"Dear Backpacker" letter from the CAA [Archive]

BackPacker

31st Jul 2010, 14:33

I got a letter from the CAA that my license is up for renewal this november.

The letter start with:

Your JAR PPL(A) license will expire on [date]. At this stage you have the option if you have not already done so, to convert to a JAR license [...]

(my bold)

This is then followed by a paragraph about the requirements to convert to a JAR license and the consequences of such a conversion. Plus an overview of conversion costs. Plus all the forms required to do a UK national to JAR-FCL license.

To the best of my knowledge, I was already issued a JAR-FCL PPL at my initial application, almost five years ago. It also says so in the poo brown booklet.

Is the CAA simply mistaken and have they used the wrong cover letter template in their mail merge, or is there something I should know about?

And a related question: I haven't sorted my LPE yet. Does it make sense (ie. does it save money) if I do my license renewal simultaneously with the sending of the LPE forms?

englishal

31st Jul 2010, 15:11

Yes I had the same thing earlier this year which confused the heck out of me. Just ignore it and send them the £70 odd fee (or is it £130? I forget).

bambuko

31st Jul 2010, 20:41

Well, I am glad I am not the only one ...
I got mine few days ago and for a minute they had me worried as well :ugh:

Gertrude the Wombat

31st Jul 2010, 21:05

When are they going to catch up with those of us who have real licences ... I seem to remember rumours that they would do one day?

BillieBob

31st Jul 2010, 21:45

When are they going to catch up with those of us who have real licencesIf by that you mean UK national licences, in April 2012 when, with the adoption of the EASA Implementing Rules, only licences issued in accordance with EASA requirements will be valid. Licences issued in accordance with JAR-FCL are deemed to be issued in accordance with EASA, national licences are not.

You have a simple choice - convert to a JAA licence before EASA implementation, in which case the transition is seamless, or don't, in which case your national licence becomes invalid and, as things stand, you will have to pass the relevant licensing exams and skill tests to obtain an EASA licence

robin

31st Jul 2010, 21:59

You have a simple choice - convert to a JAA licence before EASA implementation, in which case the transition is seamless, or don't, in which case your national licence becomes invalid

... and pay a fee and 5 year renewal.

I have a lifetime PPL issued by the CAA. As I read it, they can terminate this at any time, but should they?

It should be grandfathered across but of course that would be too simple for our CAA. They want UK PPL holders to demonstrate radnav skills or else we get an NPPL

FlyingStone

31st Jul 2010, 23:09

They want UK PPL holders to demonstrate radnav skills or else we get an NPPL

I've always wondered why people involved in aviation are so tired of demonstrating minimum skill every year or two? What do you have to loose by booking a flight with examiner and demonstrate basic radio-nav skills? I'm pretty sure you can renew SEP rating in the same flight and since you don't have to convert your license for two more years, I'm positive your current SEP will lapse by then and therefore you would have to renew it anyway. And I really can't see how any flight with an examiner would have anything but positive effect on the examinee's part?

In my opinion, national licences should be withdrawn (when EASA Part-FCL comes into effect), since they only add to the confusion. Isn't it more simple to have one standards, one sets of rules and one licence (say JAA/EASA) so that everyone flying in the airspace we all fly in is subjected (in theory of course) to the same minimum flight safety standards? Or are you so emotionaly attached to your old licence and unable to accept any kind of development?

Mike Cross

1st Aug 2010, 04:04

Isn't it more simple to have one standards, one sets of rules and one licence (say JAA/EASA) so that everyone flying in the airspace we all fly in is subjected (in theory of course) to the same minimum flight safety standards?

An excellent suggestion, but why stop at EASA? Perhaps we should invent a United Nations body established by international treaty to draw up Standards and Recommended Practices. We could give it a snappy title, say the "International Civil Aviation Organisation." Then States could issue licences that comply with the standards.

