CPL with 140 hours

[siul]

I was wondering, one friend asked me for help , she started CPL with 140 hours, completed CPL, ME, and IR-now she has around 220 hours, and she complies with all the requirements for CPL issue .Would she have any problems with the CAA in the issue of the licence? Will they reject her licence?

Thank you wait, for any help, she is really worried about it.

[zondaracer]

Why would they deny her a license? Did she pass all the exams? It is common that lots of folks turn their stuff in all at once to avoid paying multiple license issue fees to the CAA.

[JLMF]

The problem is that she started CPL with 140 hours, and CAA wants to see 150 before to start CPL. so it can be rejected, or is just something not really that important and she can go away with it, and CAA will issue her licence with no problems at all..?

[rmcb]

First thing is to get negotiations going. She must go to the FCL at Gatwick with all paperwork, emphasise she feels she has a special case and she needs to speak with a senior member of the policy division.The clock's ticking and concessionary extensions are almost non existent; don't go on friday afternoon!

Next, she wants to establish why the respective FTOs. signed off a 170a. Strictly speaking, it was her responsibility to ensure she had the required start hours. However, if the FTO checked her logbook before commencement there is a woeful lack of care that needs examining. Part of training, surely, is to overhaul logbooks and tell you you're a pillock. That way they have covered their arses for cases such as this.

170a section 3: 'Training required by Approved Syllabus' - if you haven't started with the prerequisites, have you even started the approved syllabus?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ever hear the expression "if you can't afford the answer, don't ask the question" ?

If she has adequate hours now, I suspect she's better not raising this formally with ANYBODY, and the odds are it'll never be noticed by anybody.

G

[rmcb]

GtE, I understand your motive for saying this.

But... when, following an incident, the insurance adjuster discovers that you are technically not licensed the CAA will be amongst the first to stiff you.

Then the potential expense will relieve you of your home, posessions and maybe land you with a criminal record.

Not worth the risk, in my opinion; a deficit of ten hours I am sure can be worked around; it might be an official reprimand with an additional hour penalty. Better to get that in writing from the aquarium, surely?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Except that all of the requirements for issue of the CPL WERE met, it was only a requirement for commencement of the course.

If hellbent on declaring one's (probably non-existent) sins, the solution is probably to send the application in with a note written into the logbook saying something like "the course was inadvertently started with 140 hours which was below the 150 minimum, this was rectified as soon as it was identified with hours on flight at (insert dates) bring the total outside of the CPL course beyond the 150 minimum." Also make sure that the School knows before the head of training signs the paperwork off.

Do make sure that CAA can see the evidence then, but there is nothing on the application forms so far as I can recall declaring hours before commencement?

Having said that, what *may* be more serious is a lack of 100hrs PiC which is worth checking and is mandatory for CPL issue. Given there's no PiC time on the CPL or IR courses, 140hrs including a PPL course may be a bit behind that requirement?

G

[VJW]

Genghis the Engineer's reply is correct, the 100 hrs PIC must be met before being issued with a CPL. He is slightly wrong though in a prior post, it will most definitely be noticed by the PLD staff, after all it's a requirement. As part of the licensing issue process this is one of the boxes they need to tick when assessing the application.

Having worked in PLD prior to my current job issuing these very licences/ratings, I can confirm at the time I was there this oversight use to happen from time to time. The application would normally get double checked and 'ok to issue' by the policy department, and would still get issued providing all other requirements were met. What would probably delay the application a little, is the CAA would normally write to the school and ask for an explanation as to why someone started a CPL course without the minimum prerequisite flight experience requirements being met. This was done more of a reminder to the school that it happened and should not happen again. Bringing it up like this to the school would tend to have the desired effect. It is the schools responsibility after all to assess the experience levels of a pilot wishing to start a course prior to putting them through it, as it's part of their FTO approval to conduct CPL courses.

While I was there, they never forced someone to retake any of the training, again provided all other requirements had been met the licence was always issued with a small delay due to the extra admin. The additional hour(s) penalty suggested by rmcb in my experience NEVER happened, what would be the point?

[BillieBob]

The fault lies clearly with the FTO, which has failed to meet the reuirements of its approval. Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 1.055, being the requirements for FTO approval, states "A sudent accepted for training shall possess the appropriate medical certificate and shall meet the entrance requirements set by the FTO, as approved by the Authority". That having been said, the student must bear some lesser degree of responsibility.

rmcb is correct - no attempt should be made to cover this up and a letter to the Authority, detailing the circumstances, should accompany the application for licence issue. All indications are that, in the run-up to implementation of the EU Regulation on pilot licensing, the UK CAA has thrown away the rule book and is making policy on the hoof, usually in favour of the individual. In any case, I would expect that they will be far more interested in going after the FTO concerned, especially if it is already on their radar.

[VJW]

Very well said BB. What he said is precisely the case! :ok:

[rmcb]

VJW - agreed, there would be little point in the hour supplement. FCL seems to work in strange ways; this is just a way of suggesting there may be a precedent with which they act.

These situations are as easily avoided as they are to occur; Is it time the CAA are seen to act as regulator and enforce rules from the outset? Granted, it would be mind-numbingly boring, but at each stage of professional training maybe a stage check - submit logbooks before training commences; their countersigned 'tick in a box' then has legal weight. It isn't good enough to point out shortfalls at the end stage.

As the case stands there is a way for FCL to say that all subsequent training to her PPL is void if they are to go by the book. Should holders who have gone through the training not expect they do go by the book?

The chances of the OP's friend being compensated by the FTO is minimal; they would probably frame a CAA admonishment in the executive khazi.

