Logging time in homebuild

[Poeli]

Hi guys,

I was wondering, if I log time in a homebuild airplane (1320 pounds) registered in Europe, do all those hours count for the CPL I'd maybe take? Or does the homebuild airplanes fall under microlight or ultralight? I'm speaking for planes registered in the EU, not the USA...
I'd love to know,
Thanks

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes, it's over 472.5kg MTOW, so cannot fall into the microlight category - so it cannot be counted as anything other than an aeroplane.

The hours will count for your CPL.

G

[S-Works]

Until next year of course.......

[Poeli]

so the rules are going to chance or what?:)

[blueandwhite]

so the rules are going to chance or what?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Just a bit:*

[Poeli]

Sorry I'm not familiar with homebuild airplanes...
Thanks for the input anyway!

[Justiciar]

Just a bit

What am I missing here? Exactly what is going to change as regards hours building on permit aircraft?

[Pace]

What am I missing here? Exactly what is going to change as regards hours building on permit aircraft?

You will have to wear frilly pink knickers if you want to record hours towards a CPL in a permit aircraft :E

pace

[Justiciar]

You will have to wear frilly pink knickers if you want to record hours towards a CPL in a permit aircraft

Phew!! For a moment there I thought I was going to have to change my lifestyle.

[S-Works]

When EASA take over you will not be able to count flight time in non CofA aircraft towards the issue or revalidation of an EASA licence.

This includes permit and Annex II aircraft. So you will have a ludicrous situation where someone flying a chipmunk at the moment can use those hours towards issue or revalidation of a JAA licence. Next year those hours wont count. You won't be able to fly a non CofA aircraft on an EASA licence or a CofA aircraft on a national licence!!!

The UK are proposing to amend the ANO to allow EASA licence holders to fly non EASA aircraft, not sure what other states are doing. The current proposal is for states to issue national licences again to cover non EASA aircraft.

[Unusual Attitude]

Huh? So I wont be able to fly my LAA Permitted Cassutt on my JAR CPL? Or even if I did my hours on that wouldnt count for keeping my Grp A SEP vaild ?!?!?!

What are those idiots doing.....??? Just as well my CAA Issued PPL has a lifetime validity, so I'd fly my Cassutt on my old PPL and if I then fly my CofA Tri Pacer that would be on my JAR / EASA CPL with hours in each type not being interchangeable for revalidation purposes ?

[BillieBob]

Until next year of course.......
.....and what, specifically, will prevent hours flown in an aeroplane that is not a microlight being counted towards the experience requirements for the isue of an EASA CPL(A)?

[S-Works]

Flight in non EASA aircraft not counting towards the issue or revalidation of an EASA licence? Seemed pretty specific to me?

I standby to be educated otherwise.....

[robin]

...courtesy of Andy Appleby for the Devon Strut Newsletter

So, when the lunacy of Brave New Euroland finally arrives:

a. You can fly a Cub but not a Cherokee on a NPPL.
b. You might be able to fly a Cub on a LAPL, you would be able to fly a Cherokee, but not a Spitfire.
c. You can fly a Cub or a Spitfire on a UK PPL, but not a Cherokee.
d. You might be able to fly a Cub or Spitfire on an EASA PPL, but you would be able to fly a Cherokee.
e. The NPPL and LAPL have different revalidation / renewal requirements and the LAPL might also have reissue
requirements. None of which are the same as for the UK PPL or EASA PPL.
f. The UK PPL doesn't need to be reissued whereas the EASA PPL does.

But then it would be OK if you have a Jodel instead of a Cherokee, Spitfire or Cub.
What do you mean "Which Jodel ?...................”

[S-Works]

Huh? So I wont be able to fly my LAA Permitted Cassutt on my JAR CPL? Or even if I did my hours on that wouldnt count for keeping my Grp A SEP vaild ?!?!?!

What are those idiots doing.....??? Just as well my CAA Issued PPL has a lifetime validity, so I'd fly my Cassutt on my old PPL and if I then fly my CofA Tri Pacer that would be on my JAR / EASA CPL with hours in each type not being interchangeable for revalidation purposes ?

Pretty much. The UK CAA plan to start issuing national licences again for this reason. They do intend to amend the ANO to allow you to fly a UK national aircraft on an EASA licence but the hours will not count towards the revalidation of the EASA licence.

[robin]

Quite

The CAA in their letter make it clear that they can't decide what EASA will permit, but they can allow hours on EASA type aircraft to count against the UK licence.

So the UK-PPL/NPPL can be used for Permit aircraft - perhaps, and they could allow EASA PPL holders to use them as well.

But they are powerless to allow the experience in reverse.

There is no sign of anyone with a spine taking EASA on though. It will lead to the stupidity of someone flying, say, a Jodel 150 on CofA having the hours counting, but it was of those on Permit not.

Our boys in the Belgrano only point out the paradoxes and, as far as I can see, they have only asked for a transitional period (and more staff). When asked to jump they only ask 'how high'.

