How long is Australian CPL vailid for?

[millonario]

G'day fellow aviators!

I currently hold an Australian CPL, but I haven't had a flight review in over 2 years. My questions is, is my CPL still valid even though I have not had a flight review, nor had 3 takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days?

Thanks in advance!

[Gomrath]

Have you checked the regulations?...

Moving this to DG&P.

[lilflyboy262...2]

Also curious about this.

[Checkboard]

All Australian licences are issued permanently. Once you have the licence, you need a current medical & flight test to validate it.

[Unhinged]

You have an Australian CPL and don't know the answers to these fundamental questions ? They were most certainly covered in the Air Law exam. Anyway, if you have an Aussie CPL, then just read it. The validity is printed on the licence.

Of course you also need to go back and re-read the Regs to remind yourself what else needs to be in place for you to exercise the privileges of the licence. You can download all of the required docs from the CASA website for free.

Checkboard's answer is at least partially wrong; Just go and do some simple homework for yourself.

[T28D]

What is wrong about checkboard answer, ALL Australian ICAO licenses are issued as permanent licenses, to exercise the license you need a current medical and AFR with 3 takeoffs and landings in previous 90 days.

[Unhinged]

Well T28D, if you don't know what's wrong with Checkboard's answer, I've got way more to do today than sort out your homework on such a basic question. BTW, your answer is also obviously incorrect, but I guess you don't understand that either.

I just wish people would refrain from posting their guesses or whatever it is that leads to answers like these. If you really don't know the answer, download the Regs from the CASA website for free and spend a few measly minutes actually reading them.

[Checkboard]

What do you call someone who spends 10 minutes posting on a BB that they "have all of the answers", but don't have the time to state them? :rolleyes:

[Tankengine]

Reading the regs is the key - my take on it is that you must KEEP your medical current.:hmm:
Flight review or similar needed to exercise privileges thereof.
Air leg a f$^(*(ng long time ago for me.:E

[Unhinged]

Checkboard - I didn't post any such thing. That is entirely a product of your own imagination, as was your original answer.

The reason I didn't post the answers (there are several points) is exactly as Tankengine suggests - read the Regs. I spend my life working bloody hard to help people become good pilots, but that does not include wiping their arses as well as their noses. If you want to be pilot in command of an aircraft, then you need to demonstrate a modicum of self-motivation and pride, and do just a little bit of your own work. I even pointed you at the Regs so that you didn't have to waste time on all of the other myriad documents that regulate Australian aviation, but I refuse to select the document, hold the book, open it to the page, and then read the answer out to you and other lazy "pilots".

I can teach anyone to fly (as in, manipulate the controls), what I can't teach is decision making, professionalism, pride in your own performance and airmanship. That comes from within the person, and without it, all of the flight skills in the world won't make a competent pilot.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

All Australian licences are issued permanently.

Correct, unless you screw up and CASA revokes it.

Once you have the licence, you need a current medical & flight test to validate it.

Medical, correct including class 1 validity if conducting other then private operations.
Flight test, INCORRECT. You did one to get the licence, you need a flight review or equivalent (CAR 5.108) to exercise the privileges of the licence.

5.108 Commercial (aeroplane) pilot: regular flight reviews required

(1) A commercial (aeroplane) pilot must not fly an aeroplane as pilot in command if the pilot has not, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note A pilot who flies aeroplanes for an operator to whom regulation 217 applies will be required to undertake proficiency checks at more frequent intervals.

(2) An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in:

(a) an aeroplane:

(i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review; and

(ii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane — that is fitted with fully functioning dual controls; and

(iii) unless the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (i) is a single place aeroplane or is not fitted with wheel brakes — that is fitted with dual control brakes; or

(b) an approved synthetic flight trainer appropriate to the type of aeroplane mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i).

Note For appropriate person see subregulation (8).

(3) If:

(a) a commercial (aeroplane) pilot undertakes an aeroplane flight review; and

(b) the requirements of subregulation (2) are not satisfied in relation to the review;

the pilot is taken not to have satisfactorily completed the review.

