CAA guidelines

[thing]

Just had a look at the new CAA stuff Licensing and Training Standards | EASA | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?gid=2061) and I notice that at the moment (and I know they are still consulting about it) that you can't use an IMC rating on a JAR-FCL after April 8th 2014.

In another section they say that all JAR-FCLs will automatically become EASA licenses, presumably this year. If this is the case then why does it mention JAR-FCLs in 2014, because by then it will be an EASA license?

[BackPacker]

Your JAR-FCL license will automatically become an EASA license once you renew it. And since a JAR-FCL license only needs to be renewed every five years, you may be hanging onto it until somewhere in 2017, depending on your last renewal date.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean that you can exercise the privileges contained within it as-is. You are still bound by EASA rules, even though your license still says JAR-FCL.

[thing]

But it says that JAR-FCLs will be deemed to be Part-FCLs on 8 April 2012.

[bookworm]

I'm not sure if you're arguing over a technicality of phrasing or making a different point that I'm missing.

"IMC Rating privileges entered on UK-issued JAR-FCL and non-JAR-FCL aeroplane licences may be exercised in both EASA and non-EASA aeroplanes until 8th April 2014."

The licence would be a JAR-FCL licence when the IMC rating was entered.

Your Part-FCL licence (with an IMC rating attached or not) will not permit you to fly under IFR in an EASA aeroplane after 8th April 2014. Of course there may be other mechanisms in place by then to preserve the privileges.

[thing]

Ah got it, thanks. I thought it was a technicality and that once you have a Part-FCL then possibly the IMC would remain. So does that mean if the consultation process about the IMCR is abortive then that's it, it's gone in 2014? I mean gone as in completely, not just in name and they're calling it something else.

[BillieBob]

There is no suggestion that the IMCr will ever be withdrawn completely. It will always be possible to attach it to a UK national licence for use on Annex II aircraft. As things stand at the moment neither the IMCr nor and any other national rating may be entered in a Part-FCL licence (i.e. a licence issued after 1 July 2012). An IMCr that is entered into a JAR-FCL licence will remain in that licence, notwithstanding that it is deemed to be a Part-FCL licence, until it expires or is otherwise replaced by a Part-FCL licence but the privileges may be exercised only until 8 April 2014.

[thing]

I understand about the Annex II stuff but in reality what percentage of PPL's in UK fly Annex II?

[Piper.Classique]

I understand about the Annex II stuff but in reality what percentage of PPL's in UK fly Annex II?

Well, quite a few but not many of the annex II aircraft are IFR capable or legal (Microlights, and a lot of the vintage aircraft that are on annexe II) So in practice not very useful.

[WorkingHard]

So if you need an EASA licence to legally fly an EASA aircraft in EU land then how do we rent such an aircraft to a pilot who has a perfectly valid pilots licence from another country and that licence was issued by an ICAO member state?

[peterh337]

You can't - that's the whole intention behind this proposal. It is to cripple the foreign reg aircraft scene / stick a finger up to the USA because they didn't want to sign some airline-related bilateral rights treaty.

[WorkingHard]

And what about those who have a CPL or an ATPL for example? Is an ATPL not issued by an ICAO member state? If so have they been exempted from this completely barmy scenario?

[peterh337]

An FAA ATP with 20,000 hours will have no privileges for flying a spamcan in EU airspace (N-reg or G-reg).

He will have to get an EASA PPL, for which there is proposed to be some sort of conversion route (exams and a flight test).

Of course it is barmy.

Currently, the UK CAA automatically validates ICAO PPLs and CPLs for noncommercial VFR in a G-reg, but this is due to be ended by EASA sometime. Not sure if it is April 2012 or April 2014.

[englishal]

I bet an FAA ATP does have "spam can" privileges on his ticket. He might be an ATP with B747 type rating but I am pretty sure he will also have a "private SE" as a minimum (and most likely CPL SE). This will be kept current via the airline line training in lieu of BFR,

[peterh337]

Yes; all I was getting at is that even an ICAO ATPL will not give any EU-airspace privileges under current EASA proposals.

I think EASA did that deliberately to screw Europe based N-reg pilots because a lot of them have a CPL/IR (like I have) rather than just a PPL/IR, and doing the FAA CPL is not hard. In fact doing an FAA SE ATPL is not that hard either.

There is a conversion route to EU papers if he has 2000 hours on a Part 25 aircraft which is over 20 tons (or something like that; not my area) although I doubt that will give him SE privileges...

