Transfer to JAR Licence - loss of IMC Rating

[fireflybob]

The IMC Rating only attaches to a UK National licence. If you transfer to a JAR Licence you therefore lose the IMC Rating. This means you cannot instruct instrument flying (other that IF appreciation for the PPL) any more.

Is this correct? Thanks for any help

A follow up query:-

As the holder of a type specific Instrument Rating, what is required to renew a single crew instrument rating?

[S-Works]

The IMC rating is attached to a JAA licence as a national rating. You do not lose the IMC. To teach for the IMC you must either have the Instrument restriction removed from an FI or hold an IRI.

To renew a single pilot IR you do an LPC if less than 5 years or an LST if greater than 5 years. If you are flying a MPA type rated aircraft then there some allowances made when revalidating a single pilot IR.

[Whopity]

By definition LPC = rating current LST = rating expired! The 5 years is a strange UK rule that if an IR has expired by more than 5 years you have to do an initial test again. That assumes you do not hold any valid IR, if you do then that does not apply. The JAA also have a 7 year rule relating to having to retake exams exams but again not relevant if you hold another valid IR.

To renew an IR you complete an Instrument Rating Renewal test which can be part of an LST, LPC or stand-alone.

Once current you can maintain the single pilot IR on the basis of experience if you hold a valid MP IR as well.

[DB6]

What you do lose by transferring to a JAR licence is the IMC rating contained in the UK commercial licence i.e. you will have do 25 monthly renewal flights. Which is why I recently renewed my UK CPL, although I have a JAR ATPL for work. I note the cynical bastards have reduced the validity from 10 years to 5 though; how very irritating.

[fireflybob]

Thanks for all the replies!

There seems to be so much bureaucratic nonsense these days and it all costs money! I dread to think what will happen when this EASA thingie gets going. It all seemed to be so simple when we just had UK licences!

[DB6]

It crosses my mind that the bods in the CAA complicit in all this crap were probably once pilots. But I can't see how :ugh:.

[fireflybob]

DB6, I may be wrong but I believe many of those who dreamt this stuff up were RAF Navigators who are more used to dealing with the paperwork!

I couldnt imagine any pilot worth his salt that would construct such obscure and complicated legislation.

(Pith helmet suitably donned)

[Whopity]

None of this comes from the CAA; it comes from JAA committees. The CAA have preserved the UK licence and its privileges for the last 9 years when they could have just gone totally JAA. They even let you have both licences, most other JAA States do not! In three years time you will loose the UK licence so why knock those who have retained it for you for so long?

[fireflybob]

Whopity - thanks for the correction!

[DB6]

While I admit to being unaware of the finer points of the process, I am talking about the failure to tell the JAA to sod off when it comes to GA in the UK. It is my understanding that the whole point of JAR was to align commercial licensing across Europe, basically for the airlines. It should never have had anything to do with GA within individual states and it should not do now. I am sure the argument will be along the lines of 'it's gone too far now, we can't back out'. BULL****! There is nothing good about the JAA for GA, NOTHING. And EASA will be worse; even the European Commission agrees on that point. The CAA should be sorting out a way out of this European crap, not acquiescing. Nothing else will do in the end.

[Whopity]

And guess who dragged GA (The PPL) into JAR! It was AOPA, Ron Campbell came up with the idea that the PPL was the first module in a modular ATPL! And under the arrangements at the time (The AOPA agreement), they thought they would control the registration process and get more members! How else do you think the AOPA PPL syllabus finished up embedded into JAR-FCL.
When HPLD tore up the AOPA agreement circa 1995, there was little chance of that happening so they went away and came up with a new idea to rejuvenate the industry, the NPPL!

[DFC]

It is my understanding that the whole point of JAR was to align commercial licensing across Europe, basically for the airlines


Not quite.

One of the most important and non-debateable aspects of the EU is the right of every citizen to freedom of movement. Nothing can restrict an individual's right to freedom of movement.

The requirement to change pilot licence every time one moves country must be something that as a minimum would discourage freedom of movement.

JAR-FCL was a start to what the EU required to be done in order to protect the right to freedom of movement or persons involved in aviation.

Since the JAA no longer exists, EASA now has the task of finishing the job.

Roll on 2017 when there will be no longer any questions of national differences or national licenses!

Regards,

DFC

[Whopity]

One of the most important and non-debateable aspects of the EU is the right of every citizen to freedom of movement. Nothing can restrict an individual's right to freedom of movement.
Quite right and thats why ICAO caters for the recognition of other licences for PPL privileges; it appears the UK is the only State that honors that in full. The PPL has nothing to do with labour as it is non remunerated.

[DB6]

DFC, you must be a Eurocrat as that's the sort of **** they spout when they need to justify the rubbish they come up with.
How many times does the average PPL need to 'move country'? Never.
How many PPLs are being screwed out of hundreds of pounds by needless European bull****? ALL of them.
Well before 2017 we should have told EASA where to go if the CAA has any sense of what's good for UK general aviation.

[DFC]

How many times does the average PPL need to 'move country'? Never.



People move country quite a lot. If a person in Spain works for a major bank that purchases a UK bank and their job moves to the UK, do you not think that having to jump through various hoops before being able to continue their hobby (PPL) would be a problem?

If a UK person retires to the Costa, it is not a good thing that they can continue their hobby (PPL) at the local aerodrome during their retirement without having to spend lots of money on getting a new PPL?

Many people are born in a small village, work in that village, get married in that village and die in that village. Should those people be refunded the tax that they paid towards public transport?

-----

Whopity,

A bit of Apples and Oranges there!

The UK does comply with the Annex 1 just like many other countries. However, as for example every FAA licence holder knows they can not fully exercise their IR or instructor qualifications on G registered aircraft.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Whilst €urocracy has a lot to be blamed for, you can blame the CAA fairly and squarely for:

Reducing the validity period for UK comercial licences from 10 to 5 years without any reason or a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
Deciding that the BCPL needed a JAA Class 1 medical instead of a CAA Class 2 medical without any consultation whatsoever - or a RIA.
Deciding that holders of IMC ratings included in JAR-FCL licences for multi-pilot aeroplanes (which include MPA IRs) now require revlidation flight tests. Again, without any consultation or RIA.
Cocking up the SEP Class Rating Revalidation signature requirment.


Probably quite a few others as well.

But the latest glimmer of hope from on high is that EASA are beginning to accept that they have set themselves an impossible goal with their self-inflicted workload. And that a pragmatic way of easing this problem would be to leave regulation of sub-ICAO flight crew licensing matters to national aviation authorities.