Ok, here is the correspondance I had with the CAA regarding being able to fly Multicrew with a CPL/IR MCC but not Forzen ATPL:-
My last e-mail to the CAA:-
"Good afternoon XXXXX and a happy new year to you.
You may remember that I was in correspondence with yourself regarding
expired ATPL exams and the possibility of being able to fly a multi crew
aircraft with a CPL/IR and expired ATPL theory to which you responded it
would not be possible.
After studying the Lasors 2006, discussion with a number of flight schools &
indeed a local airline I have ties with, I cannot however see how this can
be the case?
In Lasors 2006 section F4.1 Multi-Pilot Aeroplane Type rating,
pre-requisites for training as given as:-
a) Have completed at least 100 hours as pilot-in command.
- This is fine as I have in excess of double this time.
B) Hold a valid multi-engine Instrument rating.
- This would be the case as I would have resat the IR Theory only.
C) Hold a certificate of completion of an MCC course
- This would also be the case, there is no requirement for ATPL theory
within the MCC course.
D) Have passed the professional flight crew examinations at ATPL level.
- I have indeed "passed" these, there is no mention of validity periods or
expiry in this.
In the next section "Knowledge of Aeroplane Performance"
Section B states the following:-
"Licence holders who have passed the ATPL JAR-FCL performance examination
are deemed to have demonstrated the appropriate knowledge for multi-engine
turbine aircraft (Perf groups A and C)"
- Once again I have indeed passed these exams and "demonstrated the
appropriate knowledge"
Can you therefore advise why I would not be able to add a Multi-Pilot type
rating to a valid CPL/Multi IR even though my ATPL theory has expired.
The wording within Lasors merely states that I must have "passed" and
"demonstrated" the ATPL theory exams which I have indeed done.
Though I understand that I would not be able to fly as captain on an
aircraft of this type, I should therefore in theory be able to operate as FO
giving me a few years to resit my ATPL theory whilst building hours towards
a command.
Can you therefore please confirm that I have this correct and have not
missed anything."
The CAA's response:-
"Dear XXXXXX
Thank you for your email below.
As I mentioned to you in my previous email, as you did not obtain the IR(A)
in accordance with the JAR-FCL 1.495 Acceptance period (i.e 36 months),you
are no longer deemed to have ATPL(A) theory for the purposes of gaining an
IR(A), Multi-pilot type rating or JAR ATPL(A).
Our LASORS 2006 publication is guidance and is based on the requirements
contained within JAR-FCL, the Air Navigation Order and other publications.
The document has been produced in a more simplified manner than JAR-FCL but
wherever there is any doubt the authoritative source documents should be
referred to. Therefore:-
JAR-FCL 1.465 states that:- An applicant for a professional licence or an
instrument rating shall demonstrate a level of knowledge appropriate to the
privileges of the licence or rating for which application is made by passing
the theoretical knowledge examinations in accordance with the procedures set
out in JAR-FCL 1.470 through 1.495.
Whilst this was acceptable for the issue of the CPL(A)as you were within the
36 months acceptance period, as the IR(A) was not obtained for licensing
purposes in accordance with this paragraph you are no longer deemed to have
the "level of knowledge" appropriate to the privileges of the rating(s) in
this case the IR(A) and Multi-pilot type rating and the ATPL(A) licence.
For the issue of an IR(A) JAR-FCL 1.195 (b) and Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.205
(6)states that An applicant shall demonstrate a level of knowledge
appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of an IR(A) and shall
meet the requirements set out in JAR-FC 1 Subpart J.
With regards to the pre-requisite conditions for training for a multi-pilot
aeroplane as per JAR-FCL 1.250 (a)and simplified in LASORS 2006 Section
F4.1:-
1. you state that you have in excess of 100 hours as PIC of aeroplanes,
therefore you meet already this requirement;
2. Hold a valid ME Instrument Rating - this you do not currently hold and
you do not currently have either the ATPL(A) or IR(A) theory required for
endorsement subject to completion of an approved IR(A) Course and Skill
Test. If you do obtain the IR(A) on the basis of taking IR(A) level
examinations these will be valid for the issuance of the IR(A) only. Your
ATPL(A) theory has been lost and to gain a multi-pilot type rating or
ATPL(A) you will be required to pass the JAR-ATPL(A) examinations.
