new policy document to be published?
The old ACTO 35 had a requirement for 50 hours on type for instructional flights which could cause a problem if the ATO introduces a new type. Also maximum age 65 will probably apply. Maybe 90 day recency for stalling, spinning and PFLs?
Do you think we could get civilian training flights approved for blue / bronze wings? AFIK blue wings is basically Ex 4 effects of controls.
I doubt it. A non-RAFAC gliding scholarship will only lead to the C Wings and if you donât get to go solo you get nada. Even if you have done your time in the PTT.
this was never in the old ACTO035, only a minimum of 2 hours in the last 30 days
iirc, and I canât find it in my (old) copy of ACTO035, stalls, spinning and PFLs were not permitted as part of PAX flying expriences (although appreciate just because they are not permitted during the flight there is an argument for recency in completing these manoeuvres)
That could be a showstopper; since the introduction of JAR (late 90s?) spinning has been an optional part of the PPL(A) syllabus and is, therefore, almost never taught, because insurers donât like it. The argument (based on cold hard fact) was that practising spinning was killing more people than it was saving. Please donât give them ideas!
Glider pilots do spinning, because they are much more likely to be carrying out increased-G manoeuvres close to the stall (i.e., thermalling) and adverse yaw is much more of an issue.
Hours flown and take off/landings are recorded in a pilot and aircraft logbook but should we expect pilots (many of who will be unknown based at civilian clubs and schools) to be recording the last time they conducted a Stall or PFL in the off chance the MOD/RAF asked them to prove 90 day recency before approving them as a P1 pilot of a Cadet flight??
Looks like the pilot requirement will be for ATPL, CPL or PPL FI. Full spin training is required for FI and for the aerobatic rating. Incipient spin training will be required for new CPL multi crew pilots under UPRT from next month. I think full spin recency is required for AEF pilots because they do aerobatics, would not be needed for non aerobatic flight. Personally I do record PFL and stall / spin practice in the remarks column of my log book.
I agree. My cadet for a non-RAFAC GS but weather prevented the solo. 2FTS said no to any recognition as they couldnât be sure of the standard of teaching, or that it covered all the requirements.
What about training cadets in powered aircraft to first solo and qualify for âcivilian wingsâ?
Any 16 yo with well off parents can go to an ATO / DTO and pay the going rate for flight instruction, but we should be able to do better than that for cadets.
Instructor time could be free for cadets, which just leaves the cost of the aircraft and there are ways that could be subsidized. AFIK there is only one ATO that can authorize cadets solo in powered aircraft (Tayside Aviation). Do you think they could allow solo at other ATOs?
If it was a requirement then from that point they could simply start recording it if they werenât previously.
Also, I think you misread Ortacâs post.
will they? no - they wonât want to offer competition to the contract they already have with Tayside for a start.
no point setting up a contract for all Cadet scholarships to go through training school A only to spend the time and money to set up a training school B.
1 - a waste of taxpayers money to provide something that is already available, 2 - will annoy training school A as they now have fewer potential students and thus if the model is based on students through a course theyâll lose out on fundsâŚ
i think once an ATO sees what is required to maintain the rubber stamp and thumbs up - theyâll certainly not get a queue out of the door of schools offering it.
trueâŚbut and i admit this is small, creates an admin burden for the pilot to complete something on the off chance they are the pilot chosen for the flying detail of Cadets at the end of the month
I was not thinking of competition to the public funded ACPS (which is very limited numbers), was thinking more of locally subsidized (from non public funds) with instructor willing to give time for free to reduce costs. Could BGS clubs have sent cadets solo in a glider under the old ACTO 35?
I canât see any flying school offering a train to solo standard for free.
unlike BGA centres which are volunteer run, flight schools are run as businesses where instructors earn a living from and pay the bills with.
Even at âreduced costsâ paying for just the instructor (as these people make a living from it) that is still at a guess ~ÂŁ50-80/hour loss the flying school is making for not charging aircraft time.
but if the school is approved to train and send students solo (with or without a discount) that must in some way be in competition to the Tayside operation. Maybe not in costs, but if Cadets are eligible for the Tayside route, then they are bound to be eligible for other approved routes sending Cadets solo
Given the ACPS is known to have limited numbers, some are likely to be happier to pay some money (perhaps at a reduce cost*) thus there is a reduced appeal to go through the application process for a small chance in getting a place for the ACPS if the same experience (trained to solo standard) is available within county boundaries, or at the very least within country boundaries!
As such it would only be valid in a BGA environment - and perhaps reduced cost could be negotiated but is then taking away from our own back yard of the VGSâŚalthough given how slow that has been to get going its difficult to say shooting ourselves in the foot by going down that route - these boards have been alight with call of âwhy canât we use the BGA sites?â
under ACTO035 as was there were minimums for pilots to conduct âinstructionalâ flights but there was nothing in ACTO035 indicates at what level these lessons could reach - ie its doesnât state non-service flights can teach up to and send Cadets solo, nor says cannot send solo. Only that there are two types of flights available, passenger and instructional, and the minimum pilot requirements to class as each.
*maybe a 10-15% discount is agreed rather than only paying for instructor time/aircraft time only
So if we get something similar to ACTO 35 back there might be nothing to prevent training cadets to solo standard and sending first solo?
I am happy to give my time to teach cadets (as are all CFAV) so just aircraft costs and there may be ways of funding subsidy for that.
ACPS numbers are limited. I think 140 courses a year which is about 1.75% of the air cadets in a year group. Of cause not all cadets have the aptitude and motivation for flying training but those that do must be more than 1.75%. Hence more options to train cadets to solo would be good.