The French won't take that line and neither should we

[gpn01]

...courtesy of Andy Appleby for the Devon Strut Newsletter

So, when the lunacy of Brave New Euroland finally arrives:

a. You can fly a Cub but not a Cherokee on a NPPL.
b. You might be able to fly a Cub on a LAPL, you would be able to fly a Cherokee, but not a Spitfire.
c. You can fly a Cub or a Spitfire on a UK PPL, but not a Cherokee.
d. You might be able to fly a Cub or Spitfire on an EASA PPL, but you would be able to fly a Cherokee.
e. The NPPL and LAPL have different revalidation / renewal requirements and the LAPL might also have reissue
requirements. None of which are the same as for the UK PPL or EASA PPL.
f. The UK PPL doesn't need to be reissued whereas the EASA PPL does.

But then it would be OK if you have a Jodel instead of a Cherokee, Spitfire or Cub.
What do you mean "Which Jodel ?...................”


But since my childhood years I've always dreamed of flying a Cherokee :-)

[Justiciar]

Probably me being thick, but where does it say all of this?

The draft FCL appears to say:

"Revalidation of single-pilot single-engine class ratings.
(1) Single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings and TMG ratings. For revalidation of single-pilot single-engine piston aeroplane class ratings or TMG class ratings the applicant shall:
(i) within the 3 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, pass a proficiency check in the relevant class in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part with an examiner; or
(ii) within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the rating, complete 12 hours of flight time in the relevant class, including:
- 6 hours as PIC;
- 12 take-offs and 12 landings; and
- a training flight of at least 1 hour with a flight instructor (FI) or a class rating instructor (CRI). Applicants shall be exempted from this flight if they have passed a class or type rating proficiency check or skill test in any other class or type of aeroplane."

I can't see anything here restricting the aircraft to EASA C of A as opposed to permit or Annex II. There is mention of "relevant class" but this is not defined, other than saying that "class" refers to a class of aircraft not requiring a type rating, e.g. SEP or TMG.

The CAA document on the impact of the changes makes no mention of any effect on revalidation nor anything about re-issuing national licences. In fact, they indicate that the reverse is the case and that they will have no power to issue national licences except in the case of giroplanes, microlights and some ex military aircraft requiring a type rating, hence the amendment to the ANO, so that there will be no requirement to also hold a National Licence to fly Annex II aircraft. They clearly contemplate that the majority of national licences will ultimately be converted to EASA Licences. They mention some 15,000, hence their concern at the time scale.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&ts_EuropeanLegislation_ExpectedEffectOnUKPilots_Sept2010.pdf

[Pace]

There is no sign of anyone with a spine taking EASA on though

The media reported today on the mass rally which had been organised as a protest against the destruction that EASA is causing to aviation.
Hundreds of aircraft arrived at a GA airfield near the EASA headquarters.
Thousands of pilots and those involved in aviation carried a petition outside the EASA headquarters which was handed to an MEP.
Windows were smashed as the angry pilots demanded that EASA keep to its mandate on safety.........

I WISH but more likely

Five pilots turned up at the rally and after tea and biscuits and false reassurances returned to their aircraft with smiles on their faces at a job well done.

Sad but hey ho we are a disjointed lot and especially the British only too happy to obey anything that comes out of Brussels with as much resistance required to punch out of a paper bag.

Pace

[robin]

Probably me being thick, but where does it say all of this?


You're not being thick.

It is simply because EASA's writ only extends to those aircraft on the EASA list.

Anything on Permit or Annexe II are outside the scope of EASA and so the CAA can choose to do anything it wants for those that fly them.

What it can't do is to allow what it permits for the national PPL to be accepted by EASA rules. As the French have just found out after years of effort with their Brevet de Base.

They expected it to be nodded through into the new EASA LAPL but it was rejected be everyone else. So under normal rules, when flying an aircraft on EASA CofA, the EASA rules would apply, so no Brevet de Base. Of course if you look at what is happening, the French are looking at ways of ensuring it will continue despite EASA.

There has been talk that EASA cannot take away existing privileges. AOPA I believe are investigating further to see if this will permit IMCR to continue, but it could also apply to those of us with the UK-PPL that, if we do nothing, will be down-graded to a sub-ICAO PPL.

[Pace]

There has been talk that EASA cannot take away existing privileges

Robin

Not wanting to go off permit aircraft but does that include N reg privalages?
In UK law accepted practice over a considerable length of time gains legal rights on its own merit.

N reg has been accepted practice in Europe for far longer than the EC has been in existance with a whole industry developed around it in Europe.
Does N reg in Europe have legal rights to exist and recourse against those who try to eliminate it especially without due cause and away from the mandate that EASA has?

No one has answered that question YET??????????????????????????

Pace

[robin]

That's a good question, but remember we are now under EU law and UK precedent is probably trumped by that since we have handed sovereignty over.