3. Hold a Certificate of completion of an MCC Course-The MCC Course is for
integrated course students or PPL/IR or CPL/IR holders wishing to obtain an
initial type rating on multi-pilot aeroplanes (JAR-FCL 1.261(d)(i) and (ii)
refers). You do not currently hold an IR(A);
4. Have passed the professional flight crew examination at ATPL level.
JAR-FCL 1.250(a) (4) is the reference this was taken from which actually
states:-have met the requirements of JAR-FCL 1.285.
Para (b) of JAR-1.285 states:- An applicant for an ATPL(A) shall have
demonstrated a level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to
the holder of an ATPL(A) and in accordance with the requirements of JAR-FCL
1 Subpart J.
5. Knowledge of Aeroplane Performance - although you have passed this as
part of the JAR-FCL ATPL(A) theory exams as they are deemed to be no longer
valid, you no longer hold the appropriate Performance or ATPL(A) theory to
satisfy the requirement for the addition of a Multi-pilot type rating.
Subpart J relates to the theoretical knowledge requirements for a licence or
rating and as mentioned previously specifies the pass standards and
acceptance period these need to be achieved in and clearly state that only
where the CPL(A) and IR(A) are obtained within the 36 months do they then
remain valid for 7 years.
Also, JAR-FCL 1.010 Basic Authority to act as a flight crew member also
states:- (a) (1) A person shall not act as a flight crew member of a civil
aeroplane registered in a JAA Member State unless that person holds a valid
licence or rating complying with the requirements of JAR-FCL... This will
include complying with the theoretical knowledge requirements above.
ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 2 para 2.1.1.3. states An applicant shall, before being
issued with any pilot licence or rating,meet such requirements in respect of
age, knowledge, experience, flight instruction, skill and medical fitness,
as are specified for that licence or rating.
An applicant for any pilot licence or rating shall demonstrate, in a manner
determined by the Licensing Authority, such requirements for knowledge as
specified for that licence or rating.
The knowledge in this case is determined by passing the examinations in
accordance with the pass standards and acceptance period of Subpart J of
JAR-FCL, again detailed above.
ICAO Annex 1 Personnel Licensing Chapter 2 para 2.1.5.2 relates to the
Requirements for the issue of class and type ratings. In para 2.1.5.3 it
states for a type rating (certificated for operation with 2 pilots) An
applicant shall have demonstrated at the Airline Transport Pilot Licence
Level an extent of knowledge determined by the Licensing Authority..
The ATPL(A) knowledge in accordance with the pass standards and acceptance
period of JAR-FCL will remain valid for 7 years if the CPL(A) and IR(A) were
obtained within the 36 month validity.
Therefore, in response to your enquiry as to why we are unable to issue a
multi-pilot type rating to you as the holder of a CPL(A) without IR(A)
having previously "passed" ATPL theory that has now expired, I hope that the
above explains in full. Examination validity periods and acceptance periods
have always been put in place and in order to retain ATPL theory it has
always been a requirement to gain both the CPL(A) and IR(A) within a
prescribed period, even before JAR-FCL was introduced.
Whenever there is a requirement for theoretical knowledge for a licence or a
rating this is deemed to be examinations passed within the stated validity
and acceptance periods, in this case JAR-FCL 1 Subpart J specifies those
conditions.
Regards"
Clear as mud ???
Basically the way the CAA sees it, even though I've "demonstrated" knowledge as is required, cause its not actually valid its like it never happened and was never demonstrated at all! How mad is that !!!
I'm seriously tempted to take legal advice on this actually as the CAA seem to interpret the wording to suit their own needs and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny at all !
Anyone else got any views on the legality of this ?