Military IRT validity under EASA [Archive]

jpboy

26th Oct 2011, 20:39

It has been covered but I'll repeat to try and get this URGENT message across.

As it stands you will need to do another civil IR because at cease work 07 Apr 12 all military exemptions/dispensations cease as EASA becomes the provinence document. The CAA will issue type ratings onto licences until the deadline but to have the type rating added you must have completed the type rating course, base training and all paperwork/fees sorted and be at the Gatwick counter or have had the license stamped and in the post to you as the office closes.

A rough guide is that it would take 3 months to be at this stage from course start date. You would need to start the course Jan 12 latest and have a switched on airline training set up to make the deadline.

All the info comes from having spent the last 8 weeks liaising on behalf of our QSP candidates between my airline training dept, type rating provider, the CAA and the 2 guys at 22 Gp who have had this dumped on them. I'll include a review for info, trust me it's as brief as I can make it!

Main points;

1) To renew an IR expired by more than 7 years applicants for a multi-pilot aircraft (MPA) must pass a type rating skills test with or observed by a UK CAA Flt Ops Inspector and retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations. A QSP cannot use his Green Instrument Rating to maintain the validity and currency of his civilian IR beyond the 7 year point (LASORS Section E pg 7).

2) Where less than 7 years have elapsed since the rating expired but IR privileges have been exercised under a military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary) the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry of that military IR (LASORS Section E pg 7).

3) An applicant for the first type rating course for a MPA shall hold a current and valid multi-engine IR. This requirement applies to the first MPA type rating. A UK QSP(A) who has held a Green Instrument Rating within the preceding 5 years is deemed to hold a current and valid IR (LASORS Section F4.1 pg 20). A Green Instrument Rating on any military aircraft meets this requirement eg. IR on Seneca 4 years ago currently Green Rated on the Tutor meets the requirement (CAA statement after consultation with CAA Policy Dept).

4) Unless the RAF make a case to EASA by the 08 Apr 12 all exemptions and considerations for military experience will cease midnight 07 Apr 12. As it stands the CAA will issue type ratings to QSP's based on the requirements in 2) and 3) above until that deadline. Consequently, any such candidate will need to have completed base training, all necessary paperwork and either post well in advance or use the counter service at Gatwick to have had the type rating issued by cease work 07 Apr 12. To meet the deadline candidates will need to have started the type rating course by early Jan 12 latest.

Cattivo

27th Oct 2011, 00:14

Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated.

AutoBit

27th Oct 2011, 22:04

jpboy,

Can you just expand a bit on the line that you need to start TR trg by Jan 12. Does this apply to QSP's who are using their green IRTs to keep their civvy IR current?

Presumably if you have a current, valid JAA CPL/IR (gained under QSP dispensation all be it) this wouldn't apply?

wokkamate

28th Oct 2011, 09:36

I do hope the Military comes up with a lovely new scheme to continue the QSP accreditation with EASA.....of course they will! Why wouldn't they......?

I think I may have sha* out here.

:{

Foxee

28th Oct 2011, 19:21

I know it is all still to be finalised but the notes I have seen only relate to Military credit under the current scheme for license "issue" ending in April 12. Hopefully the current IR scheme might remain in place until the EASA one comes in as it is for a rating, not a license.

Or am I just hoping for too much?

jpboy

28th Oct 2011, 21:35

Autobit,

Sure thing, to expand:- The Jan start date for first MPA TR course applies specifically to QSPs using their green rating to keep the IR current on an ATPL/CPL. When the CAA stamp your license with the first MPA type rating they will look at your TR course from start to finish to ensure all is pucker and legal as per the rules applicable on the day of issue. It will include a check on whether you met the course prerequisites, one of which is a valid and current multi-engined IR. So lets assume that you are using your green rating to keep your IR current and your application hits the desk of the CAA officer at 1700 on 07 Apr. If they stamp it then all is well but if it is left til the next day they will not stamp because the rules applicable at the time of license issue will be EASA and thus no mil accreditation applies (as it stands today) ie green rating keeping IR current is no longer pucker. Please people nb the deadline is to have had the type rating issued. Working back a TR course plus base training plus admin/fees paid takes approx 3 months hence start date of Jan.

