Has your UK CAA I/R lapsed by more than 7/6/3 years?

[MontyWithnail]

As mentioned, Cap 804 states the following regarding the exams -

(d) If the IR(A) 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.

Until now, those airline pilots who did not want to fly single pilot IFR in their spare time just let their multi IR(A) lapse (almost all of us). However, this part of CAP804 implies that only a valid IR(A) within the preceding 7 years will keep the exam passes valid - there is no mention of a valid type rating achieving the same thing - is that just an oversight, or is that somewhere else in a document??

You will return to Europe one day with NOTHING on your licence and you will not even be able to do a type rating because you do not have a valid IR(A) and to get one you will have to do the full course. (How much?!)

Also, the fact that the validity period of the exams is 7 years from the date of the last check, while for the IR (A) it is 7 years from the date of expiry is just laughable!!!! Way to make things clear - who writes this $***? Written / proof read by chimps......

This whole thing is such an abuse of power by incompetent people.

[Landflap]

Well said Monty. I have followed, albeit a bit loosely, this thread & congrats to those who have got organized. You must sign up, as a body & get this jointly sorted. Press your home MP's & get questions asked in the House. I mentioned somewhere else that in the early 70's the CAA messed up again. Having completed a fully sponsored CPL/IR at an approved school (Oxford) & blissfully enjoying life as a RHS jet Jock outa LHR, the CAA blindly announced that the qualifyer for the ATPL would be an additional 5 hrs twin time. We all went mad, shouting & screaming but few did anything. BALPA did nothing. I wrote to the Head of the Board of Trade (that is what it was) and a Lord Boyd Carpenter wrote back & expressed that although it was frustrating, the Aviation Authority was obliged to set the professional standards very high. Yeah, too high Dad for a struggling jet jockey with two kids, huge mortgage & ageing Citroen Ami 8 ! 5 hrs in a twin com at £50 per hour (yes, it really was only £50 in those glory days but still beyond me). I threatened, amongst other things, to set fire to myself & my CPL outside the B.O.T. Offices & engaged a hit man from the Mafia. They quietly & reluctantly climbed down & stated the blindingly obvious " for those who have attended an "Approved" course of Training, the additional 5hrs will be waived.

I am not saying that I did it. Well, OK, I am. I did continue to look over my shoulder for the rest of my career. BUT, guys, get organized and fight these crass twerps for really messing up very straightforward joint rulings.

[Sciolistes]

Until now, those airline pilots who did not want to fly single pilot IFR in their spare time just let their multi IR(A) lapse (almost all of us). However, this part of CAP804 implies that only a valid IR(A) within the preceding 7 years will keep the exam passes valid - there is no mention of a valid type rating achieving the same thing - is that just an oversight, or is that somewhere else in a document??

It is more than possible that I don't fully understand these rules anymore. I always understood, under LASORS/JAA, your exams expired with more than seven years expiry of any IR or TR.

Regardless, I would have thought for anybody with a type rating, your old ME/IR is irrelevant. Surely the 737 300-900 series IR I have on my license which is required to hold a 300-900 type rating is thee relevant IR in this case. The 737 IR is re-validated/renewed every time I complete a 737 LPC so it has the same expiry.

[turbine100]

Have BALPA made any progress regarding legal challenges or any flying abroad who have grouped together made any progress ....

Further to the other comments on here regarding instrument ratings, exams and flight training schools taking advantage. Eventually the UK airlines wont find experienced rated crews in the long distant future with time on type, if those abroad cannot come home ....

[Sky Hooker]

CAP 804

My understanding is all JAA licences become automatically an EASA licence.
What about adding a type rating onto our EASA licence if you are currently flying the machine. Gotta be a way to add the rating to the licence than going through a full conversion course.
Before EASA was implemented 500 hours PIC was enough with a LPC ,and whoop it was in your licence.
All this EASA......what are they trying to achieve.
Doesn't make sense at all........

