Will all JAR-FCL PPL holders be ‘automatically’ transferred to the EASA PPL and if so when is this likely to happen?
Does anyone know if a skills test every 6 years will be the only way to revalidate the EASA PPL i.e. no more revalidation through experience?
Skills tests are usually completed soon after your training when everything is fresh and well practiced. I wonder how many will be able to pass the skills test again after 6 years, especially if you’re not fortunate enough to fly every day? A less stringent proficiency check with an examiner would seem more appropriate (such as under current JAR-FCL).
I have not been able to find much information on how the CAA will implement this in the UK.
Also what of NPPL and CAA (pre JAR) PPLs?
Many thanks.
Last edited by CliffordFW : 2nd July 2009 at 09:40.
Reason: typo.
Yes, EASA are taking over FCL for Europe, although their EU masters are debating to what extent, given the new Agency is claiming they are overworked and understaffed and therefore can't complete their tasks on time.
As it stands, EASA are planning on removing ALL national licences and ratings and replacing them with pan-European equivalents, or in the case of the UK IMC rating possibly not at all.
If you look on EASA's website under rulemaking, NPAs (notices of proposed amendments), and archives, you'll find the FCL NPA consultation, although you're too late to consult at this stage given it is now closed and a CRD (comments response document) is currently being worked on.
As to your JAR PPL, you should be granted an EASA equivalent automatically.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 15,675
EASA proposes that the 6 yearly proficiency check will be mandatory for all SEP Class Rating holders, irrespective of whether they have revalidated by experience hitherto. So basically you can look forward to a mandatory test for no good reason....
Most people have opposed the idea.
JAR-FCL licences are expected to change to EASA part-FCL licences automatically. Whether or not you'll have to pay for this when EASA tightens its stranglehold on GA in 2012, or whether it will occur at the 5-yearly re-issue point I do not know.
There is 'no provision' for pre-JAA licences such as the UK PPL and the BCPL. The €urocrats haven't as yet decided what to do about such things though....
The NPPL, a British success story, may disappear if the absurd 'LPL' ever sees the light of day, thanks to the €urocrats meddling with sub-ICAO licensing.
EASA FCL is now such a mismanaged, underfunded farce that the EC have recently had to give it very firm direction. With any luck we may now see what they promised in the first place - 'JAA' replaced by 'EASA' and nothing more complicated than that. EASA FCL has got itself into the current predicament through empire building and by inventing yet more proposed rules and regualtions in areas where there previously were none.......
I hope they ditch the foreign license privilege stripping proposals. These are so utterly stupid, barmy, aggressive, and unprecedented (when was the last time thousands of pilots were summarily grounded?) that I would be happy to see EASA shut down totally just to achieve that.
EASA has done some good things, like grandfathering any EU certification done anywhere to all member states. But given the lack of a central mod approval database, the usefulness of this has been limited.
Had they instead simply accepted FAA certification (as Australia now does) they would have achieved far more.
Their song is RECIPROCITY and signing treaties with everybody else in the world, with a maximally-aggressive alternative of "nothing at all". This is all very cozy and furry and warm; the standard European Intellectual Superior "we must have a TREATY" approach to everything, beyond reproach as much as Bob Geldof doing pop concerts to stop world poverty, but they forget that Europe is a tiny place on the globe and when it forgets that, the result is a humiliating political climbdown which will be paid for dearly by whoever in GA gets caught up in the face-saving fallout.
I refer the honourable gentlemen to the following thread I started a couple of years ago, asking if there was anything good about the EU. Genuinely baffled - why the F*&K are we in Europe?
I rest my case.
So am I right in thinking that the 6 year mandatory revalidation proficiency check is still a ‘maybe’? Also if this was implemented would the required standards be as exacting as on the initial JAR-FCL PPL skills test or be more relaxed?
Also would it be likely that a mandatory proficiency check will be required prior to the issue of the EASA PPL or 6 years after the issue of the licence?
Skills tests are usually completed soon after your training when everything is fresh and well practiced. I wonder how many will be able to pass the skills test again after 6 years
The problem with this is that my flying has evolved over the past 10 years and I no longer fly like I have just done my PPL.
For example, I fly using GPS, VORs and NDBs, I fly IFR, I fly ME aeroplane from time to time, I fly into short strips, I don't dead reckon my way under the LTMA if I can help it. I like to think I can fly pretty well, but I don't read out checklists in my aeroplane when joining the circuit, I don't recite BUMPFFICH or whatever it is on joining the circuit but go through the checks in my head flicking switches in a flow pattern (because I know it) . All the sorts of things an EASA PPL Examiner would probably scoff at and love to give me a bollocking for.
In FAA-land, a BFR (a mandatory check every 2 years) is done more or less using the pilot's preferred operating mode. If he navigates everywhere with a stopwatch, he's free to do that. This is reasonable.
UK checks tend to be done as per the WW1 PPL syllabus, which is stupid because almost nobody flying seriously navigates in this way. Fortunately, IME, one doesn't need to demonstrate CRP-1 usage; one can turn up with a prepared plog - but it still needs to be flown with the stopwatch, which is stupid.
I'd be all in favour of mandatory BFRs - so long as they accept the current modern practices, as well as old ones should the pilot prefer that.
IMHO, the reason so many pilots are scared of a "genuine BFR" type check (which can ground you) is because they have picked up loads of bad habits and are only just hanging in there.
Skills tests are usually completed soon after your training when everything is fresh and well practiced. I wonder how many will be able to pass the skills test again after 6 years, especially if you’re not fortunate enough to fly every day? A less stringent proficiency check with an examiner would seem more appropriate (such as under current JAR-FCL).