[Justiciar]

Anything on Permit or Annexe II are outside the scope of EASA and so the CAA can choose to do anything it wants for those that fly them.

Yes, I can certainly see that point. It seems to me that in FCL EASA could have made revalidation experience conditional on 12 hours in an EASA C of A aircraft. In fact they have not done that and simply specified that the hours have to be in the relevant class. For most of us that would be SEP. Annex II aircraft are of course not subject to the FCL licensing requirements nor the maintenance requirements. However, there is nothing to say that an Annex II aircraft is not still a SEP, which it clearly is, so I cannot see anything preventing you building your 12 hours on a Chipmunk, Tiger Moth or RV7 as they are all SEP. Being really devilish, it seems that you could say that what we in the UK term Microlights are also SEP! If you can count hours on any Annex II aircraft then that would appear to include microlights.

The arrangement is really quite loose and in fact there is no reason why, if you fly around Australia for 20 hours with the benefit of a temporary validation to your licence those hours should not also count, even though they are not hours in an EASA or even Annex II aircraft, as those definitions cover aircraft registered in a member state of the EU.

[Pace]

but remember we are now under EU law and UK precedent is probably trumped by that since we have handed sovereignty over.

But equally we have strong human right and discrimination rights within EU law.
As presently laid out both would appear to be answerable in the European Courts.
Age discrimination in the fact that there is no allowance made for working FAA ATPS who may not have more than a few years to run in their carears and could not possibly justify the huge expense as recoverable through earnings over time as would say the 30 yr old ATP.

Pilots in their mid 50s would effectively have their careers cut off by this legislation.

Human rights by the fact that pilots going about their legal business and established and accepted business over considerable time would be financially damaged by this legislation.

Lastly I actually wonder whether EASAs antics in creating this legislation could be challenged on the basis that it is not legislation created within their mandate of safety (admitted by EASA themselves)

Pace

[BillieBob]

Flight in non EASA aircraft not counting towards the issue or revalidation of an EASA licence? Whereabouts in the Basic Regulation or in the proposed Part FCL does it say that flight in non-EASA aircraft cannot be counted towards the issue of an EASA licence? Since an EASA licence is non-expiring, it does not require revalidation.

[Justiciar]

Age discrimination in the fact that there is no allowance made for working FAA ATPS who may not have more than a few years to run in their carears and could not possibly justify the huge expense as recoverable through earnings over time as would say the 30 yr old ATP.

That is an interesting point. European legislation prevents discrimination on grounds of age and also race, which includes nationality.

To succeed in a claim for indirect age or race discrimination, an individual or group of individuals would have to show that the regulations had a disproportionate and detrimental impact on them by reason of their age or nationality. EASA (or untimately the Commission) would then have to show that those regulations were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end, in this case ensuring adequate oversight of foreign licence holding pilots established in the EU. They might find this difficult as there are clearly better, less costly and less bureaucratic means of achieving this aim which do not put older and non EU nationals who are foreign licence holders at a disadvantage as compared with EU citizens holding EASA licences. This would not be an argument that EU holders of, say, an FAA licences could bring to bear. An easy validation or conversion process based upon experience would probably do this and in the case of an IR an initial skills test equivalent to the annual revalidation for the current JAA IR would undoubtedly be proportionate.

Talking though in the abstract is not enough and it would take an actual group to take or threaten proceedings. That requires money and some political clout to ensure that the threat would trigger a genuine dialogue. AOPA?

Since an EASA licence is non-expiring, it does not require revalidation.

It is the SEP Class rating that is revalidated, not the licence itself. I think this takes the position back to the position with the old UK PPL.

[S-Works]

Since an EASA licence is non-expiring, it does not require revalidation.

Come on you of all people should know the difference between revalidation's and renewals.

I am sat looking at Cliff Whitakers slide set the contains an over view of the situation. It was him that told us that as EASA only has domain over EASA CofA aircraft and that only time logged in EASA CofA aircraft was countable against the issue or revalidation of an EASA Class Rating. In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.

As I said earlier I am standing by to be educated by you as to why I am wrong.

[Justiciar]

It was him that told us that as EASA only has domain over EASA CofA aircraft and that only time logged in EASA CofA aircraft was countable against the issue or revalidation of an EASA Class Rating. In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.

Yet absolutely no where does it say that in licensing terms you are limited to something with an EASA C of A! Of course, to train for a licence or rating you wil be constrained by other requirements, i.e. maintenance, to use a fully certificated aircraft, though that begs the question as to where the restricted type certificate aircraft sit.

But, revalidation by experience is not the same as training and experience means exactly that. I would like to know what Mr. Whitaker's authority for that position is. I, like you, am prepared to be educated, but I suspect that when it comes to a revalidation by experience, the NAA will be the judge as to whether logged hours amount to "experience" for the purpose of Part FCL. FCL merely talks about hours logged in the appropriate class to which the licence relates. As the regulations do not define what a particular Class is beyond saying that Class "means a categorisation of single-pilot aeroplanes not requiring a type rating", the wording seems open to subjective interpretation.

