UK CAA IR Fiasco
 

There was a thread on this forum a while ago regarding a rule change made in LASORS 2010 regarding UK IR holders who, in effect, had their IR's taken away from them. I have set up a petition as a few of us are taking legal advice to see if we can challenge the way in which the CAA handled this, the info below should flesh the case out...

Dear fellow Aviators,

This information pertains to any pilot who has been issued a UK CAA professional licence (JAR or National) and have moved abroad to work under another ICAO licence;

If you possess a UK issued professional licence the publication to refer to is a manual called LASORS (LICENSING, ADMINISTRATION and STANDARDISATION,
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS and SAFETY), this publication is valid until 1st July 2012 at which point CAP 804 will come into force as its replacement under EU-OPS. CAP 804 is the UK CAA's version of Part-FCL (Previously called JAR-FCL).These 2 documents lay out how to attain, maintain and if necessary revalidate your licence.

The matter to which I draw your attention pertains to holders of a UK CAA issued Instrument Rating (IR), more specifically, the requirements for renewing that rating. Up to and including LASORS 2008 there was a clause in Section E of the publication that took into account the utilisation of your ICAO (In this case non UK) or military IR. I quote/paraphrase directly from LASORS 2008;

"To renew an IR(A) that has expired by more than 7 years, applicants must: ...For multi-pilot aircraft pass a type rating skill test with or observed by a UK CAA Flight Operations Training Inspector. Applicants will also be required to retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations. "

However, and most importantly for the affected pilots (Mostly expats);

"...where IR privileges have been exercised in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR(H)) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a UK military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry date of that IR."

In other words as long as you kept your other ICAO IR valid your UK IR was safe from the 7 year renewal rule and most importantly we wouldn't have to undergo the ridiculous requirement to resist the 7 theory exams, the very same exams on which our CPL/ATPL's are predicated.

Now the bad news, WITHOUT ANY PRIOR WARNING, the CAA removed the ICAO/Military caveat, in an instant rendering 100's of UK issued IR's invalid. The authority state that the rule shouldn't have been there in the first place and was therefor removed, this despite all the other JAR authorities entering into the spirit of the agreement and renewing licences/IR's that had expired by more than 7 years when the pilot produced reasonable proof that he/she had stayed current, for example, flown for an airline. The CAA took the rule at face value and applied it literally, with no thought of the consequences. They have in effect taken away our careers as a licence without an IR is basically worthless. When queried recently as to why they didn't pre warn us of the impending change, and after all they are very quick to criticise us for not referring to the CAA website for these matters, the reply was.... They didn't want to potentially upset our families in case we were deceased. So you see what we're up against... Nuff said really. Although not confirmed, it may be the case that you have to go to an approved school to do your ground studies, obviously completely unacceptable given most of our circumstances.

I haven't got enough space to go into all the details and futile attempts we have made to get the CAA to see sense, so what a few of us are doing is taking legal advice to challenge, not the rule change itself, but the way in which the change was implemented, in effect, without any warning. We have also sent our case to an MP who has stated he will pass it onto the Minister of Transport. The CAA have admitted 'that they could have communicated the change better', the implication being that there was some communication in the first place, which was not the case.

Without even considering the fact that they are treating professional pilots like novices, consideration is also being given to legally pursuing the costs that the authority have in effect imposed on us if we have to do the 7 ground exams. Ground courses, costs of books, exam fees and other incidental costs. As we all know money is a big part of the CAA's thinking, so several hundred pilots multiplied by several thousands of pounds costs each may get them to pay attention and not hide behind their rule books?

So, what can you could do to help? An online petition has been created to add weight to our cause, the link is below, and I ask that you add your signature and a message if you wish. Equally important is that you spread the word to other affect colleagues who don't read PPRuNe. We are preparing and planning to lodge a legal complaint prior to the introduction of CAP 804 so that we have date stamped our claim based on LASORS regulations. Even pilots who don't plan to return to EASA land should be encouraged to sign up, as you never know what path your career may take.

