U.K. National (CAA) licence to EASA

[delaneyslad]

Dear fellow PPL'ers
I recently contacted the CAA to enquire about the fee change from my U.K PPL (not JAR)National licence to EASA come the 'great'?? day in 2012.
They want to charge the princely sum of £176:00.:= After I picked myself up off the floor I tried to reason why this is. I have written to the CAA asking them to explain this figure. I thought I'd paid for my licence back in 1986. I am (and those that have licences for life) are being asked again to pay for a licence with different wording on it:ugh:.
There are approximately 15000 U.K. CAA PPL holders in the U.K. If you do the sums that equates to an awful lot of money into the CAA coffers, and for what? Sorry guys and girls I find this insulting, flying is not cheap, it never has been but for those of us who love the freedom and the challenge ( I hold IMC, complex and Multi ratings) it is another kick in the teeth to those who try to be safe, competent and promote GA in this country.
Apologies for the rant but I was staggered by this imposition.
Any views gratefully accepted.

[FlyingGoat]

I called them today, and asked the same question, although applied to a CAA ATPL. The (helpful) person said they had no information at all.

[Echo Romeo]

It's quite simply outrageous, but what can you do except pay it :mad:

[Whopity]

The (helpful) person said they had no information at all.Nice to now they can't find their way around their own website (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/251PLS.pdf)! £231 according to the Scheme of Charges 3.1(b)for the grant of a Professional Pilot's Licence, other than a Commercial Pilot's Licence (Balloons), a Commercial Pilot's Licence (Airships) or a Commercial Pilot's Licence (Gliders), valid for five years, including an initial type rating and instrument rating where these are included in the application, a charge of £231;It would be interesting to know what other EU States propose to charge! Back in the late 1980's when the BCPL was introduced; all those who received a BCPL(Restricted) were given them free of charge, as it was due to a law change. So there is a precedent.

[homeguard]

Whopity makes an important and interesting point.

What the CAA is suggesting is that National PPLs are converted now at a cost of £176. The purpose is to avoid waiting times come April 2012 because they, the CAA, do not have the manpower to cope. The benificiary of all that is the CAA. Licence holders following the advice will be out of pocket.

The CAA are threatening everyone that an application for the EASA licence, left too late for their lack of staff - say March 2012, could take months to process and the pilot will therefore be grounded at the time of change.

The EASA rulemaking will not be through the EU Parliament until at the earliest this May. The CAA believe that JAR issued licences, come April 2012, will be automatically recognised. They dont know that for certain nor that the national licences will not be.

Even if everyone converted now to JAR licences it shouldn't be forgotten that they are only issued for 5 years and so later, after the change to EASA, will need renewing again. The current fee for that is £84 for a PPL, more for a professional licence.

So, the total cost could be £176 + £84 at current rates. More for a professional licence following the CAA advice.

EASA LICENCES ARE TO be ISSUED FOR LIFE.

My advice is to save the effort of following the CAA advice and contact your MP.

[Blink182]

Am I'm right in thinking that you don't have to convert a CAA issued PPL if you fly ( and intend only to fly ) a Annex 2 aircraft ?

[homeguard]

Good point.

Your UK lifetime licence cannot be withdrawn. You can keep the EASA and national licence in parallel. Step out of your Annex II aircraft and put the national licence back in the bag. Climb into the otherwise indentical C of A aircraft and get out the EASA licence. Barmy!

Annex II aircraft will not be the the responsibility of EASA but that of national authorities, the CAA in our case. The pre JAR UK lifetime licence will remain valid to continue flying Annex II types, which includes most of the aircraft covered by the LAA, plus others.

[Jodelman]

Annex II aircraft will not be the the responsibility of EASA

But how long will any aircraft be on Annex II? Is it not EASA's intention to administrate ALL aircraft eventually?

[FlyingGoat]

Nice to now they can't find their way around their own website! £231 according to the Scheme of Charges 3.1(b)

Whopity, surely the conversion path to EASA hasn't yet been agreed, so there's no reason to assume this will be the procedure and/or charge?

