Logging time in homebuild
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has all the makings of a major c*ck-up. EASA spend all their time making up rules and ignoring any form of comment and criticism - remember that they are trying to avoid having to consult in future cos it gets in the way!
Now they are up against the deadline for presenting the legislation, they are finding that there are enormous holes in their plans.
But they won't hold back and they will resort to making requests for us to trust them to sort things out.
I wrote to my MEP about the proposed rules. Today I received a letter that included a response from M Goudou.
That response failed to address any of my points and went on to talk about the LAPL instead.
I have absolutely no faith in either EASA or CAA.
Now they are up against the deadline for presenting the legislation, they are finding that there are enormous holes in their plans.
But they won't hold back and they will resort to making requests for us to trust them to sort things out.
I wrote to my MEP about the proposed rules. Today I received a letter that included a response from M Goudou.
That response failed to address any of my points and went on to talk about the LAPL instead.
I have absolutely no faith in either EASA or CAA.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received a letter that included a response from M Goudou.
That response failed to address any of my points and went on to talk about the LAPL instead.
I have absolutely no faith in either EASA or CAA
That response failed to address any of my points and went on to talk about the LAPL instead.
I have absolutely no faith in either EASA or CAA
Peter
Seems to be Mr Goudous style! Waffle pure lies and everything in the garden is rosy.
Maybe we should organise a mass rally to EASA land under the eye of the media and expose this charade for what it really is?
Pace
...courtesy of Andy Appleby for the Devon Strut Newsletter
Incidentally, it now seems that neither the EASA PPL nor the stupid, pointless LAPL would have 're-issue' requirements.
It might potentially be part of a scheme on the part of EASA to shrink Annex II and get everything under it's own auspices? If so, I rather think it's doomed to failure.
Vested interests who will find this, as explained here, unacceptable:
- Military pilots who will be told that experience in, military aeroplanes isn't valid towards their post-retirement ATPL
- Test pilots, since all research aircraft are Annex II by definition, who can't maintain their licences (incidentally, the global test flying community is also up in arms about EASA proposals to create TP and FTE ratings which can only be on an EASA CPL/ATPL - which will suddenly make it impossible for many highly competent American TPs to work in Europe, or even say for an FAA qualified TP at Boeing to submit flight test reports to EASA).
- The tens of thousands of people across Europe who fly homebuilts or historic aircraft aircraft on JAA licences and intend to continue doing so whilst maintaining currency on those licences.
- The US based flying training industry currently providing training for JAA licences.
- Anybody with a non-EU ATPL wanting to convert to a European licence.
The whole thing will utterly inconvenience anybody not planning to spend their whole career flying European registered civil aeroplanes with CsofA. That is most of the pilots in Europe and many outside.
It is absolutely right that we all keep complaining, to ensure that these bonkers proposals get completely re-written. But they will and must be.
G
Vested interests who will find this, as explained here, unacceptable:
- Military pilots who will be told that experience in, military aeroplanes isn't valid towards their post-retirement ATPL
- Test pilots, since all research aircraft are Annex II by definition, who can't maintain their licences (incidentally, the global test flying community is also up in arms about EASA proposals to create TP and FTE ratings which can only be on an EASA CPL/ATPL - which will suddenly make it impossible for many highly competent American TPs to work in Europe, or even say for an FAA qualified TP at Boeing to submit flight test reports to EASA).
- The tens of thousands of people across Europe who fly homebuilts or historic aircraft aircraft on JAA licences and intend to continue doing so whilst maintaining currency on those licences.
- The US based flying training industry currently providing training for JAA licences.
- Anybody with a non-EU ATPL wanting to convert to a European licence.
The whole thing will utterly inconvenience anybody not planning to spend their whole career flying European registered civil aeroplanes with CsofA. That is most of the pilots in Europe and many outside.
It is absolutely right that we all keep complaining, to ensure that these bonkers proposals get completely re-written. But they will and must be.
G
Come on you of all people should know the difference between revalidation's and renewals.
In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.
"An applicant for a licence, rating or certificate shall be credited in full with all solo, dual instruction or PIC flight time towards the total flight time required for the licence, rating or certificate."
There is no mention of EASA CofA, Annex II or any other restriction - it simply says all flight time.
EASA made it clear in the CRD for NPA 2008-17b that its intention was that experience for issue of a licence or rating could be gained in any aircraft whereas experience for revalidation could be gained only in an EASA aircraft. Specifically, in its response to General Comment 2420, made on the subject of crediting of flight time in Annex II aircraft by the Danish Powerflying Union, the agency stated:
"Annex II aircraft are excluded from the scope of the Basic Regulation, and the Agency cannot regulate them in detail. However, amendments to the initial proposals have been made of the crediting of experience to allow hours flown in these aircraft to be taken into account. Please see amendments to related paragraphs in Subparts B and C."