(4) If a commercial (aeroplane) pilot satisfactorily completes an aeroplane flight review, the person conducting the review must make an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to the effect that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the aeroplane flight review.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(4A) An offence against subregulation (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(5) A commercial (aeroplane) pilot who has, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight:

(a) passed a flight test conducted for the purpose of:

(i) the issue of an aeroplane pilot licence; or

(ii) the issue, or renewal, of an aeroplane pilot rating; or

(b) satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check; or

(c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews;

is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

Note Conversion training given by a person who does not hold a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating must not be substituted for a flight review.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) (b), a commercial (aeroplane) pilot is not taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check unless the organisation that conducted the check has made an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to that effect.

(7) CASA may approve a synthetic flight trainer for the purposes of paragraph (2) (b).

(8) In this regulation:

appropriate person means:

(a) an authorised flight instructor who holds a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct flight reviews in aeroplanes; or

(b) an approved testing officer; or

(c) a CASA flying operations inspector.



Please note, the approved instructor MUST be operating under an AOC to exercise this privilege.

to exercise the license you need a current medical and AFR with 3 takeoffs and landings in previous 90 days.

3 T/O & Lands INCORRECT. That is a pax carrying requirement.
You could technically go out 23 months after your last flight review, conduct 3 T/O and Lands and board passengers immediately.

[Lancair70]

Above is 100% correct. I have CPL.
I didnt fly at all or have valid med cert for over 12yrs. (correction, I did 0.4 of circuits in YBCS after 5yrs no flying with no med cert, but had G2 instructor in RHS)
I had to do initial issue standard Class 1 medical and then FR with a CFI (just happened to be a CFI for me, an approved instructor operating under AOC can do) and I was good to go. Oh and had to go through all the hooplah re getting an initial ASIC too.

[Oktas8]

Millonario:

Be careful with the term "validate" here in Australia. It does not carry the same connotations as in EASA member states. Perhaps you have already seen that from the quoted law, above. In general it is true to say that all Australian licenses and ratings are valid for the lifetime of the holder, but privileges cannot be exercised unless... see above.

No doubt, when or if CASA works out how to update aviation law, regulations will be clearer and easier to find.

[T28D]

Thanks Make it Happen, the other tossers can go jump, my license is valid until I die.

My right to exercise its priviliges rests with a current medical certificate and recency along with a current AFR. QED !!!!!

As it has always been for the 50 years I have held the license.

[Unhinged]

"my license is valid until I die." Which is printed on your licence as I said in my very first post. Nothing to do with 3 take-offs and landings as you incorrectly posted as fact.

"As it has always been for the 50 years I have held the license." In Australia licences are now permanently valid once issued, but that has certainly not been the case for all of the last 50 years. I don't care about your personal misperceptions any more than I care about your inability to spell; I do however care about you putting incorrect information out there, and proclaiming it to be the truth.

Lancair and MakeItHappen have it correct as far as they go, and that's all I'd ask. The additional information you need to be aware of relates to endorsements (which don't expire) and ratings (some of which do expire). Oktas8 is also correct, except that in the Australian aviation legal framework some ratings do expire - Command Instrument Ratings expire every year, and Instructor Ratings expire every one or two years depending on the circumstances; Night VFR ratings and Ag Ratings don't expire.

[millonario]

Thank you all for your answers, especially MakeItHappenCaptain for the extract from the regulations. Unhinged, take it easy mate. Questioning other pilots for their professionalism without knowing their background is a bit unfair in my opinion....

Anyways, the reason I asked this "easy" question was because I am back in my home country of Sweden and I am looking into converting my license to JAR. To do this, I need 100 hours PIC before going any further. At the moment, I have 82 hours, so I need 18 more. I talked to the authorities here about flying PIC without a JAR license and they said I can fly privately with my Australian CPL for 12 months as long as my license is valid throughout the time I will be exercising such operations. Basically, they said they don't care if I go and rent a plane tomorrow and start flying as long as I notify them I will be doing so and that I am aware of my obligations.

So let's see if I got this right: My CPL is valid forever and I can fly with it in Sweden for 12 months, but I need a flight review before flying PIC. Subject to the regulations, can the flight review be done in Sweden? The regulations don't state that the "appropriate person" has to be Australian.

