JAR compliant licences

[Maximum]

I notice some US schools now advertising "JAR compliant" ICAO licences that require less exams, are easier to keep current and are issued immediately after successful flight test.

Apparently no conversion or new licence required to fly G reg aircraft on return to UK.

Question: is this actually the case? Dutch County Helicopters in Penn., USA and www.ukft.com are two such examples.

Interested in your thoughts or better still, a definitive answer.:)

[DFC]

A very carefully worded advertisement indeed.

The only advice is to ask exactly what the final piece of paper will be.

My money is on an FAA licence which is indeed OK for flying G reg aircraft in the UK and is indeed accepted in every ICAO country but provided that you are flying an N reg aircraft

"A British School" - Hello, hasn't the USA been independent for a few hundred years? This is a US school targeting British students!

Regards,

DFC

[Keygrip]

DFC - very close!!

ICAO legislation says that every member state of ICAO must recognise PPL priveges from any other ICAO member state.

So, for example, the Brits recognise the FAA PPL, the Dutch recognise a Brit...etc. etc.

Technically , you must fly the host nations registration, VFR only, and only within their geographical borders...so, a G reg flown in UK, an F reg flown in France, a PH reg flown in Holland.

Some states (or, maybe, some individual customs/immigration guys at the airports of some states) don't mind you flying across their borders - i.e. Britain to France - but that's not the real deal.

The JAA "compliant" licence is a play on words from that International legislation.

The schools do issue FAA PPL's (with no training or advice on European operations what-so-ever) - which are then - under the International agreement - recognised for VFR flight within your 'home' nation).

[Noggin]

Sounds like an FAA Certificate that is "ICAO compliant".

To be "JAR compliant" if there was such a thing! it would have to be issued in accordance with JAR-FCL1 which it obviously isn't.

Was this a Flying School or a Realtor?

[Julian]

It is an FAA PPL, I know a couple of people who went there and did the course.

[chopperpilot47]

I am the owner of Dutch Country Helicopters. A JAR compliant licence is an ICAO licence such as the FAA licence with the addition of the JAA air law and R/t examinations. That JAR compliant licence is recognised by all 187 ICAO contracting states. You can fly G and N registered helicopters across borders and you are not restricted to day only. The JAR compliant licence includes a night rating giving you night privilages in a British registered helicopter. You can additionally fly all N registered helicopters.

This has been checked and agreed with the CAA. There is no deception here. It is fully explained on the websites of both of the companies mentioned. If anyone requires CAA confirmation for training purposes I will give them the name of the CAA official concerned.

[Maximum]

hi chopperpilot47, I hoped you might turn up when I started this thread as I had already seen your post on the Rotorheads forum -thanks for the info.

I'm a qualified ATPL, but I'm interested in this on two counts:

1.) it represents a potentially huge marketing opportunity for operators such as yourself, as most students are put off the cheaper FAA licences due to the hassle and expense of converting when they come back home. Obviously what you are saying removes these two barriers. If what you are saying is totally cleared by the CAA, then your business is set for a very prosperous future if you get your message out there.

2.) it once again shows the need for a clean sweep of the JAA, as the whole system appears to be geared (unwittingly) to screwing UK and European flying schools, who find it difficult enough to compete on price, but could always point to the problems associated with licence conversion. With more UK private pilots also opting for the FAA IR to fly N reg aircraft in the UK, the JAR's are seemingly a complicated and expensive exercise in bureaucracy bearing little relationship to the real world, certainly in the world of private flying.

It seems to me the only argument against someone doing this cheaper licence in the States is the lack of experience in UK airspace, but obviously with an agreeable operator back in the UK and a few hours of famil this should not be a problem.

Are UK flying schools aware of this? Do they see it as a big threat to their livelihoods? I'm not wishing to antagonise anybody, by the way, just genuinely interested.:}

[Noggin]

"A JAR compliant licence is an ICAO licence such as the FAA licence with the addition of the JAA air law and R/T examinations."

What document is this promulgated in?

Why is it that the CAA people I have spoken too have never heard of it?

No JAA document makes any reference to it!

A FAA pilot certificate (with 100 hours) plus JAA Air Law is conversion criteria for JAA licence issue. The RT Licence is a seperate licence, issued nationally and not covered by the JARs.

[Maximum]

Noggin, that's why this is so interesting - it would seem basically no one in the UK is aware of this.

So who is correct??:confused:

[Keygrip]

OK, chopperpilot47 - I'll take you up on that.

Tell me (in a PM if you prefer) who the UK CAA contact is.

I'd also like to know how - as a non-JAA approved school you are offering Air Law and R/T written examinations.

Whilst we are at it - what about the requirement for Human Performance written examination and Radio Telephony practical.

This is, presumably, assuming that the licence candidate has 100 hours of flight time on helicopters - and not that they get both the FAA and "JAA compliant" licence at the end of a 45 hours training course in the USA.

