Executive Summary

As a leading provider of aviation regulatory training, Sofema Online supports the global industry with over 525 specialized courses. In 2025 alone, we issued over 40,000 certificates, facilitating compliance for thousands of professionals worldwide.

It has come to our attention that certain EASA-appointed inspectors are unilaterally refusing to recognize Online Training as a valid component of an organization's regulatory compliance framework. Such actions constitute a departure from the established EASA legal framework and represent a significant overreach of inspectorate authority.

The Legal and Operational Reality

Under current EASA regulations, the responsibility for managing and verifying individual employee competence rests solely with the Approved Organization, not the EASA Inspector.

The role of an auditor is to evaluate the efficacy of the organization’s assessment process—ensuring the entity has robust procedures to validate the knowledge gained—rather than to dictate the specific medium of instruction.

• Regulatory Compliance: There is no provision within the EASA Basic Regulation or associated AMC/GM that prohibits online learning as a primary method for theoretical knowledge transfer.

• Economic Viability: To illustrate the necessity of digital solutions, consider our CAMO Engineer Package (26 specialized courses).

  • Online Cost: Under €1,000 (via the 6-month Freedom Pass).

  • Equivalent Classroom Cost: Approximately €60,000 (covering 34 days of instruction).

• Sustainability: Expecting an organization to bear a 6,000% increase in training costs for an individual is not only commercially untenable but serves no measurable safety benefit if the competence outcome is identical.

Identified Concerns regarding Inspector Conduct

Evidence gathered from Third Country Oversight Audits suggests that a small number of inspectors may be operating based on personal bias rather than objective regulatory criteria.

1. Misalignment with Frameworks: Refusal to accept online training without evidence of a failure in the organization’s competence management system is a breach of auditing standards.

2. Training Deficiencies: It appears there is a localized lack of competence regarding how to audit modern, evidence-based training methodologies.

3. Subjectivity vs. Objectivity: Audits must remain focused on documentary evidence, process procedures, and the demonstration of oversight management, not the personal preferences of the inspector regarding "traditional" vs. "digital" learning.

Conclusion and Call to Action

EASA inspectors play a vital role in maintaining global aviation safety. However, this role must be exercised within the boundaries of the law. Dictating "how" an organization trains, rather than "how well" they assess that training, undermines the very quality systems EASA is designed to uphold.

Sofema Aviation Services remains committed to defending the integrity of the EASA regulatory environment. We are actively collecting reports of such overreach and are prepared to escalate these matters through the appropriate channels, including representation via the European Parliament, to ensure that EASA oversight remains fair, objective, and legally compliant.