Thanks again!

[jack diamond]

F#@&% mate i bet you wish you didnt ask the question! christ i think ill keep my mouth shut and never ask a question here again!
JD

[lilflyboy262...2]

Thanks for being worse than useless unhinged.

a) I have an Aussie licence, but I have not flown in aussie, nor read any of the regs. If I was about to start flying there however, I would read the air law book because there are a few things that are slightly different in each country.

b) I do not have my Aussie licence with me as I am flying overseas and do not want to lose it.

c) Not all of us spend our time teaching students this sort of thing, and the less practiced parts of the law, as opposed to give way rules, light signals and air spaces, tend to get forgotten.

Hence why help was asked for.

True that the time could have been taken in searching through the Regs online, but navigating the CASA website, just like any other civil aviation website, causes major headaches.
Its a bit easier to just ask the people in the know.

The reason why I wanted to know is that is is apparently it is easier to convert an Aussie licence to a Canadian licence than what it is to convert a NZ licence to a Canadian licence. So I was wanting to see if my licence was still valid to convert, not to fly on.

I was aware that they are a lifetime licence, but needed to know if there were anything silly like the 3 T/O and landings, or flight reviews to keep them Valid.

After reading Make it happen's post, it cleared a few things up, but raised another issue.

Is the medical required to make it VALID or is the medical required to excerise the privilage of flying PIC? You can fly without a medical... just not without an instructor.

[itsbrokenagain]

Great post, I was wondering this a while back and tried to troll the CASA website...too, but its not easy when you are out of the system.

Thanks for your help unhinged, it was highly unhelpful and very spiteful... let me hope you arent taking that personality to work as a professional pilot!

I last used my Australian ATPL in 1997, good that its still easy to get it back to current status should I ever be mad enough to ever want to deal with CASA again (read extremely unlikely).

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Millionaro,

If you are flying private ops (eg hour building), your Class 2 medical if still valid will cover you. Class 1 only required for other than PVT ops. An appropriate person will have to hold a valid Australian rating if they are an instructor, will have to be operating under an AOC that permits international operations and you will have to get permission from the relevant national authority to conduct the "training" in their airspace.

Better to keep it PVT.

And unless you hold a foreign licence, certificate of validation or whatever the situation is, you may find yourself limited to VH registered aircraft as PIC as well.

Getting more difficult!


Lilfly,
If you are under instruction, the instructor, as PIC is the only one required to hold the current medical, eg ab-initio students, prior to 1st solo are not required to have a licence. Once they go solo (ie. PIC), must hold (and carry with them) the licence and medical.

Cheers!

[jecuk]

This is a very useful thread for me too as it may save me from having to do all the UK PPL exams. If my licence and aircraft rating is valid I only have to do 2 exams. Will follow up.

[Oktas8]

Couple of extra points, now that circumstances are specific:

Many countries allow pilots to exercise the privileges of a foreign license. Some require checkrides & law exams, some don't. All require the foreign license to be current & valid.

Lilyflyboy, jecuk, millonario: In general and for most countries, current and valid means the following:
- Valid license & valid class/type rating (meaningless for Australian & NZ qualifications which are mostly lifetime);
- Current medical (of whatever class required);
- Current ability to exercise the privileges of PIC (means current AFR for Australia, current BFR for NZ for example, satisfactory recency for IR etc);
- No conditions or suspensions affecting your ability to exercise privileges.

Millonario, have you considered simply flying PIC as a student? Do a checkride with an aero club and do 18 hours' worth of solo flying on a Swedish medical under Swedish student pilot regulations.

[Cravenmorehead]

Hey unhinged I really like your style. I think I had an instructor like you when I did my PPL and boy did I learn a lot. Yes no one can spell these days.
Craven

[jecuk]

Couple of extra points, now that circumstances are specific:

Lilyflyboy, jecuk, millonario: In general and for most countries, current and valid means the following:
- Valid license & valid class/type rating (meaningless for Australian & NZ qualifications which are mostly lifetime);
- Current medical (of whatever class required);
- Current ability to exercise the privileges of PIC (means current AFR for Australia, current BFR for NZ for example, satisfactory recency for IR etc);
- No conditions or suspensions affecting your ability to exercise privileges.

