Clearing the Fog: Understanding the Role of EASA 147 and ATOs in Non-Approved Ad-Hoc Training
Interviewer:
Steve, thank you for joining us. There’s increasing discussion about the confusion that exists among some third-country aviation authorities regarding EASA’s role in regulating ad-hoc or short vocational training. Can you tell us more about this issue?
Steve Bentley:
Absolutely, and thank you for raising what is, frankly, a recurring and frustrating challenge. At its core, the misunderstanding lies in the assumption that EASA oversees or approves all aviation training, when in fact, that is not the case. Specifically, EASA only mandates approval for training that is required under its regulations, such as Part 66 Basic and Type Training, and certain elements under ATO frameworks, like pilot licensing.
But many ad-hoc courses—including those covering Safety Management Systems (SMS), Human Factors, Internal Auditor, Part-CAMO, Part-145 training, and more—do not fall under a specific EASA oversight mechanism. They are outside the scope of what a Part 147 or ATO is approved to deliver in any official capacity.
Interviewer:
So, when a third-country regulatory authority asks for evidence of EASA approval for one of these courses, what’s really happening?
Steve Bentley:
What’s happening is a misapplication of the EASA framework. These authorities may be trying to ensure quality—which is commendable—but by asking for EASA approval for a course that EASA doesn’t even regulate, they’re showing a lack of understanding of how the system works.
Worse, they often incorrectly insist that such training must be delivered by an EASA Part 147 or an ATO, when in fact, neither 147 nor ATO approvals confer any special authority to deliver these non-mandated trainings.
It’s important to remember: EASA does not approve TTT (Train the Trainer), HF refreshers, or SMS workshops—and neither does it provide any kind of list of ‘approved providers’ for such courses.
Interviewer:
Who then is responsible for ensuring quality and compliance in these types of training?
Steve Bentley:
The responsibility lies firmly with the training provider and, critically, with the client organization receiving the training. Under EU 1321/2014 and related regulations, the organization itself must assess and manage instructor competence, and ensure the training meets its own documented needs and internal requirements.
At Sofema, we provide high-quality training built on regulatory and industry best practice. We’ve delivered training to over 165,000 delegates, but we are very clear—we’re not claiming EASA has ‘approved’ us to deliver non-mandated courses because no such approval exists.
We go further, though: we support our clients with tools and templates to help them evaluate and document the competence of their instructors and maintain compliance with the expectations of their Competent Authorities.
Interviewer:
What would your message be to third-country authorities who are looking for assurances about training quality?
Steve Bentley:
My message would be this: Don’t look for a regulatory approval where none exists. Instead, focus on the competence of the instructor, the relevance and accuracy of the course content, and the organization’s ability to maintain oversight. This is where Sofema excels.
Furthermore, build your oversight systems around actual performance-based competence, not whether someone can produce a certificate from a Part 147 or ATO. Remember, those approvals are limited in scope. If you’re evaluating a training product or instructor for ad-hoc regulatory training, look at track record, delegate feedback, and course content relevance, not whether they’ve printed an EASA logo on a certificate.
Interviewer:
And finally—what steps can the industry take to help reduce this confusion?
Steve Bentley:
We need education and engagement. We’ve developed white papers and position statements to support regulators and clients alike. Transparency and proactive communication from both training providers and competent authorities is key. It’s also important for regulators to differentiate between mandated EASA training and organizational development training that falls outside direct regulatory control.
Ultimately, it’s about developing internal capability, not ticking boxes. Training is part of a broader system to ensure safety and regulatory compliance—not just an exercise in collecting certificates.
Interviewer:
Thank you, Steve. This has been incredibly clarifying.
Steve Bentley:
My pleasure. At Sofema, we believe in raising the industry’s understanding, not just compliance. If we can help authorities and organizations better appreciate where the real responsibility lies, then we’re improving safety and performance across the board.
Tags:
Part 66, Interview, EASA 147, EASA Training, Sofema Online (SOL), Sofema Aviation Services (SAS), Aviation Safety Management System (SMS), STEVE BENTLEY FRAeS CEO OF SOFEMA, ATOs, Non-Approved Ad-Hoc Training, TTT (Train the Trainer), HF refreshers, SMS workshops
