Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Converting JAA PPL

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Converting JAA PPL

Old 1st Aug 2014, 13:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 527
Converting JAA PPL

My JAA PPL(A) expires on the 09th August, and I'm trying to renew it.

I have a valid class rating (SEP LAND), a valid PART-FCL medical (Class 2) and a valid EN language proficiency.

I'm wading through CAP 804 and the guidance notes of SRG 1104, but I cannot find any clear instructions on what supporting documents must be provided. There are instructions for the 'certifiers of ID', but it doesn't state what ID is acceptable.

There is also a tick-box that states: "I confirm that I have demonstrated the use of radio navigation aids to the satisfaction of Chief Flying Instructor which has been certified in my flying logbook." As the holder of a JAA PPL(A), this was demonstrated on my GFT, why is it now necessary for this to be annotated in my logbook by an instructor???

I really don't think they could make this any more complicated if they tried.
TotalBeginner is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 14:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 266
It is really very simple though. All you need to do is to read the information available on the website.

Apply for a Licence Conversion | Our Role | About the CAA

Use the online form available here and input the information as required.

https://apply.caa.co.uk/CAAPortal/te...t?formCode=PCO


but it doesn't state what ID is acceptable
Use the ID you use to carry when you go flying. It is mandatory to have an ID with your picture when at the controls of an aircraft. Use that ID.

There is also a tick-box that states: "I confirm that I have demonstrated the use of radio navigation aids to the satisfaction of Chief Flying Instructor which has been certified in my flying logbook." As the holder of a JAA PPL(A), this was demonstrated on my GFT, why is it now necessary for this to be annotated in my logbook by an instructor???
Send your English Language Proficiency certificate. That would suffice. If you are a UK native speaker, you don't need that.

WP
worldpilot is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 17:06
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 153
Contact Phil Matthews at Cotswold Aeroclub. He'll put you straight.


01452 713924


email [email protected]


You will need English Language level 6.... if not got the certificate it's easiest to go to the caa at Gatwick and they can hear that your level 6.... wonderful isn't it, lol.


You'll also need a certified photocopy of your passport ( can be certified by a CFI) as we Brit pilots don't have photo ID licences.
Jude098 is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 17:14
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Do you have Level 6 English Proficiency? Level 4 is not sufficient.

As you already have a JAR PPL you don't need to worry about the radio navigation confirmation, as it has always been part of the skills test for JAR. You also don't need to worry about the ID certification, as that would have been provided when you were first issued with your JAR PPL and the CAA will have that on file.

I swapped my JAR licence for EASA nearly 2 years ago, and I called the CAA to clarify the 2 points above and it was confirmed that I didn't need either. So I didn't send in either, and my new EASA PPL was promptly delivered.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 22:29
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,005
Do you have Level 6 English Proficiency? Level 4 is not sufficient.
Absolute nonsense; Levels 4, 5 and 6 are all acceptable.

A JAA licence is deemed to be a licence issued in accordance with EASA regulation therefore; you already hold an EASA licence. You are simply going through an administrative exercise to obtain the lifetime version.
Whopity is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 22:50
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Absolute nonsense; Levels 4, 5 and 6 are all acceptable.
The OP doesn't state if he the English Proficiency is the default Level 4 that was given to all JAR holders, a Level 6 given by an examiner etc. I was implying that the default Level 4 is no longer valid.

There are people saying to send in English Proficiency as evidence of radio navigation training (WTF?) and you decide to pick up on minor technical wording. Lol
wb9999 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 07:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,005
and you decide to pick up on minor technical wording.
A totally inaccurate statement based upon an unsupported assumption, is hardly minor technical wording!

The original poster stated:
I have a valid class rating (SEP LAND), a valid PART-FCL medical (Class 2) and a valid EN language proficiency.
Level 4 was granted as a grandfather right to existing FRTOL holders (not JAA licence holders) who had not formally received an ELP assessment. As RTF Examiners have been awarding Level 6 to all new qualifying candidates since 2005 and Examiners revalidating licences have been signing candidates off as Level 6 where appropriate since 2006 then there really should not be anyone left without a valid ELP. I suspect the CAA are a littly tardy on checking their records! If you are one of the few with a genuine Level 4, then after 4 years it can be revalidated at an English Language Assessment Centre and remains valid so long as it has not passed the expiry date.
Whopity is online now  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 08:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Level 4 was granted as a grandfather right to existing FRTOL holders (not JAA licence holders) who had not formally received an ELP assessment. As RTF Examiners have been awarding Level 6 to all new qualifying candidates since 2005 and Examiners revalidating licences have been signing candidates off as Level 6 where appropriate since 2006 then there really should not be anyone left without a valid ELP
Just a reminder, you don't revalidate licences - you revalidate ratings

The OP could have obtained his JAR licence in 2004 (if it expires this year, obtained in 2004 and renewed in 2009). In this case the FRTOL would have also been obtained in 2004, valid for 10 years with grandfathered Level 4.

