Claes M Johansson posted in General Aviation
Topic: National CAA interpretation of Part DTO.GEN.210 (a)(2)
We have in a DTO experienced our national CAA requiring the appointment of a temporary HoT substituting the ordinary HoT in order to continue flight training operations due to the latter having knee surgery. The CAA references AMC 1 to the mentioned rule as the rationale for this decision.
Since this AMC deals with the competence and experience required to be suitable for appointment to the role of HoT, it seems a bit fare fetched to interpret the ”acceptable means” of holding an unrestricted instructor certificate as implying that a temporary unfit situation during a pre-planned period, not affecting mental or managerial abilities, would disqualify the HoT from fulfilling his responsibilities during that period.
Indeed it seems that, would such an interpretation be relevant, then all HoT :s must also stay current on all ratings, and classes their DTOs or ATOs provide training for. Surely not the case is it?
My questions are:
Has any other CAA:s (than Sweden) made a similar interpretation? Is there any other EASA guidelines apart from the AMC that may be referenced?
No, I was personally in such a situation as well, but in an ATO. The question is: how does this hinder the fulfillment of HT duties as outlined in DTO.GEN.210(a)(2)?
In my opinion, such an interpretation is inconsistent with the provisions of Part-DTO or Part-ORA. The competency requirements for the position of HT in an ATO or DTO are clearly defined and do not, under any circumstances, include holding a valid or unrestricted medical certificate of a specific class. Furthermore, the responsibilities of the HT do not involve actively conducting practical flight training but rather ensuring compliance of training with the provisions of Part-FCL, Part-BFCL, or Part-SFCL, ensuring syllabus integration, supervising training, and overseeing their deputies—this applies to both DTOs and ATOs. The prerequisites for the HT position relate to experience in conducting training.
In my opinion, the CAA might have followed this reasoning: in a DTO, unlike an ATO, the HT is responsible for overseeing training, including its standardization (as there is no CFI in a DTO). Therefore, a temporary HT might need to be appointed to ensure training standardization. However, DTOs are not subject to training standardization requirements. In such a case, personally, instead of appointing a "temporary" HT, I would designate an instructor responsible for standardization in practical training, similar to the approach taken in ATOs.
Referring to GM1 DTO.GEN.210(c), a person cannot perform HT duties if their license, privileges, or certificates have been suspended or if they have knowingly violated aviation regulations. However, this does not apply to cases where the person cannot temporarily exercise the privileges of their license due to medical limitations.
Please let me know if it helps and if you have any more questions... 🙂
As the AMC in question refers to the "qualification and experience" of the HoT and does not mention medical certificates, I suggest you appeal the decision of the Swedish CAA to an administrative court.
Please log in or sign up to comment.