PPL currency question

[Same again]

Hello. After a career flying helicopters commercially I have the opportunity to fly for a private owner and therefore only require PPL(H) privileges. I have never found the CAA website very user-friendly and, as I am not familiar with private flying, I am hoping that someone here might be able to point me in the right direction? I am currently flying on an ATPL(H) which has the current type rating of the helicopter I want to fly privately. To retain commercial privileges on that licence I need to pass a PC every 12 months and a medical every 6 months (I am over 60).

If I want to fly the same helicopter privately do I need to obtain a PPL(H) and if so what is the currency requirements/test (VFR only) applicable to that? Also what class of medical certificate do I require as a 60 year old PPL? Thank you.

[18greens]

For Fixed wing the ATPL/CPL contains PPL privileges. The SEP and MEP revalidations are the same for ATPL/CPL as for PPL.

I would assume the type rating would apply to PPL as well as ATPL/CPL.

Also I don't think you can hold a PPL and ATPL at the same time so you might have to surrender your ATPL to get a PPL which you might not want to do.

[excrab]

If you are going to be paid for your services you still need to hold a CPL or ATPL. The private flight part only means that you don’t need an AOC. That is the case with fixed wing any how, but the licence privileges are the same.

[RTN11]

As above, you'll have a PPL(H) already. If you have an EASA licence, it should list all three in the top box, ATPL, CPL and PPL.

Don't confuse this with the rating. The licence is valid for life, the rating will have the same revalidation terms regardless of the licence, although if not operating commercially perhaps just the LPC every 12 months rather than OPC every 6.

As for medical, if you're being paid you'll likely still need class 1, which will have the same restrictions you have now. Chat to an AME about what you need and why. They're usually very approachable.

[Radgirl]

I agree. Your license is also a PPL and the rating is the same. You need to do the same PC. There is no need to inform the CAA. If you are truly flying for no reward you can let your class 1 lapse after 6 months as it then automatically becomes a class 2 for a further 6 months. After the 12 months you can either have another class 1 examination and repeat the cycle (6 months class 1, six months class 2, annual examination) or merely be examined for a class 2 which will have a 12 month validity. The class 2 examination may be cheaper but your class 1 will eventually lapse and be more difficult to regain.

However as I read it you are flying 'for' not 'with' an owner and that needs a class 1 unless he is a friend and no money changes hands except cost sharing. Post Sala I expect such arrangements may come under additional scrutiny. You cannot fly passengers single pilot over 60 (it is on the back of your certificate) although you can continue to do commercial ariel work single pilot and indeed 'exercise the privileges' of the class 1 when otherwise flying without reward.

[Fl1ingfrog]

There is a distinct difference from being employed as a pilot but differently being employed in a non piloting role but piloting (chauffeuring) the employer as and when required. There are probably hundreds of PPL's operating in this way quite legally throughout this country and worldwide. An aircraft flying on behalf of the company that owns or operates the aircraft is not flying commercially, it is a private flight. The pilots licence therefore need only be a Private Pilots Licence.

Please everyone don't make up your own rules, the state needs no help. The 'Salah' case, from what we know of it, has no resemblance.

[Whopity]

Not so many years ago the tests pilots on Concorde only had PPLs

[Talkdownman]

Not so many years ago the tests pilots on Concorde only had PPLs
Here (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422fccc40f0b61346000969/dft_avsafety_pdf_501548.pdf) is an AAIB report on an A300 Beluga commanded by a PPL.The commander's licence is not relevant to the incident.

[Radgirl]

There is a distinct difference from being employed as a pilot but differently being employed in a non piloting role but piloting (chauffeuring) the employer as and when required. There are probably hundreds of PPL's operating in this way quite legally

Not sure I agree on numbers - most people in this position I know have commercial licenses, just no AOCs. But.......So I am employed as a secretary but actually fly the CEO round in a 135

Legal or illegal? I am paid as a secretary not as a pilot. You can ask if I can actually type. You can ask how many hours I am a secretary and how many I am a pilot. You can ask how I pay for my training and how I pay a contribution to hours flown. You can ask what a coincidence it is that the secretary turns out after appointment to be able to fly the very aircraft the CEO has bought. You can dress this up however you like but if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it is.....a duck

I am amazed at the complacency of some in the industry to allow standards to be lowered like this. And one day the holes in the Swiss cheese will line up - the commander's license type may well be irrelevant to the accident but the whole mess will unravel.

[Same again]

Thank you all for your replies. FL1ingfog - that is the interpretation of the owner who I fly and the previous pilot who flew him around for many years using a PPL.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not so many years ago the tests pilots on Concorde only had PPLs
I was a company Chief Pilot at one point on a PPL, although I have commercial licences now - it was appropriate in the circumstances of the time. The procedure for me, as it doubtless was for the Concorde programme, was to provide the CAA with an AD458 detailing relevant experience, civil and military, training and education, etc. etc. CAA had the right to interview, come fly with you, detail mandatory training and mentoring requirements.

That was fine in a company overseeing aeroplane design work, for which there is no standard model. Less so for a pure air transport role, for which there are standard licences and approvals.

G