CAA, CAP804, EASA 1178/2011 etc

[pembroke]

Get the facts first I thought, then try and understand the subject. Re the title I will be a cogent as possible.
1)
EU regs 1178/2011,209/2012 are the "law" for EASA Part FCL, backed up with EASA AMC/GM. CAP 804 is a document produced by a subsidiary ARA, ie the CAA as a so called competent authority. At a recent airline EASA seminar,(another world), the EU/EASA documents were the prime reference material, not CAP 804. The AMC/GM appears to be similar to the JAR docs, ie explanatory info to Part FCL. It may be too soon to say this but we are in EASA Part FCL, just the "Sept. 17th" catch up to go. Any reference should be to the EU/EASA docs, and as we move forward to Part ORA for the ATO applications, we follow the Part ORA and present this to the CAA as is.When we communicate with the CAA, we should quote the above and forget CAP 804.
2)
Instead of downloading CAP 804, I had several printing quotes but found the TSO site gave best value and ordered a copy. TSO came back and said the CAA wern't allowing the TSO to print this as it expected to make several amendments before Sept. 17th! The link to TSO was on the CAA website!
3)
There doesn't appear to be an obvious amendment service to the EU/EASA docs. EASA tell me to "watch out for changes"! EG, AMC/GM FCL.125 defines a navigation leg time for the LAPL skill test (30min), PPL skill test, FCL.235 doesn't define the Nav distance or time.
4)
The CAA fires off yet more ORSs or INs when they find another glitch, hardly the mark of a competent authority. And when contacted by 'phone or e mail, they either refuse to answer or give misleading and contradictory advice. I have several e mails waiting for an answer, for specific and urgent queries, including one to the CFE re the testing, renewal/revalidation of ratings, without a relevant medical. I am told by the front desk that routine e mails are answered in 10 days, if it concerns EASA, at least 28 days and an EASA meeting is convened!

[DB6]

As I understand it, until 17 Sept 12 (and I am a bit sceptical about that date), LASORS 2010 remains the current reference document - incorporating updates as issued by AIC (W 043/2011) - so until early September I won't be trying to assimilate what is evidently a work in progress.

[pembroke]

In the EU pre amble to 1178/2011, 8th April 2012 is the Part FCL date, and other dates and derogations flow from this date. However to quote CAP 804,
Forward
1.2 Status
1.2.1 Cap 804 applies with effect from July 1st 2012.....

PS For the diehards, 1178/2011 is entitled "Official Journal of the European Union" and signed on behalf of the (non elected) european commission by Mr Barroso!

[DB6]

However....(from CAA website):
Please be aware the CAA has announced a new date for the implementation of European Regulations for flight crew licensing in the UK, please see the press release (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2129). Until the affected Information Notices (INs), Aeronautical Information Circulars (AICs) and other documentation are replaced with new documents reflecting the new date, references to 1 July 2012 should read as 17 September 2012.

[pembroke]

DB6, the delay is to introduce the EASA licences (in the UK), the EU regulations are in force from 8-4-12. I think the CAA are limited in what they can derogate and for limited time periods only. The "late" start for the licence issue in September has no effect on the final implementation dates required by 1178/2011, it is purely an admin matter. As for the press release, the INs,ORSs and AICs etc, I see more info can be gleaned from a "twitter" feed!!
The whole EASA project is a shambles. As an FE, I am often asked for guidance, and I hope the September deadline is kept, if only to help PPLs with JAR licences expiring around then, and ensuring any ratings they may have are up to date. Also as I said above,it's pretty cynical to issue CAP 804, knowing that it will be subject to major overhaul by September,and refuse to have it printed by the TSO.

[Whopity]

CAP804Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory
Requirements, Policy and GuidanceThe title says it all: a shambolic mixture of fact and fiction riddled with errors, unquantified and unqualified requirements with no indication of which bits are mandatory, policy or guidance! A compendium of cuttings from the editing room floor!

[mad_jock]

As a matter of interst has the medical stuff been delayed as well?

[Whopity]

no, that applied from 8th April!

[DB6]

Pembroke, with you there. As I posted on another thread:
The only good thing about all of this is that more and more people are realising just how ****e all this EASA/EU crap really is, so the chances of it eventually being kicked out increase all the time.
As you can see, I like to sit on the fence :E.