Doesn't the conversion process say that if you have less than 100 hours flight time you must complete all seven JAA written examinations - which, you cannot offer (can you?).

[BEagle]

The school itself probably can't offer these exams - but if there's a tame UK FE/GR/RT Examiner out there with all the appropriate kit for the RT practical exam, he/she could probably set up as his/her own RF to conduct all these exams and tests? The school would no doubt come to a suitable arrangement to facilitate such testing.

But having heard tales about non-invigilated PPL exams being marked by the receptionist at a certain school, anything is possible....:mad:

[chopperpilot47]

Time I replied. I have sent a private message to Keygrip concerning the CAA contact. I have also passed the identity of the CAA examiner to him.

We do administer CAA/JAA examinations for the air law and R/T on site. We have a CAA/JAA authorised examiner who comes to us when we have students ready. He takes them for the practicals required, administers the examinations and passes, where successful. He has been in the business for a long time and was the person who pointed all this out to us in the first place. We didn't invent this, he liased with the CAA and discovered the concept of the JAR compliant licence.

There seems to be some confusion here between the conversion of an FAA licence to a CAA/JAA one. A JAR compliant licence is an ICAO licence which, because of reciprocal agreements, enables the holder to operate G registered helicopters as though the holder had a CAA/JAA licence. It of course, enables the holder to fly any N registered aircraft and to fly in any of the ICAO contracting states.

The reciprocal agreement means that the ICAO licence holder does not have to take the 7 JAA examinations because he is not converting the licence from his ICAO one to a CAA/JAA licence he is making his ICAO licence "compliant" with the requirements of the CAA/JAA. This compliance enables the pilot, as I have said, to exercise all the privilages of his ICAO licence in any of the contracting states. The UK is, of course, a contracting state.


I hope this makes this clearer. If you have any questions please contact me.

[Keygrip]

chopper...got it thanks - will come back to you shortly

[homeguard]

I'm interested in this.

The CAA pre JAA, and for a while after it's introduction, always argued that even if the holder of a non-Uk or non-JAA licence holder had met the the requirements of UK/JAA in their previous training and subsequent testing then they the CAA were still required to satisfy themselves of the fact.

The way to do this was by knowledge examination and flight test.

I hear what the arguement is and i'm fascinated. Like so many things about JAR, what appears to be obvious is not.

I'm very aware of the cultural change required in ones thinking. Our thinking has always been, in the UK, to ask the question, can I? I'm always being reminded by the CAA these days, whenever I put to them the query; "I cannot find anywhere an answer to a question put to me of ..........! They reply that if it does not state that you cannot then take it that you can.

Is this arguement one of those?

[DFC]

How does one get a "night rating" when one does not have a licence to put it on?

The holder of an FAA licence can fly a G registered aircraft within the UK by day VFR. They can not fly by night.

This is how I see this operation:

The JAA and CAA changed the rules regarding the ability of US schools to obtain RTF/FTO status without having suficient JAA qualified instructors.

This school appears to be unable to meet the requirements for RTF/FTO status.

If someone in the CAA has said that this is OK then I would love to see what part of the JARs they used.....after all, the CAA saying that they allow such practices has effects on all JAA countries.

Are we as a training organisation worried? - Only that people will spend money and end up with far less ability to fly than they expected and than have to come to us for training causing expense for them and hassle for us (undoing much of the rubbish)!

This scheme ranks equal with the one where you get 100 hours in a twin for $5000 - you do but half of it is in the right seat (which in proper logbooks is recorded as passenger)!!!!! :(

Regards,

DFC

[Noggin]

"The reciprocal agreement means that the ICAO licence holder does not have to take the 7 JAA examinations because he is not converting the licence from his ICAO one to a CAA/JAA licence he is making his ICAO licence "compliant" with the requirements of the CAA/JAA."

Sorry, this is not true, no convertion is takinmg place!

Art 21 of the UK ANO entitles the holder of any ICAO licence to fly a UK registered aircraft in the UK. There is no reciprocal agreement other than acceptance of the fundamental ICAO principal that a PPL shall be recognised by all ICAO States. In the UK this is enacted in law by Art 21. The additional exams have no revlevance whatsoever, because the privileges of Art 21 apply wether you have taken them or not. It has nothing to do with the JAA or JARs.

So far as using the privileges in another State, that is subject to the laws of that State; there is no big brother JAA State making arrangements or granting International privileges. As it is, the UK is one of the few States that actually take the ICAO agreement at face value; the majority includiung the US require a validation of the ICAO licence. The "JAR compliant ICAO" licence is a figment of someones imagination!

If it is issued by an ICAO State in accordance with Annex 10, it is ICAO compliant; end of story.

[BEagle]

Precisely my understanding, noggin.

Perhaps the idea is to gain a FAA PPL, then persuade the lucky punters to build up to a total of 100 hours as pilot of aeroplanes, sit the PPL Air Law and HP&L exams plus the FRTOL tests, then do the JAR-FCL PPL Skill Test?

