1999 UK ATPL(A) Exams: Theory credit still valid?
The reason for the separation is that under JAR-FCL it was declared that holders of National Licences would be able to retain all their existing privileges without time limit, whilst new JAA licences with reduced privileges were introduced in parallel for new applicants. All existing national licences have been maintained in accordance with the requirements of JAR-FCL since Jan 2000.
The only additional privilege afforded by the JAA licence has been that it purports to be valid in aircraft registered in other JAA States. Following the demise of the JAA in 2009, this is questionable and the UK has had to issue an exemption to the ANO, ORS 4 No 747 to allow foreign JAA licences holders to continue to operate G registered aircraft; it is far from certain if other States have followed suit.
The JAA did not attempt to remove the privileges of existing national licence holders and under EU Law EASA has no right to either!
The only additional privilege afforded by the JAA licence has been that it purports to be valid in aircraft registered in other JAA States. Following the demise of the JAA in 2009, this is questionable and the UK has had to issue an exemption to the ANO, ORS 4 No 747 to allow foreign JAA licences holders to continue to operate G registered aircraft; it is far from certain if other States have followed suit.
The JAA did not attempt to remove the privileges of existing national licence holders and under EU Law EASA has no right to either!
EASA will say (have said) that they are not removing any privileges. You will continue to be able to exercise all of the privileges of your national licence on those aircraft that are regulated by the national Authority. However, to fly an EASA aircraft, you will need an EASA licence. Such is the logic of the €ureaucrat.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got this email too - also see Exercise 1 to 19's thread too re UK Licences e.g. BCPL et al.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national aviation authority that issued the JAR licence will be responsible for its re-issuance as an EU/EASA licence according to Article 4, paragraph 1. of Part FCL.
Therefore I can only recommend you resolve the status of your ATPL theory credit with the UK CAA.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any further information.
Have a nice weekend and with kind regards
Zuzana KAPUSTOVÁ
Flight Crew Licensing Section
Rulemaking Directorate
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Postal: Postfach 10 12 53, D-50452 Cologne, Germany
Visitors: Ottoplatz 1, D-50679 Cologne, Germany
Email: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national aviation authority that issued the JAR licence will be responsible for its re-issuance as an EU/EASA licence according to Article 4, paragraph 1. of Part FCL.
Therefore I can only recommend you resolve the status of your ATPL theory credit with the UK CAA.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any further information.
Have a nice weekend and with kind regards
Zuzana KAPUSTOVÁ
Flight Crew Licensing Section
Rulemaking Directorate
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Postal: Postfach 10 12 53, D-50452 Cologne, Germany
Visitors: Ottoplatz 1, D-50679 Cologne, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
covec
Thanks for raising this. I am in a similar situation....SEP Flying Instructor.....UK CPL issued in the 1990's ...UK ATPL exams in early 2000's. IR completed within 36 months of ATPL's, IR never lapsed more than 5 years so exams frozen. I am about to convert to JAR CPL and also apply for an IMC (to get grandfather rights in case don't wish to keep my IR current).
In light of Zuzana's e mail have you 'resolved' the status of your ATPL theory credit with the CAA? It would be nice to have some kind of precedent when I take my paperwork in to transfer over to JAR........EASA. Have you managed to get anything in writing from the CAA and if so do you mind pointing me in the direction of the right person?
Thanks again.
Pringle 1
Thanks for raising this. I am in a similar situation....SEP Flying Instructor.....UK CPL issued in the 1990's ...UK ATPL exams in early 2000's. IR completed within 36 months of ATPL's, IR never lapsed more than 5 years so exams frozen. I am about to convert to JAR CPL and also apply for an IMC (to get grandfather rights in case don't wish to keep my IR current).
In light of Zuzana's e mail have you 'resolved' the status of your ATPL theory credit with the CAA? It would be nice to have some kind of precedent when I take my paperwork in to transfer over to JAR........EASA. Have you managed to get anything in writing from the CAA and if so do you mind pointing me in the direction of the right person?
Thanks again.
Pringle 1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pringle 1.
No, I have not resolved it yet.