[peter272]

Don't change. There is likely to be a 3-year transition post 2012.

If all of the 10000 UK pilots find their life-time licences are downgraded and associated ratings become void, then the DoT need to be fired up. And if we do need to be transferred then we need it done free of charge,

The CAA can determine the transitional arrangements and they are under the control of the Minister. So given enough pressure and threats of legal action we should get a straight grandfathering - like most other countries will be doing

[flybymike]

As Peter says above, for goodness sake dont let the b*ggers pick us off one by one. Leave it until the last possible moment. It will be the CAA's problem not ours. They will not ground 15000 ICAO licence holders overnight. Anyway, as has been remarked, at the moment, AIUI, there is no conversion process for CAA PPL direct to EASA PPL, and some say it would require additional training in radio nav if not already done.

[S-Works]

Of course, you could leave it to the last minute along with the 15,000 others that need converting. How much time do you think the CAA will allow you to fly on an expired licence for?

Your refusal to convert until the last minute and then being unable to fly due to administrative backlog won't cut with the CAA as being an emergency I suspect.

[Rod1]

Bose, as the expert, could you confirm;

Is there a two year transition? So no panic till 2014?

If you fly a non EASA aircraft you need to keep the old licence anyway?

After the date (2012 or 2014) you can carry on flying provided your c of e is current, so that could be another 2 years (2014 or 2016)?

I too am favouring leaving it at least for now, as the EASA licences are still in flux.

Rod1

[flybymike]

How much time do you think the CAA will allow you to fly on an expired licence for?



My National CAA licence is a lifetime licence. It does not expire.

[robin]

It is only valid when the ratings have been validated.

If, for example, the CAA make it impossible to revalidate by having no instructors able to undertake the biannual flight, or examiners the LST or sign the form, then you will be holding a lifetime piece of worthless paper.

[Fuji Abound]

Of course, you could leave it to the last minute along with the 15,000 others that need converting. How much time do you think the CAA will allow you to fly on an expired licence for?




Interesting: if the licence does not expire but the ratings cant be revalidated if you renew the ratings just before the change over will you be good to go for as long as the ratings last?

When will instructors / examiners be told they can no longer renew the ratings?

If you have an IR that will give you a year, and if you have an IMCr and your usual every other year that will give you two years presumably?

Is two years long enough for the CAA to convert the licence?

[robin]

My understanding is that as long as the UK-PPL is valid at the point of transition then it remains valid until the expiry of the ratings.

The CAA have made it clear in their earlier letter that they are not resourced to handle the transfer of that many licences in the period 2011 - April 2012 and have raised this with the Dft and with EASA.

Again, I understand there is actually a 3 year transition planned so that would give us to April 2015, but that isn't set in stone. It hasn't been confirmed yet and it is up to the CAA to ask for it.

Remember that with Part M there was a 3 year transition but the CAA went balls out for a 4 month transition. Other countries took the full 3 years.

The letter that came out in Sept from the CAA almost begged us to transition early to the JAR licence (and pay the £180 upfront fee) so that there was no work involved in the transition to the EASA PPL.

If they really want us to do that they should waive the fee, but there are still issues about associated ratings valid on the UK-PPL but not on the JAR.

I'm still not sure how it has been permitted to make an ICAO-compliant licence invalid. If, as the French and AOPA seem to believe, that EASA has no right to take away existing privileges, then surely they cannot remove the validity of the UK-PPL that is ICAO compliant.

In my view we need to keep plugging away at our MPs to try to get them to recognise the cost and b*ggeration factors involved in the process.

We've lost the EASA FCL battle thanks to some sneaky enemy action, incompetent generals and sentries asleep at their posts. But it doesn't mean we can't ensure we don't lose the entire war.

[stiknruda]

I'm more than happy to write to my MP or even bend his ear in person BUT I'm not sure that I have all the facts!

Does anyone have a decent letter that I can plagiarise?

I've a poo-brown UK PPL and a Permit a/c.

Stik

[Miroku]

I'm missing something. How can you change your licence from an NPPL to the new EASA licence when we don't yet know what the medical requirements are?

