UK EASA ATPL Type Rating Renewal with HK Rating
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: >30000'
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK EASA ATPL Type Rating Renewal with HK Rating
I am a UK EASA ATPL holder with an A330/350 rating and also a HK ATPL 330 working for a HK based airline. I notice that there is a new section in CAP804 that allows an ICAO licence holder to revalidate their rating.
CAP804 Part 1 Section 4 Part H Subpart 1
FCL.740(b):Type Rating Renewal requirement for pilots who hold aType rating on another licence
The UK CAA has adopted a derogation such that where a pilot holds a Type Rating issued by a third country and that rating is compliant with Annex I to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the applicability of FCL.740 (b) may be based on the validity dates of the Type Rating of that other country. The effect of this derogation is that to renew the type rating on a UK issued licence:
(i) a pilot with a current and valid 3rd country type rating shall complete the revalidation requirements of FCL.740.A(a) and the aircraft category speci c requirements for revalidation of the Part-FCL Type Rating; meaning that he must pass the pro ciency check, but is not required to undergo training.
Additional Information
Has any HK ATPL holder successfully revalidated their rating using this with the UK CAA? I started to fill in the online form and it asked for the 'Non UK EASA Sim Approval Certificate'. Can we revalidate using HK sims in CX city with a HK Examiner and just show them our HK license? Or do we need to find an EASA approved sim and an EASA approved examiner? If anyone has any experience of this I'd love to hear the gen. Many thanks.
CAP804 Part 1 Section 4 Part H Subpart 1
FCL.740(b):Type Rating Renewal requirement for pilots who hold aType rating on another licence
The UK CAA has adopted a derogation such that where a pilot holds a Type Rating issued by a third country and that rating is compliant with Annex I to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the applicability of FCL.740 (b) may be based on the validity dates of the Type Rating of that other country. The effect of this derogation is that to renew the type rating on a UK issued licence:
(i) a pilot with a current and valid 3rd country type rating shall complete the revalidation requirements of FCL.740.A(a) and the aircraft category speci c requirements for revalidation of the Part-FCL Type Rating; meaning that he must pass the pro ciency check, but is not required to undergo training.
Additional Information
Has any HK ATPL holder successfully revalidated their rating using this with the UK CAA? I started to fill in the online form and it asked for the 'Non UK EASA Sim Approval Certificate'. Can we revalidate using HK sims in CX city with a HK Examiner and just show them our HK license? Or do we need to find an EASA approved sim and an EASA approved examiner? If anyone has any experience of this I'd love to hear the gen. Many thanks.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: hong kong
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is indeed a welcome change. For those in HK who have maintained a UK issued licence this negates the need to do 1. official training course, 2. All the exams again.
Is there anyone reading this who has let their UK issued ATPL lapse? I find myself in this situation, and am currently trying to find out what dispensations may be available to get a new licence issued. My UK ATPL ran out in 2009 (thought I would never need it again) and to get a new one from Gatwick requires ALL the exams to be taken again as well as a training course from and approved ATO.
I will need to fight to get a dispensation for this, in the same way as the guys from Emirates fought to get the above dispensation added to CAP 804. I see no difference.. IR/licence when dealing with those who have been flying continually on an ICAO licence in the interim. I would be happy to hear from anyone in the same situation as many voices are better than 1 when dealing with the CAA.
Is there anyone reading this who has let their UK issued ATPL lapse? I find myself in this situation, and am currently trying to find out what dispensations may be available to get a new licence issued. My UK ATPL ran out in 2009 (thought I would never need it again) and to get a new one from Gatwick requires ALL the exams to be taken again as well as a training course from and approved ATO.
I will need to fight to get a dispensation for this, in the same way as the guys from Emirates fought to get the above dispensation added to CAP 804. I see no difference.. IR/licence when dealing with those who have been flying continually on an ICAO licence in the interim. I would be happy to hear from anyone in the same situation as many voices are better than 1 when dealing with the CAA.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA ATPL
Sorry! I didn't mean to be abstruse. The good news is that even an expired JAR or UK national licence can be converted to a lifelong EASA licence with the minimum of effort. Naturally there will be a small mountain of forms involved but the multiple requirements can be dealt with in a single sim session. The bad news is, it must be an EASA approved sim and IRE/TRE. Neither of which you will find in Hong Kong. There is info on precisely this in the HKAOA forums. Good luck!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
I just checked and the post I was referring to on the HKAOA forum is no longer available (too old, I think). Happily though, it remains the case that having an expired UK licence is no impediment to conversion to EASA. To quote the UK CAA...
"As long as you are current and valid on the B777 (on which you have flown more than 500 hours), you can transfer the type and upgrade to an ATPL A at the same time by completing an ATPL Skill Test with a Part-FCL TRE. "
Other requirements are the Class 1 medical and English Language Proficiency (which the TRE can sign-off post sim).
