CAA licence and/or Grandfather rights to go?

[shortstripper]

Reading the August "Pilot" mag, I've just noticed an AOPA article noting that EASA are threatening the old UK CAA Licence and its privileges. Apparently, EASA is going to refuse to recognise national licences. It says that those of us who fly on the strength of our lifetime CAA licences will be forced to apply and pay for a 5 year expiring JAR one. Further to that we will have to demonstrate the ability to use radio nav aids, which basically means a flight exam (surely an expired IMC be proof enough?). It also notes that a new offence would be introduced ... flying with an expired licence!

How can this be? Does it apply to other ICAO licences? Flight within the UK on a UK licence? Is it to be challenged?

This was in the August issue, not the April one, so I assume it's not a joke? :mad:

SS

PS. Copied to other Forums for wider feedback.

[blue up]

Have you got space for a VOR/DME/GS/LOC on the Slingsby? You'l have to move the Mode S to make space for it!:E

Spoke to the CAA and was quietly advised to renew the details on my old PPL ASAP to ensure I held one on top of my current JAR ATPL. Does this help answer the question?

[shortstripper]

LOL ... No I haven't got the space, but that's not the point.

The need to "demonstrate" use of radio aids is for the issue of a JAR PPL, which in effect means that a flying test will be required regardless of experience. That's how the Pilot article interprets it, but perhaps that refers to the future once the UK CAA licence has been done away with? It also means we will all have to pay ... and again every five years (which is probably what the whole thing is about anyway).

SS

[172driver]

There is a pdf on the EASA website (http://www.easa.eu.int/home/index.html) that - in part - outlines some ideas re simplification (yes, really!) of licensing. OK, I believe it when I see it, but there was a recent thread on here regarding just that with respect to the IR. Below is a quote from the EASA dcument. Sounds promising.....

Pilot licensing:
Create a European private pilot licence issued by Authorities or assessment bodies:
covering the full scope of aircraft other founded on a stepwise approach and on competence based training.
This licence would be built around a basic common licence to which ratings for different categories of aircraft,
operations and specific authorisations would be attached, including simplified instrument rating and instructor
rating. No arbitrary restrictions on access to airspace and airports
built into the licensing rule.Medical requirements based on risk assessment and
consideration to allowing general practitioners to issue medical certificates based for example on an assessment
following a self-declaration signed by the pilot. ‘Commercial’ flying schools should have the possibility to
train to RPPL. Finally a bridge with the standard FCL-PPL should be
established.

[IO540]

It does sound promising indeed. This is the forthcoming "EASA PPL" etc. Nothing to do with JAA.

The key Q for me is how will the IR option be limited (if indeed there is one).

Reading the above quote, you can see how scared the national CAAs are of EASA... Stuff like "Medical requirements based on risk assessment" is a totally alien concept in aviation regulation.

[172driver]

IO, you are probably right about the fright EASA gives the locals, but you may be wrong with regards to the medical. If you read the entire document (see link in my post above) then it appears they want to simplify that also, effectively doing away with AMEs and allowing GPs to issue one.

[shortstripper]

That isn't an easily navigated website is it? I can't even find the bit about PPL licencing? If their new regulations are as easily understood as their website ... gawld help us!

SS

[172driver]

SS, agreed - you have to click on the 'newsflash' at the top of the page; this updates every few seconds or so, wait until the relevant issue appears. You then download a PDF which is essentially a PowerPoint presentation.
In any case, the rules & regs can't really get more confusing than they are...:}

[xrayalpha]

IO540 wrote:

>>>>Reading the above quote, you can see how scared the national CAAs are of EASA... Stuff like "Medical requirements based on risk assessment" is a totally alien concept in aviation regulation.

Well, it is how about half the UK pilot population flies, and half the instructors, according to the figures from Flight Training News which has half the UK fleet and half the Uk schools being microlights and hang gliders and paramotors. Plus the NPPL light aircraft folk.

We all fly on chits signed by our GPs based on our medical records - and NOT a medical examination. Click link on nppl web site for details.

