CAA Updates on EASA

[Mike Cross]

UK CAA has issued updates on the anticipated effects of EASA FCL on UK Pilot Licensing and also a summary of recent CAA activity in relation to EASA. Details on the AOPA UK news page. (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=1&Itemid=247)

[BackPacker]

Thanks for posting. Well worth a read. Although at the same time, slightly headache-inducing.

[cessnapete]

Having read the CAA bumph I too have a headache!

I have a JAA ATPL which will be an EASA compliant licence. I own an Annex II Cessna 170B which is non EASA. What licence do I need in 2012 to fly it in UK.

I also fly an N reg turbo prop single on my FAA CPL/IR, nothing mentioned in CAA blurb, so assume N Reg etc in Europe still to be decided by EASA.

[ah147]

The thing that is confusing me is that it says (as I read it) that a holder of a JAA-PPL (A) will be able to fly EASA aircraft up to 2000kg and up to four seats.

The weight I'm not sure about, but a lot of people with Cherokee 6s, Beech Bonanzas etc will be very upset by these. Unless I've read it wrong. Which I probably have.

[851Pilot]

Thanks for posting - that's exactly what I've been trying to find for months!

Looks like (providing the medical requirements *are* almost identical to current NPPL) I may well get to spread my wings with the LAPL

<crosses fingers>

In my mind I was expecting one of the following three outcomes for me - everything from my flying will have to stop completely - through continuing UK only on Annex 2 aircraft - through to the possibility of getting the LAPL.

At least the first threat appears gone - with likelyhood that I'll be able to get the LAPL.

Did I hear that LAPL would include ratings?

Iain

[Mike Cross]

I have a JAA ATPL which will be an EASA compliant licence. I own an Annex II Cessna 170B which is non EASA. What licence do I need in 2012 to fly it in UK.

I also fly an N reg turbo prop single on my FAA CPL/IR, nothing mentioned in CAA blurb, so assume N Reg etc in Europe still to be decided by EASA.

1. Your JAA ATPL will not be an EASA compliant licence, however you will be able to exchange it for an EASA one which will be valid to fly EASA and non-EASA aircraft registered in the EU.

2. AIUI the proposal is that if the operator of the non EU registered a/c (in your case N Reg) aircraft is resident or established in the EU then you will need a licence validation or an EASA licence that would entitle you to fly the a/c. In your case it seems academic because you will hold an EASA ATPL.

Quite where this leaves someone with an FAA IR flying an N Reg Cirrus operated by someone resident in or established in the EU is a bit of a mystery. The situation is not uncommon.

The intention is that validation will only be for a max of one year so:-
Pilot X can fly on his FAA ticket under the privileges of his FAA IR for up to a year.
Thereafter his FAA licence will not be valid to fly that particular a/c and he'll be required to have an EASA licence. If his FAA licence is not valid to fly the a/c then where does it leave his IR capability?

Although his FAA licence is no longer valid to fly that a/c it would still be valid for flying an identical a/c in the EU that is operated by someone not resident in the EU.

I don't think they've quite thought through the concept of an "operator". In the case of CAT it's not an issue, it's the holder of the AOC but in the case of a private flight what's the answer?

[wsmempson]

Quote

"The thing that is confusing me is that it says (as I read it) that a holder of a JAA-PPL (A) will be able to fly EASA aircraft up to 2000kg and up to four seats.

The weight I'm not sure about, but a lot of people with Cherokee 6s, Beech Bonanzas etc will be very upset by these. Unless I've read it wrong. Which I probably have."

I think that you will find that this restriction refers to National licences after 2015 (i.e. NPPL or old style CAA non-expiring PPL unless it's converted).

JAA PPL's will become EASA licence's without any such restriction.:8

Having said that, it's not the clearest of read's...!

[IO540]

Quite where this leaves someone with an FAA IR flying an N Reg Cirrus operated by someone resident in or established in the EU is a bit of a mystery. The situation is not uncommon.That is the biggest chestnut, which EASA is doing best to bull**t over.