Whatever. But to advertise a 'JAR-compliant' licence is perhaps somewhat misleading.?

[Keygrip]

I did get the PM from chopperpilot47 (Bell 47? my favourite helicopter!!).

I am aware of the examiner that he says "turns up when needed to set the written exams" (I'll work out the travelling distance).

I also know the CAA representative personally - and will follow this up. I'll keep you posted.

[Maximum]

Here's a link to the CAA website regarding ICAO licence privileges:
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/licensing/faq.asp?faqid=208

The section most relevant to this discussion would appear to be:A licence issued by any other ICAO Contracting State (including a JAA State that has not yet been recommended for mutual recognition) is also deemed to be valid under the ANO for the purposes of flying a UK registered aircraft, providing that the licence and medical are valid in accordance with the rules/laws of the issuing State, and the CAA does not in the particular case give direction to the contrary.

Exceptions being basically commercial work, giving flying instruction and flying IFR in controlled airspace. Obviously these will not affect the basic PPL holder.

[RVR800]

There is a plan afoot to organise international
civil aviation so that standards are consistent
see:

www.halldalemedia.co.uk/eats2003/Woods.ppt

[Noggin]

Thats what the JAA is all about!
ICAO has always set the standards; how you get every State to apply them equally, or ICAO to update them in line with experience is another matter.

[DesiPilot]

Chopper,

Correct me if I am wrong, you can consult your examiner if you wish.

My understanding is that the exam papers belongs to the school and not the flight examiner. The examiner is only the custodian of the exam papers and if he/she leaves the school, the exam papers either remains with the school or sent back to the CAA.

If your examiner have kept the exam papers without being attached to a CAA FTO/RF I'd like to know how he/she has done that. In fact, I might call CAA and ask them to send me a set of exam papers as well ;) (what do you reckon KeyGrip, can it be done!!)

What I don't understand is why you say it is JAR Compliant licence. Why not just say that come to us, do the FAA licence and one can exercise the priviledges of FAA licence in the UK airspace.

Cheers,
Jatin

[vinil]

JAR Compliant PPL is an FAA PPL with orientation of UK procedures, the RT prepartion and RT practical test. I do not think there is any requirement for RT or any other exams but it definately makes sense as it makes flying easier and safer on return. I could have gone to my local flying club and done the same after my return.

I did my PPL with them and I have flown to France in a G reg aircraft without any problems. The school provided me a written statement by the French Civil Avaition that they do not have any problem as long as UK CAA is happy for me to fly on my FAA PPL.

I did the FAA PPL or JAR Compliant as the school calls it because its much easier to maintain. I can also add the Multi Engine rating to my FAA PPL and use it in the UK. I will be a fool to do the JAA Multi Engine Rating where I need to do 8 sectors and a flight with an examiner every 12 months.

Happy Flying...

[DFC]

Vinil,

You only need 1 sector (15 minute cruise included in the proficiency check) but why have such a rating on a PPL if one never uses it.

---

Even if the UK have said that it is OK for pilots with US licences to have the same priviliges as UK pilots (with some exceptions) the JAA has made no such allowance.

Isn't the UK required to follow JAA requirements when validating ICAO licences?

At the very best, this can be called a UK NPPL compliant licence - but I think that even to say that, the statement would have to be included on the licence.

European licences that are JAR compliant have a statement to that effect in the licence. The FAA can not put such a statement on their licences.

I have yet to see that letter from France. It must be only sent to those who apply directly to fly G reg aircraft on non-JAA licences. What must be remembered is that if one holds a copy of a letter sent to another pilot in response to an application by them, that approval may only apply to that individual and may not be a general exemption. Such general exemptions are normally the subject of an AIC or will be publicised through a representative organisation such as AOPA.

What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence.

IMHO, if the training is not JAR compliant then the resultant licence can not be either.

Regards,

DFC

[Keygrip]

What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence.
Now that comment is unfair and the type of thing that starts big battles.

I know of many schools that have applied for JAA approval - there are bigger problems in the application system - and "meeting the standards required" is not currently one of them.

[DFC]

Sorry, I didn't make any comment on the school's ability to provide FAA training - I am sure that they prepare pilot's excellently for flying in the USA.

It was simply a comment based on the fact that if they could provide JAA training then they would.

We all have to do whatever is required so that we can train under the jaa.

What we don't do is train people for the NPPL and call it a Jar compliant licence which is what I feel is happening here.

Regards,

DFC

[vinil]

I can only go by what the CAA infomed me of. I thought the CAA represented the JAA in the UK, therfore when they say that you can fly a G reg aircraft with a FAA PPL, they are quoting from the JAA rules.

Here is the letter from the French Civil Aviation:

Concerning the questions you asked me yesterday, here're the answers.

Question 1: a british citizen with a ICAO private licence wants to fly from England to France on a British registred aircraft.

Answer : As long as the British Civil Aviation recognize the ICAO private licence and allows the pilot to fly over UK, the pilot can fly to France on a British aircraft (but not on a french one) regarded to the British autorisation.