[Katamarino]

So, a 3 year transition period, call it 660 working days. 15,000 licenses means 23 licenses per day. So, the secretary needs to be able to print out a few sheets of paper, cut them badly, and stick them in a crapy wallet, once every 20 minutes.

Which moron at the CAA is claiming insufficient resources, again?

[robin]

You don't until April 2012.

What the CAA want you to do is to transition to the JAR-PPL in advance. That will automatically transfer to become an EASA PPL on the effective date.

If you have one already then you do nothing. If you have the UK-PPL you have to apply for the licence, indicate that you have met the RadNav part of the JAR syllabus or else do a test with an examiner and pay £176.

Or, like the rest of us, hold fire and hope the CAA see reason.

Yeh, right :mad:

[Zulu Alpha]

So, a 3 year transition period, call it 660 working days. 15,000 licenses means 23 licenses per day. So, the secretary needs to be able to print out a few sheets of paper, cut them badly, and stick them in a crapy wallet, once every 20 minutes

And charge around £200!

I'd say some competitive tendering is called for.

The barstewards!!

[jxk]

From the presentation given by Cliff Whittaker, Head of Licensing and Training Policy, November 2010 it would appear that there will be no cost for those going from JAA to EASA; CAA to reissue licence. So, I don't understand why there should be a charge for going ICAO to EASA. After all, we were reissued an update to our licence to indicate our level of understanding English without a charge.:ugh:

http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/Safety%20Briefings%20_%20Presentations/EASA%20-%20Transition%20to%20EASA%20November%202010.pdf

[Maoraigh1]

I have a CAA pre JAR licence. I have had no contact from the CAA suggesting anything. I was never told it was a condition of my licence to monitor PPRUNE.

[flybymike]

Well said Maoraigh.

[S-Works]

Stick your heads in the sand then. :ok:

[Rod1]

Having checked with Bose and others;

If you fly a permit or annex2 aircraft on a CAA PPL doing absolutely nothing appears to be the right choice. (This advice is worth what you paid for it):suspect:

Rod1

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

I'm missing something. How can you change your licence from an NPPL to the new EASA licence when we don't yet know what the medical requirements are?

Hi Miroku,

This is about the old style ICAO compliant CAA PPL licences, not the NPPL. They are termed National Licences because they were issued by the National Authorities, before JAA came along.

The NPPL to LPL / LAPL / or what ever it's called this week, is yet another can of Euro-worms, not the least of which is the medical aspects.

The word from the CAA man at Saturday's LAA Coaching / CRI Seminar was the same as Bose-x and others above, get yours now and save problems later. The CAA & EASA licences can continue in parallel, which may be the way they handle ratings that are not recognised by EASA. It seems the French are out for scalps after they lost their beloved Brevet de base in the EASA dog fight. The CAA Man's view of EASA was refreshingly scathing.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.

[ifitaintboeing]

Rod1,

The issue is that if you will ultimately want/need an EASA PPL:

Currently there is no agreed transition between UK PPL and EASA PPL. Thus, you may be required to undertake currently unspecified levels of training. For example, radio navigation is a part of the JAR-FCL and EASA syllabus.

There is, however, an agreed transition between UK PPL and JAR-FCL PPL [piece of paper, a signature, and some dosh], and there is an agreed transition between JAR-FCL PPL and EASA PPL [do nothing].

Currently, there is not a 3-year transition period. JAR-FCL had this, because it was like a 'euro-club' where the UK could implement bits at it's leisure. The difference is that EASA will be implemented by law.

I have a CAA pre JAR licence. I have had no contact from the CAA suggesting anything. I was never told it was a condition of my licence to monitor PPRUNE.

A condition of your continued right to exercise those privileges is that you are required to know and understand the Air Navigation Order, which I am sure will be amended in due course to reflect your amended privileges.

You "pays" your money, and you "takes" your choice!

ifitaint...

[Rod1]

ifitaintboeing

That quote was not me!

