CAA to Part FCL

[Whopity]

The CAA has published a letter (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=620&pagetype=90&pageid=11675) regarding changes to EASA. Para 6.4 of that letter encourages pilots holding CAA licences to convert to JAA licences at a cost as defined in the scheme of charges.6.4 It is recommended that any holders of national licences who can comply with the requirements to have them replaced by JAR-FCL licences should do so. This is because JAR-FCL licences will automatically become EASA licences, and so should be less affected by any administrative delays that may occur due to the volume of licences to be replaced.
C.J.Whittaker
Head of Licensing & Training Policy
Now, trawling through the EASA web site you can find the following:Article 4
National pilot licences

1. National pilot licences, 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 the date of applicability of the related provisions of Part-FCL in accordance with Article 10, holders of national pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications shall have their national pilot licences converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates by the competent authority of the Member State that issued the national pilot licence.
Thus, it is very clear that any licence maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL, is deemed to be issued in accordance with EASA regulation, so no conversion to a JAA licence is necessary. Furthermore, it is the competent Authority's (CAA's) responsibility to convert that licence to a Part FCL licence in the nominated time frame. The thinly veiled threat in para 6.4 above, is an utter disgrace from the so called Competent Authority!

The CAA recently re-issued all licences FOC to add the ICAO English Language Proficiency however; they failed to anticipate the Part-FCL requirement, which had already been published, to include the validity date of that assessment. Licences will therefore have to be re-issued to comply with Part FCL on two counts, and there is no justification whatsoever for charging licence holders for this action or threatening them of delays if they don't meet unnecessary requirements!

[peter272]

Whopity

Read it a little closer

The first paragraph says that JAA licences move across to the EASA PPL

The second doesn't say that about UK-PPLs. All it says it will have to move to one of the licences in Part FCL - probably the LAPL (sub-ICAO)

[Whopity]

I have made no mention of NPPLs or sub ICAO licences. I refer only to licences issued or maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL. That includes all JAA licences and National (pre JAA) UK licences that have been maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL since Jan 2000 (A) and July 2000(H). Holders of such licences are being invited to change them when their existing licence has exactly the same status as the one they are being invited to change to.

[BillieBob]

It all comes down to semantics - the difference between EASA's "issued or recognised by a Member State in accordance with the JAA requirements and procedures" and Whopity's "maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL". The assumption seems to be that the two phrases mean the same thing and that a licence that is maintained in accordance with JAR-FCL is recognised in accordance with JAA requirements and procedures. I am far from convinced that this is a valid assumption and, like so much of the EU's badly drafted and confusing law, will only be resolved if/when tested in the ECJ.

Consider this, however - Paragraph 2 of Article 4 makes it a legal requirement for the holders of, for example, UK national licences to have them converted by the CAA to JAA licences by 8 April 2012 (i.e. if any holder has not had their licence converted by that date they and/or the CAA are guilty of a breach of EU law). However, the cover regulation does not take effect itself until 8 April 2012 and so, at the time the offence was committed (before 8 April 2012), it was not an offence because the law did not exist. The ultimate in retrospective legislation (and bureaucratic incompetence).

[Level 400]

Re: Licence upgrade - SPHPCAs

I hold both a UK ATPL and a JAR-FCL CPL/IR. The latter I need to fly non UK registered jet aircraft on Commercial Transport Ops round Europe, which is my day job. I would love to change my UK ATPL to a JAR-FCL ATPL but apparently this is not possible under current rules.

I fly an Exec Jet with a MAUW of 12,500lbs. This is classed as a Single Pilot Aircraft, although it is illegal to operate Single Pilot for Public Transport purposes, I have always, apart from the odd C of A Airtest, when P2 is not Type Rated, operated the aircraft multi crew with Type rated Pilots in both seats. I have 1500 hours on type of which 1400 odd are P1. Apparently it is permissible to use the Multi Crew hours on this aircraft to count towards the 500 hours required for JAR ATPL Licence issue, but it is not possible to count the LPC (which is conducted by a CRE to give me both SPA and MPA privileges) as an ATPL skill test - that must be done by a TRE, which don't (yet) exist for this aircraft.

My question (we'll get there in a moment) is that under the forthcoming changes which have been heralded when new arrangements for SPHPCA (Single Pilot High Performance Complex Aircraft) kick in, and CREs will become TREs for the type, will that change this state of affairs? :ugh:

Also, the new variant for this aircraft (RA390 shortly to become the Hawker 200) has an increased MAUW to 13700 lbs as it's got bigger engines. Will that automatically push the aircraft into the MPA category, although it's the same type?

Some advice from 'those in the know' would be appreciated.

Level 400

[Whopity]

Changing from a CRI (SPA) to a TRI(SPA) will not make the slightest difference to an ATPL Skill Test which is MP.

