EASA Licencing

[David Roberts]

Don't know the answer to that one.

Part Med, being Annex III of forthcoming Air Crew Regulation (i.e. Part FCL), is be published in the OJ towards the end of this month, and the AMCs are due in December. The Implementing Rules (Annex III) are believed to be the same as in the EASA Opinion 2010-07 at:
EASA - Opinions

[BEagle]

NPLG Ltd is purely a licence recommendation company only. It does not agree NPPL policy, that is the responsibility of the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee.

The Chairman of the NPPL P&SC has yet to see the draft conversion report; nevertheless, he is grateful to David for letting him know that it does actually exist and will be asking the CAA for a copy soonest!

Mind you, as David has said, there probably won’t be anything to worry about!

In 2008 I spoke face to face with Eric Sivel....

But to which one? (Sorry - cheap shot!).

[IO540]

May be a cheap shot but I know exactly what you mean.

But hey you were sitting to my right Beagle so there are two of us who can identify the individual

[tismee]

While on the subject of EASA licensing , does anyone know how these changes will affect someone holding a non JAA license , namely an Australian CASA PPL license .
I had planned to convert to CAA at some stage in the not too distant future .
How does the conversion to EASA go?
Am i best to wait and convert directly to EASA and avoid the CAA ? Is this possible? Cheers .

[B4aeros]

tismee,

Either way you will need to pass a skills test.

The JAR licence you get from the CAA will expire after 5 years & will need another cheque to turn into an EASA licence.

Direct to EASA will also involve written exams in air law & human performance & a minimum of 100 hours flight time.

C1.2 of Lasors
Penultimate page of EASA draft regulation

[tismee]

Thanks B4a , id say ill go directly for the EASA ticket.
Does these changes mean that the examining officers will be working for EASA and not the CAA . Will the current CAA examiners testing privildges carry over to EASA. Will EASA handle all the paperwork / applications ect ?

[22/04]

I think the CAA will become a competent authority it's a well set up procedure under European Law.


So they will be doing the testing in the UK at least, but they won't be making the rules any more.

[IanPZ]

So, just out of interest as there seem to be NPPL experienced people on this thread, what do you think will happen with NPPL(M) route. If you have a microlight license, and then you convert it at some point in the near future to an NPPL(SSEA), then will you be able to get an LAPL on that basis, or not? All very confusing to me!

[BillieBob]

I think the CAA will become a competent authority it's a well set up procedure under European Law.

It'll take more than EU law to make the UK CAA competent

what do you think will happen with NPPL(M) route

Nothing - microlights are not EASA aeroplanes. You may get some credit towards a LAPL, subject to a flight assessment, but that's it.

[IanPZ]

BillieBob, I don't think I explained myself clearly. I wasn't asking about NPPL(M) conversion to LAPL, but rather NPPL(M) -> NPPL(SSEA) -> LAPL.

If you look at the moment, its possibly to convert from NPPL(M) to NPPL(SSEA) relatively easily. The only next step on from that today (pre-EASA) is PPL, which wont count NPPL(M) training hours, so you have a sort of 2-class system, where you can get to the next step far easier if you did all your training on a light aircraft rather than 3Axis.

However, my understanding is that LAPL is meant to be very similar to NPPL(SSEA). As such, if you hold an NPPL(SSEA), whether via direct qualification, or via the NPPL(M) route, would it matter? All the more so as most of the light sport aircraft intended to match the LAPL qualification come from the 3Axis microlight stable, as I see it.

Does that make my question clearer? Ta. IPZ

[BillieBob]

As such, if you hold an NPPL(SSEA), whether via direct qualification, or via the NPPL(M) route, would it matter?

Not in the slightest - it is only the qualification that matters, not how you achieved it.

[IanPZ]

So NPPL(SSEA) to LAPL will work different to NPPL to PPL? That's good news. Thanks. IPZ

[proudprivate]

Just a small reminder about NPA 2011-16 on Instrument Flying Conditions

Dear All,

This post is just to remind you all that you have until 23rd December to comment on the FCL.008 draft using EASA's crt tool.

In the link you see the current documents under discussion. You register (a two minute job), then log in and give your input on FCL.008, for example,

* on automatic conversion of the UK IMC rating into an En-Route Instrument Rating
* on the possibility to keep the UK IMC rating as a national rating in place (as was promised by Mr. Eric Sivel on several occasions)
* on automatic conversion of third party ICAO instrument ratings
* on grandfathering flight privileges
* on glider flight in IMC

Especially regarding the first two points, I think it is very useful that pilots put forward all reasoned arguments to make the case. EASA is obliged to give at the very least a reasoned response.

Good luck and happy writings...