********************************


Send all the documents to:

DISTRICT AERONAUTIQUE ILE DE FRANCE
BUREAU DES LICENCES
ORLY SUD N°108
94396 ORLY AEROGARES CEDEX
FRANCE

I hope you have all your answers, if you need more informations contact me.

Approval:

I went to Headcorn airfield and saw sheep grazing around the runway with a fence on the approach end. There were many days the runway was closed due to rain.

After seeing the state of general aviation UK airports I decided to train in the US where I experienced first class facilities. I was flying in the same airspace with the big boys.

There is no need for CAA approval for FAA training.

[chopperpilot47]

There seems to be an unpleasant movement to rubbish one particular school in the USA and others, including mine, by association:

"What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence".

I have to say that looking at the website at www.ukft.com they advertise JAA professional licences including JAR modular CPL (frozen ATPL) and the JAA PPL. It therefore appears that the statement above is not true in that they do train for JAA licences and therefore do apparently meet the standards required.

As for the comment about the UK NPPL compliant licence, where did that come from? Who has ever mentioned that before? Yet another example of unfair sniping?

You will know from previous posts that I am the owner of Dutch Country Helicopters Ltd and I am getting fed up with the inaccurate sniping going on. Training in the USA, in my view having trained under both systems, is at least as good and is a hell of a lot cheaper. That is why I left the UK and bought a flight school in the USA. I know that does not sit well with one or two regular posters but it really would be better to get the facts straight before engaging computer keyboard.

[DFC]

Is it true to say that in order to own a US flight school and US aircraft that one must be a citizen of the US?

Can't seem to equate that with being "British Owned". ;)

The only "JAR Compliant Licence" that I would spend money on is one that "JAR Compliant" printed on it by the issuing authority.

Some people believe that these schools are claiming compliance with JAR-FCL 1.015. However, the FAA licence is only part of the process and unles the pilot holds a JAA medical then it counts for nought.

There is also the small matter that validation of an FAA PPL with IR is for a maximum of 1 year!

I believe that if one enrols on the professional course that part of the training is done in Scotland.

"Module 5
CONVERSION TO JAR MULTI ENGINE & MULTI ENGINE INSTRUMENT RATING

10 hours Simulator FNPT 11, 7 hours PA34 (includes 2 hour allowance for Skill Test)
(Reduced from 55 hours) "

Both the US and UK training establishement seem to have forgotten that the trainng requirement is based on an assessment of the pilot and thus can not be fixed in advance. There is also the fact that it would have to be a very poor IR pilot who would need 55 hours to convert to UK flying!

Are we wrong to say that people to pay without checking deserve what they get?

Regards,

DFC

[chopperpilot47]

A British citizen can own a flight school in the USA. Both Dutch Country Helicopters Ltd and UK Flight training are British owned by British citizens. The aircraft and helicopters are registered through a USA corporation.

That's the trouble with facts, they get in the way of rumour don't they?

[vinil]

DFC has too much time on his hand. He needs to get his facts right.

DFC,I am still trying to to figure out where the NPPL fits in with obtaining a FAA PPL in the USA. As we all know that one can fly a G Reg aircraft in the UK and overseas. If one still wants a JAA PPL then they simply need to take a few more written exams and a Skill test that UKFT offers for FREE..

[DFC]

What was said is that the UK NPPL is equally "JAA Compliant" as an FAA licence. They both are not.

:D

JAR–FCL 1.005 Applicability

(2) Whenever licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates are mentioned in JAR–FCL, these are meant to be licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
In all other cases these documents are specified as e.g. ICAO or national licences.

(3) Whenever a reference is made to JAA Member State for the purpose of mutual recognition of licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates, this means JAA full Member State.

So since the FAA licence is not issued in accordance with JAR-FCL it is an ICAO licence or a National Licence of the USA...whichever one likes.

:E Perhaps the USA wants to join the JAA? :E

Regards,

DFC

[chopperpilot47]

It now seems clear that whatever is said will be misinterpreted by DFC. I don't really want to get into a competition but like others I dislike inaccuracy. DFC raised the NPPL by saying "UK NPPL compliant licence" he did not mention JAR compliant NPPL. It formed no part of the discussion and took us absolutely nowhere.

The facts are that the FAA licence is an ICAO licence which is in no way inferior to the JAA licence. It can be used in Europe in exactly the same way as in the USA. In G registered aircraft that means at night, because it contains a night rating, and across borders without hinderance. That has been confirmed with the CAA. It applies to every licence holder not individual ones who went to the trouble of obtaining written confirmation.

A number of inaccurate assertions have been made by DFC which have been politely answered by myself and others. I would have thought that an apology would now be offered by him but that is probably expecting too much. Or is it?