[pembroke]

It may interest you to know that the CAA answered one e mail promptly. I asked if the practice of allowing me to test candidates for the initial licence would still be allowed, even if I had flown some flights with the candidate during their course. Though this was strictly not allowed under JAR, some leeway was given by HD policy and an e mail detailing the "exposure" included with the licence application. This is not allowed at all under EASA, and it begs the question of an examiner doing trial flights and giving progress checks to potential PPL candidates.

[mrmum]

The "trial flight" if we are going to use that term, is simply one lesson from the syllabus. A lot of people have this lesson, then don't bother to continue for any more, fair enough, that's their choice. For those who do, if we as FEs did that flight as an FI, then we have carried out instruction for a PPL for that person, so, no we can't test them. As to progress checks, that's not necessarily instruction, not sure, will have to try and have a look at that. Perhaps someone else will be along in the meantime?

You could of course just get students not to bother putting their "trial flight" with you, into their logbook when they comeback for their second lesson.:E

[BillieBob]

Though this was strictly not allowed under JARNot true, this was allowed under JAR "with the expressed permission in writing of the Authority". As this qualification is not included in Part-FCL, an examiner may not test a candidate to whom he has given any instruction for the licence or rating (including trial lessons and 'progress tests' if they are included in the approved syllabus) or who he has recommended for test (a formal recommendation for test is required for all but the ATPL skill test).

However, none of this comes into effect in the UK until 17 Sep as it is included in Part-FCL and not in the Cover Regulation. For now, at least, JAR-FCL 1.030(d) continues to apply.

[ifitaintboeing]

The CAA issued a NOTEX in 2009 which addressed this issue, and was subsequently included in the FEH (2010):

The FEH was intended to give alleviation from this rule but only to allow safety checks to be carried out; the alleviation was not intended to permit examiner involvement in the normal course of training.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/NOTEX1%202009%20_2_.pdf

The same will apply under EASA.

ifitaint...

[pembroke]

EASA/EU are specific that:
"Examiners shall not conduct:
a) Skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate
"to whom they have provided flight instruction for the licence, rating or certificate for which the skill test or assessment is being taken"
(plus some other criteria)
It's interesting that FCL 1005 is used in both 1178/2011 and CAP 804.
I'm afraid the FE handbook must be out of date now, as is the NOTEX, unless of course the CAA have put everything in Part FCL on hold until September. As I say above, an e mail from PLD/FCL confirmed that this bit of EASA/EU is here, and we can't examine those we fly with ,in an instructional capacity.

[mrmum]

So, are progress checks/tests, instruction or not, for the purpose of an FE examining a candidate they've done one with?

We've got conflicting statements above, on this issue, from different posters (who are both normally correct and reliable)

Pembroke, I thought the implementation of Part-FCL in total, was now not until 17th September. So it seems a bit strange that you've actually managed to get an email out of Gatwick, that says they're using a bit of it now?

[BillieBob]

Mrmum - there is a logical explanation to the apparent conflict. The provision of JAR-FCL 1.030(d) depended upon the willingness of the 'Authority' to grant "expressed permission in writing". If the UK CAA has now decided that it is no longer willing grant such a permission, they have achieved the same result without actually implementing FCL.1005, have they not?

ifitaintboeing - I am not a betting man but I would be prepared to wager my life savings that the same will, most definitely, not apply under EASA!

[pembroke]

mrmum and B/Bob, as you say in JAR times, the CAA was an autonomous authority within a "joint" framework, ie JAA. The ability to alter/change/nuance EASA/EU regs has gone, particularly after Sept.17th. What is promulgated is what there is and the CAA is simply a (regional) competent authority.
That doesn't mean they can hide behind the above regulations. For example, and mentioned already, what will the new structure for FEs be? If there is one, the CFE should be writing to FEs now, thoroughly revising the FE handbook and detailing what the content of the required seminar will be at the 3 year revalidation point. The CAA could also provide a simple template for RTFs to become ATOs. Also who will audit ATOs? How will skill tests be monitored by a "senior examiner", in a two seat aircraft ...etc?
My final point is that the CAA had years, pre 2008 and post 2008 to complete the Part FCL prep. A few items were difficult and took time to resolve, but everything should have been completed by 8-4-12.