Pilots license explained?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 26
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots license explained?
Hi guys, i am new to this forum and was wondering if i could get a bit of advice,
I really want to get my pilots license when im 17, i have read about all the licenses but they are making no sense to me. Could someone be able to explain things a bit more clearly to me with regards to licensing and types of aircraft you can fly? Thanks
Callum
I really want to get my pilots license when im 17, i have read about all the licenses but they are making no sense to me. Could someone be able to explain things a bit more clearly to me with regards to licensing and types of aircraft you can fly? Thanks
Callum
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Callum, it's complex so if you're new to this whole flying thing, it's logical if you don't understand things.
It used to be relatively simple. There were essentially three licenses:
PPL or Private Pilots License - if you want to fly privately
CPL or Commercial Pilots License - if you want make money from your flying, but do not want to fly a scheduled airliner
ATPL or Air Transport Pilots License - if you want to fly scheduled airliners
That's the basic license. On top of this you need something called a "class" or "type" rating, that allows you to exercise the privileges of your license in a type or class of aircraft. Examples:
SEP: Single Engine Piston
MEP: Multi Engine Piston
B747: Boeing 747
In theory you could mix and match these class/type ratings with any license, so you could fly a B747 on a PPL, or hold a CPL with just a SEP class rating.
Then you have additional ratings. The most important one is the Instrument Rating, which allows you to fly the aircraft with sole reference to instruments. Night is also a Rating these days, which allows you to fly outside daylight hours. The Night Rating used to be a prerequisite for the IR, but with the most recent EASA proposals that's no longer the case. There's also an Aerobatics Rating right now, and a few others.
The last component of your license is your medical. PPL requires a medical class II, anything higher requires a medical class I. Medicals differ in the number of tests, and the norms applied to each test, but also the frequency with which you need to be tested.
So a full pilots license will consist of the following:
- License (PPL, CPL or ATPL)
- One or more type or class ratings
- Additional ratings such as IR, Night, Aerobatics
- A medical.
Only once you have all these ducks in a row for the specific aircraft you're going to fly, and flight conditions you're going to fly in, are you allowed to take off.
So far so good.
Now the regulators have come up with all sorts of oddities and exceptions to this. At the low end, there's the NPPL, which is a sub-PPL UK-only rating. It doesn't require an aviation medical, just a GP declaration, and it limits you to day VFR and a limited set of aircraft. The NPPL will soon be replaced by the EASA LAPL. Together with the NPPL the CAA also brought in the term "Microlights", which is a subcategory of the SEP class rating.
Glider pilots have also been brought into the fold by EASA. But a Glider Pilots License is not simply a PPL (or NPPL) with a "Glider" class rating. Lots of differences. Then there's the crossover types like SLMGs and TMGs which, within limits, can be flown on both a GPL and a PPL, or where holding a GPL or PPL will get you considerable credit. Oh, and this reminds me of more crossover stuff: If you hold both a SEP and a TMG class rating, revalidating one also revalidates the other.
At the high end, you cannot simply get an ATPL with just a SEP class rating. An ATPL implies that you have an IR, have done the Multi-Crew Coordination (MCC) course, and have at least one multi-engine type rating. A full ATPL can also not be issued until you have a certain number of hours.
Still following? What it still comes down to is that you have to have a license (NPPL, PPL, CPL, ATPL, GPL, whatever), plus the appropriate class or type ratings for the aircraft (SEP, MEP, B747, whatever), plus you have to have additional ratings like the IR, plus you have to have a medical appropriate for whatever you're doing. But all these bits of paper may be dependent on each other in complicated ways, and certain bits of paper need other bits of paper, for them to be valid.
The UK used to bring out a publication called "LASORS" which is almost 1000 pages, and deals almost exclusively with flight crew licensing. Now that EASA has taken over flight crew licensing it's no longer valid and no longer kept up to date, but most of the stuff in there is actually still describing the current situation pretty well. After all, both CAA/JAR-FCL and EASA-FCL are based on the principles set by ICAO. It should still be available on the internet, and otherwise I'll send you a copy.