Sufficient education?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say again that no one has so far pointed to the provision which says that hours on an Annex II aircraft do not count towards the 12 hour biennial experience requirement. In fact, there is nothing that says that the 12 hours cannot be on a foreign registered aircraft in a foreign country. Currently, that is the position and on the basis that EASA did not intend to completely replace the JAA provisions (the FCL wording of the provisions on revalidation by experience are very similar) I can see no reason why the rather restrictive interpretaion suggested at the start of this thread should apply.
This is the most surprising aspect of this whole absurd piece of legislation. Despite EASA's avowed intent to introduce common licensing requirements across Europe and despite European manufacturers leading the world in the kit built aircraft market, it is apparently being left to individual EU countries to formulate how pilots are licensed to fly aircraft comprising this very important sector of the market. What then will be the position of somone flying say a Pioneer from the UK to France? Although he may hold an EASA licence and although the UK CAA may have amended the ANO to allow for that licence to apply to the flying of Annex II aircraft, that piece of UK legislation will have no validity in France, Germany, Spain etc etc.
Any other EU national holding an EASA licence and coming to the UK will be fine, as they will be covered by the ANO amendment. Arguably, however there will now be no right to fly any UK registered Annex II aircraft outside of the UK unless other EU countries implement similar measures to those proposed by the CAA or on the basis of bilateral agreements on recognition of what are essentially national licence provisions made between EU countries. Currently they would be covered by the ICAO provisions which allow anyone to fly their own county's registered aircraft, but post FCL this will not apply as Annex II aircraft will all be flown on what are essentially sub ICAO licences.
To put it clearly into context, I can presently fly our group Chipmunk to Holland if I wish as I hold a JAA PPL issued in the UK and the aircraft is of course G registered. Post FCL, what is my entitlement to fly that same Chipmunk in Holland? I hold an EASA licence, but it does not apply to Annex II aircraft. I can fly it in the UK on the basis that the ANO has been amended to provide that an EASA licence is valid in the UK for Annex II. But that piece of legislation creates essentially a national licencing provision which the Dutch may not recognise. Whether they do will depend entitrely upon them. Their provisions, if they put any in place, may be quite different from the Germans, the Danes, the French. There is unlikely to be any consistency across Europe.
Far from introducing a set of uniform licensing requirements, the FCL actually takes several steps back and places anyone not flying an EASA C of A aircraft in a far worse position than they are now.
BillieBob: I think you may have it the wrong way around! The wording in the Annexes relating to licence conversion are also relevant. The wording is similar as regards experience yet clearly for conversion of foreign licences that experience must be on non EASA aircraft.
The tens of thousands of people across Europe who fly homebuilts or historic aircraft aircraft on JAA licences and intend to continue doing so whilst maintaining currency on those licences.
Any other EU national holding an EASA licence and coming to the UK will be fine, as they will be covered by the ANO amendment. Arguably, however there will now be no right to fly any UK registered Annex II aircraft outside of the UK unless other EU countries implement similar measures to those proposed by the CAA or on the basis of bilateral agreements on recognition of what are essentially national licence provisions made between EU countries. Currently they would be covered by the ICAO provisions which allow anyone to fly their own county's registered aircraft, but post FCL this will not apply as Annex II aircraft will all be flown on what are essentially sub ICAO licences.
To put it clearly into context, I can presently fly our group Chipmunk to Holland if I wish as I hold a JAA PPL issued in the UK and the aircraft is of course G registered. Post FCL, what is my entitlement to fly that same Chipmunk in Holland? I hold an EASA licence, but it does not apply to Annex II aircraft. I can fly it in the UK on the basis that the ANO has been amended to provide that an EASA licence is valid in the UK for Annex II. But that piece of legislation creates essentially a national licencing provision which the Dutch may not recognise. Whether they do will depend entitrely upon them. Their provisions, if they put any in place, may be quite different from the Germans, the Danes, the French. There is unlikely to be any consistency across Europe.
Far from introducing a set of uniform licensing requirements, the FCL actually takes several steps back and places anyone not flying an EASA C of A aircraft in a far worse position than they are now.
EASA made it clear in the CRD for NPA 2008-17b that its intention was that experience for issue of a licence or rating could be gained in any aircraft whereas experience for revalidation could be gained only in an EASA aircraft.