The opinion, backed by some pretty knowledgeable guys on PPRuNe seems to be that so long as you do not allow an interval of 7 years lapse between IR renewals then your UK National ATPL Exam Theory remains valid.
I initially raised this with the UK CAA, then EASA then through MEPs. The MEP route is still ongoing.
Seemingly there are many pilots in our situation and that no National CAA seems to have squared this issue with EASA however, so long as you have a valid JAR licence with an IR that has not expired by more than 7 years, you are "safe".
I - like you - need this in writing, in laymans terms and not regurgitated in LASORS/Legal speak.
See also the thread started by Exercises 1 to 19 too - similar issue.
I will update this thread as info comes in.
No, I have not resolved it yet.
The opinion, backed by some pretty knowledgeable guys on PPRuNe seems to be that so long as you do not allow an interval of 7 years lapse between IR renewals then your UK National ATPL Exam Theory remains valid.
I initially raised this with the UK CAA, then EASA then through MEPs. The MEP route is still ongoing.
Seemingly there are many pilots in our situation and that no National CAA seems to have squared this issue with EASA however, so long as you have a valid JAR licence with an IR that has not expired by more than 7 years, you are "safe".
I - like you - need this in writing, in laymans terms and not regurgitated in LASORS/Legal speak.
See also the thread started by Exercises 1 to 19 too - similar issue.
I will update this thread as info comes in.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi covec,
Thanks for the reply. I went to the CAA and submitted an application to convert to a JAR CPL. I asked about the frozen CAA ATPL's and IMC grandfather rights and was told to e mail CAA policy as she wasn't sure of the latest info. I will let you know the result. I am not holding my breath for a conclusive result.
Pringle 1
Thanks for the reply. I went to the CAA and submitted an application to convert to a JAR CPL. I asked about the frozen CAA ATPL's and IMC grandfather rights and was told to e mail CAA policy as she wasn't sure of the latest info. I will let you know the result. I am not holding my breath for a conclusive result.
Pringle 1
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ask Crew Control
Age: 47
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will the new EASA licences and legislation come into effect? Also Covec and Pringle any latest news as I look to be upgrading my JAA CPL A (R) with my National exam theory credit to a full JAA ATPL at my sim check next month.
The Cav
The Cav
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the definitive answer.
In a nutshell:
1. Keep your IR going - no greater than 7 years between Renewals.
2. Our UK CAA and EASA are being helpful in their flexibility towards continued recognition of National Licences - see paras. 12 & 13.
3. Leave your MPs / MEPs out of it.
It is too late re contacting my MEP:Sorry. But I have emailed him tonight to curtail any further action with the Commissioner and to thank all concerned for their help. I fervently, fervently hope that that is enough - in my defence who else could I have turned to when my own CAA were in the dark to an extent too?----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderators:I have reproduced the email below but I have not sought permission as I was the intended recipient. Any complaints received conerning this then I now formally acknowledge liability and will withdraw the email and apologise publicly to any injured parties. My only intention is to share information with fellow aviators to all our mutual benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From CAA Flight Crew Licensing & Training Policy.
1. The position with respect to the crediting of examinations as we move into the enactment of European legislation is not well defined.
2. The current licensing systems, including the JAA procedures, lead to national licences that are wholly the responsibility of the State of Licence issue. It happens that, because of the agreements voluntarily entered into by the JAA Member States, the JAR-FCL licences issued in any one country are recognised by the other members and may be used to fly aircraft registered in the various JAA States.
3. The new European regulations will bring in a legally binding system across Europe where an “EASA Part-FCL licence” issued by any EU State will be valid for all aircraft registered in Europe that are within the scope of that licence and the ratings on it. EASA Part-FCL licences will be granted to persons who meet the requirements of Part-FCL. It is important to understand that current and past national systems are for the grant of national licences. For a truly European licence, the new Part-FCL requirements must be complied with.
4. However, it has been recognised by EASA and the Commission that the Part-FCL requirements are similar to the latest amendment standard of JAR-FCL and that there is a need to ensure, as far as practicable, that aircraft operations are not interrupted by the introduction of the new regulations. Accordingly, the new regulations, as drafted, declare that all licences issued by Member States before 8th April 2012 that are fully compliant with JAR-FCL are licences issued in accordance with Part-FCL and so become, by legislation, EASA licences. In addition, the regulations allow for the conversion of national licences that are issued before April 2012 to Part-FCL licences by essentially the same critera that was used to convert national licences to JAR licences, or alternatively by Conversion Reports compiled by the National Authority that issued the national licence.