So, yes, it's complicated and subject of endless debates on here. But once you start learning to fly, your instructor will guide you through obtaining the necessary bits of paper as you go along, meaning that when you do pass that final test, you are indeed fully legal to fly. (That is, after the CAA has processed the paperwork for you.)
It used to be relatively simple. There were essentially three licenses:
PPL or Private Pilots License - if you want to fly privately
CPL or Commercial Pilots License - if you want make money from your flying, but do not want to fly a scheduled airliner
ATPL or Air Transport Pilots License - if you want to fly scheduled airliners
That's the basic license. On top of this you need something called a "class" or "type" rating, that allows you to exercise the privileges of your license in a type or class of aircraft. Examples:
SEP: Single Engine Piston
MEP: Multi Engine Piston
B747: Boeing 747
In theory you could mix and match these class/type ratings with any license, so you could fly a B747 on a PPL, or hold a CPL with just a SEP class rating.
Then you have additional ratings. The most important one is the Instrument Rating, which allows you to fly the aircraft with sole reference to instruments. Night is also a Rating these days, which allows you to fly outside daylight hours. The Night Rating used to be a prerequisite for the IR, but with the most recent EASA proposals that's no longer the case. There's also an Aerobatics Rating right now, and a few others.
The last component of your license is your medical. PPL requires a medical class II, anything higher requires a medical class I. Medicals differ in the number of tests, and the norms applied to each test, but also the frequency with which you need to be tested.
So a full pilots license will consist of the following:
- License (PPL, CPL or ATPL)
- One or more type or class ratings
- Additional ratings such as IR, Night, Aerobatics
- A medical.
Only once you have all these ducks in a row for the specific aircraft you're going to fly, and flight conditions you're going to fly in, are you allowed to take off.
So far so good.
Now the regulators have come up with all sorts of oddities and exceptions to this. At the low end, there's the NPPL, which is a sub-PPL UK-only rating. It doesn't require an aviation medical, just a GP declaration, and it limits you to day VFR and a limited set of aircraft. The NPPL will soon be replaced by the EASA LAPL. Together with the NPPL the CAA also brought in the term "Microlights", which is a subcategory of the SEP class rating.
Glider pilots have also been brought into the fold by EASA. But a Glider Pilots License is not simply a PPL (or NPPL) with a "Glider" class rating. Lots of differences. Then there's the crossover types like SLMGs and TMGs which, within limits, can be flown on both a GPL and a PPL, or where holding a GPL or PPL will get you considerable credit. Oh, and this reminds me of more crossover stuff: If you hold both a SEP and a TMG class rating, revalidating one also revalidates the other.
At the high end, you cannot simply get an ATPL with just a SEP class rating. An ATPL implies that you have an IR, have done the Multi-Crew Coordination (MCC) course, and have at least one multi-engine type rating. A full ATPL can also not be issued until you have a certain number of hours.
Still following? What it still comes down to is that you have to have a license (NPPL, PPL, CPL, ATPL, GPL, whatever), plus the appropriate class or type ratings for the aircraft (SEP, MEP, B747, whatever), plus you have to have additional ratings like the IR, plus you have to have a medical appropriate for whatever you're doing. But all these bits of paper may be dependent on each other in complicated ways, and certain bits of paper need other bits of paper, for them to be valid.
The UK used to bring out a publication called "LASORS" which is almost 1000 pages, and deals almost exclusively with flight crew licensing. Now that EASA has taken over flight crew licensing it's no longer valid and no longer kept up to date, but most of the stuff in there is actually still describing the current situation pretty well. After all, both CAA/JAR-FCL and EASA-FCL are based on the principles set by ICAO. It should still be available on the internet, and otherwise I'll send you a copy.
So, yes, it's complicated and subject of endless debates on here. But once you start learning to fly, your instructor will guide you through obtaining the necessary bits of paper as you go along, meaning that when you do pass that final test, you are indeed fully legal to fly. (That is, after the CAA has processed the paperwork for you.)