Last edited by Justiciar; 7th Jan 2011 at 08:36.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after breezing through the draft from the EASA homepage, I see none of the problems stated here (unless I missed something). In fact, the renewal/re-validation requirements for SEP/TMG remain the same..... see § FCL.740A (b), already mentined above.
EASA draft FCL
And don't get up-tight with just the UK-CAA, there are 27 CAA's the EASA has to deal with, each having their own wishes they want inforced, not to mention the AOPA's, etc.
EASA draft FCL
And don't get up-tight with just the UK-CAA, there are 27 CAA's the EASA has to deal with, each having their own wishes they want inforced, not to mention the AOPA's, etc.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really must get a life.
Reading the Basic Regulation and the draft FCL in more detail, I can see the argument that these do not abolish anything. Not only that, the basic Regulation does not appear to remove the legal right of NAAs to issue ICAO complaint licences. It is just that those licences would not qualify the holders to fly EASA machines.
The Basic Regualtion and FCL really create an overlay which comprises a new licensing regime for EASA aircraft. Arguably therefore, NAAs can continue to issue ICAO compliant licences in accordance with the JAA (or indeed any other ICAO compliant standard). These would be perfectly valid across the world and there would appear to be nothig preventing such a licence from being recognised in the US under 61.75. That licence would also entitle pilots to fly Anex II aircraft anywhere in Europe.
The answer is therefore not for the CAA to just amend the ANO but to issue or maintain in force a UK PPL based on JAA or an ICAO complaint standard in parallel with every FCL PPL which is deemed to be granted and issued by NAAs under Part FCL. This would mean we will all have two bits of paper, but so what. Since the CAA's own document contemplated issuing national licences anyway for microlights etc this is just an extension of this pronciple. They merely have to ensure that it is an ICAO compliant licence.
The other great advantage of the UK ICAO compliant licence would be that it could have attached to it an IMCR, though this would only be of value when they approve Annex II aircraft for flight under IFR
Reading the Basic Regulation and the draft FCL in more detail, I can see the argument that these do not abolish anything. Not only that, the basic Regulation does not appear to remove the legal right of NAAs to issue ICAO complaint licences. It is just that those licences would not qualify the holders to fly EASA machines.
The Basic Regualtion and FCL really create an overlay which comprises a new licensing regime for EASA aircraft. Arguably therefore, NAAs can continue to issue ICAO compliant licences in accordance with the JAA (or indeed any other ICAO compliant standard). These would be perfectly valid across the world and there would appear to be nothig preventing such a licence from being recognised in the US under 61.75. That licence would also entitle pilots to fly Anex II aircraft anywhere in Europe.
The answer is therefore not for the CAA to just amend the ANO but to issue or maintain in force a UK PPL based on JAA or an ICAO complaint standard in parallel with every FCL PPL which is deemed to be granted and issued by NAAs under Part FCL. This would mean we will all have two bits of paper, but so what. Since the CAA's own document contemplated issuing national licences anyway for microlights etc this is just an extension of this pronciple. They merely have to ensure that it is an ICAO compliant licence.
The other great advantage of the UK ICAO compliant licence would be that it could have attached to it an IMCR, though this would only be of value when they approve Annex II aircraft for flight under IFR
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is exactly the proposal on the table at the moment.
The more you look at the EASA proposals the more absurd they appear and the further they are from achieving what they purported to achieve, namely a harmonised set of regulations across the EU. Instead we will have EASA licences, National ICAO compliant licences (possibly), National sub ICAO licences for microlights etc .....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep,they are utterly absurd.
The CAA have identified the issues and circulated documents to industry for discussion. All the Heads of Training at TRTO's and FTO's were given a copy. It is ongoing at this moment.
I have been told (despite Billiebobs assertions that I am wrong) that the issue covers both the revalidation of ratings and the initial issue of ratings on EASA licences.
The CAA have identified the issues and circulated documents to industry for discussion. All the Heads of Training at TRTO's and FTO's were given a copy. It is ongoing at this moment.
I have been told (despite Billiebobs assertions that I am wrong) that the issue covers both the revalidation of ratings and the initial issue of ratings on EASA licences.
This thread is getting mired in issues that have nothing whatever to do with the OP's question regarding flight time in Annex II aircraft counting towards the experience requirements for issue of an EASA licence
No, I haven't. The experience requirements for licence issue may be gained on any aircraft in the same category, whether or not it holds an EASA CofA. FCL.035 is perfectly clear and unequivocal on this point.
