The CAA will do well to retain their "pithiness" when the onslaught starts. If they intend to sit on their backsides whilst spouting excuses for their inaction I won't be surprised but they it seems most certainly they will be. The many who have survived this Covid-19 hell will not be in the mood for procrastination.

If I'm reading this correctly the UK CAA hope to come to some kind of arrangement with EASA by giving 27 foreign countries control over our own licenses and our aviation generally. It will never be the other way round. So, where would that leave UK licences, approvals and aviation? Surely it cannot be thought that UK licenses will be only national with no recognition worldwide. The only answer that I can see is that there is some mutual recognition of each others licenses and approvals but the UK being completely independent will be a block. There is too much for the EASA to give away on the world stage for that to happen.

EASA have never shown any aptitude to mutuality, in fact they resist it. They expect compliance with them in every detail. They resent ICAO but they have no choice but to accept it for the moment. For EASA the ICAO is the FAA in another name. The EASA ambition is to become the world standard and to replace ICAO. A European state such as the UK maintaining a world wide independent aviation industry will be a problem for EASA none the less. The EASA method to deal with difficulty is to push it as far into the future that it can. This has the secondary benefit of maintaining pointless employment for it's executive.

Surely...

(a) A UK CPL licence can be used to fly any G-reg aeroplane for which the pilot is suitably qualified, within the privileges of that licence. Hence a UK-FCL CPL or PPL in, say, a G-reg PA28 has IMC rating privileges in UK airspace.

(b) All UK licences remain ICAO compliant.

So, notwithstanding Fl1ingfrog's Eurosceptic stance about EASA's attitudes above (with which I substantially agree) the UK licences will be in broadly the same place as any other ICAO contracting state's, such as e.g. an FAA licence.

What will doubtless be painful is EASA's clear intention to refuse to accept mutuality of the UK's substantially identical aviation regulations. This is part of the overall bullying attitude of the EU towards all things British, as it's so important to make Brexit an abject failure, so as to dissuade all others. Sooner or later somebody will probably test this in court, which will be interesting.

G

No, they can only exercise the privileges in an Annex 1 aircraft. It has not been legal to fly an EASA aircraft on a UK National Licemce since 8th June 2018. The UK could issue an exemption after 31st December.

Yes, good point, my focus was elsewhere. I wonder whether we will end up in the odd situation that the rest of the world recognises both UK FCL and non-FCL licences as being ICAO compliant while we continue to separate the 2. There are as ever good/laudable reasons for each existing in their own right, but it's pretty clear that the whole thing is a confusing mess. It's bad enough having to interpret it within industry, my sympathies are with the genuinely good individuals at Gatwick charged with remembering/interpreting/promulgating this with little personal input into policy.

As all UK issued licences under EASA FCL become national licences on January 1st, it seems highly unlikely to me that the UK will permit itself to be in a position where the majority of the G-reg fleet can be flown only by holders of foreign licences.

G

This is where we must be very careful with the terminology of what a national licence is. From January 1st terms for UK issued licences will split into FCL and non-FCL - those that are currently EASA FCL will become UK FCL (and allow flight on Part-21 and non-Part-21 G-reg), those that are currently UK National will be referred to as non-FCL (and will only allow flight on non-Part-21 G-reg). There are no initial plans for the UK FCL licences to mirror UK National licences under the ANO, they will continue as now and mirror EASA FCL licences. It would be nice to hope for fairly instant exemptions to allow wider use of licences, but if it happens at all then it may well come with conditions analogous to LAPL privileges only or similar - we just don't know right now.

Fair point, we're heading for three standards...

Non-UK EASA.FCL - will be given honorary rights by the look of it, for at least two years.

UK.FCL - either are already issued and FCL compliant, or are about to be.created from UK issued EASA FCL licences.

Non FCL UK - so old unconverted UK PPLs, CPLs and ATPLs, plus NPPLs.

The first category are somewhat unknown, the second seem likely to be able to carry on as ever in G-reg aeroplanes (with CPLs and ATPLs having embedded IMC privileges). The Third are anybody's guess: they may potentially be limited to just permit aeroplanes, although I imagine CAA will permit PPL level privileges in CofA light aircraft pretty much indefinitely.

(Plus a fourth category - non-EU, non-UK, but ICAO compliant, e.g. FAA. The value of those is far from clear yet!)

G

Almost - but with some caveats. The 3-4 categories work. However:

Category 1: non-UK EASA FCL licences: granted automatic validation for a maximum of 2 years, but only until the first revalidation of relevant ratings. Eg an IR expiring in March makes the licence rather less useful for a UK AOC holder, even if the other ratings remain valid for the rest of the year. Slightly easier for FIs "just" doing VFR SEP instruction since they may have up to 2 unhindered years.

Category 2: UK FCL licences: yes, carry on as for now. No embedded IMC privileges though - the ANO references to these are for licences that won't fall under the new UK FCL document (technically written into existence in 2019 as a copy and paste of EASA FCL). Hence why I'm trying to steer away from describing them as national licences, although that is what they are, since they won't fall under what we've understood as national licences for the last 20 years.

One would hope that in the fullness of time there will be only one standard of UK licence (be they PPL, CPL or ATPL) that are compliant with both ICAO and EASA.

The issue of morphing LAPL and NPPL into a “UK PPL” could be dealt with by having ratings on that PPL which define the privileges that LAPL and NPPL holders currently exercise.