You don't state your ultimate goal so I shall assume that it is recreational. If you are thinking about becoming a professional pilot this answer is not for you.
I have also assumed that you want to fly conventional aeroplanes rather than microlights, motor gliders or home-built aircraft.
Until last year licences were mainly national but now a new set of European licences are available (EASA licences). Things are excessively complex at present because we are in the middle of the transition from the old to the new.
The CAA publish a totally unreadable document called CAP 804 that gives more details on all licences than you will ever need to know. (Search for it on the web.)
The basic licence private pilot's licence is the PPL(aeroplanes) or PPL(A). This is the most expensive licence to get but is recognised worldwide. Most flying training clubs will be more than happy to teach you to get this licence.
A cheaper option is the European Light Aircraft Pilots Licence for aeroplanes (LAPL(A)). It is recognised in Europe. To upgrade it to a PPL(A) involves a bit more training and a slightly stiffer medical. It is a new licence, introduced only last year, so not many training organisations are up to speed on it.
The cheapest option was the UK National PPL (NPPL) but most holders will have to change to the LAPL(A) by 2015 so unless you complete your training before April 2015 you will end up getting a LAPL(A).
I have also assumed that you want to fly conventional aeroplanes rather than microlights, motor gliders or home-built aircraft.
Until last year licences were mainly national but now a new set of European licences are available (EASA licences). Things are excessively complex at present because we are in the middle of the transition from the old to the new.
The CAA publish a totally unreadable document called CAP 804 that gives more details on all licences than you will ever need to know. (Search for it on the web.)
The basic licence private pilot's licence is the PPL(aeroplanes) or PPL(A). This is the most expensive licence to get but is recognised worldwide. Most flying training clubs will be more than happy to teach you to get this licence.
A cheaper option is the European Light Aircraft Pilots Licence for aeroplanes (LAPL(A)). It is recognised in Europe. To upgrade it to a PPL(A) involves a bit more training and a slightly stiffer medical. It is a new licence, introduced only last year, so not many training organisations are up to speed on it.
The cheapest option was the UK National PPL (NPPL) but most holders will have to change to the LAPL(A) by 2015 so unless you complete your training before April 2015 you will end up getting a LAPL(A).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bugger. I forgot. In addition to the four mentioned bits (license, class/type rating, additional ratings, medical) there is a fifth element to your license: the Language Proficiency.
In order to obtain/maintain a valid license you have to have demonstrated a certain level of proficiency in either English or the language of the country you fly in (and is used for R/T). There are six levels defined by ICAO, from 1 (extremely poor) to 6 (fluent).
In the UK, as part of your flight test, the examiner will judge your proficiency in English. If he deems you fluent (which is pretty likely) you'll get an LPE 6 (Language Proficiency - English level 6) from him, which is valid for life. But if you're not completely fluent in English he's got to refer you to a language institute which will test and grade you further. The minimum requirement is ICAO level 4, which is valid for four years (I believe - it used to be three). ICAO level 5 is valid for six years (I believe - it used to be five), after which you'll need a retest to see if you made any progress. If you score below ICAO level 4, the CAA cannot issue you a license.
Language Proficiency is not just for English. If you want to fly to airfields that are French-only, you need at least an LPF (Language Proficiency in French) at ICAO level 4. Similar for German and so forth. Although, at the moment, I think nobody in France or Germany actually checks for this. If you don't make a complete hash of your French or German R/T (and there are plenty crib sheets available to help you) you should be fine.
So all these Language Proficiencies form an additional stack of papers to collect.
And come to think of it - in the UK there also used to be a bit of paper called the "Flight Radio Telephone Operator License" (FRTOL) which is automatically granted together with the PPL under normal circumstances, since the PPL implies you have done the theoretical and practical Comms exam, and demonstrated competent use of the radio during your test. It is also revalidated at the same interval as your PPL so you normally don't need to worry about it. I think it's a separate bit of paper since it's possible to do the FRTOL tests separately from flight training, for instance if you're going to be an A/G operator at an uncontrolled airfield. But anyway, I seem to recall that under EASA the FRTOL is simply absorbed in the PPL and no longer a separate bit of paper.
