PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Forgotten your Username/Password?

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!


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 4th Feb 2011, 10:06   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
CAA to Part FCL

The CAA has published a letter regarding changes to EASA. Para 6.4 of that letter encourages pilots holding CAA licences to convert to JAA licences at a cost as defined in the scheme of charges.
Quote:
6.4 It is recommended that any holders of national licences who can comply with the requirements to have them replaced by JAR-FCL licences should do so. This is because JAR-FCL licences will automatically become EASA licences, and so should be less affected by any administrative delays that may occur due to the volume of licences to be replaced.
C.J.Whittaker
Head of Licensing & Training Policy
Now, trawling through the EASA web site you can find the following:
Quote:
Article 4
National pilot licences

1. National pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications, issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with the JAA requirements and procedures before the entry into force of this Regulation, shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation.

2. By the date of applicability of the related provisions of Part-FCL in accordance with Article 10, holders of national pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications shall have their national pilot licences converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates by the competent authority of the Member State that issued the national pilot licence.
Thus, it is very clear that any licence maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL, is deemed to be issued in accordance with EASA regulation, so no conversion to a JAA licence is necessary. Furthermore, it is the competent Authority's (CAA's) responsibility to convert that licence to a Part FCL licence in the nominated time frame. The thinly veiled threat in para 6.4 above, is an utter disgrace from the so called Competent Authority!

The CAA recently re-issued all licences FOC to add the ICAO English Language Proficiency however; they failed to anticipate the Part-FCL requirement, which had already been published, to include the validity date of that assessment. Licences will therefore have to be re-issued to comply with Part FCL on two counts, and there is no justification whatsoever for charging licence holders for this action or threatening them of delays if they don't meet unnecessary requirements!
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 4th Feb 2011, 10:22   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 52
Posts: 122
Whopity

Read it a little closer

The first paragraph says that JAA licences move across to the EASA PPL

The second doesn't say that about UK-PPLs. All it says it will have to move to one of the licences in Part FCL - probably the LAPL (sub-ICAO)
peter272 is offline   Reply
Old 4th Feb 2011, 11:43   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
I have made no mention of NPPLs or sub ICAO licences. I refer only to licences issued or maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL. That includes all JAA licences and National (pre JAA) UK licences that have been maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL since Jan 2000 (A) and July 2000(H). Holders of such licences are being invited to change them when their existing licence has exactly the same status as the one they are being invited to change to.
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 4th Feb 2011, 12:56   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,092
It all comes down to semantics - the difference between EASA's "issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with the JAA requirements and procedures" and Whopity's "maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL". The assumption seems to be that the two phrases mean the same thing and that a licence that is maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL is recognised in accordance with JAA requirements and procedures. I am far from convinced that this is a valid assumption and, like so much of the EU's badly drafted and confusing law, will only be resolved if/when tested in the ECJ.

Consider this, however - Paragraph 2 of Article 4 makes it a legal requirement for the holders of, for example, UK national licences to have them converted by the CAA to JAA licences by 8 April 2012 (i.e. if any holder has not had their licence converted by that date they and/or the CAA are guilty of a breach of EU law). However, the cover regulation does not take effect itself until 8 April 2012 and so, at the time the offence was committed (before 8 April 2012), it was not an offence because the law did not exist. The ultimate in retrospective legislation (and bureaucratic incompetence).
BillieBob is online now   Reply
Old 5th Feb 2011, 08:50   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 35
Licence Upgrading

Re: Licence upgrade - SPHPCAs

I hold both a UK ATPL and a JAR-FCL CPL/IR. The latter I need to fly non UK registered jet aircraft on Commercial Transport Ops round Europe, which is my day job. I would love to change my UK ATPL to a JAR-FCL ATPL but apparently this is not possible under current rules.