[spanner the cat]

Depends on whether you see these things as cock-up or conspiracy.

Normally I'd say that these things would be down to cock-up and a lack foresight by the regulators.

In this case I'm not so sure. There was a mechanism for dealing with foreign licences and ratings in JAR-FCL which appears to have been ignored or the consultation process has been subverted by the training industry. The onus now appears to be on an ATO to assess what training you need, then it's training as required and a full set of exams. Of course they have no financial interest in what they assessing you for so everything will be fine. Either that or they've looked at the Japanese and Chinese approach to licencing foreigners and seen the way forward.

It's also probably nothing to do with any protectionist instincts in the EU. Nothing at all.

[G-LOST]

Any update? I'm wading through these issues belatedly, having just found the forum (as I'm in NZ not the sandpit), but in the same boat. Has anyone actually converted their license to an EASA one yet? I'm considering flagging the IR for now and just getting my SEP current and then converting to an EASA ATPL, as the cheapest option. Is this sound?

[Mr Good Cat]

An update from the excellent team working on this issue:

Hi everyone,
Just a very quick update as I know its been a long time since there has been any news. However we continue to try to get a successful resolution to this case.
The reason for so little news is that after a lot of correspondance with the CAA and DoT we have had to leave all the information with them and just wait to see what they will come up with. As things stood the UK were waiting for the whole of Europe to go EASA and then see what the lie of the land was. We have just received another e-mail from them saying that they are trying, with the French, to get an 'Article 14 (6)' exemption from EASA. Now, the email I received was a little unclear and I have asked whether this exemption is good or bad for us, I await the answer. It is difficult to get much info on Article 14(6), but it seems to refer to 'an equivalent level of protection' or something similar.
On another front another collegue of mine has been dealing with the DoT and has just informed me that their call to him was not negative, I'll leave it at that for the moment until we get more information. He is under the impression that there may be some news in a couple of months, which would seem sensible as everyone goes EASA on 8th April 2013.
So, we are just waiting to see. We have raised this to a european level, so hopefully the EASA states will realise that this is a global business and not some European flying school and that they recognise that we are just as proficient and current as our european collegues.
Cheers,

Also, for those of you with a UK / JAR licence that has not yet expired:

I spoke to the CAA yesterday who advised that you can convert your existing licence to an EASA licence with just a SRG 1104 form and a certified copy of your EASA Class One Medical, plus a certified copy of your UK revalidation page.

Although an IR on type is required for initial issue of an EASA licence it is NOT required for the conversion from a current UK/JAR licence as long as it hasn't expired.

The big catch is the 7-year rule on the IR test... To avoid having to re-sit all the Instr Nav ATPL exams you will have to definitely take an IR test on a type with an EASA-approved training organisation before the expiry. It is up to the training schools to decide how much training you need before proficiency, so even if you are current on a 777 you will have to prove your proficiency BEFORE you take an IR in the sim to revalidate your rating.

This is the bit that sucks obviously - as now lots of training schools will be offering (say) a 5-day course for current 777 Captains to 'renew' their rating when it's quite obvious that they are proficient already. This will be offered at great expense as an exploitation scam similar to the MCC course requirement that came into force for new licences about 12 years ago. It stinks, but I am sure most guys desperate for an EASA licence as job-security will prostitute themselves having no other option.

We can only hope that the above email quote will have some bearing on the situation

[Cancel2LateLunches]

Just in case this hasn't come up already. Has anyone looked into converting UK issue ATPL to another JAR/EASA state which are happy to to accept LPC's from a country outside of Europe? At the end of the day a JAR/EASA license is the same no matter who issues it.

[Enecosse]

I think you either have to live in the country of issue or have another suitable reason to change.
I just had 2 mornings at CAA trying to get a type on my JAR Licence. To no avail, ended up with an EASA Licence though, this was by sheer luck as fortunately there was an English Lang examiner passing through in limbo with the rest of us.
So anyone thinking of doing what I did bear in mind.