Presumably your grand idea for world domination would involve banning non-EASA licence holders from EASA airspace and similarly banning EASA licence holders from non-EASA airspace as well as an end to mutual licence recognition on order to facilitate your laudable objective of ensuring "that everyone flying in the airspace we all fly in is subjected (in theory of course) to the same minimum flight safety standards?"

411A

1st Aug 2010, 06:34

Move to the USA and obtain an FAA license.
It never expires and it has no 'renewal fees'.

How do you keep it current, for actual flying?
I hour with a flight instructor, every two years.

Simple.

BillieBob

1st Aug 2010, 08:32

It should be grandfathered across but of course that would be too simple for our CAA.The UK CAA has no say in the matter; the decision has been taken elsewhere in Europe, predominantly by bureaucrats and lawyers, and will be imposed by EU law. Like so much of the cr@p that comes out of Europe, there is no safety case to support it, no logical justification for its introduction and no right of appeal against it. Welcome to the brave new world.

Fuji Abound

1st Aug 2010, 09:33

I have a lifetime PPL issued by the CAA. As I read it, they can terminate this at any time, but should they?

So do I.

There has been enough comment that they can and will be terminated with EASA. There has been an equal amount of comment that they wouldnt dare lest the legal actions, if not only from PPLs but from commercial pilots.

It will be a very hot chestnut. There are some powerful unions involved who would take on the Regulator and they have money to spend on behalf of their members.

Gertrude the Wombat

1st Aug 2010, 09:48

You have a simple choice - convert to a JAA licence before EASA implementation, in which case the transition is seamless, or don't, in which case your national licence becomes invalid and, as things stand, you will have to pass the relevant licensing exams and skill tests to obtain an EASA licence
First I've heard of this. Were the CAA thinking of writing and telling me about this any time soon?
They want UK PPL holders to demonstrate radnav skills or else we get an NPPL
I assume one can "demonstrate radnav skills" by getting an IMCr? (I'm having to guess and assume here because the CAA haven't told me anything.)

x933

1st Aug 2010, 10:27

I've had a similar experience - Thursday this week I was most suprised to find an A4 envelope from the CAA on my doorstep. After the initial "what have I done" thought it seems that they are under the impression that I have a CAA license, when infact 5yrs ago I was issued with a JAA license. No worries, I knew it was up for renewal. I'll just send it off for renewal less the cost of an envelope and postage seen as what they told me was incorrect :E

Whopity

1st Aug 2010, 12:08

Were the CAA thinking of writing and telling me about this any time soon?No, it appears to be current policy not to inform anyone. Its European Regulation, and its up to you to find out and comply. There are some powerful unions involved who would take on the Regulator and they have money to spend on behalf of their members. Then why aren't they lobbying their Euro MPs and the UK government to try and stop this process before its approved?

tinpilot

1st Aug 2010, 12:52

Gertrude,
The transition process hasn't been published yet, so BillieBob and Robin are summarising bits of LASORS, section A10:
Note: Legislation currently under development within the European Union will require all UK national licences to be converted to the European Part FCL equivalent by a date that has yet to be decided but is likely to be within the next four years. Licences issued under JAR-FCL will be deemed to be European licences and no conversion will be necessary. However, UK national licence holders may have to meet additional requirements to convert to the European licence. It is therefore in a pilot's best interest to
consider conversion of a UK national licence which has a JAR-FCL equivalent to the JAR-FCL equivalent prior to the introduction of new requirements under EU Regulation."As the CAA > JAR licence is an established current process, your local friendly CFI should be able to explain what is required for him to sign your logbook.

FlyingStone,
You are confusing licence with rating. I, and many others, have a licence valid for life so long as my ratings are current. I think the two year rating renewal process is a little childish, but I go along with it. There has been no measurable improvement in accident rates since it was introduced but, as you imply, it's not a bad idea to fly with an instructor every now and then.

