This is the definitive answer.
In a nutshell:
1. Keep your IR going - no greater than 7 years between Renewals.
2. Our UK CAA and EASA are being helpful in their flexibility towards continued recognition of National Licences - see paras. 12 & 13.
3. Leave your MPs / MEPs out of it.
It is too late re contacting my MEP:Sorry. But I have emailed him tonight to curtail any further action with the Commissioner and to thank all concerned for their help. I fervently, fervently hope that that is enough - in my defence who else could I have turned to when my own CAA were in the dark to an extent too?----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderators:I have reproduced the email below but I have not sought permission as I was the intended recipient. Any complaints received conerning this then I now formally acknowledge liability and will withdraw the email and apologise publicly to any injured parties. My only intention is to share information with fellow aviators to all our mutual benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From CAA Flight Crew Licensing & Training Policy.
1. The position with respect to the crediting of examinations as we move into the enactment of European legislation is not well defined.
2. The current licensing systems, including the JAA procedures, lead to national licences that are wholly the responsibility of the State of Licence issue. It happens that, because of the agreements voluntarily entered into by the JAA Member States, the JAR-FCL licences issued in any one country are recognised by the other members and may be used to fly aircraft registered in the various JAA States.
3. The new European regulations will bring in a legally binding system across Europe where an “EASA Part-FCL licence” issued by any EU State will be valid for all aircraft registered in Europe that are within the scope of that licence and the ratings on it. EASA Part-FCL licences will be granted to persons who meet the requirements of Part-FCL. It is important to understand that current and past national systems are for the grant of national licences. For a truly European licence, the new Part-FCL requirements must be complied with.
4. However, it has been recognised by EASA and the Commission that the Part-FCL requirements are similar to the latest amendment standard of JAR-FCL and that there is a need to ensure, as far as practicable, that aircraft operations are not interrupted by the introduction of the new regulations. Accordingly, the new regulations, as drafted, declare that all licences issued by Member States before 8th April 2012 that are fully compliant with JAR-FCL are licences issued in accordance with Part-FCL and so become, by legislation, EASA licences. In addition, the regulations allow for the conversion of national licences that are issued before April 2012 to Part-FCL licences by essentially the same critera that was used to convert national licences to JAR licences, or alternatively by Conversion Reports compiled by the National Authority that issued the national licence.
5. To cater for pilots who have started on the path of obtaining a licence, but do not obtain those licences by April 2012, the legislation states:
6. In respect of issuing Part-FCL licences in accordance with Annex I, training commenced prior to the applicability of this Regulation in accordance with the Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and procedures, under the regulatory oversight of a Member State recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities' system in relation to the relevant JAR, shall be given full credit provided that the training and testing were completed by 8 April 2016 at the latest.
7. You will note that this says that training - which logically must include theoretical knowledge training - in accordance with JAR-FCL may be credited but only until 2016. There is no mention of any credit for training that was not in accordance with JAR-FCL.
8. The responsibility for conversion of national licences rests primarily with the State that issued the particular national licence or qualification. In that respect the version of the regulation that has been passed to go forward as legislation (which is not the same as the older version currently published on the EASA website) says:
9. When developing the conversion report, Member States shall aim at allowing pilots to, as far as possible, maintain their current scope of activities.
10. So there is no obligation on EASA or the Member States to preserve credits for activities that pilots are still in the process of qualifying for.
11. The regulations do not explicitly address the continued recognition of past examinations and so the approach to be taken is open to interpretation. From the text of the draft legislation one can logically conclude that where examination passes have been achieved before 8th April 2012, only those that are from JAR examinations at the latest amendment standard that may be used as a basis for the issue of an EASA Part-FCL licence.
12. The CAA has not yet introduced that latest standard of JAR examinations (we are still using an earlier amendment standard) in the UK and so, if that interpretation were to be strictly applied it would have a significant effect in the UK, in that all pilots who had not completed the national licensing process by obtaining JAR licences before 8th April 2012 would have to take all of their examinations again to the EASA standard before their licences (EASA Part-FCL) could be issued. However, the CAA does not consider this to be necessary or appropriate.
13. We are about to declare our position in AIC 017/2011, which is to be published on the 24th March 2011. Amongst other things, this will state that, where a pilot has completed a full set of examinations before 8th April 2012, those examinations will be valid for the issue of an EASA Part-FCL licence “subject to the usual calendar expiry”. Therefore, examinations will be valid for 3 years, and in the case of ATPL exams for 7 years from the last valid date of an Instrument Rating. We are saying that we will maintain the current position with respect to exam credits.
14. This CAA interpretation could of course be challenged by other EU Members States, or EASA, or the European Commission, but currently we do not expect them to do so. I note that in their e-mail to you EASA are being helpful in this respect by simply stating that this is a matter for the CAA to sort out. We are content with that position and expect other States and the Commission to follow EASA’s lead. For that reason we are minded not to bring this issue to the attention of the Commission or the other Member States for any further discussion or debate.
15. I see in your e-mail to EASA that you mention the possibility of a legal challenge to the regulations. I consider that this would be very unlikely to succeed because EASA and the Commission have followed the procedures laid down by EU law for the creation of these regulations, which included full and extensive public consultation. The Commission would point to the fact that many thousands of comments were received and all were dealt with in accordance with the rules. I would expect that they would also be able to show that no-one raised any concerns over examination credits at that time. In your particular case it would also be pertinent that the loss of your examination credits would not affect your current licence privileges and so would not impede in any way your current activities.
16. I would also advise you that, in recent interrnational discussions on licensing in Cologne, there has been great surprise expressed by some that large numbers of UK pilots still have national licences, when they have had more than a decade to convert to JAR licences. In some quarters there are indications of resistance to making any further provisions to accommodate national licence holders and the view has been expressed that any problems those individuals have now are effectively of their own making for not embracing the JAA system. I would strongly advise therefore that you do not take this matter any further, such as via your MEP to the Commissioner. The manner in which significant aviation rulemaking matters are dealt with in Europe is by debate involving representatives of all of the Member States. My concern is that if this matter were to be the subject of a full debate involving all countries, the outcome might be that the UK CAA would be directed to apply the regulations in a less flexible manner than we currently propose. If that were to be the outcome, then clearly the most likely first exclusion would be to rule out any credit for any non-JAR examinations.
17. The CAA’s policy, which is about to be published in the AIC, is to preserve examination credits as under existing rules, and we believe that the current EASA position permits that".