5. To cater for pilots who have started on the path of obtaining a licence, but do not obtain those licences by April 2012, the legislation states:
6. In respect of issuing Part-FCL licences in accordance with Annex I, training commenced prior to the applicability of this Regulation in accordance with the Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and procedures, under the regulatory oversight of a Member State recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities' system in relation to the relevant JAR, shall be given full credit provided that the training and testing were completed by 8 April 2016 at the latest.
7. You will note that this says that training - which logically must include theoretical knowledge training - in accordance with JAR-FCL may be credited but only until 2016. There is no mention of any credit for training that was not in accordance with JAR-FCL.
8. The responsibility for conversion of national licences rests primarily with the State that issued the particular national licence or qualification. In that respect the version of the regulation that has been passed to go forward as legislation (which is not the same as the older version currently published on the EASA website) says:
9. When developing the conversion report, Member States shall aim at allowing pilots to, as far as possible, maintain their current scope of activities.
10. So there is no obligation on EASA or the Member States to preserve credits for activities that pilots are still in the process of qualifying for.
11. The regulations do not explicitly address the continued recognition of past examinations and so the approach to be taken is open to interpretation. From the text of the draft legislation one can logically conclude that where examination passes have been achieved before 8th April 2012, only those that are from JAR examinations at the latest amendment standard that may be used as a basis for the issue of an EASA Part-FCL licence.
12. The CAA has not yet introduced that latest standard of JAR examinations (we are still using an earlier amendment standard) in the UK and so, if that interpretation were to be strictly applied it would have a significant effect in the UK, in that all pilots who had not completed the national licensing process by obtaining JAR licences before 8th April 2012 would have to take all of their examinations again to the EASA standard before their licences (EASA Part-FCL) could be issued. However, the CAA does not consider this to be necessary or appropriate.
13. We are about to declare our position in AIC 017/2011, which is to be published on the 24th March 2011. Amongst other things, this will state that, where a pilot has completed a full set of examinations before 8th April 2012, those examinations will be valid for the issue of an EASA Part-FCL licence “subject to the usual calendar expiry”. Therefore, examinations will be valid for 3 years, and in the case of ATPL exams for 7 years from the last valid date of an Instrument Rating. We are saying that we will maintain the current position with respect to exam credits.
14. This CAA interpretation could of course be challenged by other EU Members States, or EASA, or the European Commission, but currently we do not expect them to do so. I note that in their e-mail to you EASA are being helpful in this respect by simply stating that this is a matter for the CAA to sort out. We are content with that position and expect other States and the Commission to follow EASA’s lead. For that reason we are minded not to bring this issue to the attention of the Commission or the other Member States for any further discussion or debate.
15. I see in your e-mail to EASA that you mention the possibility of a legal challenge to the regulations. I consider that this would be very unlikely to succeed because EASA and the Commission have followed the procedures laid down by EU law for the creation of these regulations, which included full and extensive public consultation. The Commission would point to the fact that many thousands of comments were received and all were dealt with in accordance with the rules. I would expect that they would also be able to show that no-one raised any concerns over examination credits at that time. In your particular case it would also be pertinent that the loss of your examination credits would not affect your current licence privileges and so would not impede in any way your current activities.
16. I would also advise you that, in recent interrnational discussions on licensing in Cologne, there has been great surprise expressed by some that large numbers of UK pilots still have national licences, when they have had more than a decade to convert to JAR licences. In some quarters there are indications of resistance to making any further provisions to accommodate national licence holders and the view has been expressed that any problems those individuals have now are effectively of their own making for not embracing the JAA system. I would strongly advise therefore that you do not take this matter any further, such as via your MEP to the Commissioner. The manner in which significant aviation rulemaking matters are dealt with in Europe is by debate involving representatives of all of the Member States. My concern is that if this matter were to be the subject of a full debate involving all countries, the outcome might be that the UK CAA would be directed to apply the regulations in a less flexible manner than we currently propose. If that were to be the outcome, then clearly the most likely first exclusion would be to rule out any credit for any non-JAR examinations.