Until the case is made to EASA to establish what credit the Mil will have under the new system to ensure you have no dramas the solution is to bite the bullet, pay the money to hire a twin and have a valid and current multi-engined civvie IR at commencement of first MPA TR course.

Foxee,

From the CAA ALL military accreditations pertaining to licensing will end at cease work on 07 Apr 12 as it stands at the moment. I've been working hard for 5 QSP candidates all of whom are fully licensed up, are starting their first TR on joining the airline early next year and are caught in this dilemma.

Forgive the bold highlighting, been banging on about this for a while now and it makes me feel a tad more hopeful that the message is geting across. Good luck to all.

jpboy

29th Oct 2011, 12:01

Farfrompuken,

If you are on your TR course now then you should easily beat the deadline.

The Sqn Ldr/Flt Lt in post at 22Gp are working on this but were posted in late in the game so not their fault as individuals, same old story. I believe there may be a disconnect between the RAF and CAA over this in terms of who's job it is to make the case. The argument being should it be the RAF because it is in their members interest or the CAA because thay are responsible for setting national policy.

As hard as the team at Abbey Wood work I just can't see it being signed off to be policy by the deadline. I hope I am wrong as I was that QSP who left in 06 and benefited greatly from the exemptions in place. Many thanks to all the old boys (Beagle?) who had worked so hard to get them in place and all the best to the current team trying to do the same.

jpboy

29th Oct 2011, 13:02

Farfrompuken,

Check your PMs please.

BEagle

29th Oct 2011, 13:07

jpboy, I might have started things rolling when I first spotted the opportunity with the introduction of JAR-FCL. As a part-time civil FI/FE, when JAR-FCL first came I had to study the new requirements and noted the relevant regulation covering military accreditation en passant. After several letters and initiatives (despite some snotty Wg Cdr at Learning Command bleating about 'proper staffing processes'...:rolleyes: ; he soon shut up when I told him that a 4-star had written to me personally to thank me for my initiative! ), it was, I understand The Scottish Officer who kicked Binnsworth into actually doing something positive, so the 'MCWG' was formed and it was they who did all the spade work to define the requirements which eventually appeared - which were actually better than those I'd originally proposed.

After I'd pulled the B&Y, I did try through various contacts to remind the RAF that the leaden hand of €urocracy was approaching and that they needed to look at the current accreditations with some urgency, but there wasn't much more I could do. The CAA no longer has sufficient staffing to look after military accreditation proposals and has taken the reasonable view that, if the RAF wants accreditation then it has to do the work! Under the EASA Basic Regulation, it is a national responsibility to write the conversion criteria, not specifically a requirement for the competent authority to draft it.

I did ask the CAA whether the Army and RN were assisting the 2 guys at 22Gp and was told "Ah - good point! Not as far as I'm aware" :uhoh: .

I do hope that 22Gp don't take a niggardly approach and undersell the training, experience and skill of military pilots when writing the 'conversion report'. A top tip might be to go to another country (e.g. Belgium, Netherlands or Germany) and find out what they do? But there's probably no money in the T&S kitty to allow such a fact-finding mission these days....:rolleyes:

Of course delays and vacillation will merely encourage those trying to decide what to do to jump early, following the 'Better the devil you know' principle.

There are more than enough embuggerances in today's RAF, I'm told - so the last thing anyone would want is a non-seamless military accreditation transition next April. However, I fear that time might be running out........ I hope I'm proved wrong!

Redcarpet

30th Oct 2011, 12:46

Does anyone know if this will affect people who have an ATPL, with a lapsed IR, who then join an airline which will provide them with a rating? If not does anyone have any idea how much an IR renewal on a mil type costs? Thanks

Albert Another

30th Oct 2011, 20:36

For those lucky enough to have gained a CPL/IR(A) with Frozen ATPL Theory Credits through the QSP scheme; Another proposition:

- For a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SPA IR(A) between 1-5 years old, would the ME SPA IR(A) need to be revalidated (or still be current) to get an equivalent new EASA licence issued post 07 Apr 12?