The risk assessment based system - with its lower paperwork - was pioneered by the UK!

Quite simply, if you have had chest pains - like I have had - the most important thing in life is not your flying licence! So you see the GP and he enters it into your records.

So there is nothing to hide. And no exam needed - except in some exceptional cases, and they don't include a student of mine who has had a heart transpant.

Very best wishes

[BEagle]

When the EASA licensing consultation is launched, it is absolutely vital that everyone who flies on a National Licence tells EASA to sod off and think again!

People who will be most affected:

UK PPL(A) holders with lifetime licenses.
All IMC Rating holders.
All BCPL holders and R/BCPL holders such as many light aircraft FIs.
NPPL (SSEA) and NPPL (SLMG) holders.
NPPL (Microlight) holders seeking to add SSEA/SLMG ratings.
UK CPL(A) and UK ATPL(A) holders with 'embedded' UK IMC Rating privileges.

Which is pretty well EVERYONE in the UK PPL world, whether pilot or instructor.

The only solution would be to issue the corresponding Eurolicence above the National licence - with privileges restricted to whatever the existing National licence privileges were.

Of course, if this lead to more people operating on 'flag of convenience' FAA licences with FAA IRs and N-registered aeroplanes, you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that the Eurocrats will start looking at 'residency' requirements and import re-registration requirements.....

[IO540]

I agree with your drift, Beagle, but

Which is pretty well EVERYONE in the UK PPL world, whether pilot or instructor.

isn't quite right, because every new PPL since c. 2000 is a JAA one, and only about 10% to 20% of PPLs have historically gone on to get the IMCR.

We could have a debate (pointless one due to the CAA not releasing the essential data) on the churn rate of the PPL population but I think the majority of active UK PPLs are probably under JAA, and most of them don't have an IMCR.

Of course, if this lead to more people operating on 'flag of convenience' FAA licences with FAA IRs and N-registered aeroplanes, you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that the Eurocrats will start looking at 'residency' requirements and import re-registration requirements.....

Well quite, which is why IMHO looking at this rationally is pointless. Any new EASA license proposals must inevitably be wrapped in what sort of carrot can be offered to FAA PPL/IR holders to get them back into the fold. Otherwise, there is no point in EASA doing anything - beyond relabelling a JAA PPL with an "EASA PPL" label.

[Fuji Abound]

BEagle

Your are right.

Mine is a CAA one - when I got it they told me it was for life. I hope the CAA dont prove to be as unreliable as a double glazing salesmen.

I guess it is not just the IMCR at risk, the IR is on the old CAA license as well, and it wouldnt surprise me if they dont end up with a fee for the license and another fee for each rating.

I shall write to them next week.

With my usual AOPA bashing hat on, I think I will write to them as well. A few on here convinced me I should rejoin (which I have), but I still worry whther they are capable of really defending our interests.

[shortstripper]

It would be interesting to know what the split is. I can't remember when the change was, but I guess it was was mid 90's? How many here on the forum still fly on the strength of their UK PPL A. I do,... so just how many "old timers" do we have?

SS

[Gertrude the Wombat]

How many here on the forum still fly on the strength of their UK PPL A.
I'm one.

(Message too short ... add some characters.)

[vulcanpilot]

Me too.

My license was issued in 1996 for life - I don't remember any strings attached. I expect it to remain for life, though if I 'vary' the terms of my license (such as go for an additional rating) then I could just about accept having to 'upgrade' to a JAA type license. I wouldn't be happy but.....

However, if I choose to carry on flying as I am, with my current ratings granted under the 'old' system, then I believe my agreement/fee structure fits with the 'old' system.

Progress .... pah!

[stiknruda]

Mine is an old "hearing-aid beige" one.

[Wessex Boy]

Mine is a UK, poo brown one.

[bookworm]

Reading the August "Pilot" mag, I've just noticed an AOPA article noting that EASA are threatening the old UK CAA Licence and its privileges. Apparently, EASA is going to refuse to recognise national licences.

Is there anything written down with regard to this "threat"? EASA does not seem to be shy about publishing its intentions, even when they may not be universally loved.

[S-Works]

Its wrapped up in the current review. I will find the document and post the content. We have had a bit of a battle with its content for the IR review.

I have also been somewhat shocked by the attitude to change of some of the people supposed to represent us within this process.

It's also part of the basis for my comments at the start of the year about pushing through the IR changes as really do believe we are going to lose a lot of our rights when EASA take over.

I feel we will end up with a 2 tier system. The professional pilots and the sub ICOA Europe rating. With a lot of restrictions.

[172driver]

I feel we will end up with a 2 tier system.

Bose-X, care to elaborate ? From what I could gather from - amongst others - your very informative posts on other threads, the EASA license should (and I say again s-l-o-w-l-y: SHOULD) make life easier, with regards to IR, medical, etc. So where are the hidden problems ?

[S-Works]

It has been my experience of late that there is a major focus on bringing in the RPPL which is going to be the Europe wide version of the NNPL. This does not carry any of the national ratings and is effectively a day vfr rating. Great news for the permit flyers as it actually expands there rights. But for those of us with IR's, IMC and CoFA aircraft the NPPL is a waste of space.

With a 2 tier system you either have to go with the RPPL and lose what you have or go down the commercial route to get the Instrument rights. For those with an IMC it means most likely having to go IR.

The blanket answer from people on here will of course be, we will just all move to a flag of convenience because "politics" will prevent anything happening to that. However I think they will vanish as well, there has been clear intent in the UK and Europe to get rid of such aircraft due to a lack of oversight. What they will probably do is set residency rules. In the US for example if you base a foreign aircraft there for more than 6 months you have to go N-Reg.

I just have a feeling that driven by CAT all those nasty little aircraft that keep busting air space and disrupting the smooth flow of CAT will be pigeon holed into little bits of exempted air space during the day and nowhere near a cloud.

[172driver]

hmmmmm..... but wasn't /isn't there the 'new' PPL/IR as part of this whole EASA deal ? Seem to be picking up VERY conflicting msgs here. :confused:

[IO540]

The conflicting messages, 172driver, are appearing because nobody actually has any clue as to what will happen.

There are varying degrees of speculation, some reasonable, some less reasonable, but the whole thing with "what will EASA do" is so wrapped up in so many factors (many of them political and only at most peripherally connected to GA) that nobody has the slightest clue what sort of regulatory regime we will be flying under say 5 years from today.

Many commentators (not specifically referring to anybody here) also have various axes to grind because EASA is going to put them out of a job, or will kill off some golden cows which these people have spent their whole careers feeding. So, a lot of stuff in the press, or presented at seminars / conferences, is a lot of bunk.

It's fun to keep tabs on it, and perhaps do one or two things differently in anticipation of the worst case scenario (e.g. if you are on N-reg avoid installing some non-essential piece of kit if it isn't EASA approved) but that's about it.

I am not getting into the "N-reg will end" debate anymore because I haven't got a clue what will happen to us, and neither has bose-x :) My view is that there is a lot more inertia in the system than most people think, and hot potatoes are left till tomorrow. This cuts both ways; it means "problems" don't get tackled, and it also means improvements don't get brought in.

[S-Works]

There is no EASA "deal".

The amended IR is our attempt at ensuring that instrument rights are available to all regardless of what may happen with national ratings or flag of convenience registrations.

So if the IMC goes with the loss of the national ratings and you want instrument flight you are going to have to do an IR. Do you want to do an IR as it stands or a more accessible version that we are trying to get?

There are an awful lot of people who are interested in only the permit and very light type of aviation or CAT representing us and virtually nothing in the middle ground. Which is why AOPA and PPL/IR are working so hard to ensure that the average GA flyer is heard.

I do have a better view of the opinions of what is happening with flag of convenience registrations as I am exposed to the comments made by the committees that are representing us.

But as IO points out and I have said it before it is just my opinion. But as a point I did say 6 months ago national ratings would be under threat.....

[172driver]

Do you want to do an IR as it stands or a more accessible version that we are trying to get?

Most definitely that, and I commend your input there :D