If Mr. Whitaker is right it is rather surprising that this very significant point has not been picked up by the CAA as of course it will mean that anyone operating a permit or Annex II aircraft will be saddled with having to renew biennially by test. It also then raises issues such as can you ever do differences training on a Permit/Annex II aircraft?

There may of course be more regulation coming which defines various class categories, but at the moment the only one defined is Touring Motor Glider!

[WestWind1950]

European legislation prevents discrimination on grounds of age and also race, which includes nationality.


if that was true then why, as an American citizen living some 40 years in Europe, I am unable to get a job at EASA or any other European authority (tried ESOC, for example, but was a no-go). Isn't that discrimination, too? Luckily I'm no longer looking for a new job.

OK, bit off topic here.... sorry

[S-Works]

If Mr. Whitaker is right it is rather surprising that this very significant point has not been picked up by the CAA as of course it will mean that anyone operating a permit or Annex II aircraft will be saddled with having to renew biennially by test. It also then raises issues such as can you ever do differences training on a Permit/Annex II aircraft?

It has been picked up by the CAA, Cliff Whitaker is Head of Licencing or whatever name they go by these days.

Yes it does mean all the points you have made which is the theme of the CAA presentation and what they are considering going forward......

[Justiciar]

It has been picked up by the CAA, Cliff Whitaker is Head of Licencing or whatever name they go by these days.

Yes it does mean all the points you have made which is the theme of the CAA presentation and what they are considering going forward......

Where is this set out and when is the presentation? Perhaps the CAA need to have some dialogue on the subject with EASA. It is probable that the bureaucrats have failed to pick this up, if indeed their interpretation accords with that of the CAA, which it may not.

This interpretation seems to me to be nothing more than an opinion based upon the fact that FCL itself only relates to the required licences for EASA aircraft.

[robin]

As I said elsewhere, the CAA are not a lobbying organisation. Their role is to pepare to implement the EASA regulations into the ANO - nothing else.

When we had Part M, they could have accepted (as did other NAAs) the extension, but they didn't. They implemented earlier han anyone else before the rules were completely sorted.

If anyone thinks that the Belgrano will stand up for us.................!!!! :mad:

There is no reason why they can't go to EASA, for example to say how they propose to migrate pilots to the new licences. But, again, they won't. They will follow the letter of the law rather than push for pragmatic means of compliance

[Justiciar]

follow the letter of the law rather than push for pragmatic means of compliance

But the problem here is that the law, being as badly drafted as it is, is unclear. If the likes of the CAA will not engage in dialogue to arrive at a sensible, workable interpretation then it will be down to private individuals to seek a declaration from the courts.

[S-Works]

Off you go then........ :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just on a detail point. Cliff Whittaker is "Head of Licensing & Training Policy", not head of licencing. In other words he's in charge of the policies, not the actual issue of licences.

I used to work opposite him when he was a design liaison surveyor, then policy manager in airworthiness - bloody sensible fellow who quietly did a great deal to support UK GA. (I've not spoken to him for a year or so however, so can't shed any light on this.)

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

if that was true then why, as an American citizen living some 40 years in Europe, I am unable to get a job at EASA or any other European authority (tried ESOC, for example, but was a no-go). Isn't that discrimination, too? Luckily I'm no longer looking for a new job.

OK, bit off topic here.... sorry

Nationality so long as you are a citizen of an EU member state I think.

And even then, it's not really correct - states across Europe apply local standards to grant of student awards, to employment in state jobs, to recruitment in the armed forces, and so-on. Hardly surprising really.

G

[UAV689]

Hi all, late to coming to this thread.

So let me get this right. I currently have a JAA ppl, with sep and tmg on it. I mainly fly my tmg which is on a permit. So when this easa joke comes into force, will my jaa ppl become an easa one, and will I no longer be able to fly my rf3 which is on a pemit? And if I can fly it will that no longer count towards revalidating my ppl?

It is all so ridiculous!!!

[robin]

UAV689

Basically correct.

Your JAA PPL will automatically transfer to an EASA PPL. The CAA will let you fly a Permit aircraft on your EASA licence, so no problem there.

The problem is that the hours flown on the RF3 will not count towards the currency on an EASA PPL. In the second year you will either have to fly 12 hours in an EASA-type aircraft or do an LST with an examiner.

That might also mean flying a completely different type and that may require additional training. The LST will involve a short nav ex.

Clever eh?

[UAV689]

That is absolutely retarded. Thanks for clarifying. I am shocked. I knew easa was a joke but did not comprehend just what a bunch of morons they are.

So, if I renew it on a different aircraft, presumably they will want me to renew both my tmg and an sep, so 2 lst!!! I can't believe it. Who can I complain about this to?