Personal enquiries/complaints to the CAA, your MP and EASA should also be a consideration to keep the pressure up on the authority.

Good luck!

Chris.

The link is;

Petition: UK Civil Aviation Authority: Temp approval for affected pilots to renew their IR without resitting exams | Change.org

17 Sep now not July.

Thx, have just seen it in the CAA website, so it gives us more time to put our case together.

Thx.

Ps sign the petition as well if it's not too much of a hassle :ok:

Petition signed!

Signed.

I was down at the CAA having a related but subtly different nightmare a few months ago; they were misreading their own LASORS in my case but refused to concede.

Whilst there, a Cathay TRI/E was told his JAA ATPL was no longer valid due to this 7 year rule; his HK ATPL was issued on the basis of his JAA ATPL, so in effect he'd lost his licences!!

The remedy; just go out and retake the ground exams, re-sit an IR!!!!

I think his solution was to pay for an FAA licence instead!

The people who spoke to me on the front desk at the CAA were Engineering specialists; they had no FCL specialists available. They appear to be having their own crisis, chances are if you've read the rules, you'll know more than the person on the 'phone at the CAA! What's worrying is that there was no concession whatsoever in mine or the other chap's case.

IMHO The Mil pilot makes up such a small % of the CAA's revenue that in their mind it's not worth their while to look after that body of people.

Good to see the Mother Country's CAA makes life as difficult as possible just like the CASA downunder! :ugh:

FFP'em, agreed, the whole thing is a shambles. That's why we are going down the legal route, it might provide a little 'focus' to the situation.

We are still putting the case together. Update to follow as and when.

FM

LASORS 2008:

LASORS 2010:

No warning was given of this change and it isn't even highlighted in the 'changes from LASORS 2008' references to sections A 12 'Credit for Military Service' or E 1.2 'IR(A) Flying Training / Experience Requirements'.

The CAA made such a balls-up of LASORS 2010 that they had to release AIC 043/2011 'Amendments to LASORS 2010' which did at least include the following:

The CAA could quite easily have continued the earlier agreement under JAR-FCL1.020:

Note the words 'at the discretion of the Authority'. Why did they not exercise such discretion?

In addition, the CAA delayed introduction of part-FCL from 8 April 2012 to 30 June 2012 and later to 17 September 2012. All other part-FCL changes have been delayed to the same date, yet no similar delay has been allowed for Military Accreditation. Why??

Good luck with your case, this certainly deserves a legal challenge. If you can get an MP involved to put a formal question through the Secretary of State, the CAA will be obliged to take what they term 'orange folder action' in order to provide the answer within a fixed time period - which involves a lot of work for them!

But it doesn't say that applicants have to pass the exams....:E

Haha, good point BEagle. We've contacted one MP who's going to pass on the information to the MoT, probably a dry hole, but you never know...

A point that you should be aware of is that LASORS has never had any legal status, it has always been a guidance document. The underlying rules have been JAR-FCL Part 1 (not law in the UK) and now Part FCL Regulation 1178/2011 (EU Law). Even CAP 804 is not a legal document, it reiterates other rules which it muddles with policy and guidance.

Sadly, this shambolic mess has come about by allowing people with no relevant knowledge or experience to play about with rules they clearly don't understand.

Signed. Good luck guys. Why do I just know that it is only the UK that has taken such arbitrary action against their own pilots?

Much like the Highway Code....:rolleyes:

Just picked this thread up gents,

If you are going down the legal route, you may also want to look into the fact that some idiot(s), quite probably plural and I am being kind, when constructing EU Regulation 1178/2011 for EASA Part-FCL, together with the AMC/GM and subsequently CAP 804 appears to have totally omitted any process for converting an ICAO IR into an EASA Part-FCL IR. I cannot believe for one second this is by accident.