17. The CAA’s policy, which is about to be published in the AIC, is to preserve examination credits as under existing rules, and we believe that the current EASA position permits that".
In a nutshell:
1. Keep your IR going - no greater than 7 years between Renewals.
2. Our UK CAA and EASA are being helpful in their flexibility towards continued recognition of National Licences - see paras. 12 & 13.
3. Leave your MPs / MEPs out of it.
It is too late re contacting my MEP:Sorry. But I have emailed him tonight to curtail any further action with the Commissioner and to thank all concerned for their help. I fervently, fervently hope that that is enough - in my defence who else could I have turned to when my own CAA were in the dark to an extent too?----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderators:I have reproduced the email below but I have not sought permission as I was the intended recipient. Any complaints received conerning this then I now formally acknowledge liability and will withdraw the email and apologise publicly to any injured parties. My only intention is to share information with fellow aviators to all our mutual benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From CAA Flight Crew Licensing & Training Policy.
1. The position with respect to the crediting of examinations as we move into the enactment of European legislation is not well defined.
2. The current licensing systems, including the JAA procedures, lead to national licences that are wholly the responsibility of the State of Licence issue. It happens that, because of the agreements voluntarily entered into by the JAA Member States, the JAR-FCL licences issued in any one country are recognised by the other members and may be used to fly aircraft registered in the various JAA States.
3. The new European regulations will bring in a legally binding system across Europe where an “EASA Part-FCL licence” issued by any EU State will be valid for all aircraft registered in Europe that are within the scope of that licence and the ratings on it. EASA Part-FCL licences will be granted to persons who meet the requirements of Part-FCL. It is important to understand that current and past national systems are for the grant of national licences. For a truly European licence, the new Part-FCL requirements must be complied with.
4. However, it has been recognised by EASA and the Commission that the Part-FCL requirements are similar to the latest amendment standard of JAR-FCL and that there is a need to ensure, as far as practicable, that aircraft operations are not interrupted by the introduction of the new regulations. Accordingly, the new regulations, as drafted, declare that all licences issued by Member States before 8th April 2012 that are fully compliant with JAR-FCL are licences issued in accordance with Part-FCL and so become, by legislation, EASA licences. In addition, the regulations allow for the conversion of national licences that are issued before April 2012 to Part-FCL licences by essentially the same critera that was used to convert national licences to JAR licences, or alternatively by Conversion Reports compiled by the National Authority that issued the national licence.
5. To cater for pilots who have started on the path of obtaining a licence, but do not obtain those licences by April 2012, the legislation states:
6. In respect of issuing Part-FCL licences in accordance with Annex I, training commenced prior to the applicability of this Regulation in accordance with the Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and procedures, under the regulatory oversight of a Member State recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities' system in relation to the relevant JAR, shall be given full credit provided that the training and testing were completed by 8 April 2016 at the latest.
7. You will note that this says that training - which logically must include theoretical knowledge training - in accordance with JAR-FCL may be credited but only until 2016. There is no mention of any credit for training that was not in accordance with JAR-FCL.
8. The responsibility for conversion of national licences rests primarily with the State that issued the particular national licence or qualification. In that respect the version of the regulation that has been passed to go forward as legislation (which is not the same as the older version currently published on the EASA website) says:
9. When developing the conversion report, Member States shall aim at allowing pilots to, as far as possible, maintain their current scope of activities.
10. So there is no obligation on EASA or the Member States to preserve credits for activities that pilots are still in the process of qualifying for.
11. The regulations do not explicitly address the continued recognition of past examinations and so the approach to be taken is open to interpretation. From the text of the draft legislation one can logically conclude that where examination passes have been achieved before 8th April 2012, only those that are from JAR examinations at the latest amendment standard that may be used as a basis for the issue of an EASA Part-FCL licence.