[bookworm]

Perhaps most important is to express support for the competence-based modular IR and the enroute IR in the NPA. Without those, some of the other points are likely to prove difficult. Note that:

* automatic conversion of the UK IMC rating into an En-Route Instrument Rating
* the possibility to keep the UK IMC rating as a national rating in place

are not proposals in the NPA.

[proudprivate]

Note that:
* automatic conversion of the UK IMC rating into an En-Route Instrument Rating
* the possibility to keep the UK IMC rating as a national rating in place
are not proposals in the NPA.

That is exactly why we have an NPA process. So that proper amendments and additions can be proposed, provided of course they are well reasoned and married to the findings of the impact study or, should the impact study be incomplete or inaccurate, to amended conclusions of that impact study.

It is not a yes saying exercise. It is one of the few opportunities that organisations, flying groups or even individuals have to contribute to proposed regulation. If a quarter of the UK flying community comments to the effect that they want to adjust the NPA so as to include the above two points, it will take a significant amount of departmental thickness to ignore it completely.

[bookworm]

Agreed, but be aware of the scope. You might also want to slip in that you'd like a G-V for Christmas. Just like a request to keep the IMC rating in place as a national rating, it's likely to get a 'noted' response.

On the specific point, the explanatory note to the NPA says in para 7

Although the conversion of existing IMC ratings is not within the scope of this task, the
Agency is aware that this issue is closely linked to it. This NPA provides several options
for pilots with prior instrument experience to be credited towards the new ratings.
However, it should be mentioned at this stage that a conversion of existing IMC ratings is
already covered by the draft Commission Regulation laying down technical requirements
and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. This draft Regulation
clearly defines that Member States should convert existing licences and ratings into Part-
FCL licences and ratings. It is highlighted in this Regulation that Member States should
aim at allowing pilots to, as far as possible, maintain their current scope of activities and
privileges. The Agency already discussed this issue with the CAA UK and industry experts
in order to identify possible options for UK IMC holders. The most favourable solution
seems to be that a Part-FCL licence and an IR will be issued with certain conditions on
the basis of a specific conversion report in order to reflect the current privileges held.
This would allow the existing UK IMC holders to continue to exercise their IMC privileges.

I would have thought that you would want the privileges of this 'conditional IR' to extend to approaches rather than 'automatic conversion ... into an En-Route Instrument Rating'.

[David Roberts]

From information I gleaned yesterday 'over the water' I understand there are a significant number of comments coming in against the proposed EIR. I suspect from some continental NAAs and ATM organisations, amongst others.

Whatever the arguments about the efficacy of the EIR (well debated in the forums), on balance it should be regarded as a positive step I believe. It is part of a package approach by EASA linked with the new IR.

Therefore as many as possible should submit supportive comments on the EASA CRT to both the IR and the EIR. This is once in a generation chance to make a significant change is this area - and long overdue. It will not come again for many years. So please switch from forum writing to CRT writing (and BTW, I suggest to draft your comments off-line, save them then copy on to the CRT online. Saves a lot of annoyance when the internet or the CRT goes down and you have to start all over again from scratch).

[horizon flyer]

Peter

Looks like a typical overpaid over complicated goverment website to put you off leaving a comment. So simple instructions on how to actual place a comment would not go a miss. But do ESASA realy want them. Research shows British airspace is 400% safer than German airspace for VFR pilots because we have the IMC rating, but ESASA does seem to want to reduce safety not increase it, as is their mission statement. Question can they be sued in the European Court of Human Rights for reducing the safety of pilots in British airspace.

[proudprivate]

Agreed, but be aware of the scope. You might also want to slip in that you'd like a G-V for Christmas. Just like a request to keep the IMC rating in place as a national rating, it's likely to get a 'noted' response.

Well you could argue an either / or solution. Either you convert the IMC into an Enroute Instrument Rating; Or you convert it into an Enroute Instrument Rating, limited to UK airspace; Or you grandfather the UK IMC privileges.

As noted above, there is a significant safety benefit in doing this, as it avoids people losing currency because not being able to fly legally anymore and then risking their lives skud running.

One should also discuss the economic impact and the need for proportionality in regulation.

To claim that all this is "out of scope", comparing it to wishing a G-V for Christmas sounds a bit off the mark to me. Especially as people on the continent seem to comment against the EIR, grandfathering of UK IMC rights would then be the most sensible solution.

Sure, the EASA drone can write 1000 times "noted" everytime she doesn't like what she's reading, but with the pressure on Kneepkens sufficiently high that he's organizing a survey about himself, I doubt that properly motivated comments would be just ignored at this time. Kneepkens would do so at his peril.

Besides, I couldn't afford a Gulfstream V jet. But some proper, honest, safety enhancing and user friendly regulation improvements would be welcome.

[BEagle]

Well, I've just spent a thrilling morning uploading 33 NPA responses from 2 different organisations to the CRT.....

There are now over 500 responses logged, so it'll be a pretty busy New Year for the €urocrats!