Slightly Confused Over Revalidation
Thread Starter
Slightly Confused Over Revalidation
My two year revalidation is due next year (2011). However, my JAR PPL was re-issued this year (2010) for another five years.
Does this re-issue reset my revalidation?
(i.e. is my revalidation now due in two years time (2012))
Thanks.
Does this re-issue reset my revalidation?
(i.e. is my revalidation now due in two years time (2012))
Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kilmacolm
Age: 47
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your two year revalidation will most probably be related to your SEP rating not the licence itself which is a different requirement every five years.
So your two year revalidation of your SEP rating will still be 2011.
So your two year revalidation of your SEP rating will still be 2011.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK East
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like to view it as:
- JAR PPL - "so we let you fly things..."
- SEP(Land) (or whatever rating you could have) - "...but really this is it"
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your licence validity and your class rating validity are 2 entirely separate things and independent of each other.
Your licence is valid for 5 years and your SEP Class rating is valid for 2 years. A licence is revalidated by paying dosh to the CAA for them to issue you a new bit of paper. A tax in effect.
Your Class rating is revalidated either through experience or through test.
Your licence is valid for 5 years and your SEP Class rating is valid for 2 years. A licence is revalidated by paying dosh to the CAA for them to issue you a new bit of paper. A tax in effect.
Your Class rating is revalidated either through experience or through test.
Unfortunately some idiot at the CAA used the word 'renew' for the 5-yearly licence re-issue and this caused all the confusion....
One reason the CAA introduced the NPPL was to resolve the utterly pointless 5-yearly re-issue imposed under JAR-FCL. Interestingly, the flawed CAA Regulatory Impact Assessment (which led to early adoption of JAR-FCL requirements in the UK) alleged that maintaining a JAR-FCL PPL(A) would somehow be cheaper than maintaining the old UK PPL had been..
The old UK PPL was a lifetime licence, as is the NPPL. But any Ratings included in these licences have to be valid, of course.
The utterly pointless LAPL proposed under EASA part-FCL would be the worst of all worlds. Not only would it kill off the 'Medical Declaration' system, which the CAA CMO agrees is an entirely safe system, but it would also need to be re-issued every 5 years (to keep the fat cats in EASA well paid) and would include 'rolling validity' (x hours in the y months before the date of flight). 'Rolling validity' was originally included in the NPPL due to a CAA drafting error and it took us ages to get rid of it...
It seems that only political pressure to change Regulation 216/2008 will stop EASA fiddling with 'one size fits no-one' sub-ICAO pilot licensing....
One reason the CAA introduced the NPPL was to resolve the utterly pointless 5-yearly re-issue imposed under JAR-FCL. Interestingly, the flawed CAA Regulatory Impact Assessment (which led to early adoption of JAR-FCL requirements in the UK) alleged that maintaining a JAR-FCL PPL(A) would somehow be cheaper than maintaining the old UK PPL had been..
The old UK PPL was a lifetime licence, as is the NPPL. But any Ratings included in these licences have to be valid, of course.The utterly pointless LAPL proposed under EASA part-FCL would be the worst of all worlds. Not only would it kill off the 'Medical Declaration' system, which the CAA CMO agrees is an entirely safe system, but it would also need to be re-issued every 5 years (to keep the fat cats in EASA well paid) and would include 'rolling validity' (x hours in the y months before the date of flight). 'Rolling validity' was originally included in the NPPL due to a CAA drafting error and it took us ages to get rid of it...
It seems that only political pressure to change Regulation 216/2008 will stop EASA fiddling with 'one size fits no-one' sub-ICAO pilot licensing....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Beagle
I'm sorry but I am still a bit confused.
When do you think the "new" medical examiner requirements will kick in for the NPPL,I will need a new self declaration sign off next May,do you think it will be sorted out by then,or do you think it will continue as is for the foreseeable future.
I know I've asked a similar question before,but nothing much seems to be happening in Sky God Towers.
I believe the AME's are blocking the move,and I know that our PFA etc reps are lobbying on our behalves,but is there any light on the horizon?
Lister
When do you think the "new" medical examiner requirements will kick in for the NPPL,I will need a new self declaration sign off next May,do you think it will be sorted out by then,or do you think it will continue as is for the foreseeable future.
I know I've asked a similar question before,but nothing much seems to be happening in Sky God Towers.
I believe the AME's are blocking the move,and I know that our PFA etc reps are lobbying on our behalves,but is there any light on the horizon?
Lister
The Medical Declaration system will continue until at least 2012 - and if we can lean on the CAA hard enough, perhaps until 2015. Ideally, the pointless and unnecessary LAPL will never see the light of day - but there's no guaranteeing that.
and if we can lean on the CAA hard enough
EASA are totally arrogant, they have ignored the EC deputy directors instruction to go back to the drawing board and stick to putting ICAO and JAA requirements into EC Law. Additionally they actually propose to eliminate the NPA process of debating change!
Whopity, the 'leaning on the CAA' to which I refer is to demand the full 3 years of 'transition' from national to EASA part-FCL pilot licences. Otherwise we'll probably see the same precipitate CAA lemming rush into chaos which occurred immediately before JAR-FCL.
EASA do indeed seem to have ignored the DDG's strongly written note. However even Regulation 216/2008 appears to be out of step with this note as it includes requirements which stem neither from ICAO nor the JAA and were added without any formal stakeholder consulation.
The way ahead must be for people to lobby their MEP demanding the removal of any non-ICAO / non-JAA requirements from the Regulation. EASA would find this highly inconvenient, but they've only themselves to blame.
EASA do indeed seem to have ignored the DDG's strongly written note. However even Regulation 216/2008 appears to be out of step with this note as it includes requirements which stem neither from ICAO nor the JAA and were added without any formal stakeholder consulation.
The way ahead must be for people to lobby their MEP demanding the removal of any non-ICAO / non-JAA requirements from the Regulation. EASA would find this highly inconvenient, but they've only themselves to blame.