- Post 07 Apr 12 would a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SP IR(A) between 1-5 years old, be able to just do a ME MPA IR(A) on a suitable military ac to upgrade to a full ATPL (or EASA equivalent)?

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

BillieBob

30th Oct 2011, 21:57

So lets assume that you are using your green rating to keep your IR current and your application hits the desk of the CAA officer at 1700 on 07 Apr. If they stamp it then all is well but if it is left til the next day they will not stamp because the rules applicable at the time of license issue will be EASA and thus no mil accreditation applies Whilst the new EU Aircrew Regulation becomes law at 0001 on 8 Apr 12, implementation of the Annexes (i.e. the implementing rules) has been deferred until 1 Jul 12. Until then, the CAA will continue to operate in accordance with JAR-FCL and so all existing exemptions should continue. Of course, the CAA have never been great on logic!

BEagle

30th Oct 2011, 22:27

BillieBob, no, that's not the case. From the CAA document:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Q29.jpg

The existing accreditation will NOT be extended until Jul 2012, unfortunately. That was one of the first questions I put to the CAA when it became clear that they wouldn't be able to issue part-FCL licences in April 2012.

jpboy

31st Oct 2011, 09:22

Farfrompuken

The prerequisite to have a valid and current multi-engined rating applies to the first multi-pilot (MPA) type rating only. If you have the Herc on your license then whichever airliner you are going onto is not the first MPA type on your license and you can relax.

Give the CAA a call when you can to give you a warm and fuzzy, that's how I read the rule.

Billiebob,

Beags has nailed it, the deadline is 07 Apr 12. There has been some confusion because due to admin issues the CAA will be issuing JAA licenses until Jul but under EASA rules :}. I asked the question only last month of whether that meant the QSPs credits would be extended and got the same negative answer that Beags has sourced.

Albert Another

- For a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SPA IR(A) between 1-5 years old, would the ME SPA IR(A) need to be revalidated (or still be current) to get an equivalent new EASA licence issued post 07 Apr 12?

- Post 07 Apr 12 would a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SP IR(A) between 1-5 years old, be able to just do a ME MPA IR(A) on a suitable military ac to upgrade to a full ATPL (or EASA equivalent)?

Is your license CAA or JAA? If it is CAA then pay to transfer your license now to JAA then it will become EASA by default on renewal (5 yrs time assuming you meet renewal criteria) and the first problem goes away.

There will be no Mil credits for the upgrade scenario but assuming you meet all the normal prerequisites and the mil type is on the civil register I see no reason why completing a civil rating on that type should not result in the upgrade.

In all these cases the CAA are generally helpful when you phone with individual questions. They too have suffered from manning cutbacks over recent years.

Cattivo

31st Oct 2011, 21:25

Farfrompuken

Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case (boy do I wish it was!). I've asked several examiners about this and been told a variety of different answers, the most learned one (and best placed) believes that the case you refer to relies upon the F4 QSP section in LASORs... which disappears on 7th April 2012, so all bets are off. The new regs may well duplicate the current QSP rules in some form but the feeling from inside is they won't. It's a big gamble to sit on your hands and hope your mil IR will see you right if there's a job at stake. I hope there's some direction soon.

Cattivo

31st Oct 2011, 21:44

jpboy,

Check your PMs.

jpboy

31st Oct 2011, 23:20

Cattivo,

There are many people wrestling with the issues raised by impeding EASA most are probably far more learned than I! I hope I haven't given the impression of being the Jedi Master, all of the opinions offered are without prejudice and based on recent dealings with the CAA trying to sort out individual QSP snarls with the system.

I've also tried to unravel issues for non-mil one of whom was previously type rated on an MPA but who did not hold a valid and current multi-engined IR on returning to work and about to start another MPA TR. Whilst it is true that Lasors Section F 4.1 contains QSP references in the case of the civvie, and I believe Farfrompuken and perhaps yourself, you need to not read beyond the bold below in my opinion.