The intention is that validation will only be for a max of one year so:-
Pilot X can fly on his FAA ticket under the privileges of his FAA IR for up to a year.
Thereafter his FAA licence will not be valid to fly that particular a/c and he'll be required to have an EASA licence. If his FAA licence is not valid to fly the a/c then where does it leave his IR capability?He won't have any.

Although his FAA licence is no longer valid to fly that a/c it would still be valid for flying an identical a/c in the EU that is operated by someone not resident in the EU.Yes :)

Actually his FAA license/rating will always be valid, and will be required to fly the N-reg plane to comply with State of Registry requirements under ICAO. Only the FAA can invalidate your FAA papers. "All" that is happening is that EASA also requires an EASA license/rating while you are in EU airspace.

I don't think they've quite thought through the concept of an "operator". In the case of CAT it's not an issue, it's the holder of the AOC but in the case of a private flight what's the answer?There are multiple answers according to circumstances.

In the CAT case, they will have to exempt them all anyway if they hold an AOC, otherwise a Continental 747 won't be allowed to land at Heathrow.

For non-AOC cases, it depends on whether you can establish a non-EU operator. Clearly, for some example of a syndicated / "fractional ownership" business, you can have a 100% straight operator which is a company in say Jersey. With a booking website, and the Jersey company having control of it, nobody will be able to challenge this, IMHO. Same if the Jersey company simply rented it out. It is more difficult for an ordinary private owner of a single aircraft, living in the EU. An operating company in that case will be obviously contrived. Which is not to say it won't stand up; loads of schemes which are merely avoidance schemes do stand up. Only in specific cases are they set aside (HMRC have established some of those).

I am convinced that this stuff was put together by amateur lawyers in some EASA committee, without proper legal advice from people who actually know aviation. The wording they use has no precedent in aviation, it would create havoc not just around the EU but internationally, it will make the EU a laughing stock of the world's richest people (who all fly in nice planes) and there is no framework for policing such a nebulous concept as an non EU resident operator.

EASA is not really an aviation organisation; it's a gravy train which employs a lot of clever people (because they get paid so much) but they are out of touch and are running private agendas which in this case is an envy-driven anti-American one.

Obviously if I have any good workaround ideas I won't be writing about them :)

[IanPZ]

I had a good read, and understood about 1% of that!

So, here's two questions, if anybody fancies taking a punt at answering.

1. After 8/4/2012, are all new licenses issued going to be EASA, or will they continue to issue NPPL until 8/4/2014 (or was it 2015)?

2. At present, there is a conversion path from NPPL(M) to NPPL(SSEA). Will that disappear after 2012, 2014, 2015, or what? I seem to recall reading something about NPPL(M) will only count as minimal contribution towards the new EASA PPL, but what about the EASA LAPL?

I'm learning to fly a fixed wing microlight now, and that is what I am most interested in right now. However, I was thinking that some time in the future, it might be fun to convert that to an NPPL(SSEA). Is that going to be barred to me after April 2012? If so, I better get my skates on!

Ta...IPZ

[BillieBob]

After 8/4/2012, are all new licenses issued going to be EASANo, the UK will continue to issue the NPPL for use on Annex II aircraft and, additionally, will recommence issuing the national PPL, CPL and ATPL for the same purpose.
At present, there is a conversion path from NPPL(M) to NPPL(SSEA). Will that disappear after....No, but the licence will be valid only on Annex II SSEAs
what about the EASA LAPL?There are currently no crediting arrangements for the NPPL towards the LAPL, although that is not say that such arrangements will not be developed before 8/4/2012.
Your JAA ATPL will not be an EASA compliant licenceAll licences issued in accordance with JAR-FCL will be deemed to be EASA licences from 8/4/2012. When the current JAA ATPL expires it will be replaced with the EASA equivalent. In the UK, an EASA ATPL(A) that includes an SEP Class Rating will be valid on an Annex II SEP aeroplane

[Lister Noble]

Billie Bob and Beagle seem to know what is actually happening.

I've had enough of it for now,my JAA PPL licence expires in a couple of months,and I've applied for a NPPL ,forms and cheque gone,and await the shiny new licence.
If I find I can't fly because of new rules which exclude me,I have a cunning plan.