[Level 400]

According to AIC W086 04NOV 10, one of the new privileges of a CRE (HPCA), traditionally an SPA qualification, is to 'conduct skill tests for ATPL (A) issue on SP HPCA types', which traditionally was an MPA privilege, hence my question.

So it appears that changing from CRE to TRE does make a difference as to who is authorised to perform MPA ATPL skill tests on HPCA aircraft.

Level 400

[Whopity]

An interesting AIC. The CRE(SPHCA) is a temporary alternative qualification4.2 Persons seeking authorisation for examining privileges on SP HPCA in accordance with this alternative route, will be required to
comply with the multi-pilot examiner standardisation policy, Standards Document 24 and Form SRG1158.Existing TREs would already have these privileges and existing CREs have to obtain them in accordance with para 4.3.
Para 6.1(a)(iv) is interesting as I doubt there are any FIEs qualified to conduct such tests, whilst most of those qualified to operate such aircraft would not meet the qualification criteria to become an FIE!

[Level 400]

Another interesting point arises in the AIC.

Para 6.2.a. (ii)

Applicants for a CRE (HPCA) Authorisation shall....

(ii) hold a CPL or ATPL and a CRI(HPCA) rating for the appropriate type.

Is there yet such a thing as a CRI(HPCA) rating? Those who instruct on these HPCA aircraft currently hold a CRI + type rating or more commonly a FI + type rating, which was all that used to be required.

So under the new rules, will it be possible to qualify for JAR-ATPL issue or conversion from UK ATPL on a HPCA operated as MPA? Up till now, it wasn't!

Level 400

[Whopity]

Is there yet such a thing as a CRI(HPCA) rating?No! Its an unnecessary and totally confusing concoction to provide a way to authorise a limited number of TRIs so that they can instruct on HPSPA. Logically, you would simply call them TRI(SPA) which is what they will be after April 2012.

Instead of adopting a simple logical approach to change, the CAA seem to be intent on making it as difficult and complicated as possible.

The only difference between a UK and a JAA licence is 3 words on the cover, presumably, those 3 words will be the only thing that change on a Part-FCL Licence, so a simple sticker would solve their licence conversion problem

[BillieBob]

...."one of the new privileges of a CRE (HPCA), traditionally an SPA qualification, is to 'conduct skill tests for ATPL (A) issue on SP HPCA types'"So under the new rules, will it be possible to qualify for JAR-ATPL issue or conversion from UK ATPL on a HPCA operated as MPA? Up till now, it wasn't!The incompetence of the CAA's Policy section continues! Both JAR-FCL 1.295 and FCL.520.A state that the ATPL(A) Skill Test shall be taken in an aeroplane type certificated for a minimum crew of two pilots. Just how is a CRE(HPCA) supposed to conduct a valid ATPL(A) Skill Test in a SP HPCA?

[Whopity]

Para 5.2 CRI(HPCA) Pre-requisites:
a) Hold a MPL pilot licence on the appropriate aircraft category!

[Sir George Cayley]

Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up :ok:

Only about 1000 more EASA confustications to sort.

Sir George Cayley

[BillieBob]

Still doesn't explain how an ATPL Skill Test can be conducted on an SP (i.e. type certificated for operation by one pilot) HPCA whatever the qualifications of the examiner.

[Whopity]

There used to be a requirement to circulate AICs amongst those who understood such things before they were published. Does this imply that there is no longer any circulation, or that there is no longer anyone with the requisite knowledge?

[Level 400]

Whopity

That's a very good question and I suspect I am not alone in not knowing the answer. Those 3 words on the front page of an ATPL carry quite a bit of weight with our European JAR/EASA cousins.

It looks as if the intention will be for CRE (SPHPCA) holders to become TRE (Type) and therefore be issued with the privileges to conduct MPA LPCs and ATPL skill tests on the SPA flown as MPA which would fulfil the conditions for JAR/EASA ATPL issue, as well as retain any SPA privileges previously held, such as for SEP/MEP examining. That's me reading between the lines.

However, as BillieBob states, there exists a problem, if that is the intention, if the term 'type certificated for a minimum of two pilots'..in JAR-FCL 1.295 and FCL.520.A continues to be applied.

I hope someone at CAA head shed has thought this through and can come up with some clear guidance.

Level 400

[Whopity]

As I originally said, its a MP test and cannot under the current or proposed rules be conducted on an aircraft certified for single pilot operations. BillieBob has quoted the references. The AIC displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what its all about! I think the confusion centres around the fact that they are seeking to qualify some TRIs on SPAs, and have quoted their MP privileges, without realising they are not all appropriate to SPA types. Thats what comes of non pilots shovelling rules around!

[Level 400]

I think also part of the problem is that the terms ' MPA types 'and 'SPA types' are bandied around in the regulations regardless of the way these aircraft must be operated according to the rules already in place, as if all defined SPHPCA types habitually hurtle around Europe with just one pilot on board. They don't, and they can't if operated as Public Transport, which the vast majority of them are.