The requirement to renew a licence every 5 years has no safety benefit whatsoever. It is purely a paperwork exercise, designed to keep paper-shufflers in employment and to keep the money rolling in to pay them. This sort of naked self aggrandisement is why people hold eurocrats and politicians in such contempt.

Gertrude the Wombat

1st Aug 2010, 13:14

It is therefore in a pilot's best interest to consider conversion of a UK national licence which has a JAR-FCL equivalent to the JAR-FCL equivalent prior to the introduction of new requirements under EU Regulation
Well no, actually.

It might be "in a pilot's best interest", but it might not.

You gain possible maybe ease of transition to new European licence at an unknown date, but you immediately lose

(a) the ability to fly in worse weather under a CAA PPL than a JAR PPL (not that I'd use it, but it's there)

(b) the cost and hassle of renewing licences every five years.

I simply don't have enough information at this point to be able to work out whether or not it's in my best interest to convert.

For example if the conversion process ends up being a zero cost paperwork exercise performed automatically by the CAA why would I want to do anything now?

may have to meet additional requirements
Or may not. Or if the additional requirements are simply demonstrating radio navigation ability the IMCr should count. Or who knows what else.

Sounds to me like FUD trying to con people into the pay-every-five-years regime.

mad_jock

1st Aug 2010, 13:22

Aye your right Gertrude there are quite a few fud's involved with this whole buisness

BillieBob

1st Aug 2010, 16:53

The transition process hasn't been published yet, so BillieBob and Robin are summarising bits of LASORSNo, we are not - we are quoting European Law. The requirement to hold an EASA licence and the status of national licences is established in the 'Cover Regulation' to EASA Part FCL.

Article 1
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;
2. the certification of personnel responsible for providing flight training or flight simulation training and for assessing a pilot’s skill.

Article 3
Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL.

Article 4
1. Any pilot licence, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with the JAA requirements and procedures before the entry into force of this Regulation, shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation.
2. By 8 April 2012, holders of national pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1, shall have had their national licences converted into pilot licences, ratings or certificates specified in this Regulation by the competent authority of the Member State that issued the national licence.

The (largely pointless) Comment and Response process on Annex I to the Regulation (Part FCL) has now finished and EASA are currently formulating their 'Opinion' to be submitted to the European Commission later this year. It is now too late to propose any changes.

Any UK national (or other ICAO) licences that have not been converted by 8 April 2012 will not be valid for use in EASA aircraft (i.e. those with an EASA C of A). The UK CAA do not see it as their responsibility to keep the industry informed as they did prior to the implementation of JAR-FCL. As Whopity has said, it seems to be that, in their opinion, it is up to individual pilots to make themselves aware of the changing law and how it affects them, the CAA's job is simply to enforce it.

Mike Cross

1st Aug 2010, 20:38

Mmmmm.........

The requirement to hold an EASA licence and the status of national licences is established in the 'Basic Regulation' (Regulation (EC) 218/2008), which is already in force.

Seems funny to me that it should be enshrined in

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 218/2008
of 11 March 2008
amending the representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1109/2007 for the 2007/08 marketing year

Still I'm sure you're right.
source (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:068:0003:0004:EN:PDF)

:E

BillieBob

1st Aug 2010, 20:47

Ooops, slip of the finger - try 216/2008 of 20 February 2008. Previous post amended.

robin

1st Aug 2010, 22:40

I'm not moving to a new licence until I have to.

I intend to write to my MP on this to escalate this to the new government - not that it will do any good. But we all need to do this as soon as possible

Gertrude the Wombat

1st Aug 2010, 22:58

I intend to write to my MP on this
I'm not going to write to mine, because I know how much work that makes and how many other things he's dealing with. But I might mention it next time I see him, perhaps along with offering him another ride whilst I still can :)

flybymike

1st Aug 2010, 23:01

Never mind PPLs , there is just as much concern among BCPLs (who also stand to lose their livings if their licences are not recognised.)