Please do not put words in my mouth. The OP's question and my responses relate to the issue of licences, not the issue, revalidation and/or renewal of ratings.
BillieBob: I think you may have it the wrong way around!
I have been told (despite Billiebobs assertions that I am wrong) that the issue covers both the revalidation of ratings and the initial issue of ratings on EASA licences.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The experience requirements for licence issue may be gained on any aircraft in the same category, whether or not it holds an EASA CofA. FCL.035 is perfectly clear and unequivocal on this point
Just to clarify, ar you saying time on any aircraft can be counted for issue but not for revalidation by experience
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same category of aircraft (e.g. helicopter experience does not count towards an aeroplane licence, etc.)
Revalidation by experience is not specifically mentioned in Part FCL in terms of the maintenance regime the aircraft has to fall under, but it would be strange indeed if the qualifying hours for say a CPL could be on anything but the 12 hours for revalidation by experience had to be on an EASA SEP for a SEP class rating. What then of the minimum take off and landings to enable you to take a pasenger? Is it suggested that these have to be in an EASA aircraft in order to take passengers in a Permit aircraft?
The regulations are completely silent on the question and "category" is nowhere defined by reference to C of A. An aircraft is a SEP irrespective of which maintenance regime it falls under if it has one piston engine. The distinction between helicopters and aeroplanes is not the same point and that I think is clearly covered in the draft FCL. Revalidation by experience always depends on the accurate keeping of the pilot's log book. In many cases you may not easily be able to gauge whether the 12+ hours in the last year were on an EASA or Annex II aircraft, as that information is not generally maintained in a log book. As an extreme case, take those types some of which are on a Permit and others of which are on a C of A, like a Pitts S2A or a Bolkow Junior. This aspect is quite unenforceable if this interpretation is right.
I think that you have entirely misunderstood what I have been saying and are weaving together an entirely erroneous picture from a number of separate posts. The facts are:
1. Flight in any aircraft, whether or not it is an EASA aircraft, can be counted towards the experience requirements for the issue of an EASA licence. [FCL.035(a)(2)(i)]
2. Flight time to be credited towards the issue of an EASA licence must have been gained in the same category of aircraft (e.g. Aeroplane, Helicopter, Sailplane, etc.) [FCL.035(a)(1)]
3. EASA expressed, in the Comment and Response Document to EASA Part FCL, its intent that qualifying experience for the revalidation of EASA type and class ratings could be obtained only in EASA aircraft but there is nothing explicit in either the Basic Regulation, the Cover Regulation or in Part FCL to back this up.
1. Flight in any aircraft, whether or not it is an EASA aircraft, can be counted towards the experience requirements for the issue of an EASA licence. [FCL.035(a)(2)(i)]
2. Flight time to be credited towards the issue of an EASA licence must have been gained in the same category of aircraft (e.g. Aeroplane, Helicopter, Sailplane, etc.) [FCL.035(a)(1)]
3. EASA expressed, in the Comment and Response Document to EASA Part FCL, its intent that qualifying experience for the revalidation of EASA type and class ratings could be obtained only in EASA aircraft but there is nothing explicit in either the Basic Regulation, the Cover Regulation or in Part FCL to back this up.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, ar you saying time on any aircraft can be counted for issue but not for revalidation by experience
The only thing I may have not understood is you post, which has not until just recently addressed the point I was making. I made the point earlier that there was nothing in the draft Regulations saying that revalidation by experience could not be done using hours flown on an Annex II aircraft. Your last post, specifically:
EASA expressed, in the Comment and Response Document to EASA Part FCL, its intent that qualifying experience for the revalidation of EASA type and class ratings could be obtained only in EASA aircraft but there is nothing explicit in either the Basic Regulation, the Cover Regulation or in Part FCL to back this up.
The result of this is that the ambiguity will be down to NAAs to resolve. What concerns me is that the CAA may too readily have jumped to the assumption that it is EASA aircraft only for revalidation by experience. I have made the point that this conclusion is not justified and is probably in practice unenforceable without a search against every aircraft a pilot has flown to see how it is registered. It would also be inconsistent with other provisions of the regulations.
It is also my view, based on the drafting, that EASA do not in fact mean to change the position from the existing JAA rules, which allow hours on permit and indeed third country registered aircraft to be counted. I am not so privy to EASA policy making to say if indeed this is the case but it is a reasonable assumption, given the comments by the Commission to EASA a few months ago about not "reinventing" the wheel.