F4.1 Pre-requisite conditions for training

An applicant for the first type rating course for a MPA shall provide evidence that the following requirements have been met:-

b. hold a current and valid multi-engined Instrument Rating (Aeroplanes). This requirement applies to the first MPA type rating. For subsequent type ratings the Instrument Rating may be renewed if necessary during the type rating course and skills test.

Para b then goes on to talk about the QSP Green Rating but it is irrelevant (and therefore so is impending EASA) if this is not your first MPA due to the reasoning in the second sentence. In essence, you are not making the case as a QSP with all the current buggerance but as a previously qualified MPA type rated pilot.

As you have highlighted though ask 20 pilots/CAA personnel the same question and you will get 20 different answers. It is also a good point that having a current and valid civvie multi-engined IR will guarantee you being squeaky clean at the start of a Type Rating Course. However, an 8000hr type rated 747 pilot who has been out of the industry for 3 years isn't asked to do a Duchess IR prior to starting a 757 TR. In my opinion you are in that exact same scenario...........but remember Yoda not am I.

Cattivo

1st Nov 2011, 07:02

Cheers jpboy, all seems logical to me. However, I think the issue is that Section F4.1 para b may not exist after 7th April 2012. I'll post here should I get a definitive answer in writing.

Outside of QSP accreditation, in current LASORs, what would a 747 pilot who TR'd 6 years ago have to do, if anything to begin a MPA TR course had he not remained 'current and valid'?

Dan Winterland

1st Nov 2011, 07:41

''Outside of QSP accreditation, in current LASORs, what would a 747 pilot who TR'd 6 years ago have to do, if anything to begin a MPA TR course had he not remained 'current and valid'? ''

Assuming his last LPC/IR was six years ago, he would have to sit another LST/IR with a CAA Examiner observing the test. This is from the latest LASORs 2010 (which was only published in April 2011!). Included in this version is a requirement to sit all the IR Nav exams if the IR has expired by more than 7 years. This is becuase JAR FCL 1-185 (issued in 2005) has it included and the CAA have only just noticed! But they have included the caveat that no experince or IR under military or a non JAA ICAO member state can be counted.

This has cuaght quite a few people out. The CAA sent letters to all UK licence holders explaining they had better renew before April 2012 and then introduced this little gem. Foregin based UK licence holders (both national and JAA licence holders) have done what the CAA instructed and got a LST/IR on their current type and were then told that the rating could not be included on their licence to renew as their IR exams had expired!

One wonders at the motive behind this. Is it a concerted action to align the UK with the JAA (which no longer exists of course) or is it a ploy to increase their revenue before a lot of it disspears in April next year?

Either way, it's a muddle - and it appears it hasn't been applied evenly. Some pilots have been issued the rating after LASORS 2010 were isssued and others who were told their UK national licences wouldn't be re-issued after 1 Apr 11 have in fact had then renewed. And other JAA authorities apply the regs differently. For example, all you have to do in Sweden to keep your rating current is to send their aviation authority a copy of your foreign rating.

And the logic is as sound as asking a doctor to retake his biology A level becuase he's been working overseas for seven years. The premise that say for example, an IR issued in Hong Kong is less valid than on issued in Turkey or the RAF is nonesence, particulary if that IR has been used to fly in European airspace.

There are enough British Pilots in the world who this affects to cause a wave. The CAA will probably be facing legal action over their interpretation of JAR FCL 1-185. Something that they won't relish right now!

I will keep you all posted on developments.

Albert Another

1st Nov 2011, 09:57

jpboy -Thank you for the reply. I have a JAA CPL so I'm pretty sure I have to just meet the normal prerequisites when I do a MPA ME IR(A) to upgrade to an ATPL.

As an aside I have always believed that making it easier for a QSP to get a licence does not mean everyone would than leave the service. To the contrary, when you have a licence or the ability to get one easily, there is no urgency to use it but you have it just in case. If you have to rush & work hard yourself to get and pay for the licence, you might as well use it before it lapses and you incur more expenses revalidating it. But that is for another thread.