"As long as you are current and valid on the B777 (on which you have flown more than 500 hours), you can transfer the type and upgrade to an ATPL A at the same time by completing an ATPL Skill Test with a Part-FCL TRE. "
Other requirements are the Class 1 medical and English Language Proficiency (which the TRE can sign-off post sim).
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: hong kong
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is exactly what I have now ascertained from a training establishment in the UK, great news! Thanks binka. Off to a UK sim! (so relieved I don't have 18 exams in my future)
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When swapping national to EASA licences etc, might I recommend BA Flight Training as the people to contact for the LST. I was in that position and had spoken to the likes of CAE who, I found, were taking the piss. I'm current (with a decent ICAO operator) on an aircraft that was on my UK national licence and just wanted to get an EASA licence. CAE said I had to do a bunch of hours training before they would sign the course completion certificate, which should be done by the 'training' organisation. In other words, they were going to charge me a good deal of dosh for 'training' that did not need to be done. BA, on the other hand, were far more realistic. They looked at my qualifications and recent experience and determined that I could go straight to the check (as it should have been). Although, in theory, I only really needed an LPC (aircraft type on my UK licence) they recommended an LST to make sure the CAA were kept happy because, sometimes (allegedly) they've made a bit of a fuss if you haven't flown on your UK/JAA/EASA licence for over 3 years. Nothing written down but it was just based on things that have been heard. LST over LPC not a big deal.....a raw data, hand-flown ILS and (I think) that was the difference.
I have no affiliation with BA Flight Training other than being a satisfied customer, who found their prices very reasonable and their approach to qualified, current and experienced pilots as being realistic.
I have no affiliation with BA Flight Training other than being a satisfied customer, who found their prices very reasonable and their approach to qualified, current and experienced pilots as being realistic.
One thing to point out here is that the EASA licence is significantly different to the JAA or UK one. For a start, it doesn't expire - but to exercise the rights you have to have a current medical. Second, there is no need to hold a current type rating. But obviously, you need one to fly a EASA registered aircraft. So if you have no plans to use it in the near future, you can convert without type rating. As type ratings are now only valid for one year, there isn't much point if you aren't.
To get the type rating, you need to do sufficient training and a LST. The assessment of how much training you need is down to the FTO. But to convert from another ICAO member state, you must have 500 hours, (confirmed by a letter from your current employer) and a course completion certificate from the training organisation who did your type training.
Doing a LPC with a mate who is a TIRE is no longer an option. You must use a FTO. But it's likely your mate is part of an FTO, so he can still arrange it. The CAA hold a list of FTOs.
It sounds like some FTOs are taking advantage of this and demanding unnecessary training. And one TIRE a lot of HKG pilots have used in the past is erroneously claiming that you should keep your EASA rating current ''just in case''. There is no longer any need if you are still current. Should your rating have expired, then it appears in the list of previously held rating on your EASA licence, or in the case of a ICAO member state rating, you will have to provide evidence. The training required will be at the discretion of the FTO, so if only a couple of months, it may just be a LPC. But if ten years, it may be a full course.
After several years of pain and misinterpretation, EASA FCL has settled down into a transparent and sensible system. This leaves the CAD even further behind the world standard!
To get the type rating, you need to do sufficient training and a LST. The assessment of how much training you need is down to the FTO. But to convert from another ICAO member state, you must have 500 hours, (confirmed by a letter from your current employer) and a course completion certificate from the training organisation who did your type training.
Doing a LPC with a mate who is a TIRE is no longer an option. You must use a FTO. But it's likely your mate is part of an FTO, so he can still arrange it. The CAA hold a list of FTOs.
It sounds like some FTOs are taking advantage of this and demanding unnecessary training. And one TIRE a lot of HKG pilots have used in the past is erroneously claiming that you should keep your EASA rating current ''just in case''. There is no longer any need if you are still current. Should your rating have expired, then it appears in the list of previously held rating on your EASA licence, or in the case of a ICAO member state rating, you will have to provide evidence. The training required will be at the discretion of the FTO, so if only a couple of months, it may just be a LPC. But if ten years, it may be a full course.
After several years of pain and misinterpretation, EASA FCL has settled down into a transparent and sensible system. This leaves the CAD even further behind the world standard!
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second, there is no need to hold a current type rating..........So if you have no plans to use it in the near future, you can convert without type rating.
I believe you are correct when you say that you don't need to keep your rating current BUT, as I understand it, you have to have a current, EASA TRE-signed, type rating to convert from a national licence to an EASA licence. That's why I had to do an LST because my type rating was expired on my UK CAA licence, even though I'm flying the type for an ICAO operator. However, conversion from a JAA to EASA is just a matter of swapping, so it may be that no current type rating is required for that....I honestly don't know.