In order to obtain/maintain a valid license you have to have demonstrated a certain level of proficiency in either English or the language of the country you fly in (and is used for R/T). There are six levels defined by ICAO, from 1 (extremely poor) to 6 (fluent).
In the UK, as part of your flight test, the examiner will judge your proficiency in English. If he deems you fluent (which is pretty likely) you'll get an LPE 6 (Language Proficiency - English level 6) from him, which is valid for life. But if you're not completely fluent in English he's got to refer you to a language institute which will test and grade you further. The minimum requirement is ICAO level 4, which is valid for four years (I believe - it used to be three). ICAO level 5 is valid for six years (I believe - it used to be five), after which you'll need a retest to see if you made any progress. If you score below ICAO level 4, the CAA cannot issue you a license.
Language Proficiency is not just for English. If you want to fly to airfields that are French-only, you need at least an LPF (Language Proficiency in French) at ICAO level 4. Similar for German and so forth. Although, at the moment, I think nobody in France or Germany actually checks for this. If you don't make a complete hash of your French or German R/T (and there are plenty crib sheets available to help you) you should be fine.
So all these Language Proficiencies form an additional stack of papers to collect.
And come to think of it - in the UK there also used to be a bit of paper called the "Flight Radio Telephone Operator License" (FRTOL) which is automatically granted together with the PPL under normal circumstances, since the PPL implies you have done the theoretical and practical Comms exam, and demonstrated competent use of the radio during your test. It is also revalidated at the same interval as your PPL so you normally don't need to worry about it. I think it's a separate bit of paper since it's possible to do the FRTOL tests separately from flight training, for instance if you're going to be an A/G operator at an uncontrolled airfield. But anyway, I seem to recall that under EASA the FRTOL is simply absorbed in the PPL and no longer a separate bit of paper.
And if you did get an NPPL, you do not have to change, you could keep it after 2015 but you'd be limited to Annex II aircraft which means that you could fly a brand new aerobatic aeroplane but not a forty year old Cessna 150.
You could also keep the NPPL to fly microlights, I believe.
You could also keep the NPPL to fly microlights, I believe.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAFO, you're right. It is even more complex at the moment.
Callum, EASA is taking over Flight Crew Licensing from the various European regulators such as the UK CAA, but only where it applies to "Annex I" aircraft. "Annex II" aircraft will, for the moment, remain under the national regulators, and under national rules for Flight Crew Licensing. In other words: For Annex I aircraft the EU legislation is law, for Annex II aircraft the ANO is law.
Annex I aircraft are essentially aircraft with a full Certificate of Airworthiness, from the lowly C152 to the B747 and A380, while Annex II aircraft are essentially microlights, experimentals, homebuilts, vintage, ex-military and various other aircraft at the low end of the market - although that last statement doesn't say anything about their performance. There are Annex II aircraft out there that will run rings around a lot of Annex I aircraft, in performance, build quality, safety and everything.
Anyway, to fly an Annex I aircraft you need an EASA license. To fly an Annex II aircraft you need some sort of national license.
All current JAR-FCL compliant licenses are being converted to EASA licenses automatically, and all new licenses will be EASA licenses by default - unless you are specifically applying for a non-EASA license. Furthermore, I believe the CAA implicitly validates EASA licenses as equivalent to national licenses, meaning that you can fly Annex II G-reg aircraft on an EASA license. Other EU countries are by and large doing the same, I think.
However, the NPPL is a UK specific license and doesn't come with an automatic upgrade path to an EASA license (LAPL or otherwise). This means that the NPPL will only allow you to fly Annex II aircraft in the near future - even though you can currently use it to fly Annex I aircraft already. There are various threads on here, and there is information from the CAA, on what you need to do if you're an NPPL holder and want to keep on flying Annex I aircraft in the future. CAP 804 is supposed to be your friend.