Line dancing;)

[julian_storey]

This all seems to be making something fiendishly complicated out of something much simpler, which works perfectly well :ugh:

[IanPZ]

BillieBob, That's great. Thanks so much. Still sounds like if I do get my NPPL(M) early enough, its still worth looking at doing the conversion before 2012, but it doesn't seem to be that its completely closed to me.

Really appreciate the help.

TA. IPZ

[peter272]

It is astonishing that after years of effort in trying to harmonise FCL across the EU, the CAA now has to reactivate the issue of national licences and duplicate things more than they ever were.

And how much is this all going to cost, I ask, and for what?

[IO540]

I don't think the CAA wants to kick out the N-reg community.

Firstly they would be kicking out the best quality end of GA. This will impact the whole industry, all the way to maintenance companies losing their best funded customers.

Secondly they are going to get sued by various professional pilots for loss of income caused by the demolition of a very long established operating regime.

But I expect the CAA (and others) to keep its powder dry till it's needed. EASA/EU is a bunch of clever b*stards; they've had 50 years of practice of dishonest wheeling and dealing under the table.

[WelshHopper]

I just read the original link; much like others, I have now turned to alcohol to ease my headache!

I was going to pose questions, but they've already been answered, so I just wanted to thank BillieBob & Beagle for what appears to be a huge font of EASA knowledge!

Thanks,

WH :ok:

[vanHorck]

Well, if AOPA etcetera have failed to generate a European wide revolt, we only have ourselves to blame, we ARE after all the community....

[421C]

Quite where this leaves someone with an FAA IR flying an N Reg Cirrus operated by someone resident in or established in the EU is a bit of a mystery. The situation is not uncommon.


This situation is that by April 2012 you will need to get an EASA PPL IR, as well as your FAA IR. You could go for the 1 year validation, but that is a waste of time, unless you intend moving out of the EU within a year, since the validation requirements duplicate much of the getting the full rating requirements.

The state you are registered in may choose to apply a 'derogation' which pushes back the requirement from April 2012 to April 2014. I guess this is likely but not certain for most countries.

In the interval between April 2012 and April 2014, EASA and the USA may sign a Bilateral Agreement for mutual licence acceptance. I wouldn't rate the chances of that very highly...

You could depend upon some lobbying, or lawsuits, or 'havoc' in the busines jet community changing this. However, this has been written about for years and the total result of the lobbying has been the 2 year derogation and the threat of lawsuits and 'havoc' has been zilch. You could depend on some avoidance of the concept of being an Operator resident in the EU. IMHO, the lawsuits/havoc/avoiding the Operator definition have close to zero chance of being effective. The 2 year derogation looks likely. The Bilateral treaty is an unknown, at best I'd guess a 50% chance of something meaningful in the next few years - but I would not expect that to mean "zero" requirements to do some EASA training or testing.

It's down to you. If "likely" is good enough, then wait and see. If not, I'd get on with an FAA to JAA IR conversion. There is a year to go to 2012, and in my experience, whilst the conversion could be done in weeks, just the exams could take 6-12months if you are fitting in with full time work and family life. This is not trying to scare anyone - I think a derogation is likely. But, if you want certainty, you will not get it other than by doing a conversion now.


In the CAT case, they will have to exempt them all anyway if they hold an AOC, otherwise a Continental 747 won't be allowed to land at Heathrow
Nope. Continental is not an operator resident in the EU. None of this affects non-EU airlines and there will be no need to 'exempt' them.

[proudprivate]

Well, if AOPA etcetera have failed to generate a European wide revolt, we only have ourselves to blame, we ARE after all the community....


I think the European Parliament is very much aware of the situation, and several political fractions are discussing how to deal with it. The more stirr 60000 pilots make, the more chance of a parliamentary rebuttal

The CAA, motivated by the prospect of generating some more fee income and hiring some extra legal staff to convert legislation, is presenting this as a done deal. It is NOT. Write to your MEP's TODAY, exposing the Aviation Safety Unit of the Commission, EASA and your CAA representatives at the EASA commitee for the anti-democratic weasels that they are.

You can find sufficient materials in EASA N-reg thread in this forum. Focus on the economic impact, likely lawsuits, deviations from the EASA mandate, overall intransparency of the process.

