CAA taking away my livelihood?

[NOT ORANGE]

I believe the CAA want me to regain my licence by taking all the exams and tests that I did 25 years ago because of some guy called Iasa.I hate to moan unreasonably but I thought that once I had taken these tests then I would be good to operate for the rest of my career.I have been in Hong Kong for the last 9 years flying on a CAD validation of my JAR license and so its not like I have not been staying current.I imagine if the UK government took doctors ability to work then all hell would follow and a lot of UK doctors don't even do any UK exams!Is there any legal case going on about this as I don't really want to re-qualify in la la cuckoo land again?

[Dan Winterland]

You have fallen foul of the CAA interpretation of JAR FCL 1-185 which states that if your IR has alpsed by more than 7 years, the you have to take the IR exams again and also be tested again for the IR practical. The CAA only decided to implement this in April this year whan they fianlly got round to publishing LASORS 2010 - a year late! JAR FCL 1-185 has been in force since 2005, but the CAA only cottoned on to it ths year - probably to increase revenue prior to losing it to EASA in April 2012.

The JAR FCL wasn't specific enough when written. It was intended to exclude those who let their IR alpse, not those who kept a current IR in anothe ICAO jurisdiction or the military - and a JAR senior official has confirmed this. However, this is how the CAA have chosen to interpret it - they even added the caveat that no non JAR or military qualification counts. This is clearly ridiculous considering that some of the pilots this affects have been flying aircraft such as 747s, A380s and C17s into London Hearhrow.

It is being fought and if you want to join the movement against the CAA interpretaion, please send an e-mail with name, your airline your licence details and current type to instrumentrating(at)gmail.com

[redskyventures]

Are you talking about the UKCAA? I have a similar problem, with SACAA, in that I've left my home country but want to go back one day, every just under 3 years (2 years from the expiry) or so you need to complete a flight test or sit air law, and if it is 5 years all the exams, it is a bit ridiculous when you hold a valid ATPL in another ICAO state to have to do this. I guess you can convert your current license, but this doesn't avoid the air law exam.
It's not that I dislike air law or anything, but it's just that it is a big headache to have to sit a written exam on top of doing the flight test, and requires more time. Anyone know if any exemption processes in RSA? Surely this problem affects quite a few people flying abroad, what do most people do?

[WestWind1950]

question to you "Not Orange"...

I have been in Hong Kong for the last 9 years flying on a CAD validation of my JAR license

is the Hong Kong validation "based on" or is it a "stand alone" one (sorry, no sure what CAD means)? If it's "based on", I hope you kept your JAR license current since after 9 years your license would be expired and your Hong Kong one thus also no longer valid. :=

Besides that fact, there have been many air law changes in the past years and sometimes it would a good idea for some pilots with valid licenses to do some re-testing on current laws. Just like the USA FARs are often different then the European regs, I don't see re-testing as that big of an issue, just a hassle.

[Dan Winterland]

Yes, it's hassle. And considering we have to book our leave a year in advance in the CX group, virtually impossible. But the exams aren't the Nav exams, or just the Air law. They are the 7 IR exams which include all the basic instrument stuff. Answering questions about lattitude nuts in DIs is not exactly relevant to the sort of flying most of us are doing.

And as for boning up on air law - yes I can see the value in that. But you have to take into account that many of the pilots affected have been using their non JAA IRs to fly into the UK regualarly.

[500 above]

Westwind

The JAA exams are a little different. There are 7 (14 if frozen) exams for us to do at great cost, and flight testing. It's not like doing a BFR/IPC. It's a disgusting predicament.

[Landflap]

Fight this one as hard as you can. Get organized with a fighting fund & prepare to go very legal, if you can. Disgraceful situation and disgraceful handling of properly qualified & operational professional pilots. I qualified in 1972 with sponsored CPL/IR & Perf A. I was flying for Nigel, RHS, Trident out of LHR when we were all told that we had to do an extra 5 hours on a twin as Rules had changed regarding minimum twin time for the I/R. Whaaaaat ? We had qualified from CAA approved schools & were operating ! I took it, privately, all the way & am still quite proud of a letter I received from the , then called, Board of Trade & the head, a Lord Boyd Carpenter who agreed that it was frustrating but that selection standards for the profession should remain very high ! Whaaaaaat, we had passed selection, we had obtained licences, we were operating jets from UK's main Base. A big fight took place & the BoT finally relented for those in practice on multi-engine aircraft. (!). This latest wheeze looks like a money spinner for the UK CAA. I too, later, flew on validations of my UK ATPL/IR. First with the Italians (only Air Law exam), then Dutch (same) then Belgian (nothing but a visit to the CAA & a validation stamp). Other guys I know flew for Middle East carriers & were simply given that country's licence based on presentation of the UK CAA licence. I appreciate that National standards vary. Going for standardisation really does require a look at standards being offered. But, great credit must be given if you are on an ICAO licence & current. Fight this & fight it hard. As previous contributors have intimated, other professions are not subjected to this indignity.Absolute, money driven disgrace, again, by the Licencing Authorities.