I revalidated three times since 2006, and each time I didn't get the ELP on the form. I had to go back to an examiner to get my ELP before I could convert to EASA.

There are many pilots, with the grandfathered English Proficiency, who incorrectly believed they had a valid ELP for life - hence the high profile CAA campaign in the last 18 months to remind pilots that they need to be assessed.

Without the OP stating what ELP level he has, and how he has it, we don't know and all this pedantry is just not worth it.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 10:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,005
I revalidated three times since 2006, and each time I didn't get the ELP on the form.
Why not, it only required a tick and a signature from the Examiner? Are you saying the Examiner did nothing each time and you didn't check what he had put on your revalidation form nor queery it?

The whole think is a bodge from start to finish, the ICAO intention was that airline pilots and ATCOs should have a minimum level of English to ensure safe communication on International routes.

There is indeed much confusion, poor communication from the CAA throughout, but it is not helped by making incorrect statements such as
Level 4 is not sufficient.
When it meets the fundamental ICAO "Operational" requirement and is the level held by many airline pilots.
Whopity is online now  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 10:57
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Why not, it only required a tick and a signature from the Examiner? Are you saying the Examiner did nothing each time and you didn't check what he had put on your revalidation form nor queery it?
Well if there was a space for English Proficiency to be assessed on the Revalidation by Experience form then I would have done, but as it's not on there how could a) the examiner tick the box and b) I be expected to check that he had ticked the non-existent box! Looking at the CAA's guidance on language proficiency, an examiner can only assess at RT exam or flight test - not revalidation by experience. So there could still be many pilots who have not been assessed by a flight examiner and with only level 4 grandfathered (now expired), but mistakenly believing they have a valid ELP.

I will change my previous statement to add two words: Level 4 without assessment is not sufficient. Happy now? The OP's original post indicates he/she is not an assessed level 4 or 5. So the discussion really is irrelevant.

Last edited by wb9999; 2nd Aug 2014 at 11:30.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 12:29
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
Well if there was a space for English Proficiency to be assessed on the Revalidation by Experience form then I would have done, but as it's not on there how could a) the examiner tick the box and b) I be expected to check that he had ticked the non-existent box!
The old, pre-EASA, form SRG1119 was two pages. Page One had all the 'good stuff' about who you were, what Rating you were Revalidating/Renewing and the Examiner's confirmation (Signature).

The only (useful) thing on Page Two was a small section (Tick Box) for the Examiner to confirm whether they had assessed you as English Level 6.

Page Two not actually being required for Rating Renewal/Revalidation sometimes an Examiner would not complete it unless asked and often, even if they did, the candidate did not return that page to the CAA.

As JAR Licences needed to be re-issued every 5 years the CAA should have amended their computer system so that they noted the ELP Level on newly printed Licences. Omissions would then gradually have been picked up, and corrected, over time. Instead of now a lot of pilots not knowing if they have a valid ELP recorded with the CAA.

wb9999,
The OP did state they had a valid ELP, however it was a good idea for you to try and get them to confirm this (too many people do get caught out) - but could I suggest that the way you worded your suggestion was not helpful as, as whopity noted, it was factually incorrect.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 13:22
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
the CAA's guidance on language proficiency, an examiner can only assess at RT exam or flight test - not revalidation by experience
This is not correct.

Pre-EASA I am unaware of any guidance on how an Examiner could assess a pilot as being English Level 6 - and many were done as the Examiner signed off the Revalidation by experience.

When Part-FCL came in the above wording did appear. But the CAA soon realised this was impractical (particularly with the volume of Licence Conversions) and did, and still do, allow Examiners to assess Language Proficiency via a Face to Face, in person, meeting.

Unfortunately I do not believe this 'guidance' was ever officially promulgated, but simple left to permeate down the 'grapevine'.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 13:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
The old, pre-EASA, form SRG1119 was two pages. Page One had all the 'good stuff' about who you were, what Rating you were Revalidating/Renewing and the Examiner's confirmation (Signature).
I have scanned copies of every document I've sent to the CAA over the last 6 years. Pre-EASA revalidation by experience forms did not have an ELP section (and still do not, post-EASA). SRG1119 is for Skills Test and revalidation by LPC. In 2012 I revalidated by LPC. The examiner forgot to complete the ELP section (or maybe incorrectly assumed I had previously been assessed), and I had to go back to him to ask for his signature for ELP so I could get an EASA licence.