[DFC]

The facts are that the FAA licence is an ICAO licence which is in no way inferior to the JAA licence. It can be used in Europe in exactly the same way as in the USA. In G registered aircraft that means at night, because it contains a night rating, and across borders without hinderance. That has been confirmed with the CAA. It applies to every licence holder not individual ones who went to the trouble of obtaining written confirmation

I never said anything to contradict the above other than to remind people that if the PPL inlcludes an IR, the maximum validation period is 1 year. The CAA does not permit IFR ops in controlled airspace with a G reg/FAAlicence so an IR is not of much use anyway unless flying an N reg aircraft.

but like others I dislike inaccuracy

Couldn't agree more. That is why I say that an FAA licence is not JAR compliant. It is simply an FAA licence.

Feel free to copy that part of the JARs that says an FAA (or any other ICAO licence) complies with the requirements of JAR-FCL without further requirements.

The fact that FAA medical standards are different from JAA ones alone means that one can hold an FAA licence but be unable to hold any JAA licence - not very JAA compliant then is it. :D

Regards,

DFC

[chopperpilot47]

If DFC had previously said what he said at the beginning of his message above we would not have had much to argue about. He now says, "I never said anything to contradict the above other than...........".

What he actually said on 23 January 2004 was ,"The holder of an FAA licence can fly a G registered aircraft within the UK by day VFR. They can not fly by night". This inaccurate assertion was the problem and was not something I could let pass without comment.

I suppose the good thing is that DFC now seems to accept that ICAO licence holders can fly at night and outside the UK in G registered aircraft. That has been my position and the position of the CAA all along.

Hopefully we can put this behind us now and concentrate on what is important and that is to provide the best training we can whilst providing the best value for money.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[DFC]

And ther was I thinking that the argument was about someone advertising a "JAA Compliant Licence" when the licence issued is not JAR Compliant? :rolleyes:

IMHO if the UK CAA can't put "JAA Compliant" on my old licence which has been round for the past 20 years and renewed several times in accordance with JAR-FCL (or claim that it is such), the FAA sure can't put it on any of their licences and no organisation can claim that an FAA licence is JAR compliant.

Are we debating questionable advertising or are we debating the uses of ICAO licences?

Regards,

DFC

[vinil]

DFC, enough time has been wasted on this topic. I am looking forward to flying later today and use my JAR Compliant PPL.

[DFC]

Best make the most of it while you can. :ok:

Regards,

DFC

[chopperpilot47]

Having looked back on this thread I should point out that the assertion made by DFC that an IR qualification is only valid for a year is incorrect. Have a look at "Flying N Reg aircraft in Europe" on the questions in Flight Deck Forums where DFC was corrected when he repeated the incorrect information there.

Makes a habit of it doesn't he? :D

[gciupka]

I'm interested in obtaining a Flight Instructor's License such that I can instruct for profit in the UK. I'm interested in doing the course as cheaply as possible. I have a British CPL. It seems that a JAR compliant licence may be the answer, BUT I'd like to check it out with the CAA before I pay out any monies. Can the owner of Dutch Country Helicopters please give me the name of his CAA contact so I can verfy this. Also does anyone know of any good schools in the US where I can get my License.

[DFC]

We are all awaiting for over a month to hear about what the CAA has to say. Even the moderator has been trying for over a month with no official willing to say that ICAO licenses are JAA compliant.

I'm not surprised. :P

Why have a JAA at all if every country in the world can put "JAA Compliant" on their licenses.

As pointed out at the start this is simply a clever marketing trick that 2 of the many US schools are trying.

Does somewhere like Naples use the same line? If not then why not? ;)

Regards,

DFC

For sale - A6 piece of paper with "JAA Compliant" stamp. Costs $50 but I'll give it to the first 20 for $10. :E

[chopperpilot47]

I have supplied the contact details for the CAA to the moderator and I have also supplied copies of the paperwork from the CAA to other reliable and authoritative people who are concerned with PPrune. I supplied that information when I said I supplied it. The fact that the moderator has failed to make a posting since is nothing to do with me. I 100% stand by what I have said and I can prove it. I have no interest in sending anything to DFC who would not recognise something if it hit him in the face and who would probably misinterpret the object that hit him in any event.

If anyone genuinely interested in the JAR compliant licence and the written proof would like to PM me I will help them. The information on my company website under the FAQ's is 100% correct and has been confirmed as so, in writing, by the CAA.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[DFC]

Does somewhere like Naples use the same line? If not then why not? ;)

I won't be recomending people spend money on a course where there is doubt about the outcome. Plenty of other US schools don't rely on this sales technique.

Buyers beware - if a licence is JAA compliant then it will have a statement to that effect printed on it. No statement - non compliance.

Compliance and acceptance are two different things.

Personal attack shows a lost argument. :)

Don't think we should give any more advertising to these schools.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

I suppose the good thing is that DFC now seems to accept that ICAO licence holders can fly at night and outside the UK in G registered aircraft. That has been my position and the position of the CAA all along.

Couple of comments on this, neither of which go to the "JAR-compliance" issue itself.

