Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

CAA to Part FCL

Old 11th Feb 2011, 07:47
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
If you know what EASA plan to do in the future
The plan is on the EASA website, we know it may change slightly whilst going through the legislative process, but I doubt that the fundamental intentions will change very much.
Whopity is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2011, 20:40
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The UK CAA has issued an AIC, apparently without proper consultation or scrutiny
Here's another example:

AIC (W80/2010) is another confusing document issued by the CAA that contains information that is inaccurate and inconsistent with the ANO.
1.1 Since the 31 January 2008, pilots who have valid Single Engine Piston (SEP) class ratings in their UK National or UK-issued JAR-FCL licences have been licensed to fly SSEA, SLMG or microlight aeroplanes, subject to differences training as appropriate, as they fall within the scope of the SEP rating.
Schedule 3 defines the different classes of aircraft
(b) Power driven flying machines
(i) Aeroplane (Landplane)
(ii) Aeroplane (Seaplane)
(iii) Aeroplane (Amphibian)
(iv) Aeroplane (Self-launching Motor Glider)
(v) Powered Lift (Tilt Rotor)
Aircraft defined as SSEA; and Microlight aeroplanes are Aeroplanes (Land) and are covered by the SEP classification however; SLMGs are not Aeroplanes (Land), and do not fall within the scope of the SEP rating;they are defined as Aeroplanes (Self Launching Motor Glider) which is a separate Class, and is entered as such in Licences. You cannot do differences training between Classes!

Due to errors in earlier AICs some pilots found themselves flying "illegally" and in consequence the CAA were forced to issue an Exemption ORS4 No 674 allowing SLMGs to continue to be flown by pilots who did not hold a valid SLMG Class rating! This Exemption was withdrawn in June 2009 and pilots of SLMGs are now required to comply with Article 67. SLMGs are not covered by the SEP Class rating as this AIC implies! As Examiners we are required to enforce this on behalf of the CAA yet their own staff fail to grasp it!

The AIC further states:
A valid SEP rating in this context means that there is a valid Certificate of Revalidation for the SEP class rating and a valid JAR-FCL Medical Certificate in the pilot's licence.
No it does not! There is no correlation between a medical certificate and an aircraft class rating! Where does this bunk come from?

It then goes on to say:
An SEP rating cannot be revalidated or renewed, ............................ unless the applicant/holder has a valid JAA Class 1 or 2 Medical Certificate.
There is absolutely nothing in the ANO, JAR-FCL; or Part FCL to prevent an examiner renewing or revalidating a SEP Class rating without a medical certificate!

If this is meant to be a change in the Law, applied without consultation; on what safety grounds can this be justified? Why confine it to SEP ratings, what about other Classes TMG, MEP, SLMG etc?

Yet another example of chaos and confusion!
Whopity is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 07:46
  #23 (permalink)  
blagger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Whopity - I've had this debate with a few people. Interestingly, the latest version of Standards Doc 11, Appendix 2 also now says that the examiner must check the medical certificate for currency for rating revalidation.
 
Old 23rd Feb 2011, 08:11
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Interesting that two CAA FEs had their SET Class ratings revalidated whilst they had no medicals!

Indeed, I always check it for validity and point out that without a valid medical they cannot exercise the privileges. Still nothing illegal about it!

Unenforcible Rules are Pointless Rules!
Whopity is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 07:52
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Medicals

I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this with the CAA when the issue of NPPL medicals with JAR-FCL licences was being reviewed prior to the issue of the above AIC, and pointed out that the FEH and the ANO contradict each other.

ANO Article 72 says that for any licence other than the NPPL, "the holder of the licence is not entitled to perform any of the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical certificate". This means that a UK PPL(A) or JAR-FCL PPL(A) is invalidated if there is no Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. So the SEP rating and/or a JAR-FCL licence cannot be renewed or revalidated without a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate.

This was inserted into the 'new' ANO which has been in force since January 2010.

SLMG

Originally Posted by Whopity

SLMGs are not Aeroplanes (Land), and do not fall within the scope of the SEP rating
LASORS 2010

SEP Privileges under Section C

The holder of a UK JAR-FCL licence with SEP rating
may also, subject to completion of differences training
with an appropriately qualified flying instructor, exercise
the privileges of their licence on microlight aeroplanes
and SLMG’s in UK airspace only, without the necessity
of obtaining a NPPL (the normal licence for such
aeroplanes).