As JAR Licences needed to be re-issued every 5 years the CAA should have amended their computer system so that they noted the ELP Level on newly printed Licences.
The FRTOL (for which the ELP is required) is issued for 10 years. Many pilots could still have a valid 10 yearly FRTOL without undergoing ELP assessment by an examiner (well, valid if the ELP wasn't invalid).

Quote from Jude08 before my post:
You will need English Language level 6.
Nobody picked up on that, and I've been picked on for some reason!

This is not correct.

Pre-EASA I am unaware of any guidance on how an Examiner could assess a pilot as being English Level 6
Bearing in mind I was responding to Whopity's question as to why the examiner did not tick the box on revalidation (so we are talking about the past), the CAA's Guidance for Examiners Process for the Testing of ICAO Language Proficiency issued in 2008 (Link) lists the acceptable methods of testing:
a) At the RT test
b) At a Flight Test
c) Through a Language School
d) At a Training Organisation (as part of a recognised course of Flight Training)
e) Other Acceptable Means (to be approved by the CAA beforehand)

The document states the above is an extract from LASORS 2008. I don't see anything there which would have allowed an examiner to assess ELP when signing revalidation by experience back in 2008. Maybe that's why some examiners did not do it (including the one I used). The guidance document has a replica of the original SRG1199 (issue 01), which lists the opportunities for language assessment. The latest form is now issue 02 (issued 13 September 2012), so the acceptable methods of assessment remained the same from 2008 to September 2012. That's probably why the ELP was not included on the revalidation by experience form.

There really are some petty discussions on this forum!

Last edited by wb9999; 2nd Aug 2014 at 14:55.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2014, 15:11
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
You will need English Language level 6.
Nobody picked up on that, and I've been picked on for some reason!
You are correct, either a valid Level 4, valid Level 5 or Level 6 is acceptable - Don't take it personally.

The FRTOL (for which the ELP is required) is issued for 10 years.
An ELP is required for a Pilot's Licence, not an FRTOL - also why do people assume an FRTOL is valid for 10 Years?:

EG My old JAR Licence:
Pilot Licence, valid for 5 years
Section XII says I have an FRTOL (see FRTOL for details)
Section XIII says I have Language Proficiency English (no Level indicated)

FRTOL
Section IX says must be re-issued not later than "date". With the "date" being the same as the expiry of my Pilot's Licence - therefore only valid for 5 years.
No mention anywhere of any Language Proficiency.

I have scanned copies of every document I've sent to the CAA over the last 6 years. Pre-EASA revalidation by experience forms did not have an ELP section (and still do not, post-EASA).
Just curious which form you used for Revalidation by Experience prior to EASA? I have only ever seen used SRG1119 (I know it's title says Test/Prof Check, but Section 2 does include an application for 'by experience').

Now, under Part-FCL, you are correct SRG1119E does not contain a Section for LP. However SRG1157 is supposed to be completed at the same time (and the CAA will even accept SRG1157 on it's own as notification of Revalidation).

The document states the above is an extract from LASORS 2008. I don't see anything there which would have allowed a freelance examiner to assess ELP when signing revalidation by experience back in 2008
e) Other Acceptable Means
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 11:13
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
An ELP is required for a Pilot's Licence, not an FRTOL
From CAP804:
Such proficiency is required, in ENGLISH, for the issue of a UK FRTOL. Where a pilot accepts the limitation of flying non-radio only, or the pilot is the holder of a sailplane or balloon licence, Part-FCL does not require language proficiency to be demonstrated; but it is always required for a UK FRTOL to be valid.
and
To use a FRTOL the holder must have English language proficiency Level 6, or non-expired English language proficiency at Level 4 or 5
For some reason the ELP is ensorsed on the pilot licence, but it's based on the FRTOL. A pilot without an FRTOL cannot have ELP:
Holders of UK issued pilot licences that do not include a Flight Radio Telephone Operators Licence (FRTOL) have no privileges to use radiotelephony for airborne communication, and thus their licences cannot be endorsed with the ICAO Language Proficiency endorsement.
why do people assume an FRTOL is valid for 10 Years
A JAR FRTOL had 10 years validity, unless it was issued at the same time as a licence - in which case it had 5 years validity. A couple of people I know had 10 years validity (one stand-alone, and one who obtained a PPL after getting a stand-alone FRTOL). It's incorrect to assume that all JAR FRTOLs had 5 years validity (even if you had a PPL).