I'm still very interested in the OP's post and wonder how/if we are able to keep our EASA type ratings valid by using the LPC of an ICAO operator.
Pontius,
Actually, I'm not entirely sure. I converted my JAR ATPL to an EASA on with just a SEP rating. I recall hearing of one pilot converting with no current rating. I suspect the best thing to do is get in touch with the licencing authority of your choice and find out what you have to do. If you are converting to an EASA licence which does not require a rating to be held, I can't see the requirement for a current rating to be added to the licence being necessary as it's a conversion and not an initial issue. However, if you are going from a national licence (probably expired) to the EASA without the interim step of the JAR licence, this may be the case as to convert from national to JAR did require a current rating.
But I suspect the UK CAA will be relatively flexible and treat each case on it's merits. I converted mid last year and I was pleasantly surprised at the change in attitude. Whereas two years ago you saw someone staring at you blankly from behind a desk while saying "The computer says no!", now you have a very pleasant atrium with comfy seats and a Costa Coffee shop, and the staff come out to greet you and take your paperwork. I spent an hour at CAA House and went away with everything I came for - and happy!
Now, the licence holders are treated as customers who the CAA rely on for their remuneration and they know we have a choice. While I was waiting for my licence, I was chatting to a number of French licence holders who were there taking advantage of the walk in service, something they don't have in France. They would have to wait for their licences with the new ratings to be posted to them which would mean three weeks without being able to work. A nice little earner for the CAA.
There really is no need. in theory, PART FCL does allow it and you may recall that some JAA agencies did allow it in the past, but the CAA did not. It required a rating valid for B registered aircraft only and was only there to fulfil the requirement to have a valid rating to keep the licence current, and for renewal. As neither are required, there really isn't any point and I understand the CAA are pointing this out, which is why they do not do it. If you have the EASA ATPL, then you do not need a current rating. If you want to exercise the rights of your licence to fly a EASA registered aircraft, then you will need it. If you are current on type with a rating on a ICAO member state licence, it's very easy to transfer it. The only requirement is that you may have to do a LST as opposed to a LPC; and as the difference is essentially only one raw data ILS, then you can see why.
One point to note is that if returning to Europe for employment, your new employer may require you to have the rating already on your EASA licence. This was the case for one HKG based pilot earlier this year. Although his employer would have done a LPC as a part of his induction (and he had the type on his JAA licence prior, so that's all he would need to renew the rating) they wanted to see he had the EASA rating before employment. He contacted a FTO and added it simply by doing a LPC with them.
A big 'however' though. I would very strongly suggest that pilots wishing to convert contact their agency of choice before hand to find out what is required as although many agencies are following the PART FCL mostly to the letter, there are still some interpretations being used.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure. I converted my JAR ATPL to an EASA on with just a SEP rating. I recall hearing of one pilot converting with no current rating. I suspect the best thing to do is get in touch with the licencing authority of your choice and find out what you have to do. If you are converting to an EASA licence which does not require a rating to be held, I can't see the requirement for a current rating to be added to the licence being necessary as it's a conversion and not an initial issue. However, if you are going from a national licence (probably expired) to the EASA without the interim step of the JAR licence, this may be the case as to convert from national to JAR did require a current rating.
But I suspect the UK CAA will be relatively flexible and treat each case on it's merits. I converted mid last year and I was pleasantly surprised at the change in attitude. Whereas two years ago you saw someone staring at you blankly from behind a desk while saying "The computer says no!", now you have a very pleasant atrium with comfy seats and a Costa Coffee shop, and the staff come out to greet you and take your paperwork. I spent an hour at CAA House and went away with everything I came for - and happy!
Now, the licence holders are treated as customers who the CAA rely on for their remuneration and they know we have a choice. While I was waiting for my licence, I was chatting to a number of French licence holders who were there taking advantage of the walk in service, something they don't have in France. They would have to wait for their licences with the new ratings to be posted to them which would mean three weeks without being able to work. A nice little earner for the CAA.
I'm still very interested in the OP's post and wonder how/if we are able to keep our EASA type ratings valid by using the LPC of an ICAO operator.
One point to note is that if returning to Europe for employment, your new employer may require you to have the rating already on your EASA licence. This was the case for one HKG based pilot earlier this year. Although his employer would have done a LPC as a part of his induction (and he had the type on his JAA licence prior, so that's all he would need to renew the rating) they wanted to see he had the EASA rating before employment. He contacted a FTO and added it simply by doing a LPC with them.
A big 'however' though. I would very strongly suggest that pilots wishing to convert contact their agency of choice before hand to find out what is required as although many agencies are following the PART FCL mostly to the letter, there are still some interpretations being used.
