BillieBob

Nick14 – It’s not surprising that you are having trouble getting your head around the EASA regulations structure as they keep changing it! Essentially, however, it is reasonably straightforward.

At the top of the structure is Regulation 218/2008 (the Basic Regulation) which, as you say, has been EU law for about 4 years. The Basic Regulation has 5 annexes:

• Annex I – Essential requirements for airworthiness referred to in Article 5
• Annex II – Aircraft referred to in Article 4(4) (i.e. Annex II aircraft)
• Annex III – Essential requirements for pilot licensing referred to in Article 7
• Annex IV – Essential requirements for air operations referred to in Article 8
• Annex V – Criteria for qualified entities referred to in Article 13

Below the Basic Regulation are a number of ‘Enabling Regulations’, each dealing with a different area of EASA’s responsibility. At present, seven of these have been enacted into EU law:

• Initial Airworthiness (Regulation 1702/2003)
• Continuing Airworthiness (Regulation 2042/2003)
• Air Traffic Controller Licensing (Regulation 805/2011)
• ATM/ANS Oversight (Regulation 1034/2011)
• ANS Providers (Regulation 1035/2011)
• AUR and ACAS II (Regulation 1332/2011)
• Air Crew [sic] (Regulation 1178/2011 amended by Regulation 290/2012)

Each of the enabling regulations also has annexes and the Aircrew Regulation has seven:

• Annex I – Part-FCL
• Annex II – Conditions for the conversion of existing national licences
• Annex III – Conditions for the acceptance of licences issued by or no behalf of third countries
• Annex IV – Part-MED
• Annex V – Part-CC (Cabin Crew)
• Annex VI – Part ARA (Authority Requirements)
• Annex VII – Part-ORA (Organisation Requirements)

The Aircrew Regulation became EU law on 8 April 2012 but member states were permitted to delay implementation of the Annexes by up to 12 months. The UK initially elected to implement them on 1 July but, having failed to meet its own deadline, delayed implementation until 17 September. Until then, the UK is continuing to comply with JAR-FCL except where the Aircrew Regulation does not permit it (e.g. the arrangements for crediting of ex-military aircrew).

The enabling regulation for Air Operations is currently being considered by the EASA Committee of the European Commission (known as ‘comitology’) and is due to become law towards the end of this year.

So far as examiners authorised by states other than the state of licence issue of the candidate are concerned, they will need to inform the competent authority of the state of licence issue and receive a briefing before conducting any Skill Test, Proficiency Checks or Assessment of Competence. This will not become necessary for UK licensed pilots until 17 September until when the current requirements remain in force.

If you need any further clarification, please feel free to PM me.

Pitch+Power

Nick14 - got all that ?
Pretty straight forward eh ..?

nick14

Hmm,

Well that makes more sense now thank you!

The issue we are facing at present is we have a number of pilots operating from different licences. The examiners are all IAA authorised. We have a number of pilots who already have part FCL licences, how do we check them if we don't have the specific authority authorised examiner? There is no procedure to convert an EASA licence into an IAA licence.

Thanks

BillieBob

As I said above, the examiner will have to inform the candidate's competent authority of his intention to conduct the test/check/assessment and receive a briefing from them. This assumes, of course, that the candidate's competent authority has implemented the annexes to the Aircrew Regulation.

Note that there is no requirement for the examiner to obtain authorisation from the candidate's competent authority, he must merely inform them of his intention. The competent authority is then required by EU law to provide the necessary briefing.

Whopity

Interesting that they haven't briefed the majority of their own examiners for over 12 years!

nick14

So what was JAR OPS in EASA terms is now EU-OPS?

Where does that fit into the structure?

Many thanks

mad_jock

So can the CAA refuse if they don't pay the money ?

BillieBob

What is currently covered by EU-OPS and JAR-OPS 3 will be covered by Annex III (Part-ORO) and Annex IV (Part-CAT) to the Air Operations Regulation.

nick14

Ah right, that makes sense as the document I was reading was annex III.

So EU OPS will cease to exist when those regulations come into force then?

Pitch+Power

nezzer

did you get an answer yet? ( the thread seems to have drifted from your original question)

Rosanna

I applied 3 weeks ago and the Selection team sent me a mail asking me more details about my employment history and that they would give me a result in 10-14 days.
I haven't yet received any other communication, I think that they have received much more applications than they expected.

If I have some news I will let you know

nezzer

Hi all,

Had a email today from CTC inviting me to attend a interview on the 27th July and guess what ? They want money for the interview and they will throw in a complimentary free lunch lol What is this industry coming to !!

Pitch+Power

any updates on this 'scheme'
Did anyone actually figure out the IR hours being asked for? Cause my response from the school made no sense at all.
That, coupled with the fact I knew they would ask for money for an interview didn't sit well with me.

Be interested to hear from anyone who was succesful for any feedback.

G-RICH

Did anyone actually pay to go for an interview ?

I have had someone ask about CTC.

If they are trying to make money even out of the need to fill a staff requirement then you have to ask questions of what their attitude to a student will be. Perhaps advice would be to look elsewhere ?

That is presuming of course that they even had a requirement. I assume trade was a bit slow and this was just the latest scam dreamed up.

Alister

Well said G-RICH. I applied for this scheme mainly out of curiosity. When I found out that they were charging money for the interview and that they weren't actually sponsoring the 30 hours of MEP time, I told them in the nicest possible way to off.

I would be very surprised if there were many candidates who actually decided to go ahead and pay for this. Those who did were probably kicking themselves afterwards when they found out that this was just a regular low paying single engine VFR job with no sponsored multi engine time.

G-RICH

I know there is a big thread on CTC but at 40+ pages its a bit of an effort to trawl through, so....

Am I right in saying it is the same lot who charge £80k+ for a Modular course they try to disguise as integrated, , plus another £30k for a type rating, and then tell you that if you are very lucky and display a suitably servile attitude you might get 6 months temp work with SlezyJet ?

Just trying to sum up in one paragraph !

Any answers correcting what may be an overly cynical summary to be kept to 1000 words or less please.....