1. English Lang 6 has to be written on your licence somewhere
2. You have to have an EASA licence, while the JAR is legally an EASA Licence they do not deal with them anymore.
3. The skill test must be conducted by an examiner approved by the CAA. There is a procedure for the examiner to follow to do this as laid out by the CAA and is a one off.
5. Must have 500 hours logged as of date of skill test

[Craggenmore]

I think you either have to live in the country of issue or have another suitable reason to change.

A suitable reason being that other EASA country members recognise EK ratings for EK aircraft only, thereby avoiding the CAA's 7 year IR expiry rule..!!

[Mr Good Cat]

A suitable reason being that other EASA country members recognise EK ratings for EK aircraft only, thereby avoiding the CAA's 7 year IR expiry rule..!!

Wish that were true, but I've been told by the CAA that the 7-year rule applies to ALL EASA states now...

.. because this is the reason for EASA.

EASA is a common regulatory authority for the WHOLE collection of member states. Everything that is written is in stone for ALL states.

JAR was simply an advisory body for states to pick and choose from as they liked (except the Brits of course who abided to the letter). Now we have mandates to be adhered to...

Confused? (I am) and I expect that just like the EC most other states will find a get-out clause for their nationals while the UK and probably Germany stick steadfast to someone else's ideals.

[Fart Master]

Update

Hi,

Just a quick update for those of you not in the petition, we are expecting a decision on the matter in the next few weeks. A proposal has been sent to EASA and is in the process of being presented to the European Commission.

I'll get back to you as soon as we have some news,

C.

[kotakota]

Licence Verification

While on the subject of the CAA , why does Licence Verification take ' up to 10 working days ' and boy are they taking the ten , cost £44 , and equate to two weeks pay I have missed out on ? So frustrating .

[Lamboo1]

Type Rating

Hi Everyone,

I currently hold a UK/CAA Issued JAR ATPL ( Valid till 2016), with a 320 Type Rating from my previous Airline which Expired April 2012.

I currently Work in UAE flying A320, with my GCAA Licence.

Does anybody know what to do exactly with the new EASA conversion process?

I basically would like to keep my 320 Type Rating on my New EASA Licence even if I can keep it as Restricted to flying A6 A/C only.

Thanks

Tina

[Enecosse]

Convert your JAR licence to an EASA licence. Make sure you have level 6 English done before you do this.

You have until April 2014 to renew your A320 rating. It will require some ground school to be determined by whom ever you pay to do the renewal. Obviously a UK training (not required to be based in UK) org will have to be used. If say a French TRE is used I think the UK CAA has to be notified first.

I don't think that the UK CAA will annotate your licence with only A6 a/c. The Irish will do it though, you could get an Irish ATPL.

[Itchynutcracker]

I have just returned from the UK where I tried to convert my national licence to an EASA but have fallen victim to the 7 year IR ruling. In 2009 whilst on a visit to the UK I went to LGW and was verbally told by a licensing officer I would safeguard all my ATPL subjects provided I maintained proficiency on my GCAA or FAA licence which are ICAO. I am new to PPrune but now somewhat wished I had joined earlier as this heads up may have bought me more time. I have signed the petition and will pass this info on to quite a few boys and girls I know working abroad who now may be in for a big shock. "Lost for words"

[Itchynutcracker]

Does anybody have an email contact for the policy dept at LGW as the one I was told to use bounces back? Head of CAA too would be good. Just want to get my formal complaint lodged with them for what it's worth. Cheers:

[Sciolistes]

I think that you have four years from the date of your last sim check. So if your sim check was April 2011, then you have 3 years from date of expiry, april 2012, which would give a cut off of 2015 to get it on your easa licence wit a 320. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am as confused by these 'changes' as anybody, but I just had a read of CAP 804. It says:

FCL.740 Validity and renewal of class and type ratings
(a) The period of validity of class and type ratings shall be 1 year, except for single-pilot single-engine class ratings, for which the period of validity shall be 2 years,
unless otherwise determined by the operational suitability data, established in
accordance with Part-21.
May 2012
CAP 804 Part I Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory Requirements, Policy and Guidance
Section 4 Part H, Subpart 1 Page 6
(b)Renewal. If a class or type rating has expired, the applicant shall:
(1) take refresher training at an ATO, when necessary to reach the level of
proficiency necessary to safely operate the relevant class or type of
aeroplane; and
(2) pass a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to Part-FCL.