If, as per AIC 086, CRE (HPCA) holders are to be given the privileges to conduct 'iii. skill tests for ATPL(A) issue on SP HPCA types' then the wording in 'type certificated for a minimum of two pilots'..in JAR-FCL 1.295 and FCL.520.A needs to be changed tosomething like 'operated with a minimum of two pilots' with separate arrangements for true private single pilot ops. Otherwise we are left with new rules which directly conflict with older ones.

Also some extra thought is needed into what categorises an SPA as distinct from an MPA during type certification. There exists an arbitrary weight limit of 12,500lbs (5670kgs) which is often quoted as the dividing line but doesn't always seem to be the deciding factor.

Level 400

[BillieBob]

Let there be no misconceptions here. The UK CAA has issued an AIC, apparently without proper consultation or scrutiny, that includes a statement that is not compliant with either the existing requirements or the future regulations. Notwithstanding the (incorrect) statement in the AIC, an ATPL Skill Test can still be conducted only in an aeroplane certified for operation by two pilots and there is no intention in EASA to change this.

[Level 400]

'an ATPL Skill Test can still be conducted only in an aeroplane certified for operation by two pilots and there is no intention in EASA to change this. '

If you know what EASA plan to do in the future then your crystal ball must be working much better than mine.

With that information readily available, you could make a fortune! :}

Level 400

[Whopity]

If you know what EASA plan to do in the futureThe plan is on the EASA website, we know it may change slightly whilst going through the legislative process, but I doubt that the fundamental intentions will change very much.

[Whopity]

The UK CAA has issued an AIC, apparently without proper consultation or scrutinyHere's another example:

AIC (W80/2010) is another confusing document issued by the CAA that contains information that is inaccurate and inconsistent with the ANO. 1.1 Since the 31 January 2008, pilots who have valid Single Engine Piston (SEP) class ratings in their UK National or UK-issued JAR-FCL licences have been licensed to fly SSEA, SLMG or microlight aeroplanes, subject to differences training as appropriate, as they fall within the scope of the SEP rating.Schedule 3 defines the different classes of aircraft(b) Power driven flying machines
(i) Aeroplane (Landplane)
(ii) Aeroplane (Seaplane)
(iii) Aeroplane (Amphibian)
(iv) Aeroplane (Self-launching Motor Glider)
(v) Powered Lift (Tilt Rotor)
Aircraft defined as SSEA; and Microlight aeroplanes are Aeroplanes (Land) and are covered by the SEP classification however; SLMGs are not Aeroplanes (Land), and do not fall within the scope of the SEP rating;they are defined as Aeroplanes (Self Launching Motor Glider) which is a separate Class, and is entered as such in Licences. You cannot do differences training between Classes!

Due to errors in earlier AICs some pilots found themselves flying "illegally" and in consequence the CAA were forced to issue an Exemption ORS4 No 674 allowing SLMGs to continue to be flown by pilots who did not hold a valid SLMG Class rating! This Exemption was withdrawn in June 2009 and pilots of SLMGs are now required to comply with Article 67. SLMGs are not covered by the SEP Class rating as this AIC implies! As Examiners we are required to enforce this on behalf of the CAA yet their own staff fail to grasp it!

The AIC further states:A valid SEP rating in this context means that there is a valid Certificate of Revalidation for the SEP class rating and a valid JAR-FCL Medical Certificate in the pilot's licence.No it does not! There is no correlation between a medical certificate and an aircraft class rating! Where does this bunk come from?

It then goes on to say:An SEP rating cannot be revalidated or renewed, ............................ unless the applicant/holder has a valid JAA Class 1 or 2 Medical Certificate.There is absolutely nothing in the ANO, JAR-FCL; or Part FCL to prevent an examiner renewing or revalidating a SEP Class rating without a medical certificate!

If this is meant to be a change in the Law, applied without consultation; on what safety grounds can this be justified? Why confine it to SEP ratings, what about other Classes TMG, MEP, SLMG etc?

Yet another example of chaos and confusion!

[blagger]

Whopity - I've had this debate with a few people. Interestingly, the latest version of Standards Doc 11, Appendix 2 also now says that the examiner must check the medical certificate for currency for rating revalidation.

[Whopity]

Interesting that two CAA FEs had their SET Class ratings revalidated whilst they had no medicals!

Indeed, I always check it for validity and point out that without a valid medical they cannot exercise the privileges. Still nothing illegal about it!

Unenforcible Rules are Pointless Rules!

[ifitaintboeing]

Medicals

I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this with the CAA when the issue of NPPL medicals with JAR-FCL licences was being reviewed prior to the issue of the above AIC, and pointed out that the FEH and the ANO contradict each other.