[Dan Winterland]

It is being fought. The ruling purely the CAA's intepretation. A JAA official has confirmed that this is not what JAR FCL 1-185 meant. Unfortunately, the CAA have chosen to interpret it this way in LASORS 2010 (which weren't published until April 2011) for their own reasons despite happily renewing licences based on foreign or military IRs for many years prior to this date.

One can speculate on the motive, but as the CAA have merely applied to EASA to be their UK representative and it's not been decided who will be awarded the job - perhaps they view it as a last chance to screw the UK pilot body out of a few more sheckels. Unfortunately for them (and us) it's had the opposite effect and many hundreds of pilots who can't get to the UK to do the exams, or just can't be bothered are not renewing their licences , thus depriving the CAA of cash.

If anyone is affected by this stupid ruling and wants to be included in the action, please send as many of our details as possible to instrumentrating(at)gmail.com. Obviously, insert the suitable at symbol in the 'at' of the address shown in brackets. If I put the real e mail address, it won't be displayed.

[ExSp33db1rd]

It's not just the UK CAA

Having flown UK reg'd 747's around NZ during my career, I was then denied the ability to fly a 172 from my local - NDB only - airfield to AKL because the NZ CAA refused to acknowledge a UK I/Rtg. and so my UK ATPL couldn't be converted to a NZ ATPL.

I was told to go off and sit a NZ Basic I/Rtg. on a twin something that I was totally unfamiliar with. I declined, so was granted a VFR CPL only, which was actually all I needed, so capitulated and they won.

The Law is an Ass.

[turbine100]

I think the likes of BALPA have been starting to raise this and some noticed the rules or text updates around IR renewals and required training / course completion certificates under AMC No 1 to FCL.625(c) after expiry on another thread when re-applying for the IR. Specifically those abroad flying on other licenses / IR's, may leave it lapse for a short period and then need to do mandatory training at a FTO who provide a course completion certificate to then take the test. If greater than 3 months, the FTO can decide how much training....

[Fart Master]

Any news/update on how things are progressing with the UK CAA?

[Dan Winterland]

BALPA have taken legal advice and it was that the only way to challenge it would be through a judicial review. The problems with this are that it would take so long that the CAA will no longer be issueing JAR licences when the review took placce and the problem may have gone away, that there would be no guarentee of winning and the cost wouiild be excessive.

From Arpril 8th, the CAA will be EASA's agents in the UK and will be issuing EASA ATPLs from July 1st. From this day, they will have no right to interpret EASA FCL and it will be interesting to see what they do. If they still insist on a JAR IR, then they will be facing legal action.

[Fart Master]

Dan,

Thanks for the update.

Can you expand your meaning of the 2nd paragraph. Are you saying that EASA will allow us to us the ICAO 'IR rule', which means that when EASA regs come into force we will be able to retain our UK issued IR's?

I addition to this, I think that we should legally challenge the CAA, not, on the new LASORS rule, but the fact that they implemented it without any warning...

[Dan Winterland]

What I'm saying is that they unilaterally chose to interpret the 7 year rule themselves. they felt they had a right as it was they who made the rules - as published in LASORS. (This is despite them always maintaning that JAR FCL was the overiding document). From July 1st, they are simply EASA's agents in the UK and no longer have the right to implement any interpretations and therefore they should follow what other EASA agents are doing. As all other JAR nations haven't been applying the JAR 1-185 reg the way the CAA have, I suspect that EASA will rule that 7 years only applies to those who have not held any other acceptable instrument rating. Quite clearly, if a pilot had been flying (for example) a Hong Kong registered B747 or a RAF C17 in European airspace, their instrument rating should be considered acceptable.

[Fart Master]

Thanks very much.:ok:

However, I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from. As I understand the new EASA regs, the 7 year rule has been incorporated as per the CAA interpretation.

As per, NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) NO 200817B

FCL.625 is clear in this regard. Am I missing something?

"(d) If the IR has not been revalidated or renewed within the preceding 7 years, the holder will be
required to pass again the IR theoretical knowledge examination and skill test.

Although I agree the text implies that the person has done no IFR flying..

[Fart Master]

Any update on the EASA regs coming into force this week....Good/Bad?

[Fart Master]

Just seen Part FCL AMC section, it looks like everybody with a European licence who's IR have expired by more than 7 years is screwed now, not just the UK chaps.

What a bunch of morons....

Surely they will have to sort something out as the authorities now have 100's possibly 1000's of pilots affected rather than just the UK licence holders.

Another discrepency is that they want us to resit the IR exams (7 of them).....But aren't these the same exams we sat for our ATPL's, yet they still allow us to maintain our licences, based on the same exams...?? :confused: