CAA FCL, promoting safety?

[Poltergeist]

Apologies if this has appeared in another thread, I did a brief search and could not find it.

Like many of you I received the letter from the CAA head of licensing telling me I would have to exchange my UK licence which was sold on the basis of valid for life to a new EASA one probably with a cost attached.

Now here is my real beef, the tone of the letter.basically it said the rules are changing, its up to you to find out how and when, don't call us because we are clueless and if you don't find it for your self you can not fly.

What exactly is the purpose of the CAA? is that the attitude to promote safety? maybe EASA is the way if that is the contempt with which the CAA hold their customers.

I accept my responsibilities but it is time certain managers in the CAA accept theirs! I ave seen many arguments for the regulation of GA going to other bodies. I am beginning o become an advocate of that line

[ct8282]

I am intrigued. Have not seen this letter. Would you be able to scan and attach it to this thread perhaps... ?

[ct8282]

OK, just found this...

Pilot licence switchover (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2005)

Some interesting snippets taken from the 35 page document on the website:

'JAR Licenses issued before 8th April 2012, that are fully compliant with JAR-FCL, will automatically become EASA licenses on the 8th April 2012. The legislation willl require the physical replacement of JAR lecenses with their EASA equivalent before 8th April 2017'.

Reading more about this point it states that you have to replace your JAR license on or before the calender expiry date of your license. i.e the date stated above of the 8th April 2017 is assuming those licenses that have been issued on the 7th April 2012, the day before the new licensing comes into effect.

Reading through the document it seems that this change to EASA is actually going to affect every aspect of flying, including theoretical exams which will change to a new EASA standard, medicals, etc etc. I would recommend that you do all have a read through as there will be a fair few changes moving forward, for example there will no longer be a UK IMC rating.

There's also an interesting part at the end where they talk about how the new licensing will significantly increase the work load on the CAA during the period that the new EASA licenses are being issued, and that as a result of this we can expect the responsiveness of the CAA to our enquiries to signifciantly reduce. :ugh:

[fulham fan]

As I understand it the CAA has and will be providing loads more info on this - what they mean is it will be on their website and publicity rather than individual contact with each pilot - I imagine there is a significant cost in postage to contact each licence holder. Why don't you subscribe to their RSS feeds and you should be kept up to date

[Poltergeist]

When i return to the Uk I will attempt the scan, fulham, thks, hope you are right but that is not how the letter read, I accept the point on postal costs but surely with such a change in legislation, the cost is tiny compared to other costs the authority rack up in non regulatory areas. That said come back to the writing of the letter. It comes across as its all too much bother.Worrying in the safety regulator

[Poltergeist]

Oh, meant to ask, not being a real techy type, what is this RSS stuff?

many thanks

[robin]

Be fair, guys

The law still hasn't been passed and the current state of play is a lot better than it was when the CAA put out the first document 6 months ago.

There is still no confirmation of a transition period so the CAA are still only guessing that they will have to power to delay full implementation. And the transition means that those of us with a CAA UK-PPL can still fly our EASA-type aircraft beyond April without going through the expense of a JAR-PPL.

Part of that has to have been because if the 'wait and see' approach we've all taken.

In this case, don't blame the CAA. Blame the loonies at EASA who have screwed this up big-time. Oh, and blame the MEPs for letting EASA get away with it.

[fulham fan]

Info for Rentaghost :) CAA RSS info What is RSS? | Site Information | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=114&pagetype=65&appid=33)

[Poltergeist]

Fulham fan, many thanks, consider me 'educated' :ok:

[Poltergeist]

Hi Robin, I dont blame them for the change, I guess in my usual clumsy way my ire was at the way the letter was written and the impression that it left.

and dont start me on Politicians!!!!!!:hmm:

[Whopity]

A number of people have been concerned regarding the tone and content of the letter that effectively washes their hands of any responsibility.

We have seen licence changes in the past, and where these are a direct result of legislative changes, licences have been re-issued free of charge, but this time holders are expected to pay, not just a re-issue fee, but an initial issue fee. For an organisation that is concerned with workload, why is it inviting people to go through a double change which increases the workload even further.

All of the guidance letters have contained errors, one hinted that pilots had not entered into the spirit of JAR-FCL and obtained a JAA licence, yet it was the very same CAA that 10 years earlier had advised industry that there was no need to obtain a JAA licence as the National licence would be valid and available for the lifetime of the holder. Furthermore, why would anyone in their right mind want to pay more for less?

The EASA regulation states that the NAA is responsible for replacing both JAA and National licences with EASA licences, and I would have thought that they had a duty of care to ensure that all pilots are correctly licensed; it would appear they have delegated this responsibility to individual pilots.

At the professional level the changes will be minimal but for private pilots the level of complexity has assumed nonsensical proportions following successive bungled law changes and poor administration surrounding the introduction of new licences. ICAO Annex 1 recommends mutual recognition of contracting States licences at the private level therefore, all that is required is to re-issue every existing ICAO PPL holder with an EASA one; we have after all maintained them in accordance with JAR-FCL for over 10 years. They could even have sent out paper stickers with these letters with EASA printed on them! What else is going to change at the end of the day?

2 years ago they re-issued every licence free of charge to include the newly introduced ICAO requirement for English Proficiency, but failed to include the already published EASA requirement for a validity date. The whole process now has to be repeated to rectify this omission, an ideal opportunity to comply and change all the licences in one shot!

It appears the CAA are hell bent on making the transition as complicated as it can be, safety doesn't come into the equation. What is most concerning is that material of a dubious quality is coming from the Belgrano, without it appears any form of checking or monitoring from above. Policy was once made by pilots and promulgated by the Policy Dept, now it appears non pilots make policy and promulgate it without supervision.