The next transport committee of the European Parliament is next Monday, where the topic is likely to be on the agenda.

[IO540]

I wonder what the possibility is of the current seven JAA IR exams being void if/when EASA brings in this crap, if you haven't done the IR checkride by then?

A friend of mine is a commercial (bizjet) pilot (non UK) who is having to re-do all 14 ATP exams. He had a national ATPL but they have decided it is no longer good enough and they refused to grandfather it.

[Mariner9]

I wonder what the possibility is of the current seven JAA IR exams being void if/when EASA brings in this crap, if you haven't done the IR checkride by then?

That is a very good point IO, and has prompted me to get my finger out and start the flying training, having completed the writtens last year.

[421C]

I wonder what the possibility is of the current seven JAA IR exams being void if/when EASA brings in this crap, if you haven't done the IR checkride by then?


The recent CAA update on FCL details this. Licensing and Training Standards | EASA | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?gid=2061)

Para 3.4 refers. I can't paste because the PDF is secure. Basically, the current UK JAA exams are "old standard" and will be available from now until April 12. You must pass all these before April 12, they will then be valid for an EASA IR for up to 36mths (IIRC). BUT, if you take "old standard exams" and don't pass all 7 by April 12, you may need to retake the lot.
The "new standard exams" will be available from June 2011. If you have passed some but not all the papers by April 2012 to the new standard, no problem.

The issue (IIRC) is that a JAR FCL amendment to the written exams was passed several years ago, but the CAA have chosen not to implement this amendment for whatever reasons until now. I think this amendment has a meaningful slimming down of the IR syllabus (10-20%, still 7 exams). One has the choice of waiting for the new syllabus or taking the old one now. My concern would be with slippage in the June 2011 date. The CAA need to make the exams available, but also the schools have to have Approved courses and course materials etc etc. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some issues with timing and availability. It would be worth checking with the TK schools who do the IR. At the time of the transition to JAR-FCL, the IR was very poorly handled. There are now some UK schools who offer good support of IR-only candidates, so worth contacting them. Two I think are very good are GTS and CATS.

brgds
421C

[IO540]

That is a very good point IO, and has prompted me to get my finger out and start the flying training, having completed the writtens last year.Where did you do the exams and the flight training? Reply by email if you like :)

I was looking at GTS, and a location in Spain which someone recommended as supporting SE IR training, which is unusual.

I also never found anybody selling the computer revision ground school material - unless this is 100% identical to the ATPL version, but then I never found anybody whose product defined which 7 out of 14 to use.

I also heard, several years ago, that all jet-specific questions were removed from the ATPL syllabus, if one was doing just the PPL/IR. Is this true? If true then the exams cannot possibly be the same.

For somebody doing the exams, the 12-month timescale is not a bad idea because that is enough time to fail it 3 times and then you have to retake the lot anyway. But I was concerned about their eligibility towards flight training, if e.g. one is doing the flight training abroad. I am not doing the training in the UK - too much hassle with window screens (which AFAIK nobody has done for the TB20GT) and too much gold plating.

[Mariner9]

Where did you do the exams?
I used CATS for the IR groundschool. They offer CBT as standard, or printed manuals (which are duplicates of the CBT) for an additional price.

The CBT is indeed the full ATPL syllabus, but CATS also supply a detailed study guide for the IR which advises the sections that can be ignored. They also have an IR-specific question bank.

Personally, I can recommend CATS - they helped me get through all 7 written exams 1st time.

As for the flying - I have my first session with Aeros Gloucester this coming weekend.

[IO540]

Did you have to actually visit CATS?

I've just looked at their website and they seem to offer the same £1k deal as GTS who I contacted a while ago.

[Mariner9]

Some classroom attendance was mandatory for a "new" IR, though I'm not sure whether that is the case for an FAA IR conversion - check lasors (while you still can :ok:)

In any event, CATS helpfully ran a couple of weekend classes where we got everything done so it was no big deal.

[IO540]

Classroom attendance should not be mandatory for a conversion IR but I think these firms both offer something like 1 day's heavy classroom revision, just before the exam(s).