[WorkingHard]

Thanks Peter, that is what I understood to be the case but as the regulations are so complex and convoluted it is really hard to know. Will this EASA PPL be acceptable OUTSIDE EU land then because as far as I can see EASA is not a signatory to ICAO, and by the way it does seem to be the EU lot just trying to screw PPL only?

[peterh337]

WH - this is a big subject and if I may say so has been all over the internet for years now.

The various parts of the legislation have been gradually working through the EU drafting and parliament. I don't know how much of it is in place now but probably enough...

You can find an overview here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/index.html) which I think is reasonably up to date.

Basically, EASA is working towards requiring everybody flying in EU airspace (regardless of aircraft reg) to have EASA pilot papers, IF the operator is based in the EU.

The nationality or residence of the pilot is not relevant.

What or how "operator" and "based" will be interpreted, nobody yet knows, and there seem to be obvious work-arounds for corporate/bizjet ops, but if you take the simple case of an EU resident owner pilot then there doesn't seem to be an obvious way out.

ICAO still requires the pilot to have papers from the State of Registry so if you are flying an N-reg you need FAA papers.

The duplicate EASA papers which are proposed to be required are in most cases not even going to be valid for that aircraft, but that doesn't prevent the EU forcing this. They are entitled to require the pilot to carry a taxidermy competence certificate.

The requirement for the duplicate EASA papers has been postponed till April 2014 - for UK based pilots at least.

Various conversion routes have been proposed, some of which are well defined while others (like the one for getting an EASA IR from an ICAO IR) are working their way through the system and nobody is sure what they will look like.

The full EASA PPL should be ICAO compliant.

The EASA LAPL won't be ICAO compliant (due to the GP medical, etc) and each EU country will need to file a difference to ICAO if they want it usable outside the EU. Non EU countries will therefore be entitled to reject it.

Who the EU is going to screw is not hard to work out, but their actual objectives are opaque and apparently wholly political. There is no safety case for any of this.

For FAA PPL holders the conversion to an EASA PPL is not hard - so long as they can get an EASA medical. Those who cannot, and cannot use the LAPL (e.g. because there will be no IR or IMCR on it) will be shafted for good - unless they move to the IOM or the C.I.

For FAA IR holders the conversion is not yet defined.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Talking with our CAA FOI about this last week he claimed that it was to deal with helicopters and smaller business aircraft (a couple of our engineers own an FAA reg PA28) which are registered outside the EU, cannot transit back to their countries of registration and in some cases have been found carrying out illegal public transport across the EU, occasionally with dodgy maintenance backgrounds.

Typically for the EU they have used a sledge hammer approach because they have limited oversight of these aircraft and haven't taken into account the EU PPL holder who has an N reg machine for his convenience and has no intent to use it for anything but his own business/pleasure.

Basically EU Ops paranoia strikes again, MAKES ME:yuk:

[peterh337]

Talking with our CAA FOI about this last week he claimed that it was to deal with helicopters and smaller business aircraft (a couple of our engineers own an FAA reg PA28) which are registered outside the EU, cannot transit back to their countries of registration and in some cases have been found carrying out illegal public transport across the EU, occasionally with dodgy maintenance backgrounds.

That's standard bollox.

The only Q is whether one has the will to live, and the time, to write yet another response every time some axe grinder comes up with this bollox on some pilot forum.

I see G-reg planes in far worse condition and with a lot more illegal maintenance than I ever see N-reg ones.

Typically for the EU they have used a sledge hammer approach because they have limited oversight of these aircraft and haven't taken into account the EU PPL holder who has an N reg machine for his convenience and has no intent to use it for anything but his own business/pleasure.

If I was going to do illegal charter than a G-reg is the best way because it won't draw attention around Europe. You can do AOC busting in any reg equally.

The EU CAAs do not actually have limited oversight. That is another piece of disinformation. They are within their rights to ground any plane which is unsafe. Each ICAO contracting state has total sovereignity within its own land and airspace. Every so often the UK CAA grounds some foreign 747 which has bits falling off it.

If the UK CAA was going to actually enforce strict airworthiness then most of the training fleet would be grounded tomorrow.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Shame you had to shoot the messenger Peter; thats merely what I was informed.

SND

[peterh337]

I was commenting on the message, not the messenger :)

Apologies.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Peter;

Elegantly done. Thank you.

SND