I fly an Exec Jet with a MAUW of 12,500lbs. This is classed as a Single Pilot Aircraft, although it is illegal to operate Single Pilot for Public Transport purposes, I have always, apart from the odd C of A Airtest, when P2 is not Type Rated, operated the aircraft multi crew with Type rated Pilots in both seats. I have 1500 hours on type of which 1400 odd are P1. Apparently it is permissible to use the Multi Crew hours on this aircraft to count towards the 500 hours required for JAR ATPL Licence issue, but it is not possible to count the LPC (which is conducted by a CRE to give me both SPA and MPA privileges) as an ATPL skill test - that must be done by a TRE, which don't (yet) exist for this aircraft.

My question (we'll get there in a moment) is that under the forthcoming changes which have been heralded when new arrangements for SPHPCA (Single Pilot High Performance Complex Aircraft) kick in, and CREs will become TREs for the type, will that change this state of affairs?

Also, the new variant for this aircraft (RA390 shortly to become the Hawker 200) has an increased MAUW to 13700 lbs as it's got bigger engines. Will that automatically push the aircraft into the MPA category, although it's the same type?

Some advice from 'those in the know' would be appreciated.

Level 400
Level 400 is offline   Reply
Old 5th Feb 2011, 16:21   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
Changing from a CRI (SPA) to a TRI(SPA) will not make the slightest difference to an ATPL Skill Test which is MP.
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 6th Feb 2011, 07:47   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 35
CAA to Part FCL

According to AIC W086 04NOV 10, one of the new privileges of a CRE (HPCA), traditionally an SPA qualification, is to 'conduct skill tests for ATPL (A) issue on SP HPCA types', which traditionally was an MPA privilege, hence my question.

So it appears that changing from CRE to TRE does make a difference as to who is authorised to perform MPA ATPL skill tests on HPCA aircraft.

Level 400
Level 400 is offline   Reply
Old 6th Feb 2011, 10:24   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
An interesting AIC. The CRE(SPHCA) is a temporary alternative qualification
Quote:
4.2 Persons seeking authorisation for examining privileges on SP HPCA in accordance with this alternative route, will be required to
comply with the multi-pilot examiner standardisation policy, Standards Document 24 and Form SRG1158.
Existing TREs would already have these privileges and existing CREs have to obtain them in accordance with para 4.3.
Para 6.1(a)(iv) is interesting as I doubt there are any FIEs qualified to conduct such tests, whilst most of those qualified to operate such aircraft would not meet the qualification criteria to become an FIE!
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 6th Feb 2011, 16:31   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 35
Another interesting point arises in the AIC.

Para 6.2.a. (ii)

Applicants for a CRE (HPCA) Authorisation shall....

(ii) hold a CPL or ATPL and a CRI(HPCA) rating for the appropriate type.

Is there yet such a thing as a CRI(HPCA) rating? Those who instruct on these HPCA aircraft currently hold a CRI + type rating or more commonly a FI + type rating, which was all that used to be required.

So under the new rules, will it be possible to qualify for JAR-ATPL issue or conversion from UK ATPL on a HPCA operated as MPA? Up till now, it wasn't!

Level 400
Level 400 is offline   Reply
Old 7th Feb 2011, 08:51   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
Quote:
Is there yet such a thing as a CRI(HPCA) rating?
No! Its an unnecessary and totally confusing concoction to provide a way to authorise a limited number of TRIs so that they can instruct on HPSPA. Logically, you would simply call them TRI(SPA) which is what they will be after April 2012.

Instead of adopting a simple logical approach to change, the CAA seem to be intent on making it as difficult and complicated as possible.

The only difference between a UK and a JAA licence is 3 words on the cover, presumably, those 3 words will be the only thing that change on a Part-FCL Licence, so a simple sticker would solve their licence conversion problem
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 7th Feb 2011, 09:20   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
...."one of the new privileges of a CRE (HPCA), traditionally an SPA qualification, is to 'conduct skill tests for ATPL (A) issue on SP HPCA types'"
Quote:
So under the new rules, will it be possible to qualify for JAR-ATPL issue or conversion from UK ATPL on a HPCA operated as MPA? Up till now, it wasn't!
The incompetence of the CAA's Policy section continues! Both JAR-FCL 1.295 and FCL.520.A state that the ATPL(A) Skill Test shall be taken in an aeroplane type certificated for a minimum crew of two pilots. Just how is a CRE(HPCA) supposed to conduct a valid ATPL(A) Skill Test in a SP HPCA?
BillieBob is online now   Reply
Old 7th Feb 2011, 18:42   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
Para 5.2 CRI(HPCA) Pre-requisites:
a) Hold a MPL pilot licence on the appropriate aircraft category!
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 7th Feb 2011, 19:11   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,847
Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up

Only about 1000 more EASA confustications to sort.