The UK renders valid any ICAO licence for use on private flights with certain conditions, one of which is that IFR in controlled airspace is not permitted. It is implicit that the licence holder must fly within the restrictions of the licence.

The FAA requires an IR for any flight under IFR, which would include any flight at night in the UK (except that conducted under special VFR in a CTR). Thus I don't see how a pilot with an FAA licence can fly at night in the UK without an IR attached, and even with an IR how they can fly at night in controlled airspace (with the exception already noted).

On the issue of flying overseas, ICAO states are required to allow flights in foreign registered aircraft if the flight crew have licences issued or rendered valid by the state of registry. That does mean that an FAA licence is sufficient for flight in a G-reg outside the UK, with the same restrictions as above, i.e. no IFR in controlled airspace, even if the licence includes an IR, which in most states would mean, in effect, no meaningful IFR at all.

[DFC]

Spot on bookworm.

If the CAA were to issue a validation of an FAA IR, it would permit the flight at night under IFR. However, being limited to 1 year means that after 1 year, flight at night outside controlled airspace in the UK would no longer be possible since the IR is no longer validated.

That is why I am not happy with certain US schools tring to disguite the fact that at the end of the day the person spending lots of money will get an FAA licence.

JAA qualifications can be placed on a JAA compliant licence. They can't be put on an FAA one.

Regards,

DFC

[chopperpilot47]

Here we go again. DFC has been repeating this 1 year validation nonsense for some time on other forums. Have a look at the Questions in the Flight Crew forum under the title "Flying N Registration aircraft in Europe". It has been pointed out there that FAA PPL's and FAA PPL/IR's are validated without formality and without time limitations. See ANO Article 21 4 (a). An FAA certificate holder may fly G registered aircraft because the CAA recognises the status of an ICAO PPL and it is "rendered valid" by them. The CAA is bound by the Chicago Convention to do this because of the reciprocal agreements contained within it. FAA ICAO licence holders do not need any CAA paperwork attesting to the validity of their licence as it is recognised by the CAA as an ICAO licence therefore there is no time limit placed upon it. You can read the full argument for yourself on the forum I have mentioned above.

The following is a quote from the paperwork I have from the CAA about the other matters mentioned, " The privileges of an FAA PPL (as an ICAO licence) may be exercised in UK registered aircraft for private purposes only but flying in controlled airspace under IFR is prohibited. The UK Air Navigation Order therefore does not prevent you exercising the privileges of an FAA licence, night or instrument rating, outside controlled airspace ( for the IR) The ANO does not place any territorial activity on exercising these privilages since your FAA licence is deemed to be valid in UK registered aircraft, so it does not constrain you to UK airspace. DGAC France has indicated that it is acceptable to fly in that State with an FAA licence on UK registered aircraft".

These are not my words, this came from the CAA. If you want to confirm this for yourself, as I did, write or e-mail the Safety Regulation Group, Personnel Licencing Department, Civil Aviation Authority, Aviation House, GE gatwick Airport South, West Sussex. RH6 OYR

There seems to be some confusion about IFR at night. Whilst I agree that flight at night is IFR it is not necessary to hold an instrument rating to fly IFR. If that were the case there would be no night ratings. See Articles 21 (4) and 21 (10) of the UK ANO 2000 as amended. It is clear that flight at night, in VMC, is permitted. See also Rule 22 of the Rules of Air Regulations 1996 for the requirement to fly IFR and Rule 29 (minimum height rule) and Rule 30 (quadrantal rule). Whilst it is true that the quadrantal rule does not apply under 3,000' amsl, Rule 29 does and the flying is still flying in accordance with the IFR. Holders of a non UK licence with night flying privileges are not precluded from controlled airspace such as Class D at night because the controlling ATC unit can issue a special VFR clearance instead of in accordance with the IFR as long as the weather conditions are suitable. This is in accordance with the exception mentioned in the regulations quoted above.

I have listed the references above so that you can check for yourself rather than relying upon what some people say is accurate information when clearly it is not.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[bookworm]

An FAA certificate holder may fly G registered aircraft because the CAA recognises the status of an ICAO PPL and it is "rendered valid" by them. The CAA is bound by the Chicago Convention to do this because of the reciprocal agreements contained within it.

FWIW, the CAA is not bound by the Chicago Convention to do any such thing. Annex 1 recommends that states validate each others' licences without formality for private flights. The UK CAA does this, though relatively few other states seem to. In particular, the US does not, requiring the paperwork of a validation obtained at an FSDO. But that's not really pertinent to the main thread -- the fact is that the UK does automatically validate PPLs with the restrictions noted.

On the subject of night flying, the problem is not in the ANO, but rather in FAR 61.3(e)


(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;


If you're using an FAA licence, you are bound by FAR Part 61, and therefore you need an IR to fly under IFR, even if the conditions are VMC.

I'll comment on the 1 year validation point elsewhere, or later, or both!

[DFC]

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to add a night rating to an FAA PPL.

The FAA PPL includes the privilege of being able to fly night VFR.