Thanks again jpboy.

Thomas coupling

1st Nov 2011, 11:47

Politically this has panned out well for the CAA (though they will never admit it). EASA have instructed member states to toe the line here - regarding military alignment with civvy ops. The crux is that the respective CAA's must do the leg work as it is not a simple paper exercise. The CAA simply don't have the staff to lead with this, so have suggested to the mil, that they do the leg work for them and they will then top and tail it for approval.

The military have already missed the boat in my opinion. This issue was aired well over a year ago and there seemed to be little or misunderstood impetus from the M0D to act in that time zone. The CAA simply don't/won't have time to push it through by next April. Game over.

jpboy

1st Nov 2011, 11:59

Outside of QSP accreditation, in current LASORs, what would a 747 pilot who TR'd 6 years ago have to do, if anything to begin a MPA TR course had he not remained 'current and valid'?

Assuming his last LPC/IR was six years ago, he would have to sit another LST/IR with a CAA Examiner observing the test. This is from the latest LASORs 2010 (which was only published in April 2011!).

The force is strong in Dan!

However, I believe the underlying concern in Cattivo's question is what would the 74 pilot need to do prior to beginning a further MPA TR course. Dan's answer is on the nail regarding what is required to renew the rating but there is still an argument that they can renew their IR during the TR course. Arranging a CAA Examiner to observe might be an admin issue for the course provider and so they might prefer you to start current as a bun, but that is different from what you are required to do.

In all my dealings with the CAA they have continually emphasised that Lasors is only a guide and that JAR-FCL is the provenance document and thus the law. It is also true to say that from Apr 12 EASA becomes the law and Lasors is being replaced by CAP804, a document still being complied, so there are many questions still to be answered.

It is an incredibly frustrating scenario for the individual, the employer, TRTO and dare I say it even the CAA.

In any doubt email licensing and get in writing the requirements based on your unique circumstances.

jpboy

4th Nov 2011, 15:54

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please see the information below. It contradicts the advice I had previously been given and posted on this thread and it's source is Policy Dept CAA.

A ME IR is one of the pre-requisites in order to gain the first MPA Type rating. You highlighted the LASORS 2010 text of para F4.1 b) which includes the following: “A UK QSP who has held a Green IR within the preceding 5yrs is deemed to hold a ‘current and valid’ IR.” I confirmed that given the paragraph starts with ; “Hold a current and valid Multi Engine IR…….” it is reasonable to assume that all subsequent IR references would be in relation to Multi engine IRs, even though this may not be specifically stipulated. The requirement of holding a current and valid ME IR, or in the case of a QSP, a ME green IR (within the last 5yrs) has been, and is Policy.

Looking forward to next year, LASORS 2010 will be superseded by CAP 804 which will fully define EASA pilot licensing requirements. The document will be available on line, spring next year.

Finally, I will bring to your attention a paper (attached) that discusses the implications of EASA legislation and which may be viewed at ; http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/d-Sept2011_v2.pdf and paragraph seven discusses credit for military flying.

So unless you are on a multi-engined aircraft your Green Rating cannot be used to maintain your civil IR.

As previously discussed currently all mil accreditation ceases on 07 Apr 12 so this should only affect those imminently starting a Type Rating.

Left hand v Right hand, pse don't shoot the messenger.

Cattivo

22nd Nov 2011, 19:59

Having spent the last few weeks conversing with the CAA and my potential future employer, I thought I'd share the knowledge for those interested who helped me get to the answer.

In my quest to find out whether I would need to have a current ME IR prior to starting a TR course (after EASA comes into effect and therefore discounting any QSP accreditation/"current and valid" rulings due to mil IR), the CAA stated that because the TR wouldn't be my first MPA TR (my first one was on mil MPA which opened my license) then I could renew my IR on the TR course. The only timeframe I had to meet was to renew the IR within 7 years of the expiry of my last civilian IR (otherwise face doing the 7 IR theory exams).