Whopity

2nd Aug 2010, 06:46

there is just as much concern among BCPLs (who also stand to lose their livings if their licences are not recognised.) Not at all. A BCPL(R) was issued on the basis of a UK PPL. It currently translates to a JAA/EASA PPL and under EASA rules, a PPL holder will be able to give instruction and conduct tests and be remunerated, so nothing lost or gained apart from the Blue licence cover. Such people are in exactly the same position as Helicopter instructors operating on a PPL.

For those few people who still have a BCPL without restriction, they have had 10 years plus to upgrade it to a JAA CPL. There is still a JAA CPL Restricted (LASORS D2) (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1591) which requires 700 hours to remove the restriuction. Anyone holding a BCPL should have acquired sufficient experience by now to apply for this licence and have the restriction removed straight away. Failing that, they can also revert back to a PPL and still conduct remunerated instruction.

BEagle

2nd Aug 2010, 08:12

Not at all. A BCPL(R) was issued on the basis of a UK PPL. It currently translates to a JAA/EASA PPL and under EASA rules, a PPL holder will be able to give instruction and conduct tests and be remunerated, so nothing lost or gained apart from the Blue licence cover.

Except that R/BCPL/FIs will not have passed the CPL examinations, so their livelihood is under threat from this €urocrap.

No-one actually know what the Kölunatics are actually proposing for 'licence replacement' for those holding national licences. But my cynical view is that these CAA letters are trying to persuade people to change to JAR-FCL licences in the hope that the scale of the problem might then go away....

It won't. The CAA needs to be proactive :rolleyes: and to come up with something more positive. Personally I consider that the current national licence should be replaced with the nearest EASA equivalent free of charge - as it's a non-safety related regulatory requirement. R/BCPL/FIs should be given EASA CPLs bearing national restrictions identical to current R/BCPL/FI licence privileges. Same with the IMCR - just issue an EASA IR restricted to IMCR privileges and valid only in UK airspace. Not hard, is it? But it might require a change to the Basic Regulation, so that's why the CAA should be proactive - and securing political backing.

IO540

2nd Aug 2010, 09:44

I don't think it is possible to sue in these cases, due to Crown Immunity.

What would be unprecended would be a removal of pilot privileges. AFAIK this has never been done before, on any scale, in any civilised country. Yet this is what EASA is proposing. I wonder whether they are unaware of the ***t that will hit the fan? There will be a lot of it because the vast majority of pilots, particularly working pilots, are totally unaware of EASA's proposals.

My take on this whole thing is based wholly on Yes Minister principles (EASA is nothing to do with aviation and everything to do with job creation, job protection, and politics of envy) and suggests that EASA is adopting a hard line because they have to (not many people down there on less than 100k p.a.) and they will run with it till the last moment (they have to because they have left themselves no ladder to climb down with dignity) and then a deal will be done (and a suitable person/party will be blamed).

jez d

2nd Aug 2010, 12:00

under EASA rules, a PPL holder will be able to give instruction and conduct tests and be remunerated, so nothing lost or gained apart from the Blue licence cover.

Sorry Whopity, but EASA have had a change of heart and reneged on their promise to do away with the CPL requirement for PPL instructors wishing to be paid for their instruction (see the last edition of FTN). This will, therefore, now affect BCPL 'instruction only' holders, who will need to gain a CPL in order to continue to be paid for their work.

As to the CAA passing the buck onto EASA re the conversion process for national licences to pan-European ones, what about pilots flying Annex II aircraft?

Given Annex II aircraft (microlights and aircraft whose manufacturers are no more) are not currently included in EASA's oversight list, the CAA will remain responsible for regulating them and their pilots.

So would the CAA care to tell us what they are planning to do?

Will these pilots be allowed to continue to fly under a UK licence, or will the CAA jump on the standardization bandwagon and declare that pilots flying non-EASA aircraft will have to have EASA licences?

And how will this affect instructors? Will they need to have two separate instructor licences in order to teach on both EASA and Annex II aircraft?

