Avation Lawyer?

[PeeProone]

I'm in the unenviable and all too common position of being given the runaround by the CAA Flight Crew Licencing department.

I have come to the point where I will have to take legal action against them, can anyone recommend a law firm or lawyer with experience in this area?

Any info is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[Spitoon]

That must be quite a runaround!

I can't help with a lawyer but have you considered/tried an appeal under article 6 of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations?

If you really are getting the runaround - that is to say, you show that you are meeting the rules but the CAA won't do whatever should happen next - your appeal should be upheld. Much cheaper than a lawyer and less confrontational which might benefit you in the future. If it is of any help from my, albeit limited, experience, appeal boards are genuinely independent of the CAA staff that have made (or not made) decisions and try to find a practical solution if the appellant is not taking the P.

[NigelOnDraft]

Whilst in earlier times Flying Lawyer of this board would have fitted the bill, he has moved "upstairs" and so no longer engages the CAA ;)

However, a PM in his direction might elicit a response with somebody suitable to contact?

[PeeProone]

Thanks for taking the time to reply,

Unfortunately I'm bang to rights with the wording of Lasors 2010 so I'm not confident an appeal will be any good.

Briefly, I let my UK ATPL and more problematically my I/R lapse while working on a Hong Kong ATPL. Each edition of Lasors during the last decade recognized the fact that I have maintained a current I/R on an ICAO licence and so to revalidate my UK IR was simply a case of doing a skills test. In late 2010 the latest edition of Lasors was published and without warning the CAA decided that non JAR ICAO I/R's were no longer recognized and in order to renew my UK I/R I will have to re sit the theoretical knowledge examinations.

I feel there is absolutely no basis for this let alone reason but then it's the CAA so yes, I would rather create an expensive stink than dust off my whizz wheel and sit those completely irrelevant exams. I actually think that if I even attempted to take the plotting compass on to an aircraft I'd be calling the Chief Pilot explaining why airport security were detaining me for questioning.

Again thank you for taking the time to reply.

[Mark 1]

JAR-FCL1.185 hasn't changed for a long time.

The 7 year limit for renewing/revalidating is stated there.

I don't know if any of the EASA proposals will change that.

There is a strong push on some parts to have more reciprocal recognition of ICAO licences and ratings, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Dan Winterland]

It may have been there for a while, but the beef is that the CAA have only just started applying it - and unevenly at that. Some pilots have been issued ratings outside the seven years and some have been refused. And some who had their requirements stating in writing from the CAA to put a rating on their UK/JAA licence found they didn't qualify when the CAA finally got round to issuing LASORS 2010 in April 2011!

The rule is nonsensical. Are ratings issued by an ICAO authority such as the Hong Kong CAD any lower quality than those isssued by say, Portugal or Turkey? The HK pilot will probably have been using his rating to fly in the Europe. And is there any relevance to answering questions about the lattitude nut in a DI to transferring a 747 rating to his/her UK/JAA licence? It would be like asking a doctor to retake his biology GCSE after working overseas for seven years!

Other JAA authorities haven't been applying this - some even issue ratings based on another ICAO rating with no additional requirements. Some of the cynics amongst us may suggest that the CAA have seen a way of boosting their revenue prior to handing a major chunk of their income to EASA.

The fact that it's a rule from a document isued by an agency which no longer exists applied a year too late confirms what most of us know about the CAA. If the people it regualtes gave the same level of attention to their work, Europe would be littered with aircraft wrecks. And I don't know if EASA will apply the seven year rule to IR renewal. I hope they see the nonesense in and don't and don't. But one things for sure, although for many JAA state's pilots things will probably get worse - for the UK pilots, there is lots of room for improvemnet.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Obviously can't help with this, but for interest ....

I applied to the NZ CAA for a NZ PPL based on my still valid, but not current, UK ATPL. The NZ CAA insisted that my UK ATPL be valid and current in every respect before they would agree, i.e. they wanted me to go to the UK and do a BFR, I/Rtg renewal etc etc. I would then be allowed to fly a NZ BFR in a 172 for the issue of a NZ PPL. no I/Rtg. (which was all I wanted )

As it happened, shortly afterwards I did indeed return to a professional flying position in the UK for a short while involving a 747 freighter. I then returned to NZ and produced a fully valid and current UK ATPL including I/Rtg.and asked for a NZ ATPL.

NZ CAA said that they didn't recognise a UK I/Rtg. go and do an initial NZ I/Rtg. on a twin Beech something.

It was OK for me to fly UK 747's around NZ in IFR, but not an NZ registered club 172 ( or similar )

I declined and told them what to do with their licence etc. - and went and flew microlights instead.

The irony is that one can get an Initial NZ I/Rtg. that only allows one to fly an NDB, then one eventually adds the VOR, and ILS etc. nothing like the full blown UK I/Rtg. that I had held and renewed annually for nearly 40 years.

The Law (and the Campaign Against Aviation) is an Ass.

Best of Luck.

[Dan Winterland]

JAR FCL 1.185 states:

JAR–FCL 1.185 Validity, revalidation and renewal

(a) An IR(A) is valid for one year from the
date of issue or renewal, or from the expiry date
of a current IR(A) if revalidated in accordance
with JAR-FCL 1.246(a).

(b) If the IR(A) is restricted for use in multipilot
operations only, the revalidation or renewal
shall be completed in multi-pilot operations.

(c) If the IR(A) has not been
revalidated/renewed within the preceding
7 years, the holder will be required to retake the
IR(A) theoretical knowledge examination and
skill test in accordance with Appendix 1 to JARFCL
1.210.

[Amdt.1, 01.06.00; Amdt.4, 01.09.05]

There is no specific mention of not counting ICAO IRs issued by non-JAA member states or the military. This addition is pure CAA. As the UK law is just as much about the spirit of the law as the letter, I'm sure the interpretation and additional clause won't hold water in a UK court. I suspect the Eurocrat who drafted the original hadn't considered the possibility as to me it reads for someon who has not maintained an IR of any sort over the past seven years.

There are a lot of us who this affects and we will be taking action. I imagine the CAA won't want this trouble prior to additional work created by the EASA implementation!