My understanding is that an EASA PPL is about as useful to me as a chocolate teapot as I fly a permit aircraft. I believe the CAA are reintroducing the CAA PPL to cope with this. As I already have a CAA PPL and will not be flying an EASA c of a aircraft why do I need an EASA PPL?

Rod1

[ifitaintboeing]

Indeed. If you don't need an EASA PPL [because you fly, and only intend to fly, Annex II/Permit to Fly] then sit tight, as your UK PPL or NPPL will suffice, and the privileges are very likely to continue.

I believe the CAA are reintroducing the CAA PPL to cope with this.

The CAA aren't re-introducing anything, to my knowledge.

If you do need an EASA PPL then it is worth sorting it out in advance, as there is no transition agreement direct from UK PPL to EASA PPL.

[flybymike]

It is patently absurd that there is a chargeable transition route from CAA to JAA with no training requirement and then a free transfer from JAA to EASA, also without training, but yet no transfer from CAA direct to EASA without additional training (if required) plus probably a substantial fee. This kind of lunacy is symptomatic of the idiocy surrounding these bureaucrats and their regs.

[tinpilot]

The proposed route from a national, ICAO compliant PPL to an EASA PPL is laid out in annexe 2 of the draft regulation on Part FCL.

The CAA said as much in their guidance document published last September.

[IFly]

I note that when my FAA PPL licence needed replacing in January 2009 to incorporate the English proficiency requirement the total cost of that was £1.40, including postage to the UK.

[S-Works]

I note that when my FAA PPL licence needed replacing in January 2009 to incorporate the English proficiency requirement the total cost of that was £1.40, including postage to the UK.

Yep, the rest of the costs were kindly stumped up by the US tax payer........

[IFly]

Are you suggesting the £176 fee from the CAA for a replacement licence that contributes nothing over and above what we have already is reasonable? There seems an enormous gulf between the US cost for a bit of replacement plastic and the UK cost for a bit of replacement paper.

And referring to a previous post of yours, are you suggesting the CAA would actually ground pilots because they have not converted to a bit of paper that contributes nothing over and above what we already have and cannot be replaced BY THEM in the timescale they set forth?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Yep, the rest of the costs were kindly stumped up by the US tax payer........
Exactly. Whilst not defending the CAA scale of charges I can just see my constituents being happy to pay extra tax to subsidise such things ... not! Even asking the question would guarantee not being re-elected.

[Zulu Alpha]

Exactly. Whilst not defending the CAA scale of charges I can just see my constituents being happy to pay extra tax to subsidise such things ... not! Even asking the question would guarantee not being re-elected.

I don't suppose that tax on Avgas could be considered as part of the payment?

[S-Works]

Are you suggesting the £176 fee from the CAA for a replacement licence that contributes nothing over and above what we have already is reasonable? There seems an enormous gulf between the US cost for a bit of replacement plastic and the UK cost for a bit of replacement paper.

And referring to a previous post of yours, are you suggesting the CAA would actually ground pilots because they have not converted to a bit of paper that contributes nothing over and above what we already have and cannot be replaced BY THEM in the timescale they set forth?


I am not suggesting anything about the UK CAA fees. I am suggesting that sitting and gloating about how you managed to get something at the US taxpayers expense may not be very wise. At the end of the day you are benefiting basically free of charge for a service provided at the cost of taxpayers in another country. Do you really think it cost a couple of bucks to issue the certificate?

To answer your second post. Yes I do believe the CAA will ground people through the lack of a 'bit of paper'. You can't fly without the paper physically in your hand. Why should they change that because people stick their heads in the sand and hang out the last minute? In order to fly in the US you must be in possession of your certificate and photo ID....

I don't suppose that tax on Avgas could be considered as part of the payment?

If only. However unlike the USA where duty on AVGAS is used directly towards funding the FAA in ripoff Britain there is no ring fencing of tax and it just goes into the general coffers.

[Nipper2]

I am strongly of the view that the CAA scale of fees should not be taxpayer funded.

This issues does however open up simple an very narrowly focused debate about those charges and the underlying costs.

Could any commercial organisation really charge £176?

I'm no management accountant but let's look at what might be involved.