A little more clarity from our buck-passing regulator is in order, methinks.

Regards, jez

peter272

2nd Aug 2010, 12:07

.. at the moment, the EASA plan is really daft.

It would appear that if you fly an AnnexeII or Permit aircraft, then those hours will not count towards currency on the EASA LAPL. As it stands, the CAA will have to decide how this will work, as they will be responsible for the regulation of national rules.

I'd love to know how much has been spent by EASA on lawyers on this fiasco.

Whopity

2nd Aug 2010, 12:16

Sorry Whopity, but EASA have had a change of heart and reneged on their promise to do away with the CPL requirement for PPL instructors wishing to be paid for their instructionLets not confuse these 2 issues. To obtain a FI rating under EASA then it will be necessary to have CPL level knowledge however a BCPL holder already has a FI rating. Provided it is on a recogniseable licence (JAA) then they can continue to use it. The EU cannot take away existing privileges.

EASA propose allowing PPL holders to be remunerated; it is not subject to having demonstrated CPL level knowledge. If the BCPL holder obtains a JAA PPL with their existing FI rating before EASA is implemented then they will be able to instruct remunerated under EASA. One good reason for doing it early. They also need to hang onto their BCPL(R) to continue instructing remunerated under National rules, until EASA is implemented.

jez d

2nd Aug 2010, 12:44

Whopity, I'm confused.

According to EASA's recent Comments Response Document for FCL, the following is required:

(b) additionally, for the FI(A):

(1) hold at least a CPL(A);or

(2) hold at least a PPL(A) and have:

(i) met the requirements for CPL theoretical knowledge; and

(ii) completed at least 200 hours of flight time in aeroplanes or TMG, of which 150 hours as pilot-in-command;

Going by the above, an FI (note: not LAFI) will have to acquire a CPL before being allowed to instruct, or at least have passed the CPL theoretical knowledge exams.

As I understand it, EASA have binned their original plan to do away with the CPL requirement for PPL instructors, due to objection from NAAs who want to toe the ICAO line.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then this means BCPL holders will need to pass the CPL TK in order to continue to be paid for their work.

jez d

2nd Aug 2010, 12:57

I'd love to know how much has been spent by EASA on lawyers on this fiasco

I think that's one of the key problems with EASA.

Given their primary remit appears to be to turn JAA regulations into law, the amount of lawyers at Cologne outnumber the aviation experts.

The old tail wagging the dog scenario is alive and well, it would appear.

BEagle

2nd Aug 2010, 16:06

The EU cannot take away existing privileges.

Really, Whopity? Then how does that affect their proposals for IMCR holders?

hoodie

2nd Aug 2010, 19:15

And, given that I am often told that my "lifetime" CAA licence is not a right, it must consequently be a privilege. (For if not, what?).

Since it seems that will be removed from me in 2012, privileges are not that sacrosanct after all. :mad:

robin

2nd Aug 2010, 20:11

True

But privileges can only be removed for a good reason, and to wipe out such a privilege en masse is not good politics.

It could certainly be challenged and it would take a very brave or stupid government to do it.

Ah, we're talking EU here, aren't we. B*gg*er. :ugh:

BillieBob

2nd Aug 2010, 20:22

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then this means BCPL holders will need to pass the CPL TK in order to continue to be paid for their work.Correct. Welcome to the brave new world.

IO540

2nd Aug 2010, 20:22

Bring back Lord Denning...

Whopity

2nd Aug 2010, 21:52

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then this means BCPL holders will need to pass the CPL TK in order to continue to be paid for their work.I have seen two letters sent by the CAA to BCPL(R) holders advising them to change to a JAA PPL so that they can continue to instruct under EASA. So that is the current advice from Gatwick. What they had forgotten, was that if the BCPL(R) holder did convert and let the BCPL expire, they could no longer be remunerated as a PPL holder under the ANO.
There are far more helicopter instructors operating on a PPL without CPL knowledge than there are BCPL(R) holders.