This news was gratefully received, however, my potential future employer stated that regardless of the CAA ruling, they wanted a current and valid civilian IR on arrival. Lesson learnt, ask everyone involved!

Mylord-Smythe

28th Nov 2011, 21:27

jpboy,

Thanks for your very informative last thread. I'm not a big user of pprune but my situation has pushed into some deep research and I've always known pprune is a great vault of advice!

I'll quickly explain my situation and then would appreciate it if you could let me know where or who from CAA policy explained the QSP ME Green IR policy on renewals!

I'm due to leave the RAF for a major British carrier next year. I'm presently flying the Boeing C-17 on 99 Sqn and have held a frozen ATPL since my first civil IR in 2002. Last month whilst checking my licence prior to an interview I stumbled upon the change in 2010 Lasors to Sect E para 1.5 about the 7 year elapsed statement from your original civil IR and how (apparently) the QSP Green IR didn't count. Since then I've been in a bit of a flat spin trying to sort out whether I've got a valid licence or not! I've haven't touched base with the CAA yet as I wanted to get all the info together first. It was only last night I read your thread on 04 Nov 11 and the very interesting way Sect F para 4.1 b can be interpreted. If this is a direct quote from CAA policy I could have a get out (fingers crossed)

To that end are you able to tell me who in the CAA quoted this so I can at least fire my email enquiry at the right person!

Many thanks and here's to hoping all is not lost!

Mylord-Smythe

BEagle

29th Nov 2011, 07:39

Dan, is this the current version of JAR-FCL 1.185?

JAR–FCL 1.185 Validity, revalidation and renewal

(a) An IR(A) is valid for one year. If an IR(A) for a multi-engine aeroplane is to be revalidated the holder shall complete the instrument requirements of JAR–FCL 1.245(b)(1), which may be conducted in a flight simulator or FNPT II. If an IR(A) for single-engine aeroplanes is to be revalidated the holder shall complete, as a proficiency check, the skill test set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to JAR–FCL 1.210, except for Section 6.

(b) If the IR(A) is valid for use in single-pilot operations, the revalidation shall be completed in either multi-pilot operations or single-pilot operations. If the IR(A) is restricted for use in multi-pilot operations only, the revalidation shall be completed in multi-pilot operations.

(c) An applicant who fails to achieve a pass in all sections of a proficiency check before the expiry date of an instrumement rating shall not exercise the privileges of that rating until the proficiency check has successfully been completed.

(d) If the rating is to be renewed, the holder shall meet the requirements above and any additional requirements as determined by the Authority.

(e) If the IR(A) has not been revalidated/renewed within the preceding 7 years, the holder will be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examination.

Quite how the CAA has managed to read into this that their former policy was incorrect, I cannot understand. It doesn't seem to have caused any difficulties in the industry to date.

Tourist

29th Nov 2011, 08:16

Does the ME IR have to be valid at the start of your first Multi pilot TR, or at the end, or at the point your application hits the desk at Gatwick?

I'm Off!

29th Nov 2011, 12:37

Start I believe Tourist - I think the wording is something like 'to commence a TR'.

jpboy

29th Nov 2011, 19:51

Mylord S,

We have spoken but for those interested the quote regarding a Green Multi-engined Mil IR being required to maintain a Civil IR validity is indeed a direct quote from CAA Policy Department.

Tourist,

You need a valid and current Multi-engined IR at the start of your first Multi Pilot Aeroplane Type Rating Course.

Good luck.

Tourist

30th Nov 2011, 09:27

Thanks guys

ReturnOfX

9th Jan 2012, 19:08

Mylord-Smythe

I am in a very similar situation to you. However, I have just had my IR(ME) reval denied by the CAA. I have even taken it to the Head of Licencing. Their stances is that after the mil dispensation for maintaining an IR based on a mil Green IR was removed (somewhere between 2008-2010 but not advertised), the individual instantly becomes liaible to the same regulations as a civilian. In effect if your last civie IR(ME) was prior to 2004 you are out of the 7 year requal period and therefore need to conduct an approved requal cse and exams.