I honestly can't believe this will be allowed to come into force!! Can we get the press e.g. Pilot etc to start campaigning also? it makes no sense at all, is the sky changing that is causing the laws of physics we have all been used to flying with changed?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother flying legally anyway,just refuse to conform! :yuk:

Learning of this has made me proper angry now!

[dublinpilot]

It was him that told us that as EASA only has domain over EASA CofA aircraft and that only time logged in EASA CofA aircraft was countable against the issue or revalidation of an EASA Class Rating. In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.

So lets follow that logic a little bit further.

If you want to fly an N-Reg aircraft in Europe, under EASA's proposals you would need both FAA licences and EASA licences.

Yet when it comes to revalidating that EASA licence (which is only required for EASA rules) you wouldn't be able to count your hours on the N reg aircraft towards revalidation by experience hours, because the aircraft was not an EASA CofA aircraft, it was an FAA one! :ugh:

I somehow figure Justiciar might be correct, and we are reading too much into it.

[peter272]

This has all the makings of a major c*ck-up. EASA spend all their time making up rules and ignoring any form of comment and criticism - remember that they are trying to avoid having to consult in future cos it gets in the way!

Now they are up against the deadline for presenting the legislation, they are finding that there are enormous holes in their plans.

But they won't hold back and they will resort to making requests for us to trust them to sort things out.

I wrote to my MEP about the proposed rules. Today I received a letter that included a response from M Goudou.

That response failed to address any of my points and went on to talk about the LAPL instead.

I have absolutely no faith in either EASA or CAA.

[Pace]

I received a letter that included a response from M Goudou.
That response failed to address any of my points and went on to talk about the LAPL instead.
I have absolutely no faith in either EASA or CAA.
Peter

Seems to be Mr Goudous style! Waffle pure lies and everything in the garden is rosy.
Maybe we should organise a mass rally to EASA land under the eye of the media and expose this charade for what it really is?

Pace

[BEagle]

...courtesy of Andy Appleby for the Devon Strut Newsletter

Really? Actually it was an extract from a letter I wrote to Flight Training News... But if it's been copied without my permission, then I really don't mind as it will serve to spread the message about the lunacy of EASA to a wider audience.

Incidentally, it now seems that neither the EASA PPL nor the stupid, pointless LAPL would have 're-issue' requirements.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It might potentially be part of a scheme on the part of EASA to shrink Annex II and get everything under it's own auspices? If so, I rather think it's doomed to failure.

Vested interests who will find this, as explained here, unacceptable:

- Military pilots who will be told that experience in, military aeroplanes isn't valid towards their post-retirement ATPL

- Test pilots, since all research aircraft are Annex II by definition, who can't maintain their licences (incidentally, the global test flying community is also up in arms about EASA proposals to create TP and FTE ratings which can only be on an EASA CPL/ATPL - which will suddenly make it impossible for many highly competent American TPs to work in Europe, or even say for an FAA qualified TP at Boeing to submit flight test reports to EASA).

- The tens of thousands of people across Europe who fly homebuilts or historic aircraft aircraft on JAA licences and intend to continue doing so whilst maintaining currency on those licences.

- The US based flying training industry currently providing training for JAA licences.

- Anybody with a non-EU ATPL wanting to convert to a European licence.

The whole thing will utterly inconvenience anybody not planning to spend their whole career flying European registered civil aeroplanes with CsofA. That is most of the pilots in Europe and many outside.


It is absolutely right that we all keep complaining, to ensure that these bonkers proposals get completely re-written. But they will and must be.

G

[BillieBob]

Come on you of all people should know the difference between revalidation's and renewals.Yes, I do, and you as an examiner should understand the difference between a licence and a rating. The EASA licence does not require revalidation, renewal or re-issue but the aircraft rating contained within it, of course, does.

In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.It is true that the training for the issue of a class rating and the experience required for its revalidation must be gained in the same class or type (FCL.740A). However, the OP referred only to the experience requirements for the issue of an EASA licence, specifically a CPL, and that experience may be gained in any aircraft of the same category. FCL.035(a)(2)(i) clearly states:

"An applicant for a licence, rating or certificate shall be credited in full with all solo, dual instruction or PIC flight time towards the total flight time required for the licence, rating or certificate."

There is no mention of EASA CofA, Annex II or any other restriction - it simply says all flight time.

EASA made it clear in the CRD for NPA 2008-17b that its intention was that experience for issue of a licence or rating could be gained in any aircraft whereas experience for revalidation could be gained only in an EASA aircraft. Specifically, in its response to General Comment 2420, made on the subject of crediting of flight time in Annex II aircraft by the Danish Powerflying Union, the agency stated:

"Annex II aircraft are excluded from the scope of the Basic Regulation, and the Agency cannot regulate them in detail. However, amendments to the initial proposals have been made of the crediting of experience to allow hours flown in these aircraft to be taken into account. Please see amendments to related paragraphs in Subparts B and C."

Sufficient education?