ANO Article 72 says that for any licence other than the NPPL, "the holder of the licence is not entitled to perform any of the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical certificate". This means that a UK PPL(A) or JAR-FCL PPL(A) is invalidated if there is no Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. So the SEP rating and/or a JAR-FCL licence cannot be renewed or revalidated without a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate.

This was inserted into the 'new' ANO which has been in force since January 2010.

SLMG



SLMGs are not Aeroplanes (Land), and do not fall within the scope of the SEP rating


LASORS 2010

SEP Privileges under Section C

The holder of a UK JAR-FCL licence with SEP rating
may also, subject to completion of differences training
with an appropriately qualified flying instructor, exercise
the privileges of their licence on microlight aeroplanes
and SLMG’s in UK airspace only, without the necessity
of obtaining a NPPL (the normal licence for such
aeroplanes).

[Whopity]

LASORS is Guidance and does not take precedence over the ANO! Schedule 3 is quite clear and has been there for decades! How do you obtain the necessary Certificate of Test, Experience or Revalidation based upon "Differences" training?
the holder of the licence is not entitled to perform any of the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical certificate"Quite right, but a Skill Test is a demonstration of skill that can be demonstrated perfectly well without exercising any of the functions to which the licence relates. They are separate items where you cannot use one without the other. Nothing more than that.

[ifitaintboeing]

I didn't say that you can't do the flight - he is perfectly entitled to display his skills to you. However, you cannot then sign the Certificate of Revalidation since this is specifically prohibited by Article 72.

As for SLMG, the CAA have produced guidance which states that they interpret the regulations such that a JAR-FCL SEP rating holder may fly a SLMG in UK airspace, once they have completed differences training, using a valid SEP rating. In the same way, you could telephone or e-mail the CAA and receive the same guidance.

[BillieBob]

However, you cannot then sign the Certificate of Revalidation since this is specifically prohibited by Article 72.Utter nonsense! There is nothing in Article 72 that even suggests that an examiner cannot sign a Certificate of Test, let alone a specific prohibition. The test may be conducted under the terms of Article 53 and so the candidate is not exercising the privileges of his/her licence.

[ifitaintboeing]

Interpret it how you wish - I do not pretend to be a lawyer.

As I see it, you are an examiner acting on behalf of the CAA in accordance with the Authorisation granted by them. Article 72 states that no licensing action is to be taken on a licence with no valid medical. The CAA have also stated this in their guidance documentation. Seems perfectly clear to me.

[BillieBob]

Article 72 states that no licensing action is to be taken on a licence with no valid medical.That is simply untrue - Article 72 states nothing of the sort.
Requirement for a medical certificate
72 (1) This article applies to any licence granted under article 64, other than a National
Private Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) or a Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence.
(2) The holder of a licence to which this article applies is not entitled to perform any of
the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical
certificate issued under paragraph (4).
(3) Every applicant for or holder of a licence to which this article applies must, whenever
the CAA requires, submit himself or herself to a medical examination by a person
approved by the CAA, either generally or in a particular case or class of cases, who
must make a report to the CAA in such form as the CAA may require.
(4) On the basis of such medical examination, the CAA or the approved person may issue
a medical certificate which states that they have assessed the holder of the licence
as meeting the requirements specified by the CAA.
(5) Subject to articles 74(3) and 228, a medical certificate is valid for the period specified
in the certificate.
(6) A medical certificate forms part of the licence.As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the CAA's 'guidance' is increasingly flawed and at odds with the legislation and requirements.

[Whopity]

As for SLMG, the CAA have produced guidance which states that they interpret the regulations such that a JAR-FCL SEP rating holder may fly a SLMG in UK airspace, once they have completed differences training, using a valid SEP rating. In the same way, you could telephone or e-mail the CAA and receive the same guidance.If this is their intention, then they must issue an Exemption to the ANO in accordance with Article 242; they cannot issue guidance to change the Law! In fact they did issue an Exemption ORS4 No: 674 when it was previously pointed out that they had cocked it up! That exemption was withdrawn on 30 June 2009 leaving the statement in LASORS as an indication of their continuing ineptitude. Much of this results from someone at the CAA agreeing to things produced by the NPPL committee, and then failing to tell anyone else about it, least of all the lawyers who produce the legislation.
As I see it, you are an examiner acting on behalf of the CAA in accordance with the Authorisation granted by themPPL Examiners have received little or no formal guidance from the CAA in over 12 years, they can only operate in accordance with the ANO, and not a bunch of inconsistent, badly worded, and inaccurate guidance documents.

Nothing in the Law prohibits an examiner from signing a licence with a Cof R whether or not the candidate has a valid medical certificate. If they do not have one you must make the holder aware that they may not exercise the privileges without such a Certificate. The CAA are not empowered to change the law by making it more stringent; they may relax it by issuing an Exemption under Art 242.