Thus under FAA rules, to fly IFR an IR is required.

Thus flying IFR outside controlled airspace in the UK on an FAA PPL is not possible unless the holder has an IR.

However, JAR-FCL clearly limits the validation period of an ICAO IR to 1 year.

No matter what the CAA say, they can not alter the FARs which limit what an FAA pilot can do.

Glad to see that we are talking simply FAA or JAA licenses.

If anyone is considering training or simply confused, the Pilot Mag in the UK has published the where to fly guide. In there Dave Calderwood covers what can and can't be done with an FAA PPL on return to the UK. Being published with his name attached, I bet he checked his facts.

Don't rely on what is posted here - have a read of the article and ask a UK flight instructor what they think before parting with cash.

Regards,

DFC

[Flying Lawyer]

DFCDon't rely on what is posted here - have a read of the article and ask a UK flight instructor what they think before parting with cash. Why should what's written by one journo in a magazine be any more reliable than what is posted on Pprune which has a host of genuine experts on every aspect of aviation and is arguably the best source of information on aviation matters?

'ask a UK flight instructor'
Would the average UK FI necessarily know the answer, or indeed need to know? For example -
"My money is on an FAA licence which is indeed OK for flying G reg aircraft in the UK and is indeed accepted in every ICAO country but provided that you are flying an N reg aircraft."
Good thing you didn't put real money on that, eh. ;)

I don't mean this unkindly so please don't take offence, and I can readily understand your reasons, but your contributions to the thread haven't come across (at least to me) as being entirely objective and neutral. For example -
"people will spend money and end up with far less ability to fly ..... then have to come to us for training causing expense for them and hassle for us (undoing much of the rubbish)!"
I'm a UK PPL, but I've flown with FI's here and in the US and have found good, bad and 'OK' on both sides of the Atlantic.
Not directly on topic but, in answer to your US 'rubbish' point: Years ago, I did my twin training in LA and took the CAA flight test with Cabair at Elstree, then the only school with a Cougar on which I'd trained. They kindly (and very strongly) advised me to do some training with them first, but I didn't because I'd used up my budget. I took the test cold with the then CFI, and passed without any criticism of the techniques I'd been taught in California.

Asking the CAA for a definitive answer obviously makes sense.
That's been done, but you say "No matter what the CAA say ......'
So does that bring us back to asking the journo who wrote the 'Pilot' article what he thinks? :confused:

By pure coincidence, I flew a few hours at Dutch Country Helicopters last September when I happened to be on holiday in the Washington/Philadelpia area. I was very happy with the school and the quality of instruction; the FI was a Brit with an FAA licence. All every bit as professional as any UK school with whom I've flown, and more professional than some in both the UK and US. The owner was in England at the time, so we didn't meet. I've learned who it is from posts here and in Rotorheads,

In light of his assertions, I asked chopperpilot47 if he'd give me copy correspondence with the CAA and he did so immediately. Having read it, I can't see anything he's posted which is other than correct.

The 'JAR compliant' description is somewhat of a red herring, and may be the cause of some confusion.

An FAA PPL is an ICAO PPL. An ICAO PPL holder can fly in the UK on that licence.
The same apparently applies in France; I haven't checked further afield.

Hope that's some help.

FL

(Edit)
chopperpilot47 sent me the correspondence some weeks ago. I was abroad when it arived, and have been too busy since returning to read it until now. The delay is my fault, not his.

[2Donkeys]

For the sake of completeness only...

The suggestion by DFC that the CAA is bound by JAR-FCL 1.015(b) only to validate an FAA PPL/IR for one year is also incorrect. Listed amongst the JAA-agreed Long Term Exceptions (LTEs) is number 22. This suspends the need for member states to adhere to 1.015(b), the clause from which DFC takes his inspiration on that point.

The CAA is acting entirely within the JAA agreement by "validating" FAA PPL/IRs without time or geographical restriction, so long as the pilot flies a G-registered aircraft, and so long as the underlying licence remains valid.

2D

[md 600 driver]

what about the medical side of this

if a uk national has a faappl/h faa medical class 3 in a n reg helicopter he cannot fly in uk airspace if he has failed a class 2 jar licence or uk old class 3 so

if you went to the states and got a faa ppl ,class 3 medical without first finding out if you could pass the jar medical it could mean you have a licence you cant use in the uk airspace this makes the licence not jar licence "compliant"

steve

uk caa grounded current faa ppl/h class 3 licence holder also opperator of n reg helicopter

[2Donkeys]

Elsewhere it has been suggested that the FAA Class 3 is only non-compliant by virtue of the number of years validity it has. Renewing the class 3 inside the period of JAA Validity would fix the problem, so it is said.

Failing that, an FAA Class 2 is not unduly onerous.

[DFC]

2D,

Until the lte is renewed, no one can say what the future holds.

Would you recomend your friends purchase a TV set that has no guarantee and may last for 3 months, 1 year or 2 years? I wouldn't.