Can you show me where in JAR-FCL1 it says that a proficiency check is less stringent than a skills test? My reading of it is that they are identical.
Those of us that fly MEPs or have IRs are used to a proficiency check each year. Your and englishal's picture of the "proficiency check" is a long way from my experience. For my proficiency check, I'll set up the nav equipment as I would for any other flight, I'll do the checks as I would for any other flight, and I'll use the automatics as I would for any other flight. There's no scoffing, and no (unwarranted ) bollocking. It's a very pragmatic and practical test of what I need to be able to do to stay alive for another year.
The current JAR-FCL SEP alternative, of a "flight with an instructor" which the CAA has always tried to make a quasi-proficiency-test anyway, always seems daft to me. If I want to subject myself to an exam, I'd prefer to do so with someone who has been trained in examining.
As examiners we are totally pragmatic. If a candidate pitches up for a skills test in a galactic spaceship and wants to use all of the gadgets then they are perfectly welcome to do so. If they want to use them I expect them to be able to use them and if they get it wrong they may fail the relevant section. An LST/LPC is very different from an initial PPL skills test and is far more geared to the real world. As long as the relevant boxes on an SRG1157 are ticked then job done.
As bookworm points out, those of us who do LPC's every year and in our case OPC's as well. It is a non event and I do think people are working themselves up needlessly about this. Take a look at the SRG1157 form on the CAA website and see what it covered in an LPC. You will not see any requirement for dead reckoning nav etc.
This seems much less stringent than the skills test, assuming that its only the items marked as mandatory that would be completed for a revalidation.
Do you think this is the kind of flight that would be required every 6 years for a SEP revalidation (if this rule comes into force) under EASA PPL?
Also would the examiner be looking for an overall picture of safety or still be quite strict on each item being performed very accurately?
I don't remember my skills test to be too stressful, at least not once we were in the air (when I relaxed), but I did it the day after my flying training finished. I don't think I have picked up any bad habits and I always do my best to fly as I have been trained.
I also fly with an instructor a few times a year, so I would hope any bad habbits would be nipped in the bud, one little one already has been!
Do you think this is the kind of flight that would be required every 6 years for a SEP revalidation (if this rule comes into force) under EASA PPL?
yes, this is my understanding of the proposal. It will just be a standard LPC.
Quote:
Also would the examiner be looking for an overall picture of safety or still be quite strict on each item being performed very accurately?
As an examiner I am looking for an overall standard of airmanship rather than a strict initial skills test level. We understand that in the real world people do become rusty at certain things and we are allowed to give a repeat of certain maneuvers just to satisfy ourselves that the knowledge is there and it is just a bit of rust. Somethings are a straight fail but those that are would be the same sort of things that should stop a CRI/FI from signing the 2 year flight anyway.
IMHO this proposal if it does go through is nothing to be worried about. If you can fly the 2 year instructional flight safely then you should pass an LPC.
Doing FAA and JAR renewals, in the case of the JAR renewals every year, I dont see a great deal of difference between them. Some of the differences are inevitably down to the examiner and some examiners may have particular aspects they like to review.
The only problem with either is if you happen to have an instructor / examiner who is lacking experience. Only once I had a chap who wanted a full IFR PLOG and the most obtuse planning that would have meant in the real world every trip would become an epic. Only once I had the Examiner that insisted on stopping the engine completely and demonstrating how to restart it the first time on a type with which he was not that familiar (even if I was less familiar). He got it started in the end but I enjoyed plently of asymetric time while watching.
There are a number of different types of examiner and the requirements for each varies slightly according to the use that they are put to.
R - Revalidation Examiners, are able to complete revalidation by experience requirements for pilots. To become an R examiner you do apply to the authority and state a case, it is normally applied through flying schools so that staff instructors can do the 2 year flight and sign the license at a single go. When you become an LAA coach you are also able to become an R Examiner if approved by the head coach. In special circumstances it is possible to have the authority approve you as a free lance.
FE - PPL & CPL, are able to initial PPL (and with an extension CPL) skills tests. These are usually people who are operating with FTO's doing PPL training or the commercial schools doing CPL stuff. This is done by applying to the authority and the Chief Pilot will decide if he needs another examiner in your area and you meet the requirements. If you do then you go on a 3 day training course and the do a flight test with the CAA Staff Examiners.
CRE - these are able to all skill tests beyond the basic PPL. They can do LST,LPC for single and multi engine, add class ratings such as Single Engine Turbine, microlight, Instrument rating revalidation and initial 170A, IMC etc. They can also do type rating tests LST/LPC for single pilot type ratings single/multi engine. Getting this rating is the same as for the FE.
All licences have R examiner embedded within it. The examiner will use the prefix and their licence number according to the job being done at the time.
UK/R/XXXXX for revaldidation.
UK/FE/xxxxxx
UK/CRE/xxxxxx for skills tests.
Beyond that there are specific type rating examiners, usually guys from the multi crew environment.
To become an Examiner you must hold an Instructor qualification equivalent to the level you wish to examiner for and hold or have held a CPL,with the exception of the R examiner where it is possible to be approved on a PPL. For the multi pilot stuff then you have to be an ATPL.
This all refers to the UK, it might differ in other countries.
Yes. To hold a higher examiner level you must hold or have held a professional aeroplane license. To be fair there are very few PPL's that hold an R rating as well.
) bollocking. It's a very pragmatic and practical test of what I need to be able to do to stay alive for another year.
Linear Mode