[Maoraigh1]

4.2 "...an EASA license wth SEP rating is valid for UK-Registered non-EASA single engine piston aeroplanes..."

This makes everything look sensible for most of us.

[421C]

I also never found anybody selling the computer revision ground school material - unless this is 100% identical to the ATPL version, but then I never found anybody whose product defined which 7 out of 14 to use.

There are 7 IR exams. They are seperate from the 14 ATPL exams. There is not a simple mapping of "you do these 7 ATPL exams for the IR". The IR syllabus is a subset of the ATPL syllabus in totality but that syllabus is clustered into 7 exam papers which map in different ways to the ATPL. For example (and take this as illustrative, I am doing it from memory)
...some exams are identical to the ATPL equivalents (HPL and IFR comms, I think)
...some exams are a subset of the ATPL equivalent. For example, the IR MET exam and syllabus is a simple subset of the ATPL MET exam and syllabus with about 90% of the ATPL content, but excluding various bits on global weather patterns etc
...the rest of the IR exams are a combination of parts of the ATPL syllabus bundled into IR exams. For example, the ATPL has an Air Law exam and an Operating Procedures exam. The IR has a single Air Law and Operating Procedures exam. It includes a subset of the ATPL syllabus for both these. It is a minor nusiance during the CATS course that you have to flick from the ATPL manuals to the paper that tells you which bits are relevant to the IR. However, the Question Banks are good - they are specific to each IR paper without you having to worry about any of this ATPL subsetting.


I also heard, several years ago, that all jet-specific questions were removed from the ATPL syllabus, if one was doing just the PPL/IR. Is this true? If true then the exams cannot possibly be the same.
See above. The exams have never been the same. They do not include any jet-specific content. You can see the "Learning Objectives" for each paper here:
JAA - Licensing: Learning Objectives IR (A) (http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/jar-fcl/jar-fcl_ira_frame.html)
(these are probably the post-amended JAA standard, not the current CAA one)


too much hassle with window screens (which AFAIK nobody has done for the TB20GT) and too much gold plating.

There is a detailed write-up here of a PPL/IR Europe members experience doing an FAA to JAA IR conversion on a private N-reg TB20 here:PPL/IR Europe - Getting a JAA/IR - Personal Practical Experience (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=471)

There is also a detailed write-up of the TK exams here:
PPL/IR Europe - JAA IR Written Exams: Much easier than you think (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=438)


I also never found anybody selling the computer revision ground school material
The market is tiny - why would anyone sell it? Every candidate has to go to an approved school, so you sign up for a course, and they sell you the materials - online or paper. If you want to get a sense of the question bank, a number of the ATPL question bank providers will sell you the IR QB - google it.

Classroom attendance should not be mandatory for a conversion IR but I think these firms both offer something like 1 day's heavy classroom revision, just before the exam
It's not mandatory, but it is at the schools' discretion. I would imagine that they would not require completion of the coursework and classroom attendance if you convinced them in good faith you were able to self-study in the spirit required of the JAA/EASA exam process (.....eg. not an intention to try the exams without studying to see which you pass!).


I was looking .....a location in Spain which someone recommended as supporting SE IR training
Of course it was (quite rightly) possible under the JAA to do this sort of thing. I believe there was a bit of greyness one needed to be careful of about which bits of the process were done where, but plenty pilots with UK JAA licences got IRs added to them on the basis of completing training and the test in Spain. The JAA has since evaporated, so I would just be cautious that the process you choose ticks the right boxes for the CAA - it's really down to their discretion now whether to and how to accept overseas training and testing. One advantage of EASA is that these rules about cross-border training and testing will be clearer and more consistent.

brgds
421C

[IO540]

The market is tiny - why would anyone sell it?

That explains why I never found any and why none of the ground school firms never replied to my enquiries. Interesting to see some recent disinformation from a well known pilot forum ego-tripper corrected :ok:

The CAA has very recently accepted a Spanish IR, so it seems ongoing. In any case, one would do the exams before looking at where to do the rest.

I cannot use TB20 window screens because the TB20GT has different windows. Anyway I think it is dangerous to fly with those things. Anybody blocking the view like that, in normal ops, would be regarded as completely mad.