--

Flying Lawyer,

This thred is about the policy of some US schools to call FAA licenses JAA compliant.

Thank you for your statement saying that such a description is misleading and designed to distract people from the true meaning.

Surely, having made such a clear statement regarding the matter from such a distinguished position, the debate is closed.

:ok:

regards,

DFC

[Heliport]

Hang on DFC

FL didn't say the description 'JAA compliant' licence is "misleading", nor did he say it's "designed to distract people from the true meaning." In light of his assertions, I asked chopperpilot47 if he'd give me copy correspondence with the CAA and he did so immediately.
Having read it, I can't see anything he's posted which is other than correct.
The 'JAR compliant' description is somewhat of a red herring, and may be the cause of some confusion.
An FAA PPL is an ICAO PPL. An ICAO PPL holder can fly in the UK on that licence.
The same apparently applies in France; I haven't checked further afield.
If that's correct, the position seems to be that an FAA PPL holder in the UK has at least all the same privileges as a JAA PPL licence holder.

Maybe it would be more precise to say that someone who holds a current FAA PPL complies with JAA requirements and can fly in UK airspace without restriction such as G-reg a/c only.

(I appreciate the issue of whether he has more privileges than a JAA licence holder is a matter of dispute, but he seems to have at least the same.)

[DFC]

Heliport,

Your quote includes the statement from Flying Lawyer that the 'JAR compliant' description is somewhat misleading and designed to draw attention away from the true meaning. In the same sentence he goes on to say that the jar compliant description may be the cause of some confusion.

I agree totally that an FAA PPL can fly a G registered aircraft. That does not make the FAA licence JAR compliant. If you hold a pre JAA UK PPL, you will know that is not JAR compliant either but you can also fly a G registered aircraft.

The thred was about the use of JAR compliant licence in advertising material and not about the privileges of the FAA licence.

I'll rest with FL's description of the use of 'JAR compliant' with regard to FAA licenses because being a lawyer I bet he chose his words very carefully. :)

Regards,

DFC

[Maximum]

DFC, with all due respect, Flying Lawyer used the term "red herring" which I take in this context to have a different meaning to "misleading".

In other words, we shouldn't get too hung up on the whole JAR compliant issue. Seems to me the only criticism that could be levelled against chopperpilot47 in this instance would be superior marketing skills to those of most of his competitors!

My original post was more concerned with the practicality or otherwise of obtaining an FAA licence to fly in the UK.

My contention is that if I were a neophyte aviator about to embark on a PPL I can see many advantages in the FAA system - its good value, its transparency, its practicality, and not forgeting that nice little laminated piece of brown card you get at the end of it all. Simplicity itself compared to the bureacratic meanderings of the JAA.

On the fixed wing side of things, the FAA IR compared to the JAA IR is even better reason for the private pilot in the UK to go down the FAA route.

Never mind the terminology, the practicality and value appears to speak for itself.

[DFC]

Maximum,

You requested comments and if possible a definitive answer regarding the matter.

Flying Lawyer has provided a definitive answer by saying clearly that the 'JAR compliant' description is somewhat misleading and designed to draw attention away from the true meaning. He goes on to say that the jar compliant description may be the cause of some confusion.

Based on FL's experience and knowledge, I'd describe that as definitive. :D

Now did you start the thred to debate the topic or to advertise the matter? ;)

Regards,

DFC

[Maximum]

DFC, no advertising intended! :O

Leaving aside our somewhat different interpretations of Flying Lawyer's use of the term "red herring", I agree my original question has been answered.

So, broadening the discussion, surely the FAA system offers the PPL flyer in the UK many advantages over the JAA?

I ask this as someone who craves simplicity and hates unnecessary bureaucracy, and I feel the JAA has moved us in the wrong direction in this respect. If I have an angle in this, then there it is.

Any arguments for/against? As I see it, the FAA licence for the PPL and IR in the UK wins hands down over the JAA.





:confused: :}

[DFC]

I don't think that there is any eal difference in the levels of bureaucracy between the FARs or ther JARs.

There is a difference in the method of application and it is quite ironic that while the UK has put much of the increased oversight and costs into JAR flying, it is UK pilots who feel hard done by.

Until recently, it was possible to keep an instructor rating valid forever based on experience and an inexpensive seminar every 3 years. Not content with that, the UK pused for and acheived the situation where we have to complete renewal tests every 6 years at a minimum. The UK may have had that system pre-JAR but much of the rest of Europe didn't.

What drives most UK pilots to the USA is cost and it does not surprise me with having to pay extortionate rates for aircraft hire. The economics are clear to see.

Why does the rest of Europe not have the same mad dash to train 3000 miles away? and why are most if not all the US based training establishements who provide JAA training both approved by the UK authorities and aimed directly at the UK market?

Could it be that the UK is the only real market for such establishements? If that is so then why is it so?

I did my JAA IR more cheaply than I could have completed the FAA one. I didn't do it in the UK though!!

Regards,

DFC