Last edited by ifitaintboeing; 25th Feb 2011 at 08:14.
ifitaintboeing is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2011, 12:25
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
LASORS is Guidance and does not take precedence over the ANO! Schedule 3 is quite clear and has been there for decades! How do you obtain the necessary Certificate of Test, Experience or Revalidation based upon "Differences" training?
the holder of the licence is not entitled to perform any of the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical certificate"
Quite right, but a Skill Test is a demonstration of skill that can be demonstrated perfectly well without exercising any of the functions to which the licence relates. They are separate items where you cannot use one without the other. Nothing more than that.

Last edited by Whopity; 25th Feb 2011 at 12:44.
Whopity is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 06:45
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I didn't say that you can't do the flight - he is perfectly entitled to display his skills to you. However, you cannot then sign the Certificate of Revalidation since this is specifically prohibited by Article 72.

As for SLMG, the CAA have produced guidance which states that they interpret the regulations such that a JAR-FCL SEP rating holder may fly a SLMG in UK airspace, once they have completed differences training, using a valid SEP rating. In the same way, you could telephone or e-mail the CAA and receive the same guidance.
ifitaintboeing is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 09:19
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
However, you cannot then sign the Certificate of Revalidation since this is specifically prohibited by Article 72.
Utter nonsense! There is nothing in Article 72 that even suggests that an examiner cannot sign a Certificate of Test, let alone a specific prohibition. The test may be conducted under the terms of Article 53 and so the candidate is not exercising the privileges of his/her licence.
BillieBob is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 09:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interpret it how you wish - I do not pretend to be a lawyer.

As I see it, you are an examiner acting on behalf of the CAA in accordance with the Authorisation granted by them. Article 72 states that no licensing action is to be taken on a licence with no valid medical. The CAA have also stated this in their guidance documentation. Seems perfectly clear to me.
ifitaintboeing is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2011, 13:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Article 72 states that no licensing action is to be taken on a licence with no valid medical.
That is simply untrue - Article 72 states nothing of the sort.
Requirement for a medical certificate
72 (1) This article applies to any licence granted under article 64, other than a National
Private Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) or a Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence.
(2) The holder of a licence to which this article applies is not entitled to perform any of
the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical
certificate issued under paragraph (4).
(3) Every applicant for or holder of a licence to which this article applies must, whenever
the CAA requires, submit himself or herself to a medical examination by a person
approved by the CAA, either generally or in a particular case or class of cases, who
must make a report to the CAA in such form as the CAA may require.
(4) On the basis of such medical examination, the CAA or the approved person may issue
a medical certificate which states that they have assessed the holder of the licence
as meeting the requirements specified by the CAA.
(5) Subject to articles 74(3) and 228, a medical certificate is valid for the period specified
in the certificate.
(6) A medical certificate forms part of the licence.
As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the CAA's 'guidance' is increasingly flawed and at odds with the legislation and requirements.
BillieBob is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2011, 08:23
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,576
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
As for SLMG, the CAA have produced guidance which states that they interpret the regulations such that a JAR-FCL SEP rating holder may fly a SLMG in UK airspace, once they have completed differences training, using a valid SEP rating. In the same way, you could telephone or e-mail the CAA and receive the same guidance.
If this is their intention, then they must issue an Exemption to the ANO in accordance with Article 242; they cannot issue guidance to change the Law! In fact they did issue an Exemption ORS4 No: 674 when it was previously pointed out that they had cocked it up! That exemption was withdrawn on 30 June 2009 leaving the statement in LASORS as an indication of their continuing ineptitude. Much of this results from someone at the CAA agreeing to things produced by the NPPL committee, and then failing to tell anyone else about it, least of all the lawyers who produce the legislation.
As I see it, you are an examiner acting on behalf of the CAA in accordance with the Authorisation granted by them
PPL Examiners have received little or no formal guidance from the CAA in over 12 years, they can only operate in accordance with the ANO, and not a bunch of inconsistent, badly worded, and inaccurate guidance documents.

Nothing in the Law prohibits an examiner from signing a licence with a Cof R whether or not the candidate has a valid medical certificate. If they do not have one you must make the holder aware that they may not exercise the privileges without such a Certificate. The CAA are not empowered to change the law by making it more stringent; they may relax it by issuing an Exemption under Art 242.

Last edited by Whopity; 1st Mar 2011 at 08:36.
Whopity is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.