[Justiciar]

I say again that no one has so far pointed to the provision which says that hours on an Annex II aircraft do not count towards the 12 hour biennial experience requirement. In fact, there is nothing that says that the 12 hours cannot be on a foreign registered aircraft in a foreign country. Currently, that is the position and on the basis that EASA did not intend to completely replace the JAA provisions (the FCL wording of the provisions on revalidation by experience are very similar) I can see no reason why the rather restrictive interpretaion suggested at the start of this thread should apply.

The tens of thousands of people across Europe who fly homebuilts or historic aircraft aircraft on JAA licences and intend to continue doing so whilst maintaining currency on those licences.

This is the most surprising aspect of this whole absurd piece of legislation. Despite EASA's avowed intent to introduce common licensing requirements across Europe and despite European manufacturers leading the world in the kit built aircraft market, it is apparently being left to individual EU countries to formulate how pilots are licensed to fly aircraft comprising this very important sector of the market. What then will be the position of somone flying say a Pioneer from the UK to France? Although he may hold an EASA licence and although the UK CAA may have amended the ANO to allow for that licence to apply to the flying of Annex II aircraft, that piece of UK legislation will have no validity in France, Germany, Spain etc etc.

Any other EU national holding an EASA licence and coming to the UK will be fine, as they will be covered by the ANO amendment. Arguably, however there will now be no right to fly any UK registered Annex II aircraft outside of the UK unless other EU countries implement similar measures to those proposed by the CAA or on the basis of bilateral agreements on recognition of what are essentially national licence provisions made between EU countries. Currently they would be covered by the ICAO provisions which allow anyone to fly their own county's registered aircraft, but post FCL this will not apply as Annex II aircraft will all be flown on what are essentially sub ICAO licences.

To put it clearly into context, I can presently fly our group Chipmunk to Holland if I wish as I hold a JAA PPL issued in the UK and the aircraft is of course G registered. Post FCL, what is my entitlement to fly that same Chipmunk in Holland? I hold an EASA licence, but it does not apply to Annex II aircraft. I can fly it in the UK on the basis that the ANO has been amended to provide that an EASA licence is valid in the UK for Annex II. But that piece of legislation creates essentially a national licencing provision which the Dutch may not recognise. Whether they do will depend entitrely upon them. Their provisions, if they put any in place, may be quite different from the Germans, the Danes, the French. There is unlikely to be any consistency across Europe.

Far from introducing a set of uniform licensing requirements, the FCL actually takes several steps back and places anyone not flying an EASA C of A aircraft in a far worse position than they are now.

EASA made it clear in the CRD for NPA 2008-17b that its intention was that experience for issue of a licence or rating could be gained in any aircraft whereas experience for revalidation could be gained only in an EASA aircraft.

BillieBob: I think you may have it the wrong way around! The wording in the Annexes relating to licence conversion are also relevant. The wording is similar as regards experience yet clearly for conversion of foreign licences that experience must be on non EASA aircraft.

[WestWind1950]

after breezing through the draft from the EASA homepage, I see none of the problems stated here (unless I missed something). In fact, the renewal/re-validation requirements for SEP/TMG remain the same..... see § FCL.740A (b), already mentined above.

EASA draft FCL (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20on%20personnel%20licensing %20%28LW%29.pdf)

And don't get up-tight with just the UK-CAA, there are 27 CAA's the EASA has to deal with, each having their own wishes they want inforced, not to mention the AOPA's, etc.

[Justiciar]

I really must get a life.

Reading the Basic Regulation and the draft FCL in more detail, I can see the argument that these do not abolish anything. Not only that, the basic Regulation does not appear to remove the legal right of NAAs to issue ICAO complaint licences. It is just that those licences would not qualify the holders to fly EASA machines.

The Basic Regualtion and FCL really create an overlay which comprises a new licensing regime for EASA aircraft. Arguably therefore, NAAs can continue to issue ICAO compliant licences in accordance with the JAA (or indeed any other ICAO compliant standard). These would be perfectly valid across the world and there would appear to be nothig preventing such a licence from being recognised in the US under 61.75. That licence would also entitle pilots to fly Anex II aircraft anywhere in Europe.

The answer is therefore not for the CAA to just amend the ANO but to issue or maintain in force a UK PPL based on JAA or an ICAO complaint standard in parallel with every FCL PPL which is deemed to be granted and issued by NAAs under Part FCL. This would mean we will all have two bits of paper, but so what. Since the CAA's own document contemplated issuing national licences anyway for microlights etc this is just an extension of this pronciple. They merely have to ensure that it is an ICAO compliant licence.

The other great advantage of the UK ICAO compliant licence would be that it could have attached to it an IMCR, though this would only be of value when they approve Annex II aircraft for flight under IFR :rolleyes:

[S-Works]

That is exactly the proposal on the table at the moment.

[Justiciar]

That is exactly the proposal on the table at the moment.