[JLMF]

So basically , it won´t be any problems for that person? Just be honest with the CAA, let them know you had 145 hours when you started due to some reasons, and they will issue your licence straigh away with no problems?

[Luke SkyToddler]

Well it's not like you have a lot of choice in the matter ... you certainly won't get a licence if you DON'T send the paperwork in that's for sure. So you might as well get on with it as opposed to asking a bunch of random people on the internet.

So just be straight up with them, the worst that can happen is it will take a bit more time but they can't make you go back and start again or anything daft like that, I'm sure

[rmcb]

So basically , it won´t be any problems for that person? Just be honest with the CAA, let them know you had 145 hours when you started due to some reasons, and they will issue your licence straigh away with no problems?

JLMF; at whom is this question aimed? If it is me then I am torn between two options, given that she is where she is:

Option 1. If they are to go by the book; the candidate failed to complete the course as required. Ergo, no CPL, no IR, start again.

Option 2. Come to a compromise which could involve any number of sanctions.

Either is distasteful and could have been avoided from the outset by considered regulation.

As BillieBob mentioned, the FTO should not embark on training someone who lacks the prerequisites. So sue the FTO..? Difficult enough in the UK, let alone Florida (the OP's location). Will the CAA help you? They did, after all, nominate this FTO as acceptable to train the CPL course to a syllabus.

You are training to be a professional. However, you are not yet the professional that you pay the FTO to make of you. They are there to guide you and tell you when you are being a pillock. This includes checking your logged hours from the outset.

So, JLMF, what would you do? Who do you feel is responsible? Should this candidate forfeit her exams., CPL pass and IR pass because an administrative error occurred under the aegis of the CAA?

[MajorCorporalArse]

Are you saying she started CPL with 140hrs as in as a CPL or started CPL training at 140hrs... The way i read it was she started training for CPL with 140hrs.. Which i thought wouldn't have any impact considering i started CPL training with 60hrs.. for 150hr syllabus to CPL (+me, ir, etc)

[rmcb]

MajorCorporalArse - The essence of this thread is that you cannot start the CPL(A) course with fewer than 150 hours TT as a pilot. Therefore, as the book goes, this candidate's CPL application is forfeit - as is her IR if she used the CPL hours credit to achieve it.

SoCalApp - Troll or not, in my opinion the OP has exposed an important deficiency in the UK CAA's policing of the regulations. You are correct - it is their trainset, but exercising a monopoly has its responsibilities.

This candidate risks having to resit exams. and flight tests with the huge time and cost implications. Yes, she failed her own due diligence and I am sure would the first to admit to being an arse. However, the regulator cannot look at this situation without realising they have a degree of blame coming their way.

How often does this happen when we don't hear about it? How many have given up with massive debts? What are the CAA going to do about it? How can the CAA avoid the situation from the outset?

[BillieBob]

How can the CAA avoid the situation from the outset?Simple - by exercising proper oversight of the organisations that they approve. Ever since the inception of JAR-FCL, the CAA have signally failed to exercise proper oversight of non UK-based organisations. Whilst they maintain that they are obliged to approve any overseas organisation that meets the approval criteria, they are unwilling to provide the resources to properly regulate them. If this issue concerned a UK-based organisation and the failure was brought to the attention of the relevant inspector, there would be immediate, albeit inadequate action taken. In the case of overseas organisations, however, breaches of the approval criteria are consistently ignored because it's considered 'too expensive' to take the proper action. The consequence is that non-UK based organisations enjoy a significant commercial advantage over their UK-based competitors, as well as a quieter life.

One advantage of the imminent EU Regulation on Personnel Licensing is that EASA will itself assume responsibility for the oversight of non-EU organisations and, if existing arrangements under Part 145 and Part 147 are any indication, the Florida FTOs are going to find their operations much more closely monitored (and much more expensive) than hitherto.

Returning to the issue at hand, it is true that the CAA could declare the modular CPL course invalid on the grounds that it was not conducted in accordance with JAR-FCL 1 and it is also true that this could then affect the IR course. However, this is unlikely to happen, particularly as the shortfall was only 5 hours. The Authority has, in the past, issued a CPL in the knowledge that much of the qualifying experience was gained illegally, the applicant having flown a significant amount of the PIC time claimed without the benefit of a valid aircraft rating. It is therefore highly unlikely that a decision to refuse to issue the licence and ratings in this case would survive an appeal under Regulation 6, which seems to be the main driver of the Gatwick decision making process these days.

The best course of action, as previously advised, is to make the application as normal and include a covering letter explaining the reasons for the shortfall of experience at the start of the CPL course. Do not be afraid to name the FTO involved - it will be obvious from the relevant logbook entries. It is inconceivable that the licence and rating will not be issued.

[rmcb]

Good post, BillieBob.

The whole organisation stinks - it is tarred by incidences like this. '...considered 'too expensive' to take the proper action...' is not an excuse. If this is the case there should be no approval of overseas schools if they cannot be censured and brought to book.

We have to have regulation, and this usually comes in the form of a bloated civil service (yes, I know the CAA is not civil service :hmm:). However, when this regulatory body shows itself to be deficient there is no hope for an effective industry. I am sure that an incident/accident would prompt someone in Gatwick to go through records minutely. The oversight would be discovered and then... see how that excuse goes down with a secretary of state for transport covering his/her arse.

For what it's worth, I am in favour of issue in this case, but something has to be done to rectify these potential oversights. Now.

[BigGrecian]

The consequence is that non-UK based organisations enjoy a significant commercial advantage over their UK-based competitors, as well as a quieter life.

They get inspected every year though as though we don't in the UK.

They also had an un annouced walk in about 2 years ago from their CAA inspector.

So I wouldn't say quieter - how many UK FTO gets visited that often by the CAA?