I am taking advice on whether the CAA is obligued to provide a period of grace and the implications that they did not advertise the dispensation removal (note the late release of LASOR 2010 and the missing LASOR 2002 because of the number of changes).

If anyone has had better luck then do please let me know. Equally, if you are in the same position then give me a PM and I will keep you in the loop.

TheInquisitor

12th Jan 2012, 05:51

The way that LASORS F4.1(b) reads suggests that you don't even need a Civ IR to commence a TR cse, so long as you have, as a QSP(A), held a Green rating at ANY time in the last 5 years. With the clarification provided above, this means a Green rating on a ME type.

This means that Mylord-Smythe, you ought to be golden, as far as commencing a TR course is concerned. And if ReturnOfX requires his IR for the same purpose, him too (assuming his within-last-5-years Green is on an ME type). If you are talking about exercising IR privileges on your Civ licence, though, that seems to be a different matter.

In short, holding, or having held in the last 5 years, a mil ME Green IR ought to qualify you to commence a TR cse, but doesn't, in and of itself, reval your Civ ME/IR for licence privileges.

Or am I missing something?

Farfrompuken

12th Jan 2012, 06:05

I spoke to them the other day; they acknowledged that with a F166 and cat form plus logbook, I should be able to revalidate my IR and TR in my licence.

My civvie IR(A) was held on my operational type and I've held a current green ever since. Will try to get email acknowledgement of this.

Farfrompuken

12th Jan 2012, 11:51

Well, I'm getting different answers depending on who is on the other end of the 'phone.

It seems that there are some advisors who state that you can retaliate with a current Green, others stating an IR(A) check is required.

Anyone with the 'pink' solution?!:\

nice castle

12th Jan 2012, 22:38

I'd hazard a guess that any CAA pink would be the one that involves screwing you for cash!

Mylord-Smythe

15th Jan 2012, 14:32

Well after many long emails to the CAA and the help of BALPA I'm still up s**t creek without a paddle. The CAA never backed down on the removal of the rule of a military Green IR keeping your civil IR valid indefinitely.

So the bottom line from head of training at the CAA is that if your initial civil IR has lapsed by more than 7 years you loose it !!! The only way to keep it live is to renew it every 5 years in an approved simulator or if your between 5-7 years in an aircraft and after 7 years, 6 IR theory exams (presently studying for) and the flight test!!

Further to this, if any of your process falls over the 7 April 12, then all military accreditation will be lost until the new scheme (being staffed by 22 Trg Gp) is in place. The military's paper will be complete by then, it's just how long the CAA and EASA take implementing it!!

So my advice to anyone is, unless you have to sort out licenses for a immanent career start date (my position!) then I would leave it until the dust settles post EASA. You never know, you might find yourself in a better position than before this change!! But I'd be very surprised!!!

Got to go, got some gyro theory to learn!!! Living the dream!!!

Farfrompuken

15th Jan 2012, 16:58

M-S

Sorry to hear that. I think I'm okay at the moment; the acid test will be when I head down there with my paperwork (and no doubt plenty of cash!) in a couple of weeks.

I'll keep you posted.

Dan Winterland

16th Jan 2012, 01:51

The CAA interpretation of JAR FCL 1-185 is contrary to the intention of the 7 year rule. From the horses' mouth, the 7 years is only intended to exclude those who haven't held and been exercising the right of any IR. I suspect the motivation for this is to increase revenue through testing and examining.

I read with interest that the CAA had only appied to be the EASA licencing agency - the decision who gets the job has yet to be made. I sincerely hope that it isn't them. If it is, they won't be able to interpret EASA FCL for their own ends from July.

Farfrompuken

16th Jan 2012, 10:56

LASORS F4.1 b seem to put it in black and white:

Pre-requisite conditions for training

An applicant for the first type rating course for a MPA shall provide evidence that the following requirements have been met:-

a. have completed at least 70 hours as pilot-in- command of aeroplanes;

b. hold a current and valid multi-engine Instrument Rating (Aeroplanes). This requirement applies to a

first MPA type rating. For subsequent type ratings
the Instrument Rating may be renewed if necessary during the type rating course and skill test. A UK QSP(A) who has held a Green Instrument Rating
within the preceding 5 years is deemed to hold a ‘current and valid’ Instrument Rating.