Well, if that is the proposal I have not seen it mentioned in any CAA publication. It also depends what is meant by "national". If that is taken to mean a sub ICAO licence, as in the UK NPPL, then that will not address the issue. An ICAO compliant licence will.

The more you look at the EASA proposals the more absurd they appear and the further they are from achieving what they purported to achieve, namely a harmonised set of regulations across the EU. Instead we will have EASA licences, National ICAO compliant licences (possibly), National sub ICAO licences for microlights etc .....

[S-Works]

Yep,they are utterly absurd.

The CAA have identified the issues and circulated documents to industry for discussion. All the Heads of Training at TRTO's and FTO's were given a copy. It is ongoing at this moment.

I have been told (despite Billiebobs assertions that I am wrong) that the issue covers both the revalidation of ratings and the initial issue of ratings on EASA licences.

[BillieBob]

This thread is getting mired in issues that have nothing whatever to do with the OP's question regarding flight time in Annex II aircraft counting towards the experience requirements for issue of an EASA licence

BillieBob: I think you may have it the wrong way around!No, I haven't. The experience requirements for licence issue may be gained on any aircraft in the same category, whether or not it holds an EASA CofA. FCL.035 is perfectly clear and unequivocal on this point.

I have been told (despite Billiebobs assertions that I am wrong) that the issue covers both the revalidation of ratings and the initial issue of ratings on EASA licences.Please do not put words in my mouth. The OP's question and my responses relate to the issue of licences, not the issue, revalidation and/or renewal of ratings.

[Justiciar]

The experience requirements for licence issue may be gained on any aircraft in the same category, whether or not it holds an EASA CofA. FCL.035 is perfectly clear and unequivocal on this point

Sorry, then perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick. Just to clarify, ar you saying time on any aircraft can be counted for issue but not for revalidation by experience, which was the initial issue raised on this thread what seems like several centuries ago. That is what you would logically expect, but logic and EASA rarely if ever sit side by side.

[BillieBob]

Just to clarify, ar you saying time on any aircraft can be counted for issue but not for revalidation by experience
This is the view expressed by EASA in the CRD for NPA 2008-17b and backed up by the changes to the draft Part FCL. Experience must have been gained in the same category of aircraft (e.g. helicopter experience does not count towards an aeroplane licence, etc.).

[Justiciar]

same category of aircraft (e.g. helicopter experience does not count towards an aeroplane licence, etc.)

Not only is that a bizarre interpretation, but I am unable to find anything in the regulations which supports it. Where is the regulations is this distinction drawn? "Category" as far as I can see is unrelated to whether it is Annex II or C of A and the EASA comments in response to consultation appeared to confirm that, for the purposes of qualifying hours, flight on Annex II aircraft would count. I assume that is what you are referring to when you mention the CRD, but I cannot see what FCL changes you are referring to.

Revalidation by experience is not specifically mentioned in Part FCL in terms of the maintenance regime the aircraft has to fall under, but it would be strange indeed if the qualifying hours for say a CPL could be on anything but the 12 hours for revalidation by experience had to be on an EASA SEP for a SEP class rating. What then of the minimum take off and landings to enable you to take a pasenger? Is it suggested that these have to be in an EASA aircraft in order to take passengers in a Permit aircraft?

The regulations are completely silent on the question and "category" is nowhere defined by reference to C of A. An aircraft is a SEP irrespective of which maintenance regime it falls under if it has one piston engine. The distinction between helicopters and aeroplanes is not the same point and that I think is clearly covered in the draft FCL. Revalidation by experience always depends on the accurate keeping of the pilot's log book. In many cases you may not easily be able to gauge whether the 12+ hours in the last year were on an EASA or Annex II aircraft, as that information is not generally maintained in a log book. As an extreme case, take those types some of which are on a Permit and others of which are on a C of A, like a Pitts S2A or a Bolkow Junior. This aspect is quite unenforceable if this interpretation is right.

[BillieBob]

I think that you have entirely misunderstood what I have been saying and are weaving together an entirely erroneous picture from a number of separate posts. The facts are:

1. Flight in any aircraft, whether or not it is an EASA aircraft, can be counted towards the experience requirements for the issue of an EASA licence. [FCL.035(a)(2)(i)]

2. Flight time to be credited towards the issue of an EASA licence must have been gained in the same category of aircraft (e.g. Aeroplane, Helicopter, Sailplane, etc.) [FCL.035(a)(1)]

3. EASA expressed, in the Comment and Response Document to EASA Part FCL, its intent that qualifying experience for the revalidation of EASA type and class ratings could be obtained only in EASA aircraft but there is nothing explicit in either the Basic Regulation, the Cover Regulation or in Part FCL to back this up.

