"Dear Backpacker" letter from the CAA

[robin]

I'm not moving to a new licence until I have to.

I intend to write to my MP on this to escalate this to the new government - not that it will do any good. But we all need to do this as soon as possible

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I intend to write to my MP on this

I'm not going to write to mine, because I know how much work that makes and how many other things he's dealing with. But I might mention it next time I see him, perhaps along with offering him another ride whilst I still can

[flybymike]

Never mind PPLs , there is just as much concern among BCPLs (who also stand to lose their livings if their licences are not recognised.)

[Whopity]

there is just as much concern among BCPLs (who also stand to lose their livings if their licences are not recognised.)

Not at all. A BCPL(R) was issued on the basis of a UK PPL. It currently translates to a JAA/EASA PPL and under EASA rules, a PPL holder will be able to give instruction and conduct tests and be remunerated, so nothing lost or gained apart from the Blue licence cover. Such people are in exactly the same position as Helicopter instructors operating on a PPL.

For those few people who still have a BCPL without restriction, they have had 10 years plus to upgrade it to a JAA CPL. There is still a JAA CPL Restricted (LASORS D2) which requires 700 hours to remove the restriuction. Anyone holding a BCPL should have acquired sufficient experience by now to apply for this licence and have the restriction removed straight away. Failing that, they can also revert back to a PPL and still conduct remunerated instruction.

[BEagle]

Not at all. A BCPL(R) was issued on the basis of a UK PPL. It currently translates to a JAA/EASA PPL and under EASA rules, a PPL holder will be able to give instruction and conduct tests and be remunerated, so nothing lost or gained apart from the Blue licence cover.

Except that R/BCPL/FIs will not have passed the CPL examinations, so their livelihood is under threat from this €urocrap.

No-one actually know what the Kölunatics are actually proposing for 'licence replacement' for those holding national licences. But my cynical view is that these CAA letters are trying to persuade people to change to JAR-FCL licences in the hope that the scale of the problem might then go away....

It won't. The CAA needs to be proactive and to come up with something more positive. Personally I consider that the current national licence should be replaced with the nearest EASA equivalent free of charge - as it's a non-safety related regulatory requirement. R/BCPL/FIs should be given EASA CPLs bearing national restrictions identical to current R/BCPL/FI licence privileges. Same with the IMCR - just issue an EASA IR restricted to IMCR privileges and valid only in UK airspace. Not hard, is it? But it might require a change to the Basic Regulation, so that's why the CAA should be proactive - and securing political backing.

[IO540]

I don't think it is possible to sue in these cases, due to Crown Immunity.

What would be unprecended would be a removal of pilot privileges. AFAIK this has never been done before, on any scale, in any civilised country. Yet this is what EASA is proposing. I wonder whether they are unaware of the ***t that will hit the fan? There will be a lot of it because the vast majority of pilots, particularly working pilots, are totally unaware of EASA's proposals.

My take on this whole thing is based wholly on Yes Minister principles (EASA is nothing to do with aviation and everything to do with job creation, job protection, and politics of envy) and suggests that EASA is adopting a hard line because they have to (not many people down there on less than 100k p.a.) and they will run with it till the last moment (they have to because they have left themselves no ladder to climb down with dignity) and then a deal will be done (and a suitable person/party will be blamed).

[jez d]

under EASA rules, a PPL holder will be able to give instruction and conduct tests and be remunerated, so nothing lost or gained apart from the Blue licence cover.

Sorry Whopity, but EASA have had a change of heart and reneged on their promise to do away with the CPL requirement for PPL instructors wishing to be paid for their instruction (see the last edition of FTN). This will, therefore, now affect BCPL 'instruction only' holders, who will need to gain a CPL in order to continue to be paid for their work.

As to the CAA passing the buck onto EASA re the conversion process for national licences to pan-European ones, what about pilots flying Annex II aircraft?

Given Annex II aircraft (microlights and aircraft whose manufacturers are no more) are not currently included in EASA's oversight list, the CAA will remain responsible for regulating them and their pilots.

So would the CAA care to tell us what they are planning to do?

Will these pilots be allowed to continue to fly under a UK licence, or will the CAA jump on the standardization bandwagon and declare that pilots flying non-EASA aircraft will have to have EASA licences?

And how will this affect instructors? Will they need to have two separate instructor licences in order to teach on both EASA and Annex II aircraft?