Agreed, however specifically to do a JAA conversion of a PPL, whether you have to do all 7 exams or just 2 depends on whether you have held in the last 5 years a valid licence and type rating in a ICAO country. The key issue there is whether my type rating is valid - not whether I can exercise the privileges (which I can't).

[Aussie Bob]

With regards to a flight review Make it Happen Captain writes the following

Please note, the approved instructor MUST be operating under an AOC to exercise this privilege.

But the regs also state the following:

(c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews;

With a grade 1 instructor rating aeroplane conversion training can be undertaken without an AOC. IMHO this still counts as a flight review.

Whether a grade 1 instructor needs to operate under an AOC when doing a AFR is a bit of a grey area. The CAAP certainly doesn't state that an AOC is necessary (I know CAAP is not law) and in fact I have had this argument with a FOI who couldn't catagorically state that an AOC was a requirement for the conduct of flight reviews ....

Perhaps Unhinged (and others) might venture an opinion on this ...

[172driver]

Agreed, however specifically to do a JAA conversion of a PPL, whether you have to do all 7 exams or just 2 depends on whether you have held in the last 5 years a valid licence and type rating in a ICAO country. The key issue there is whether my type rating is valid - not whether I can exercise the privileges (which I can't).

JECUK you are confusing TYPE rating with CLASS rating. A type rating is required for things like B737s, a class rating, which is likely what you mean, is, e.g. SEP(L), i.e. single engine piston (land); IOW needed to fly Cessnas, Pipers, etc.

If you wish to convert your ICAO PPL license to a UK issued JAR PPL license by sitting two exams (air law and human factors), you need to satisfy several experience requirements, LASORS refers (IIRC 100 or 150 hours PIC, x-country time, etc). You will also need a valid JAR/CAA medical.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Aussie Bob.

This is definitely not a grey area.

CASA has previously suspended privileges of pilots who had AFR's and HFR's conducted by Grade 1 instructors operating outside AOC approval. Not the pilot's fault, but the instructors concerned have and are being prosecuted.

THE INSTRUCTOR MUST BE OPERATING UNDER A VALID AOC WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CFI AND HAVE A CURRENT S&P CHECK WITH THAT ORGANISATION!

Will find a reference, but call an FOI and ask if you don't believe me.:cool:

Ps. The CAAP most certainly does specify this without confusion. Para 6.5.

[millonario]

Millonario, have you considered simply flying PIC as a student? Do a checkride with an aero club and do 18 hours' worth of solo flying on a Swedish medical under Swedish student pilot regulations.

Oktas8, good point. It's just that I have been told by the authorities here that I have two options:

a) Validating my current Australian license in Sweden and be allowed to fly with it for 12 months.

b) Obtain a JAR PPL (sit 2 theory exams + checkride).

I will however inquire about flying solo with a student license. Conditions here might be different than in Australia (no such thing as GFPT here).

[Aussie Bob]

Captain: There is really no need to scream your lungs out on this forum. Like others have stated, all that is needed was the pointer to the reference which I have now looked up again. I make no apoloigies for being a bit rule rusty. Ta for the reply.

Take it easy mate!

[T28D]

Seems lots of folk here becoming Unhinged, giving a really staid and uncontroversial subject a trashing in this sandpit.

Really sad

[jecuk]

JECUK you are confusing TYPE rating with CLASS rating. A type rating is required for things like B737s, a class rating, which is likely what you mean, is, e.g. SEP(L), i.e. single engine piston (land); IOW needed to fly Cessnas, Pipers, etc.

If you wish to convert your ICAO PPL license to a UK issued JAR PPL license by sitting two exams (air law and human factors), you need to satisfy several experience requirements, LASORS refers (IIRC 100 or 150 hours PIC, x-country time, etc). You will also need a valid JAR/CAA medical.

Understood, I was referring (badly!) to the Credits section of LASORS C1.3 where it says if no valid aeroplane rating has been held for a period of 5 years then all exams must be completed.