[Justiciar]

Just to clarify, ar you saying time on any aircraft can be counted for issue but not for revalidation by experience
This is the view expressed by EASA in the CRD for NPA 2008-17b and backed up by the changes to the draft Part FCL

My opinions are formed by reading the source documents, which is the way I generally work professionally as well as on a personal basis := The only thing I may have not understood is you post, which has not until just recently addressed the point I was making. I made the point earlier that there was nothing in the draft Regulations saying that revalidation by experience could not be done using hours flown on an Annex II aircraft. Your last post, specifically:

EASA expressed, in the Comment and Response Document to EASA Part FCL, its intent that qualifying experience for the revalidation of EASA type and class ratings could be obtained only in EASA aircraft but there is nothing explicit in either the Basic Regulation, the Cover Regulation or in Part FCL to back this up.

confirms precisely what I have been saying. I have scanned the comment and response document (not read it line by line) but I cannot see where Easa stated revalidation by experience must involve non Annex II aircraft. However, I am fully prepared to be corrected on this point, though I would be grateful for the specific reference, if you have it. However, the point also needs to be made that the comment and response document does not represent the law, which is contained in the basic regulation and in Part FCL, if and when it passes the legislative process (we should not forget that this document is not yet law).

The result of this is that the ambiguity will be down to NAAs to resolve. What concerns me is that the CAA may too readily have jumped to the assumption that it is EASA aircraft only for revalidation by experience. I have made the point that this conclusion is not justified and is probably in practice unenforceable without a search against every aircraft a pilot has flown to see how it is registered. It would also be inconsistent with other provisions of the regulations.

It is also my view, based on the drafting, that EASA do not in fact mean to change the position from the existing JAA rules, which allow hours on permit and indeed third country registered aircraft to be counted. I am not so privy to EASA policy making to say if indeed this is the case but it is a reasonable assumption, given the comments by the Commission to EASA a few months ago about not "reinventing" the wheel.

What the CAA should be doing is actually asking the question of EASA. They may well be doing this, as may other NAAs. I hope so.

[peter272]

It is also my view, based on the drafting, that EASA do not in fact mean to change the position from the existing JAA rules, which allow hours on permit and indeed third country registered aircraft to be counted. I am not so privy to EASA policy making to say if indeed this is the case but it is a reasonable assumption, given the comments by the Commission to EASA a few months ago about not "reinventing" the wheel.

Never, never assume anything with EASA. It may not mean to do any damage but it is dangerous to trust in their willingness to follow any guidance.

As we found with Part M, it was recognised that errors were made, but there has been no attempt to mitigate the problems caused. The attitude has been , 'the process has mainly worked, there are things that were wrong, but we've moved on and it would take too long to fix it'.

It is to be hoped that EASA will see sense, but don't count on it. They have been lying to the EU about their intentions. They have acted in bad faith by asking that they should not have to consult on their proposals because they get a lot of responses they don't like.

We need to keep the pressure on and ensure MEPs are fired up when the FCL proposal is considered.

[David Roberts]

Without all the nuances of the above posts in front of me on one page, let me just say that:
1. I raised with EASA over 18 months ago, when FCL was being drafted, the issue of hours on non-EASA CofA aircraft in the relevant category - i.e. aeroplanes, gliders, balloons, helicopters - counting towards maintenance of an EU licence (i.e. 'currency' which also includes medical compliance periodically)
2. I was assured by one of the leading EASA rulemakers that the intent was that hours on non-EASA CoA aircraft would count towards the periodic requirements to maintain an EU licence. BTW it has been confirmed that EU licences are 'for life' subject to maintaining the required experience, medical and periodic 'flight with an instructor' whatever. So no renewals per se.
3. I was also told that the wording in the implementing rules in respect of this maintaining currency issue would not be specific, so as to allow NAAs to adopt the widest interpretation; this rather than trying to specify which categories / groups / classes whatever of aircraft not subject to EASA airworthiness control would be acceptable for maintaining the EU licence.

The legal texts are not easy to get one's head around - classic lawyers' drafting of double negatives, lots of parentheses etc. So, next week when I meet with the Rulemaking Director for the regular six monthly 'chat' this subject will again be on my agenda. Before I do I shall re-read the EASA Opinion on FCL, which was adopted by the Commission's EASA 'comitology' Committee on 8th December, but with some amendments which are not yet published as the final text and which may still be subject to any changes the EU Parliament may want to introduce if prompted to do so. This is the latest stage of FCL becoming EU law, and is well past the (public) comment response stage of last year.

BTW, for those who may not appreciate it, Cliff Whittaker, CAA, is very much 'onside' with our needs. He may, however, and quite understandably have not quite got this topic right.
DGR / President, Europe Air Sports

[Justiciar]

Never, never assume anything with EASA

You are of course quite right. I should perhaps have referred to the EU in the wider sense, as of course EASA are not a legislative body (thank god).

David: that is a very helpful summary, thank you. Let us hope that pragmatism and common sense prevail (no, I have not been sniffing something, just eternally optimistic:eek:).

As an aside, the daughter of a good friend is about to marry an Aussie helicopter engineer working in Sydney for a major maintenance company there. He tells me that Australia is in effect adopting Part M:ugh: We are not alone in our suffering:{:{