U.K. National (CAA) licence to EASA
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do inreally need to point out the obvious?
These are salaried staff with, pensions, benefits etc. It is impossible to apportion direct times to these tasks. The global costs have go be accounted for.
Dont get me wrong I am not defending it but do understand the reality of the costs and how they are accounted. Efficiencies are the way forward.
These are salaried staff with, pensions, benefits etc. It is impossible to apportion direct times to these tasks. The global costs have go be accounted for.
Dont get me wrong I am not defending it but do understand the reality of the costs and how they are accounted. Efficiencies are the way forward.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Please can someone explain.
The only CAA charge I actually have comparative data on is the cost of a visit to Gatwick for a cardiac review. The CAA charge for a professor of cardiology is less than local doctors (OK, I'm talking Papworth and Adders here, not backwoodsmen) ... until I factor in the lost income from the travelling time to Gatwick, at which point the locals just about win.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA fees
If we want to make PPL issues cheaper, then why not delegate the printing to FEs? They already let AMEs issue medicals directly and MOs can give you an ARC, so why not?
While I'm on the subject why can an examiner renew a class rating that's expired up to 5 years for free, but go any longer and somebody at Gatwick has to enter which rating it is, two dates and their authorisation, which attracts their usual hefty fee.
While I'm on the subject why can an examiner renew a class rating that's expired up to 5 years for free, but go any longer and somebody at Gatwick has to enter which rating it is, two dates and their authorisation, which attracts their usual hefty fee.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This situation is absurd. I have enjoyed the priviledges of my ICAO compliant CAA PPL(A) for some considerable time. A few years after I obtained my licence the CAA began issuing the JAA PPL (also ICAO compliant). The two types of licence have been deemed by the CAA (and the rest Europe) to be of equal status and the priviledges under both forms of licence are the same.
Why then should a CAA licence holder be expected to pay a substantial amount of money to swap to a licence for which the priviledges are the same in order to then have that licence rolled over to a new EASA licence (which will presumably also be ICAO compliant) for free or have to undertake additional training in order to have the EASA licence issued directly. This makes no sense at all and while I am no lawyer, I suspect it could be argued that it contravenes Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (that's the bit about unencumbered enjoyment of personal property).
The CAA is suggesting the payment route because at the moment, while the wording of the various clauses in the relevant EASA documents may suggest a certain outcome, the actual process for implementation is unclear and the payment route is the path of least resistance.
If forced down the either the payment of additional training route I would certainly opt for the training option. It would make more sense to get some value out of the cash than pi$$ing it away moving paper around.
I will of course be writing to my ME and MEP on this issue but I hardly think he will wish to take up the case. After all I'm a private pilot and must therefore by rolling in the readies so why would I miss a couple of hundred notes that could be transfered into HMG's coffers?
This sort of sh1t makes my blood boil
Why then should a CAA licence holder be expected to pay a substantial amount of money to swap to a licence for which the priviledges are the same in order to then have that licence rolled over to a new EASA licence (which will presumably also be ICAO compliant) for free or have to undertake additional training in order to have the EASA licence issued directly. This makes no sense at all and while I am no lawyer, I suspect it could be argued that it contravenes Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (that's the bit about unencumbered enjoyment of personal property).
The CAA is suggesting the payment route because at the moment, while the wording of the various clauses in the relevant EASA documents may suggest a certain outcome, the actual process for implementation is unclear and the payment route is the path of least resistance.
If forced down the either the payment of additional training route I would certainly opt for the training option. It would make more sense to get some value out of the cash than pi$$ing it away moving paper around.
I will of course be writing to my ME and MEP on this issue but I hardly think he will wish to take up the case. After all I'm a private pilot and must therefore by rolling in the readies so why would I miss a couple of hundred notes that could be transfered into HMG's coffers?
This sort of sh1t makes my blood boil
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem manifestly unreasonable that a change in the rules (which probably not many people want any way) should requires people to cough up a load of cash for pretty much nothing.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two types of licence have been deemed by the CAA (and the rest Europe) to be of equal status and the priviledges under both forms of licence are the same.
However, I would agree with other comments, charging for something that is being forced on us and such a large fee is unacceptable and unavoidable.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The CAA is suggesting the payment route because at the moment, while the wording of the various clauses in the relevant EASA documents may suggest a certain outcome, the actual process for implementation is unclear and the payment route is the path of least resistance.
