DEAFENING UK INDUSTRY condemnation of a system which allows foreign flight-training schools to issue UK commercial pilots licences looks as if it might be producing an effect at the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
The conflict on this issue, between GAMTA and the CAA, was highlighted, in an angry speech by GAMTA council member, Peter Moxham. As marketing manager for the Oxford Air Training School, he criticised the CAA's chairman Sir Christopher Chataway for being "...so commercially naive as to be beyond belief" in his recent statements on the policy. Chataway was clearly taken aback by the strength of feeling displayed, and said that he would "look again" at the policy.
The row was precipitated when, on 14 July 1995, California-based Everything Flyable became the first foreign flight-training school to be CAA-approved to train and license UK pilots. The CAA's official policy is that it has no mandate to rule against such a training option for UK student pilots if the foreign school concerned proves that it can train them to the UK syllabus and standards. Similarly, the CAA and the US Federal Aviation Administration award licences to foreign maintenance-organisations to carry out CAA- or FAA-approved airline maintenance.
The FAA, however, says that US pilot licences may be issued, only by US-based flying schools. The CAA's insistence in sticking to the letter of the law has made it "a laughing stock" in other countries, which operate according to the intent, not the letter, of regulation, according to GAMTA chief executive Graham Forbes. Moxham's attitude was made clear in a rhetorical question about UK law which allows foreign training to be UK-tax-deductible for UK students, while UK schools are required uniquely in the world to charge value-added tax to foreign students buying UK flying training.
European attitudes, as indicated by the draft European Joint Aviation Regulation on flight crew licensing (JAR FCL), seem to be more in line with GAMTA's thinking than that of the CAA. Designated for adoption by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in June 1996 with implementation in June 1998, JAR FCL states that FCL training "...must be carried out by an organisation having its registered office and principal place of business in the state of the organisation, which is issuing the licence".
Because the UK CAA's normal policy is to adopt JARs as UK regulation "as soon as possible", theoretically its overseas flying training policy will be reversed in June or July this year. Moxham, however, is not convinced, warning: "My fear is that, when JAR FCL comes into place, the UK CAA will seek grandfather rights for the overseas schools, which they have approved." The CAA agrees that Moxham's fears may not be groundless, because a policy document issued by the JAA FCL working party states that "...the position of existing training organisations must be taken into account", interpreting this to mean that the JAA has not finalised its policy.
On this issue, the only crumb of hope, which the CAA has thrown to UK flying-training schools, apart from Chataway's promise to "look again" at the policy, is the assurance that any foreign organisation applying for approved status to train UK pilots has, from the programme's beginning, been warned by the authority's head of FCL, Des Payton, that JARs might eventually rob them of their privilege.
Source: Flight International