The old CPL process has been somewhat modified in that an applicant for converting an ICAO CPL into its EASA equivalent must now attend an Approved Training Organisation and be assessed; the ATO must then forward a recommendation of training to the CAA who must rubber-stamp it with their own approval before the training can go ahead......mmm, I wonder whether there will be a further contribution required to the CAA Staff Final Salary Scheme Pension Fund, err, sorry I mean a charge.

However, there is no similar IR process in place and any credits available from holding a non-EASA ICAO IR can, according to the CAA, only be applied to an integrated CPL/IR course and not any modular IR. In short, the full IR course must be taken, less any credits for holding an EASA Part-FCL CPL, with its impending cost.

Appendix 6 to Part-FCL (Modular IR course) has no conversion process outlined within, neither has Part Q.

There is a validation process which permits the holder of an ICAO ATPL or CPL/IR to fly on Commercial Air Transport ops for one year only, with a single extension of one further year, provided that the person can demonstrate that they have commenced a course of study towards the theoretical knowledge requirements for licence conversion.

However, the old 15 hour IR conversion requirement has simply vanished into thin air, without a 'by-your-leave'.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I thought it better that anyone who is holding an ICAO CPL/IR only should be aware of the full story and not be thinking it's a case of doing the theory exams only.

But hey, more good news, I've lost my CPL altogether thanks to EASA! :mad:

Great, innit?

Where does it say the extension is limited to one further year? My copy says "This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL."

When putting together your legal case you might look at the requirements for the likes of the CAA to consult with industry before introducing a change. It used to be called the BERR code. It requires regulators generally to conduct risk assessments etc and consult before changing regulations.

Update
 

Just a wee update;

As things stand we are still in talks with a law company and the government. I have a couple of small requests of everybody who is involved/affected by this ruling;

1. We have received a reply from the government. The Minister of Transport is now aware of our case. The first letter we received contained 2 interesting points. Firstly she admitted that the guidance that the CAA provided was in error. An admission of guilt? Secondly she stated that the rules had been in place for 12 years, we can only assume that she was referring to the creation of JAR? We're not exactly sure what she means. Anyway, we have written back to the MP requesting more information whilst also fleshing out our case. This includes informing them that there is a petition online. I think this will make them realise that we are serious in regards to this matter. So my request to you is to get as many to sign up as possible. Our thanks in advance.

2. As we are now approaching the point where we may be looking at taking legal action, the two of us leading the case would appreciate any other legal angles in addition to what has already been provided, that you feel may be appropriate to help us apply pressure to the CAA/Govt.

One thing is for sure if we give up now then we're guarenteed not to have a favourable outcome. If you are willing, keep writing letters/e-mails or phone to show your displeasure at what is going on.

Chris:ok:

Military training was cut cut and cut some more around the time I went through. I had to take all the ATPL exams when I had years of service and thousands of hours. There were no exemptions in the 1990s available to the likes of me. When I took all the exams I learned a LOT of stuff that the military didnt teach me. I learned a lot of guff as well!
In my opinion, military pilots need to do these exams, ONCE! This 7 year rule is just another CAA 'hoop' to jump through, thought up by european minded blunties........

Fart master, don't be smoke-screened by the revised 'Revalidation of Part-FCL Instrument Rating' accreditation criteria (which may or may not be included in Section 4 part O of amendment 1 to CAP 804, to be released in 2 days time) - your argument is with the illogical changes introduced in LASORS 2010!

jayteeto, how right you are about the progressive dumbing-down of military theoretical knowledge instruction! For example, I was taught (and examined in) in PofF to a greater level for my PFB in 1971 than I was at CFS 20 years later.

For example, OCU groundschool for the Vickers FunBus was significantly dumbed down after some Stn Cdr decided that he didn't like it being so comprehensive.....:\

Any holding officer waiting to start flying training would be well advised to study for EASA CPL ground exams......in my view....:mad:

THe CAA lost all my CPL exam results but to make up for that they sent me another guys IMC rating........