(1) Pay lots of money now to replace my free-for-life licence with a new one that needs lots more money paying every five years.
(2) Wait and see what happens when they finally get their act together and decide what the CAA -> EASA route actually is.
It seems to me that option (2) can't result in anything worse than option (1) so that's what I've chosen. Others may make different guesses as to the risks and make different decisions.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that option (2) can't result in anything worse than option (1) so that's what I've chosen. Others may make different guesses as to the risks and make different decisions.
You are of course correct Bose-X there are certain differences but the principles are still valid.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are of course correct Bose-X there are certain differences but the principles are still valid.
Also the EASA licence is going to be non expiring unlike the JAA licence which you have to buy a new piece of paper every 5 years. There will no doubt be some new way of pressing the buttons on the cash machines that we are as pilots but that is unknown at this stage.
I just think that paying your money and getting a licence that can be converted automatically to an EASA one now is worth it rather than running the risk of being grounded next year or even worse having to jump through some stupid hoops to convert.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA - Eradicate All Sport Aviation
I do realise that this is thread creep, but I think it’s germane.
I did some touring-type flying (PPL VFR) in Italy a while ago. To me, the Italian aviation establishment simply did not seem to understand private aviation. I’d take off from an airfield and the airfield controller would brusquely say: ‘You are leaving my area. Call en route.’ That was it. I’d try to call the Information frequency – always no reply. Any other frequency would always elicit the reply: ‘VFR? You must call Information’ – some hope.
In short, my impression was that the Italian sky is for airliners (also the military) and VFR is for a low-level jaunt around the local area (but maybe other people have a different experience).
I mention this because it seems to me that EASA, with its insistence on revoking legitimate lifetime licences unless you pay a swingeing fee and other draconian measures mentioned elsewhere on PPRuNe, appears to be setting off on (my experience of) the Italian route with regard to sport aviation.
Looking at the EASA website, of the 65 Management Board members only one (French) has a stated brief for light aviation (M. Maxime Coffin, Chef de la Mission Aviation Légère (amongst other titles)). I need not expand on how depressing this is for we private fliers, but I think the conclusion is inescapable: most of the countries represented on the EASA Management Board do not have a great history of private aviation.
Incidentally, the European Association of Social Anthropologists website makes no mention of not recognising CAA lifetime licences. So, maybe, we should go with them?
Apologies for the long post.
Biffo
I do realise that this is thread creep, but I think it’s germane.
I did some touring-type flying (PPL VFR) in Italy a while ago. To me, the Italian aviation establishment simply did not seem to understand private aviation. I’d take off from an airfield and the airfield controller would brusquely say: ‘You are leaving my area. Call en route.’ That was it. I’d try to call the Information frequency – always no reply. Any other frequency would always elicit the reply: ‘VFR? You must call Information’ – some hope.
In short, my impression was that the Italian sky is for airliners (also the military) and VFR is for a low-level jaunt around the local area (but maybe other people have a different experience).
I mention this because it seems to me that EASA, with its insistence on revoking legitimate lifetime licences unless you pay a swingeing fee and other draconian measures mentioned elsewhere on PPRuNe, appears to be setting off on (my experience of) the Italian route with regard to sport aviation.
Looking at the EASA website, of the 65 Management Board members only one (French) has a stated brief for light aviation (M. Maxime Coffin, Chef de la Mission Aviation Légère (amongst other titles)). I need not expand on how depressing this is for we private fliers, but I think the conclusion is inescapable: most of the countries represented on the EASA Management Board do not have a great history of private aviation.
Incidentally, the European Association of Social Anthropologists website makes no mention of not recognising CAA lifetime licences. So, maybe, we should go with them?
Apologies for the long post.
Biffo
Is this misinformation? Copied from the EASA draft document:
(a) for aeroplanes and helicopters, shall be converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to this Regulation.
The scope of the privileges given to pilots whose national pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates and/or qualifications are converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates should at least cover the scope of the activities that the pilots are undertaking at the date of entry (My bold M1)
(a) for aeroplanes and helicopters, shall be converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to this Regulation.
The scope of the privileges given to pilots whose national pilot licences, including any associated ratings, certificates and/or qualifications are converted into Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates should at least cover the scope of the activities that the pilots are undertaking at the date of entry (My bold M1)