My take is that for an Australian licence, if the licence has not been taken away, its aeroplane rating is always valid.

[T28D]

Jecuk My take is that for an Australian licence, if the licence has not been taken away, its aeroplane rating is always valid. YES TRUE

[Oktas8]

It is sometimes difficult to translate legalese from one regulatory environment to another, despite both using English.

In terms of interpreting LASORS, I suggest to you Jecuk that an Australian aircraft rating is not valid if the underlying license is out of currency due to the AFR requirement. This is because, in Australia, you could not exercise the privileges of your rating if you had no AFR-currency on your license. If you cannot exercise the privileges of a rating in your home country, you cannot claim it is valid in another country.

So the question is: within the past five years, could you at any time have legally conducted a flight in Australia in a SEP (Land) aeroplane, using your CASA PPL? (Ignoring the requirement for a CASA medical.) If yes, then you're in the clear. If no...

This is just one interpretation. But it's the opinion I have offered in the past, on LASORS C1.3 and similar sections, as a UK examiner myself.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Aussie Bob,

Not having a go at you at all personally, I just feel that it is important people are aware of this requirement as I know of several cases (both rotary and fixed wing) recently where pilots have had their licence suspended because the instructor was operating illegally.
Admittedly, it would difficult to ascertain if the instructor was intentionally flouting the rules (and I have seen it several times), but it may save a major inconvenience or even a denied insurance claim if they (pilots or instructors) are aware of this requirement.
We all know how insurance companies will use any excuse to deny a claim and a legally non-reviewed pilot would be perfect for them.
:ok:

[Aussie Bob]

No problems, Captain. The grey area I now see is that conversion training is counted as a AFR. Conversion training can be done without an AOC. So someone legally gets say a tailwheel endo as a private op then goes away thinking they have also done a FR. It would seem that conversion training can only sometimes substitute for an AFR. This may not always be explained at the time ...

[jecuk]

Oktas8, thanks for your views. I think the strict interpretation is genuinely unclear maybe it would be better if it was written in terms of being able to exercise privileges.

However ultimately, the CAA's view is what matters and I suspect they will agree with you.

[Tankengine]

Aussie Bob, the fact that a conversion MAY satisfy a FR does not mean it WILL.:=
That would be up to the instructor [who would need to be operating under an AOC]:rolleyes:

[Aussie Bob]

There is no may about it Tankengine, PROVIDED you hold a CPL or higher, YOU can count conversion training as a AFR. This training can be done without an AOC. As I read it, it counts as a flight review (for CPL or higher) even if it is not endorsed as such.

The regs are printed earlier in this thread.

[Tankengine]

AussieBob,
As you said, the reg is listed earlier:


"(4) If a commercial (aeroplane) pilot satisfactorily completes an aeroplane flight review, the person conducting the review must make an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to the effect that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the aeroplane flight review."

and

"(c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews;

is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

Note Conversion training given by a person who does not hold a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating must not be substituted for a flight review.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) (b), a commercial (aeroplane) pilot is not taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check unless the organisation that conducted the check has made an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to that effect."

In other words, it is up to the instructor and their "organisation":hmm:

When you do your tailwheel endorsement be sure your logbook is endorsed for an AFR! :)
I do not see your "grey area" [and I was once a grade 1 etc etc]:E

[Aussie Bob]

Tankengine you have failed to read (5) paragraph (c)

And I am not meaning to get into an argument here, I think this thread and the participants are providing worthwhile info. I appreciate your interest.

IMHO this is just another reg that has grey areas in it. My guess is that a CPL who claimed his tailwheel endo as an AFR would be legally correct. But I stress this is just my guess.

[Tankengine]

"(c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews;

is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

Note Conversion training given by a person who does not hold a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating must not be substituted for a flight review."

No worries Aussie Bob, I agree it is educational.:ok:
Above is 5c, I agree that it looks OK for an AFR [as long as the other paras are satisfied as well!] [Grade 1, AOC etc]
It comes down to the Instructor's signature! Without that you are treading on dangerous ground! That said there would be no reason for them not to sign.:)

You need to read the whole reg, in isolation paras can be confusing.;)

[172driver]

In terms of interpreting LASORS, I suggest to you Jecuk that an Australian aircraft rating is not valid if the underlying license is out of currency due to the AFR requirement. This is because, in Australia, you could not exercise the privileges of your rating if you had no AFR-currency on your license. If you cannot exercise the privileges of a rating in your home country, you cannot claim it is valid in another country.