No mention of any time limit. The UK CAA seems to have distilled the AMC into simply 'sufficient skill level need to pass the check'. Perhaps somebody can confirm or clarify?

[Fart Master]

The final answer from the CAA

Hi,

For those of you not signed up to the petition this is what I emailed everyone 3 days ago;

Greetings,

It seems to have been a long but interesting road dealing with this case. I would like to have made a dramatic announcement just to add to the suspense, but quite simply, due to everybody's efforts we've won! As I read things the CAA have adopted our proposals 100%

As I've mentioned before the CAA have been keeping me abreast of developments and said that they were waiting for Brussels to rubber stamp the derogation (Read partial exemption) as EASA had already approved it. I received 2 e-mails from licencing managers last night confirming the law will be integrated. I've been in possession of this derogation for a while but for obvious reasons didn't release it. Now I can, it's attached to the bottom of the e-mail. The exemption will be published in the 'Official Record series 4' on the CAA website very soon.

So where does this leave us? We are all now in the position of being able to keep our EASA ATPL's as we can now add/renew/revalidate a multi crew type on our licences, which had not been possible before without an IR. However under EASA regulations people may have to go to an ATO for an assessment if they want to put a new type on their licence.....But that's another issue.

If there are any more developments I'll let you know. Good luck with your CAA dealings! My thanks to all of you who phoned/wrote/harassed the CAA and especially to others who kept things moving along as well. You know who you are...

Cheers,

Chris.

DEROGATION PROPOSAL.

Proposed Article 14(6) derogation in respect of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 - Part-FCL - Part-FCL.625IR(c) and (d), for pilots who hold instrument ratings in accordance with the requirements of third countries.

1. Context:
The requirements for the renewal of an Instrument Rating (IR) are set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 1178/2011, ‘Part-FCL’ as follows:
“FCL.625 IR — Validity, revalidation and renewal
(c) Renewal. If an IR has expired, in order to renew their privileges applicants shall:
(1) go through refresher training at an ATO to reach the level of proficiency needed to pass the instrument element of the skill test in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part; and
(2) complete a proficiency check in accordance with Appendix 9 to this Part, in the relevant aircraft category.
(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”.
These requirements are similar (but not identical to) the previous requirements of JAR-FCL. The UK CAA believes that the requirements of FCL.625 IR(d) were created for the case where a licence holder ceases to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) for 7 years. The rule does not take into account the possibility that the licence holder may have been flying under IFR using an Instrument Rating (IR) held on a 3rd country licence during the 7 year period which has been renewed during that period and which is therefore valid.

2. The issue:
The UK CAA is aware that a number of pilots with licences issued by EU States have been flying with 3rd country airlines using licences issued by the States where those airlines are based. These pilots have allowed their European Instrument Ratings to lapse, in the expectation that for the subsequent renewal of their European IRs the assessment of their recency of use of the rating would be based on the status of their 3rd country IRs.
It has been the past practice of the UK CAA to accept that if a pilot holds, or has recently held, an equivalent Instrument Rating on another ICAO Annex I compliant licence, that the requirements for revalidation of the UK-issued IR would be based upon the validity/expiry of the 3rd country ICAO Annex I compliant IR. The UK CAA understands that France, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have allowed similar arrangements for the holders of JAR-FCL licences.