Sir George Cayley
Sir George Cayley is offline   Reply
Old 7th Feb 2011, 19:19   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,092
Still doesn't explain how an ATPL Skill Test can be conducted on an SP (i.e. type certificated for operation by one pilot) HPCA whatever the qualifications of the examiner.
BillieBob is online now   Reply
Old 9th Feb 2011, 07:10   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
There used to be a requirement to circulate AICs amongst those who understood such things before they were published. Does this imply that there is no longer any circulation, or that there is no longer anyone with the requisite knowledge?
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 9th Feb 2011, 10:23   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 35
Whopity

That's a very good question and I suspect I am not alone in not knowing the answer. Those 3 words on the front page of an ATPL carry quite a bit of weight with our European JAR/EASA cousins.

It looks as if the intention will be for CRE (SPHPCA) holders to become TRE (Type) and therefore be issued with the privileges to conduct MPA LPCs and ATPL skill tests on the SPA flown as MPA which would fulfil the conditions for JAR/EASA ATPL issue, as well as retain any SPA privileges previously held, such as for SEP/MEP examining. That's me reading between the lines.

However, as BillieBob states, there exists a problem, if that is the intention, if the term 'type certificated for a minimum of two pilots'..in JAR-FCL 1.295 and FCL.520.A continues to be applied.

I hope someone at CAA head shed has thought this through and can come up with some clear guidance.

Level 400
Level 400 is offline   Reply
Old 9th Feb 2011, 20:16   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,481
As I originally said, its a MP test and cannot under the current or proposed rules be conducted on an aircraft certified for single pilot operations. BillieBob has quoted the references. The AIC displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what its all about! I think the confusion centres around the fact that they are seeking to qualify some TRIs on SPAs, and have quoted their MP privileges, without realising they are not all appropriate to SPA types. Thats what comes of non pilots shovelling rules around!
Whopity is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 08:43   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 35
CAA to Part FCL

I think also part of the problem is that the terms ' MPA types 'and 'SPA types' are bandied around in the regulations regardless of the way these aircraft must be operated according to the rules already in place, as if all defined SPHPCA types habitually hurtle around Europe with just one pilot on board. They don't, and they can't if operated as Public Transport, which the vast majority of them are.

If, as per AIC 086, CRE (HPCA) holders are to be given the privileges to conduct 'iii. skill tests for ATPL(A) issue on SP HPCA types' then the wording in 'type certificated for a minimum of two pilots'..in JAR-FCL 1.295 and FCL.520.A needs to be changed tosomething like 'operated with a minimum of two pilots' with separate arrangements for true private single pilot ops. Otherwise we are left with new rules which directly conflict with older ones.

Also some extra thought is needed into what categorises an SPA as distinct from an MPA during type certification. There exists an arbitrary weight limit of 12,500lbs (5670kgs) which is often quoted as the dividing line but doesn't always seem to be the deciding factor.

Level 400
Level 400 is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 10:03   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,092
Let there be no misconceptions here. The UK CAA has issued an AIC, apparently without proper consultation or scrutiny, that includes a statement that is not compliant with either the existing requirements or the future regulations. Notwithstanding the (incorrect) statement in the AIC, an ATPL Skill Test can still be conducted only in an aeroplane certified for operation by two pilots and there is no intention in EASA to change this.
BillieBob is online now   Reply
Old 11th Feb 2011, 07:12   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy Mainly
Posts: 35
'an ATPL Skill Test can still be conducted only in an aeroplane certified for operation by two pilots and there is no intention in EASA to change this. '

If you know what EASA plan to do in the future then your crystal ball must be working much better than mine.

With that information readily available, you could make a fortune!

Level 400
Level 400 is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


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



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:43.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network