12. The CAA has not yet introduced that latest standard of JAR examinations (we are still using an earlier amendment standard) in the UK and so, if that interpretation were to be strictly applied it would have a significant effect in the UK, in that all pilots who had not completed the national licensing process by obtaining JAR licences before 8th April 2012 would have to take all of their examinations again to the EASA standard before their licences (EASA Part-FCL) could be issued. However, the CAA does not consider this to be necessary or appropriate.
13. We are about to declare our position in AIC 017/2011, which is to be published on the 24th March 2011. Amongst other things, this will state that, where a pilot has completed a full set of examinations before 8th April 2012, those examinations will be valid for the issue of an EASA Part-FCL licence “subject to the usual calendar expiry”. Therefore, examinations will be valid for 3 years, and in the case of ATPL exams for 7 years from the last valid date of an Instrument Rating. We are saying that we will maintain the current position with respect to exam credits.
14. This CAA interpretation could of course be challenged by other EU Members States, or EASA, or the European Commission, but currently we do not expect them to do so. I note that in their e-mail to you EASA are being helpful in this respect by simply stating that this is a matter for the CAA to sort out. We are content with that position and expect other States and the Commission to follow EASA’s lead. For that reason we are minded not to bring this issue to the attention of the Commission or the other Member States for any further discussion or debate.
15. I see in your e-mail to EASA that you mention the possibility of a legal challenge to the regulations. I consider that this would be very unlikely to succeed because EASA and the Commission have followed the procedures laid down by EU law for the creation of these regulations, which included full and extensive public consultation. The Commission would point to the fact that many thousands of comments were received and all were dealt with in accordance with the rules. I would expect that they would also be able to show that no-one raised any concerns over examination credits at that time. In your particular case it would also be pertinent that the loss of your examination credits would not affect your current licence privileges and so would not impede in any way your current activities.
16. I would also advise you that, in recent interrnational discussions on licensing in Cologne, there has been great surprise expressed by some that large numbers of UK pilots still have national licences, when they have had more than a decade to convert to JAR licences. In some quarters there are indications of resistance to making any further provisions to accommodate national licence holders and the view has been expressed that any problems those individuals have now are effectively of their own making for not embracing the JAA system. I would strongly advise therefore that you do not take this matter any further, such as via your MEP to the Commissioner. The manner in which significant aviation rulemaking matters are dealt with in Europe is by debate involving representatives of all of the Member States. My concern is that if this matter were to be the subject of a full debate involving all countries, the outcome might be that the UK CAA would be directed to apply the regulations in a less flexible manner than we currently propose. If that were to be the outcome, then clearly the most likely first exclusion would be to rule out any credit for any non-JAR examinations.
17. The CAA’s policy, which is about to be published in the AIC, is to preserve examination credits as under existing rules, and we believe that the current EASA position permits that".
there has been great surprise expressed by some that large numbers of UK pilots still have national licences,
Licences and ratings,
authorisations, approvals or medical
certificates issued in accordance with the
national regulations of JAA Member States
before 1 July 1999 or issued in accordance
with paragraph (1) above, shall continue to be
valid with the same privileges, ratings and
limitations, if any, provided that after
1 January 2000 all requirements for
revalidation or renewal of such licences or
ratings, authorisations, approvals or medical
certificates shall be in accordance with the
requirements of JAR–FCL
authorisations, approvals or medical
certificates issued in accordance with the
national regulations of JAA Member States
before 1 July 1999 or issued in accordance
with paragraph (1) above, shall continue to be
valid with the same privileges, ratings and
limitations, if any, provided that after
1 January 2000 all requirements for
revalidation or renewal of such licences or
ratings, authorisations, approvals or medical
certificates shall be in accordance with the
requirements of JAR–FCL
the view has been expressed that any problems those individuals have now are effectively of their own making for not embracing the JAA system.
I have certainly written to my MEP and she has indicated considerable concern in a number of quarters. Don't be fobbed off.
The great shame about the theoretical exams is that they are of such poor quality that they are barely worth the paper they are written on. The latest EASA ones are even worse. The UK National ones were of a higher standard.
Last edited by Whopity; 23rd Mar 2011 at 22:50.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expiry of Exams
All this business of examination expiry is nonsense. Especially as the questions have become easier.
Is there any evidence base to all this expiry business? 36 months; 7 years changing exam standards; FCL CAA blah; blah blah why? Or is it all an opportunity to ramp up income streams and introduce more regulation.....