Oh, and I would like my lifetime IMC rating back too whilst you’re at it.

It would be nice if it could be done in just one move on the chessboard, but quite a few moves might be needed to get to the final position.

Under the old UK system it was a prerequisite to hold an IMC rating before one could start the training for the CPL. Instrument flying was also tested on the cpl skills test. Although I can't remember how much and instrument approaches were not tested.

The CAA are wrong one way or another on all UK CPL's having inbuilt IMC privilege for life. I wasn't able to upgrade my BCPL to a UK CPL until something like 2008 as I couldn't hold a class 1 medical. When I was able I was told all UK CPL''s issued after the formation of JAR would be issued without inbuilt IMC privileges. Hence I had a UK CPL issued without inbuilt IMC privileges.

It would now appear that's all been forgotten.

Not quite, it gave you an exemption that allowed you to take the 15 hour abridged CPL Course rather than the 25 hour course which included 10 hours of IF and was a cheaper option. It was mandatory for the AFI Course. Still have my old CAP54.

You are quite right Mickey. You also had to hold an IMC rating (or IR) to become a Flying instructor and thereafter maintain it. It was common practice for Flying Instructors to climb through IMC to teach in clear air on top. Here in France its rare to find a Flight Instructor who has flown in cloud, ever. The instrument flying assessment during the CPL test was pretty much as now, by the way.

For many the history of the present is a mystery so here is a short overview for those who may find it useful.

On the UK joining the newly formed JAA (1999) it was possible to hold both a UK and a JAA licence in parallel. The main stimulus for the JAA was that there would be one standard for its members. Mutually recognised licenses, ratings and type approvals between members. This was particularly valuable for the airlines. Once EASA was borne it all began to change. EASA demanded that there was to be one recognised licence held by a member state person annotated with "EASA" and to be fully recognised in the EU. For a short time a ludicrous situation existed: we had a UK international licence not recognised by the EU but recognised elsewhere throughout the world. The JAA licences* were issued for 5 years and so on renewal were easily morphed into EASA licenses without choice. Some changes that came with JAR/EASA were unpopular. The UK PPL had been issued for life and many refused to give it up. In a twist the EU had to continue to recognise the UK PPL licences for "overflight" subject to the ICAO rules. So, beyond all reason, the UK CAA resolved this embarrassing problem by demoting the UK PPL to being a national licence only although it was compliant with ICAO. The UK PPL continued with all the same privileges but only for flight within UK airspace. Job done, if you wanted to fly internationally then you had to obtain an EASA licence. A sweetener to the UK PPL was to find a way to recognise the IMC rating and to include it in the EASA licence. In a perferse move they found a way around this problem by calling the IMC rating an "IR(restricted)" but only for annotating the privilege within the EASA licence. The IMC rating is not recognised by EASA and the IR(restricted) doesn't actually exist.

* The JAR rules caused problems for many as the CAA's ability to provide discretion, particularly against medical standards, had been lost. The CAA were under pressure. The answer was the NPPL (with its artificial differences designed mainly to persuade the Dept. of Transport) and with it the "Medical Declaration" that was to be countersigned by your personal GP.

The complication of so many licences we have now is unnecessary. All of this can return to being simple: PPL, CPL, ATPL and an NPPL (sub ICAO). The BGA should be left alone because they are more than capable of running their own affairs, as they always have done.

The main problem to resolve is the LAPL it being a wholly EASA licence and issued for life. The UK for its own purposes doesn't need it. Who will oversee it?

If the UK leave EASA, then I suppose it's reasonable for EASA to say that the CAA cannot issue any more EASA licences. But for them to say that an existing EASA licence suddenly stops being an EASA licence is quite ridiculous, and should be easily challenged in court.

Which court are you taking the case to?
Who is gonna revalidate/renew existing EASA medicals?
Who is gonna revalidate/renew existing EASA ratings?

I knew someone would ask that!
​​​​1. Let's say a German had a UK EASA licence. They've taken all the exams, passed all the tests, now they're told they don't have a valid EASA licence anymore! They could go to the European court and argue their case.
2. Existing AMEs
3. Existing examiners.

​​​​

There are times when semantics are important. There are no such things as EASA licences, ratings or medicals. They are national things in accordance with EASA regulations so they are recognised by each EU member state without further ado. They are all UK things and governed by UK law. The UK courts have jurisdiction and always have.

The main problem is the LAPL: it is a sub-ICAO licence with the privilege for flight within the EU states. It is otherwise identical in most things to the UK NPPL but with the ability to add a night rating. The UK LAPL being sub-ICAO means it will not have the automatic right for overflight into Europe unless the EASA member states continue to allow it. The LAPL also has its own unique medical which has no other purpose.

Just to add to the confusion you can add a night rating to a NPPL

Nope.
Better to bring up a case before the end of December if you're British. Germans aren't leaving the EU.

*Existing AMEs in EASA land or EASA recognized in the UK - if any.
*Same as above.

JAA did exist as National law but EASA regulation is EU law overriding national regulation. UK courts do not have jurisdiction over EASA law. The exit SI takes EASA law into UK national law, but it remains separate from the ANO which regulates national aviation licences etc.

To revive an old thread and to get back to OP question, has anyone had any luck in cross crediting their MPA (IR) towards SE (IR)? Im in the same boat, I would like to see if there is a cheaper alternative to this other then taking an IR skill test?

Cheers