Oktas8, while I am not an examiner, I think you might be wrong here.

JECUK does not want to validate his Oz license - in which case you would be correct - but to obtain a UK JAR licensed based on experience. If he fulfills the experience requirements, IMHO the validity of the license with which he has obtained said experience is irrelevant.

[ohinever]

If you wish to convert your ICAO PPL license to a UK issued JAR PPL license by sitting two exams (air law and human factors), you need to satisfy several experience requirements, LASORS refers (IIRC 100 or 150 hours PIC, x-country time, etc). You will also need a valid JAR/CAA medical.

LASORS does not specify PIC time, but rather "flown at least 100 hours as pilot of aeroplanes". "Pilot of aeroplanes" is not defined, but since in c1.2 "experience requirements", the requirement for issue of a PPL(A) is stated as "at least 45 hours flight time as a pilot of aeroplanes", it seems that total time is the qualifier under this "pilot of aeroplanes" parlance. Further, JAA regulations state that all solo, dual and PIC flight time is credited in full toward the total flight time needed for the issuance of a licence.

This thread has worried me somewhat. I too have an Aussie PPL issued in 2002 but that has not been used for some years. My local T.O. informed me I needed to do Air Law and Human Factor Exams only, on the basis of having 150hts tt. On this advice, I have just done both exams, and bought a share in an aircraft insured for instruction purposes, but which I can only fly solo after gaining a JAR PPL.

I planned to do the necessary hours to get me up to speed and then do the skills test.

However I am now not sure if I will need to do all of the exams, or indeed if my 150hrs tt/87ish P.I.C. will be enough for the experience requirement also!

Doh!

[172driver]

Interesting. Don't have the time to go through all back issues of LASORS, but I'm pretty sure the definition was different in the past (i.e. certain amount of hours PIC, x-country, not just 'pilot').

However, having just had a quick look at LASORS 2010 it says:

If the ICAO licence has expired and/or no valid aeroplane rating
has been held for a period exceeding 5 years preceding
application, applicants will be required to complete flying
training at the discretion of the Head of Training of the
approved training provider, and pass the PPL(A) Skill Test.

Which may be applicable to you. Guess a word with the CP (or a call to Gatwick) might be in order.

[ohinever]

Yes I think that will apply to me. Not that I see that caveat as materially different from the clauses for a licence that has been valid in the last 5 years.

In both circumstances one would need to spend time with an instructor who would have to be satisfied that the required standard had been met prior to skills testing.

It is the theoretical exams where the difference lies since under the "not valid in the last 5 years" clause, one would need to do all the exams, as opposed to two if the the licence has remained valid.

Of course we are back to the argument of whether a ppl from Australia is ever invalid. I have mine in front of me and it clearly states:

CLASSES OF FLIGHT CREW LICENCE HELD:

Private Pilot (aeroplanes) Licence. Issue date: Jan 2002. Expiry Date: Perpetual

OPERATIONAL APPROVALS AND APPOINTMENTS:

PPL(A)L No airspace restrictions. Issued Jan 2002, Expiry Date: Nil.

I think I need to call Gatwick!

[ohinever]

O.K. Off the phone from the C.A.A. The very helpful and pleasant lady says that:

a) It is total time that counts not only P.I.C. etc.

b) That as long as the licence remains valid, one only has to do the two exams. I pressed on this point and was told that if the licence clearly states "perpetual" and "expiry nil", then "no-one would argue it was invalid".

However I am going to email in for written confirmation.

[172driver]

a) It is total time that counts not only P.I.C. etc.

I stand corrected.

In any case, good on ya, looks like you only need to do the two exams :ok:

[ohinever]

I'm not so sure. I am expecting "someone to argue it is invalid" by return of email!

[jecuk]

ohinever, all I can say is that if you can get written confirmation of that, the beers are on me!!