Post room staff direct mail to correct section. (1 minute)

Staff in Licence renewal section open letter with form inside. (1 minute)

Form checked for compleetness and accuracy (let's be generous, 10 minutes)

Form cross referenced with database. (2 minutes).

New Licence printed. (1 minute)

New Licence put in envelope and sent to post room. (1 minute)

Postroom activities (1 minute)

So, the total time taken is 17 minutes. Let's call it 20 for the sake of argument.

This is not exactly highly complex or technical work and should be undertaken by a junior clerk/administrator. We pay these kind of people £15-17K per year. Again for simplicity, lets call it £20K for not quite in London.

220 working days of 7.5 hours per year so wage costs £12.12 per hour. Use your fixed cost multiplier to allow for holidays, sickness, NI, fixed costs, variable costs (heat and light etc.) etc. Let's go to the absolute top of the scale multiplier anyone would ever use - times five. (we are at 2.8)

So hourly cost £60.60. Three applications per hour = £20.20 each.

Even if they are complete muppets and spend half their time on health and safety training, gender equality seminars and group hug-ins, there is just no way in the world you can run an organisation so badly that a £20 job and a 6% profit comes to £176.

Please can someone explain.

If they can't, then there is clearly a prima facie case for judicial review.

[S-Works]

Do inreally need to point out the obvious?

These are salaried staff with, pensions, benefits etc. It is impossible to apportion direct times to these tasks. The global costs have go be accounted for.

Dont get me wrong I am not defending it but do understand the reality of the costs and how they are accounted. Efficiencies are the way forward.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Please can someone explain.
Some sort of audit should be done from time to time - if one hasn't been done recently then I guess one might ask one's MP to press for a review.

The only CAA charge I actually have comparative data on is the cost of a visit to Gatwick for a cardiac review. The CAA charge for a professor of cardiology is less than local doctors (OK, I'm talking Papworth and Adders here, not backwoodsmen) ... until I factor in the lost income from the travelling time to Gatwick, at which point the locals just about win.

[mrmum]

If we want to make PPL issues cheaper, then why not delegate the printing to FEs? They already let AMEs issue medicals directly and MOs can give you an ARC, so why not?

While I'm on the subject why can an examiner renew a class rating that's expired up to 5 years for free, but go any longer and somebody at Gatwick has to enter which rating it is, two dates and their authorisation, which attracts their usual hefty fee.

[rateone]

This situation is absurd. I have enjoyed the priviledges of my ICAO compliant CAA PPL(A) for some considerable time. A few years after I obtained my licence the CAA began issuing the JAA PPL (also ICAO compliant). The two types of licence have been deemed by the CAA (and the rest Europe) to be of equal status and the priviledges under both forms of licence are the same.

Why then should a CAA licence holder be expected to pay a substantial amount of money to swap to a licence for which the priviledges are the same in order to then have that licence rolled over to a new EASA licence (which will presumably also be ICAO compliant) for free or have to undertake additional training in order to have the EASA licence issued directly. This makes no sense at all and while I am no lawyer, I suspect it could be argued that it contravenes Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (that's the bit about unencumbered enjoyment of personal property).

The CAA is suggesting the payment route because at the moment, while the wording of the various clauses in the relevant EASA documents may suggest a certain outcome, the actual process for implementation is unclear and the payment route is the path of least resistance.

If forced down the either the payment of additional training route I would certainly opt for the training option. It would make more sense to get some value out of the cash than pi$$ing it away moving paper around.

I will of course be writing to my ME and MEP on this issue but I hardly think he will wish to take up the case. After all I'm a private pilot and must therefore by rolling in the readies so why would I miss a couple of hundred notes that could be transfered into HMG's coffers?

This sort of sh1t makes my blood boil

[julian_storey]

It does seem manifestly unreasonable that a change in the rules (which probably not many people want any way) should requires people to cough up a load of cash for pretty much nothing.

[S-Works]

The two types of licence have been deemed by the CAA (and the rest Europe) to be of equal status and the priviledges under both forms of licence are the same.