What they want us to do - is keep spending money and with the global recession people are finding increasingly difficut to justify
The other issue is that there is clearly NO standard it's a total dogs breakfast and politicians who are interested in getting rid of pointless bureaucracy NEED to be told... such as Nigel Farage
Is there any evidence base to all this expiry business? 36 months; 7 years changing exam standards; FCL CAA blah; blah blah why? Or is it all an opportunity to ramp up income streams and introduce more regulation.....
What they want us to do - is keep spending money and with the global recession people are finding increasingly difficut to justify
The other issue is that there is clearly NO standard it's a total dogs breakfast and politicians who are interested in getting rid of pointless bureaucracy NEED to be told... such as Nigel Farage
The whole examination system is largely worthless; there has never been a training analysis, and there is no corelation between the theoretical training and the flying syllabus. Questions were submitted to the JAA from various sources and sent to all States for comment. In the main nobody had the resources to even read the questions let alone comment, so they were accepted as is. The CAA spent a lot of time analysing questions and actually filtered out around 30% from the UK exams. Now they have no experienced ground examiners, and have no resources to do it in the future. The learning objectives were formulated from the questions, totally arse about face.
The EASA syllabus is largely the JAA syllabus but exams are now being put together by a German company called LPLUS The quality of what they have produced so far is pretty poor. Quite why JAA garbage should cease to be valid, and have to be replaced by EASA garbage simply reflects the level of ignorance of those shovelling rules around; they don't even know enough to recognise how poor and irrelevant most of the questions are.
The EASA syllabus is largely the JAA syllabus but exams are now being put together by a German company called LPLUS The quality of what they have produced so far is pretty poor. Quite why JAA garbage should cease to be valid, and have to be replaced by EASA garbage simply reflects the level of ignorance of those shovelling rules around; they don't even know enough to recognise how poor and irrelevant most of the questions are.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they are right on one thing - I didnt embrace the JAA system in terms of my own licence (UK CPL/IR frozen ATPL).
Why? Because it meant keeping my IR valid all the time - at greater expense. I wasn't needing the privileges of an IR and the non-expiring IMC privileges built into the UK CPL allowed me to be IFR in Class D - the only thing I couldn't do was IFR abroad or in airways. Big deal as an FI/FE at PPL level...
So I don't feel I brought it upon myself...although I am now taking the plunge with the JAR licence conversion.
Although the best laugh is that the UK CAA are now going to re-introduce the UK CPL (lifetime issued) so pilots can do their stuff on annex 2 aircraft!
As an examiner this situation is getting out of hand....I now have to deal with UK licences (old), UK NPPL, JAR FCL licences, and soon to add to the mix EASA licences and UK licences (new). argh.
Why? Because it meant keeping my IR valid all the time - at greater expense. I wasn't needing the privileges of an IR and the non-expiring IMC privileges built into the UK CPL allowed me to be IFR in Class D - the only thing I couldn't do was IFR abroad or in airways. Big deal as an FI/FE at PPL level...
So I don't feel I brought it upon myself...although I am now taking the plunge with the JAR licence conversion.
Although the best laugh is that the UK CAA are now going to re-introduce the UK CPL (lifetime issued) so pilots can do their stuff on annex 2 aircraft!
As an examiner this situation is getting out of hand....I now have to deal with UK licences (old), UK NPPL, JAR FCL licences, and soon to add to the mix EASA licences and UK licences (new). argh.
....there has been great surprise expressed by some that large numbers of UK pilots still have national licences....
How many other countries charged for trading a lifetime licence in for a 5-year licence?
EASA part-FCL really is an utter load of bolleaux - and that's being kind!
Made worse by thre fact those currently implementing it at the CAA appear to have no knowledge of what went before. All National licence holders were told quite clearly by the CAA, repeatedly between 1997 and 2000 that there was no necessity to change existing licences and that they would continue to be renewable for the lifetime of the holder with one Caveat;
That doesn't sound like an invitration to embrace inferior licences or the holders own fault does it?
This Authorisation will be revoked if at any time it would be inconsistent with a standard adopted pursuant to the EC Regulation etc