Callum, EASA is taking over Flight Crew Licensing from the various European regulators such as the UK CAA, but only where it applies to "Annex I" aircraft. "Annex II" aircraft will, for the moment, remain under the national regulators, and under national rules for Flight Crew Licensing. In other words: For Annex I aircraft the EU legislation is law, for Annex II aircraft the ANO is law.
Annex I aircraft are essentially aircraft with a full Certificate of Airworthiness, from the lowly C152 to the B747 and A380, while Annex II aircraft are essentially microlights, experimentals, homebuilts, vintage, ex-military and various other aircraft at the low end of the market - although that last statement doesn't say anything about their performance. There are Annex II aircraft out there that will run rings around a lot of Annex I aircraft, in performance, build quality, safety and everything.
Anyway, to fly an Annex I aircraft you need an EASA license. To fly an Annex II aircraft you need some sort of national license.
All current JAR-FCL compliant licenses are being converted to EASA licenses automatically, and all new licenses will be EASA licenses by default - unless you are specifically applying for a non-EASA license. Furthermore, I believe the CAA implicitly validates EASA licenses as equivalent to national licenses, meaning that you can fly Annex II G-reg aircraft on an EASA license. Other EU countries are by and large doing the same, I think.
However, the NPPL is a UK specific license and doesn't come with an automatic upgrade path to an EASA license (LAPL or otherwise). This means that the NPPL will only allow you to fly Annex II aircraft in the near future - even though you can currently use it to fly Annex I aircraft already. There are various threads on here, and there is information from the CAA, on what you need to do if you're an NPPL holder and want to keep on flying Annex I aircraft in the future. CAP 804 is supposed to be your friend.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and talking of language proficiency may I be the first to point out that its licence, not license. Or does the forum software automatically "correct" the spelling?
Edit to add: no it doesn't
Edit to add: no it doesn't
Last edited by Heston; 5th Jun 2013 at 14:30.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the FRTOL - for microlights (ie the NPPL(M)) it is not a requirement to get the FRTOL to be qualified, so it has to be examined separately and applied for separately.
As Backpacker said Annex II aircraft which include microlights will only need a national licence. If the goal is purely recreational flying I'd strongly recommend going the microlight route - the best value aviation for fun that there is.
As Backpacker said Annex II aircraft which include microlights will only need a national licence. If the goal is purely recreational flying I'd strongly recommend going the microlight route - the best value aviation for fun that there is.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its licence, not license
Licence vs. license - Grammarist
Anyway, both words appear in the EASA regulations and from the context, are intended to have the same meaning.
... may I be the first to point out that its licence, not license. Or does the forum software automatically "correct" the spelling?
Returning to the original topic, am I the only one who finds it more than slightly amusing that it apparently isn't possible to describe the concept of a Pilots Licence/License to an absolute newcomer in just a few words?
Bu99er! I'll demote myself to Level 4...
Originally Posted by EDMJ
Returning to the original topic, am I the only one who finds it more than slightly amusing that it apparently isn't possible to describe the concept of a Pilots Licence/License to an absolute newcomer in just a few words?
PPL - fly for fun
CPL - fly for money
ATPL - fly for more money
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This poor guy is probably even more confused by now! Count the unexplained acronyms and initials in the replies.
CAA
GP
VFR
EASA
SLMG
TMG
IR
B747
ICAO
and I've probably missed some!
Give him a break, can anyone speak basic English?
CAA
GP
VFR
EASA
SLMG
TMG
IR
B747
ICAO
and I've probably missed some!
Give him a break, can anyone speak basic English?
Last edited by astir 8; 6th Jun 2013 at 13:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 26
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thnks for all your help guys, also; ive read up on my local airfield, only group A aircraft and microlights can land. Can somone tell me what group A aircraft consist of? 
Read this thread first: http://www.pprune.org/professional-p...sked-here.html. It's also linked in a stickied thread in the wannabes forum that has lots of other links to useful threads.