Actually not quite true. A UK CAA licence is restricted to G Reg aircraft unless the the other JAA country specifically allows use of ICAO compliant licences in the same way the UK CAA does and then they are restricted to PPL VFR privileges.

However, I would agree with other comments, charging for something that is being forced on us and such a large fee is unacceptable and unavoidable.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The CAA is suggesting the payment route because at the moment, while the wording of the various clauses in the relevant EASA documents may suggest a certain outcome, the actual process for implementation is unclear and the payment route is the path of least resistance.
Yes, that's what they told me. They said I have the following choices:

(1) Pay lots of money now to replace my free-for-life licence with a new one that needs lots more money paying every five years.

(2) Wait and see what happens when they finally get their act together and decide what the CAA -> EASA route actually is.

It seems to me that option (2) can't result in anything worse than option (1) so that's what I've chosen. Others may make different guesses as to the risks and make different decisions.

[rateone]

It seems to me that option (2) can't result in anything worse than option (1) so that's what I've chosen. Others may make different guesses as to the risks and make different decisions.


I agree with you GTW. That's what I've elected to do. I don't believe this is "burying my head in the sand" as others have suggested. It is simply that when there is so much uncertainty, it seems more sensible to wait until the dust settles than be panicked into an unwise action. Especially if that action involves parting with money.

You are of course correct Bose-X there are certain differences but the principles are still valid.

[S-Works]

You are of course correct Bose-X there are certain differences but the principles are still valid.

Subtle maybe but after EASA takes over your UK CAA licence will restrict you to UK airspace even in a G Reg as I understand it. With an ICAO licence you will be able to get a 1 off 12 month validation to fly in Europe, after that you will need to have an EASA licence. You get caught in the same trap is the N Reg flyers.

Also the EASA licence is going to be non expiring unlike the JAA licence which you have to buy a new piece of paper every 5 years. There will no doubt be some new way of pressing the buttons on the cash machines that we are as pilots but that is unknown at this stage.

I just think that paying your money and getting a licence that can be converted automatically to an EASA one now is worth it rather than running the risk of being grounded next year or even worse having to jump through some stupid hoops to convert.

[Biffo Blenkinsop]

EASA - Eradicate All Sport Aviation

I do realise that this is thread creep, but I think it’s germane.

I did some touring-type flying (PPL VFR) in Italy a while ago. To me, the Italian aviation establishment simply did not seem to understand private aviation. I’d take off from an airfield and the airfield controller would brusquely say: ‘You are leaving my area. Call en route.’ That was it. I’d try to call the Information frequency – always no reply. Any other frequency would always elicit the reply: ‘VFR? You must call Information’ – some hope.

In short, my impression was that the Italian sky is for airliners (also the military) and VFR is for a low-level jaunt around the local area (but maybe other people have a different experience).

I mention this because it seems to me that EASA, with its insistence on revoking legitimate lifetime licences unless you pay a swingeing fee and other draconian measures mentioned elsewhere on PPRuNe, appears to be setting off on (my experience of) the Italian route with regard to sport aviation.

Looking at the EASA website, of the 65 Management Board members only one (French) has a stated brief for light aviation (M. Maxime Coffin, Chef de la Mission Aviation Légère (amongst other titles)). I need not expand on how depressing this is for we private fliers, but I think the conclusion is inescapable: most of the countries represented on the EASA Management Board do not have a great history of private aviation.

Incidentally, the European Association of Social Anthropologists website makes no mention of not recognising CAA lifetime licences. So, maybe, we should go with them? :}

Apologies for the long post.

Biffo

[Maoraigh1]

Is this misinformation? Copied from the EASA draft document:
(a) for aeroplanes and helicopters, shall be converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to this Regulation.
The scope of the privileges given to pilots whose national pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates and/or qualifications are converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates should at least cover the scope of the activities that the pilots are undertaking at the date of entry (My bold M1)

[Biffo Blenkinsop]

Oops. Just seen the big black font. Apologies for that. I wrote it in Word and copied / pasted it. Didn't realise that would happen (I'm new here).

Biffo