What the CAA should be doing is actually asking the question of EASA. They may well be doing this, as may other NAAs. I hope so.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also my view, based on the drafting, that EASA do not in fact mean to change the position from the existing JAA rules, which allow hours on permit and indeed third country registered aircraft to be counted. I am not so privy to EASA policy making to say if indeed this is the case but it is a reasonable assumption, given the comments by the Commission to EASA a few months ago about not "reinventing" the wheel.
As we found with Part M, it was recognised that errors were made, but there has been no attempt to mitigate the problems caused. The attitude has been , 'the process has mainly worked, there are things that were wrong, but we've moved on and it would take too long to fix it'.
It is to be hoped that EASA will see sense, but don't count on it. They have been lying to the EU about their intentions. They have acted in bad faith by asking that they should not have to consult on their proposals because they get a lot of responses they don't like.
We need to keep the pressure on and ensure MEPs are fired up when the FCL proposal is considered.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without all the nuances of the above posts in front of me on one page, let me just say that:
1. I raised with EASA over 18 months ago, when FCL was being drafted, the issue of hours on non-EASA CofA aircraft in the relevant category - i.e. aeroplanes, gliders, balloons, helicopters - counting towards maintenance of an EU licence (i.e. 'currency' which also includes medical compliance periodically)
2. I was assured by one of the leading EASA rulemakers that the intent was that hours on non-EASA CoA aircraft would count towards the periodic requirements to maintain an EU licence. BTW it has been confirmed that EU licences are 'for life' subject to maintaining the required experience, medical and periodic 'flight with an instructor' whatever. So no renewals per se.
3. I was also told that the wording in the implementing rules in respect of this maintaining currency issue would not be specific, so as to allow NAAs to adopt the widest interpretation; this rather than trying to specify which categories / groups / classes whatever of aircraft not subject to EASA airworthiness control would be acceptable for maintaining the EU licence.
The legal texts are not easy to get one's head around - classic lawyers' drafting of double negatives, lots of parentheses etc. So, next week when I meet with the Rulemaking Director for the regular six monthly 'chat' this subject will again be on my agenda. Before I do I shall re-read the EASA Opinion on FCL, which was adopted by the Commission's EASA 'comitology' Committee on 8th December, but with some amendments which are not yet published as the final text and which may still be subject to any changes the EU Parliament may want to introduce if prompted to do so. This is the latest stage of FCL becoming EU law, and is well past the (public) comment response stage of last year.
BTW, for those who may not appreciate it, Cliff Whittaker, CAA, is very much 'onside' with our needs. He may, however, and quite understandably have not quite got this topic right.
DGR / President, Europe Air Sports
1. I raised with EASA over 18 months ago, when FCL was being drafted, the issue of hours on non-EASA CofA aircraft in the relevant category - i.e. aeroplanes, gliders, balloons, helicopters - counting towards maintenance of an EU licence (i.e. 'currency' which also includes medical compliance periodically)
2. I was assured by one of the leading EASA rulemakers that the intent was that hours on non-EASA CoA aircraft would count towards the periodic requirements to maintain an EU licence. BTW it has been confirmed that EU licences are 'for life' subject to maintaining the required experience, medical and periodic 'flight with an instructor' whatever. So no renewals per se.
3. I was also told that the wording in the implementing rules in respect of this maintaining currency issue would not be specific, so as to allow NAAs to adopt the widest interpretation; this rather than trying to specify which categories / groups / classes whatever of aircraft not subject to EASA airworthiness control would be acceptable for maintaining the EU licence.
The legal texts are not easy to get one's head around - classic lawyers' drafting of double negatives, lots of parentheses etc. So, next week when I meet with the Rulemaking Director for the regular six monthly 'chat' this subject will again be on my agenda. Before I do I shall re-read the EASA Opinion on FCL, which was adopted by the Commission's EASA 'comitology' Committee on 8th December, but with some amendments which are not yet published as the final text and which may still be subject to any changes the EU Parliament may want to introduce if prompted to do so. This is the latest stage of FCL becoming EU law, and is well past the (public) comment response stage of last year.
BTW, for those who may not appreciate it, Cliff Whittaker, CAA, is very much 'onside' with our needs. He may, however, and quite understandably have not quite got this topic right.
DGR / President, Europe Air Sports
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never, never assume anything with EASA
David: that is a very helpful summary, thank you. Let us hope that pragmatism and common sense prevail (no, I have not been sniffing something, just eternally optimistic
).As an aside, the daughter of a good friend is about to marry an Aussie helicopter engineer working in Sydney for a major maintenance company there. He tells me that Australia is in effect adopting Part M
We are not alone in our suffering