A little more clarity from our buck-passing regulator is in order, methinks.

Regards, jez

[peter272]

.. at the moment, the EASA plan is really daft.

It would appear that if you fly an AnnexeII or Permit aircraft, then those hours will not count towards currency on the EASA LAPL. As it stands, the CAA will have to decide how this will work, as they will be responsible for the regulation of national rules.

I'd love to know how much has been spent by EASA on lawyers on this fiasco.

[Whopity]

Sorry Whopity, but EASA have had a change of heart and reneged on their promise to do away with the CPL requirement for PPL instructors wishing to be paid for their instruction

Lets not confuse these 2 issues. To obtain a FI rating under EASA then it will be necessary to have CPL level knowledge however a BCPL holder already has a FI rating. Provided it is on a recogniseable licence (JAA) then they can continue to use it. The EU cannot take away existing privileges.

EASA propose allowing PPL holders to be remunerated; it is not subject to having demonstrated CPL level knowledge. If the BCPL holder obtains a JAA PPL with their existing FI rating before EASA is implemented then they will be able to instruct remunerated under EASA. One good reason for doing it early. They also need to hang onto their BCPL(R) to continue instructing remunerated under National rules, until EASA is implemented.

[jez d]

Whopity, I'm confused.

According to EASA's recent Comments Response Document for FCL, the following is required:

(b) additionally, for the FI(A):

(1) hold at least a CPL(A);or

(2) hold at least a PPL(A) and have:

(i) met the requirements for CPL theoretical knowledge; and

(ii) completed at least 200 hours of flight time in aeroplanes or TMG, of which 150 hours as pilot-in-command;

Going by the above, an FI (note: not LAFI) will have to acquire a CPL before being allowed to instruct, or at least have passed the CPL theoretical knowledge exams.

As I understand it, EASA have binned their original plan to do away with the CPL requirement for PPL instructors, due to objection from NAAs who want to toe the ICAO line.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then this means BCPL holders will need to pass the CPL TK in order to continue to be paid for their work.

[jez d]

I'd love to know how much has been spent by EASA on lawyers on this fiasco

I think that's one of the key problems with EASA.

Given their primary remit appears to be to turn JAA regulations into law, the amount of lawyers at Cologne outnumber the aviation experts.

The old tail wagging the dog scenario is alive and well, it would appear.

[BEagle]

The EU cannot take away existing privileges.

Really, Whopity? Then how does that affect their proposals for IMCR holders?

[hoodie]

And, given that I am often told that my "lifetime" CAA licence is not a right, it must consequently be a privilege. (For if not, what?).

Since it seems that will be removed from me in 2012, privileges are not that sacrosanct after all.

[robin]

True

But privileges can only be removed for a good reason, and to wipe out such a privilege en masse is not good politics.

It could certainly be challenged and it would take a very brave or stupid government to do it.

Ah, we're talking EU here, aren't we. B*gg*er.

[BillieBob]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then this means BCPL holders will need to pass the CPL TK in order to continue to be paid for their work.

Correct. Welcome to the brave new world.

[IO540]

Bring back Lord Denning...

[Whopity]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then this means BCPL holders will need to pass the CPL TK in order to continue to be paid for their work.

I have seen two letters sent by the CAA to BCPL(R) holders advising them to change to a JAA PPL so that they can continue to instruct under EASA. So that is the current advice from Gatwick. What they had forgotten, was that if the BCPL(R) holder did convert and let the BCPL expire, they could no longer be remunerated as a PPL holder under the ANO.
There are far more helicopter instructors operating on a PPL without CPL knowledge than there are BCPL(R) holders.

[mrmum]

Anybody got any idea what will happen to the holder of a old style (ie:700hr) UK CPL(A), which comes with embedded IMCr privileges.

I guess the CAA would just like them to apply for a JAA CPL, but then they would have to go and do the IMCr course and exams wouldn't they? Just to keep doing what they have been, that's assuming EASA haven't killed it off.

[dope05]

One of the reasons I swapped the share in a JP5 for a Triumph Bonneville, and gave up flying.

[BEagle]

Yup - if the Wright Brothers had known about EASA, they'd have stuck to fixing bikes.....

EASA was sold to us as being simply a 'legal' version of the JAA - it was never required to have embarked upon such comprehensively absurd wheel re-invention as it has.