e) Other Acceptable Means
If the CAA expected revalidation by experience to be covered by Other Acceptable Means, then I would have expected:
a) The list of suggestions of what the CAA consider to be acceptable that are under that section to include examiner face-to-face assessments (it didn't).
a) SRG1199 (issue 01) Opportunities for Assessment section to include revalidation by experience (it didn't).
b) The CAA's statement in 2012 to include revalidation by experience (it didn't):
Since 2008 many UK pilots have been upgraded to Level 6 by demonstration to an examiner during a flying skill test, a proficiency check or a radio licence practical test. However, there are believed to be a significant number of pilots, mainly in the general aviation community, who have not obtained a Level 6 assessment from an examiner within the last four years during a test or check.
That doesn't mean that examiners who did face-to-face assessments were wrong to, and the CAA clearly accepted them. But it explains why some examiners didn't - they were likely following the guidance and SRG1199 instructions. Clearly the CAA didn't realise that many pilots revalidate by experience when they produced the ELP guidance and paperwork.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 13:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
For some reason the ELP is ensorsed on the pilot licence, but it's based on the FRTOL. A pilot without an FRTOL cannot have ELP
No, it is the other way around. The CAA will not issue a UK FRTOL unless they have a record that the applicant holds a valid ELP.

A valid LP on a Pilot Licence is required in order to use an FRTOL.
A bit like a valid Medical Certificate being required in order to use a Pilot's Licence.

From IN-2012/208 21 Dec 2012 (which will not Copy and Caste)
Section 1.1 The UK CAA will not issue a Part-FCL Licence unless they have a record that the applicant has a valid English LP. No mention of whether the applicant has, or is applying for, an FRTOL - It is the Pilot's Licence that requires an LP endorsement (even if no FRTOL is held).
Holders of UK issued pilot licences that do not include a Flight Radio Telephone Operators Licence (FRTOL) have no privileges to use radiotelephony for airborne communication, and thus their licences cannot be endorsed with the ICAO Language Proficiency endorsement.
Interesting - would I be correct in assuming this is a pre-EASA quote?
b) The CAA's statement in 2012 to include revalidation by experience (it didn't):
As I pointed out in my previous post. However they did subsequently give official guidance:
Again from IN-2012/208 21 Dec 2012:
Section 2.1.1 ii) Face to Face aviation discussion not associated with a Skill Test or Proficiency Check.

It's incorrect to assume that all JAR FRTOLs had 5 years validity
My point was that it is incorrect to assume that all FRTOLs have a 10 year validity. On my old UK Licence FRTOL states valid for my lifetime. On my old JAR Licences FRTOLs were valid for 5 years. On my Part-FCL Licence FRTOL again valid for my lifetime.

wb9999,
Still genuinely curious as to which form you used for Revalidation by Experience prior to EASA.

NB: Prior to EASA Ground Examiners were entitled to "Sign Off" a Revalidation by Experience - but were not entitled to assess ELP.
(May be a reason why many were not evaluated for LP at the time of Revalidation)

TotalBeginner,
As you can see it is all very simple really
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 13:47
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
No, it is the other way around. The CAA will not issue a UK FRTOL unless they have a record that the applicant holds a valid ELP.
The ELP is related to the FRTOL and has no relevance to the pilot licence (other than the endorsement appearing on there).
You need an ELP for an FRTOL (if using it airborne) - even if you don't have a pilot licence.
You don't need an ELP for a pilot licence without FRTOL - there are non-radio pilots flying around perfectly legally without an ELP.

Interesting - would I be correct in assuming this is a pre-EASA quote?
Yes, because the discussion started when talking about revalidating by experience in 2008 and 2010.

My point was that it is incorrect to assume that all FRTOLs have a 10 year validity
FRTOLs have a 10 year validity, unless issued with a licence. I didn't say that FRTOLs issued with a licence have a 10 year validity. It's not uncommon for pilots to obtain an FRTOL at a different time to a licence.

Prior to EASA Ground Examiners were entitled to "Sign Off" a Revalidation by Experience - but were not entitled to assess ELP.
Exactly! The discussion with Whopity was about revalidating prior to EASA! I think everyone knows what the process has been since 2012.

I will have to get get back to you on my revalidation forms. The original PDFs are on a work PC, and I was looking at the PDF on a mobile phone - very difficult to see the form numbers and some of the printing.
wb9999 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.