Unless I'm missing something.....

TheInquisitor

18th Jan 2012, 20:53

A question - what kind of 'certification' is required of logbook copies?

If the answer is stamp / Flt Cdr's sig on each page, I'm out of luck - I already left the service, and my discharging unit (LYE) no longer exists. What else is acceptable to the CAA?

Incidentally, does anybody know how one would go about obtaining a copy of their last F166 from their 5000, post-exit?

nice castle

18th Jan 2012, 21:14

Signature from Sqn Boss. Did your Sqn move to Bzn? Have you an old mate who can help? Amazingly, a mate took his actual logbook down to Gatwick (thinking that would obviate the need for Boss' signatures), and guess what, the CAA refused to accept it! Ludicrous.

Not sure what happens to 166/5000 on leaving the service...

TheInquisitor

19th Jan 2012, 00:39

Curious, as I thought that our logbooks were signed by Flt Cdrs every month, and by the Boss every 3 months, and yearly on annual summaries. So the CAA don't accept the usual summary signatures?

Just so I get this right... does it have to be EVERY photocopy page signed, or just a sig block at the end, certifying total hrs / no of pages, etc?

Here's where matters get complicated.... my last Fg unit was overseas, and the boss has, I believe, changed since I was last there. I was posted back to the UK purely for discharge purposes, to LYE, and never saw anyone on the station except the discharge clerk and the (few) sigs I needed on my clearance chit!

Assuming I COULD get someone at BZZ to sign my copies, would the CAA simply reject them, since I have never been on a Sqn there? My only other option would be to post my copies off back overseas... for which I'm sure the new boss, not knowing me, would want to personally inspect my logbook to confirm what he is signing for. I know I would, in this day and age! Big postage costs, big delays, and the possibility of loss in the post all ensue from this.

The 166 I will need at some stage as evidence of holding a Green IR in the last 5 yrs. Having researched a little more, it appears that ex-servicemen's records are held at (or at least administered by) Cranwell - someone called the DPA Team, RAF Disclosures who live in Trenchard Hall. Anybody have any experience of trying to get hold of their records post-discharge from them?

Rock > Me < Hard Place, it would seem.

Sorry, firing off alot of daft questions here, and yes, it's all my own fault for not realising / sorting this out before I left, etc... but any advice welcomed!

Capt Widebody, many thanks for the link, etc.

BEagle

19th Jan 2012, 05:44

As Captain Widebody has said, it is important that each relevant page is certified. Also, that Section 2 (Special Flying Qualifications and Renewals) and Section 3 (Instrument Ratings) clearly include your name.

Some of the CAA licence production team are quite new to the game and may not understand the full range of military terminology. When I applied for my ATPL in 2002, I had a call querying that Section 2 of my logbook didn't include the words 'Combat Ready'. I pointed out that CR(S) was a higher qualification; however, no-one had actually briefed the CAA about the system, so I had to fax them the relevant extracts from GASOs as proof.

Hardest part of the whole process was filling out the 'Flying Experience in Military Aircraft' section of the form - how I wished I hadn't bothered to log those few trips in the Dominie, Beaver and Meteor T7 in the 1970s!

TheInquisitor

19th Jan 2012, 07:10

Thank you, gentlefolk. Most kind.

Canute

19th Jan 2012, 09:22

Something that I think is worth mentioning is that the MCC course is actually quite good, and avoiding it might not be the most wise option.

I had an MCC exemption certificate from years ago, but chose to use an ELC plus the cash for leaving the RN to do the Oxford MCC course just before my BA sim check.

The first bit is like the Flight Safety/Authorisors course which was ok, then there is lots of sim time in a 737-400 and I was taught by excellent ex RAF instructors. There are differences in how the civvy world does stuff.

I reckon that that sim time got me through the BA sim check. Now in the pool.

A point to ponder.