The UK CAA has received a number of applications for the renewal of IRs from the holders of UK-issued licences who have allowed their IRs to lapse by more than 7 years. These applicants state that they either hold a current and equivalent 3rd country IR or that their 3rd country IR has lapsed by less than 7 years. Accordingly, they argue that they should not be required to re-take the Instrument Rating theoretical knowledge examinations or to undertake training at an ATO. They are objecting strongly to Part-FCL.625 IR requiring them to re-train and to re-take examinations, especially as many of them are currently acting as pilots for Commercial Air Transport flights into airports within the Community for 3rd country airlines using their 3rd country licences with Instrument Ratings.

The requirements of FCL.625 IR(c) and (d) appear to be intended to apply additional training and testing requirements depending upon the period of time since the pilot last used the privileges of the Instrument Rating. The UK CAA believes that it is incorrect and disproportionate to require a pilot who has a current, or recently lapsed, ICAO Annex I compliant IR from another country, to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations to renew a European IR that has lapsed by more than 7 years; i.e. it is not appropriate to apply the same requirements to a pilot with recent IFR experience as would be applied to a pilot who has not flown under IFR for more than 7 years. It is difficult to see how doing this will affect safety when these pilots are flying or have been flying recently using their third country issued IRs.

Similarly, the UK CAA considers that if the European IR has lapsed by less than 7 years, but the pilot holds a current (non-expired) ICAO Annex I compliant IR on another licence, then the requirement to undertake training at an ATO before taking the renewal Proficiency Check should not apply.

3. The need for derogation:
Around 30 pilots currently flying with third country operators (using third country licences with IRs issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1) have written to the UK CAA and/or to the UK Department for Transport to complain about the requirement to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations before their UK-issued IRs can be renewed. Three of these pilots created an on-line petition during 2012, and by August it had attracted 500 supporters. Applying FCL.625(c) and (d), without any recognition that the third country IRs may have been renewed or revalidated during the preceding 7 years, requires these pilots to undertake re-training and to re-sit the theoretical knowledge examinations in addition to passing the proficiency check; (flying skills test). This does not acknowledge that they may have been recently flying commercial air transport flights into Europe for these third country airlines. These complainants assert that to require them to do this would impose needless hardship on them – by requiring them to undertake costly and time-consuming courses and examinations. It may also cause them to lose their livelihoods if the airlines in question refuse to employ them whilst they do this. It seems likely that there will be a similar need affecting pilots from some other Member States as and when those States implement Part FCL.

4. Proposed derogation:
It is proposed that derogation be permitted under Article 14(6) of Regulation 216/2008 so that where a pilot holds or has held a 3rd country ICAO Annex I compliant Instrument Rating, the expiry date of that 3rd country IR shall be used as the date of expiry of the IR for the purposes of FCL.625IR(c) and (d):
“In accordance with Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC) 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council the United Kingdom CAA will derogate from FCL.625 IR(c) and (d) of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011 so that where a pilot holds or has held an Instrument 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.625 IR(c) and (d) may be based on the validity dates of the Instrument Rating of that other country. This derogation is subject to the following conditions:

(i) a pilot with a current and valid 3rd country IR shall complete the revalidation requirements of FCL.625(b) and the aircraft category specific requirements for revalidation of the Part-FCL IR; meaning that he must pass the proficiency check, but is not required to undergo training or to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations; and

(ii) a pilot who held a 3rd country IR that is no longer valid but had been revalidated or renewed within the preceding 7 years shall comply with the renewal requirements of FCL.625 IR(c), but is not required to re-take the theoretical knowledge examinations.”

An equivalent level of safety is maintained with this derogation because the necessity to apply the requirements of FCL.625 IR (c) and (d) is determined by how recently the pilot had the privilege of flying an aircraft under the Instrument Flight Rules. The State of Issue of the Instrument Rating that is used to carry out those flights under IFR does not affect the experience and practice gained through undertaking such flights.

Clear? If not PM me and I'll try to clarify things,

Chris.