JAA worries...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAA worries...
A friend of mine, who recently obtained the frozen JAA ATPL in the UK, and later had it validated in France by DGAC ( he is French), warned me that apparently all your training and tests have to be taken in the country that issues the licence for them to validate it. In other words, doing parts of it in the US or Spain ( like Bae ) would leave you unable to fly in France.
As I have only been told this by one person, could anyone confirm or deny this, or share similar experiences ?
Has anyone yet obtained a JAA licence in one country, and used it in another JAA country, and what sort of paperwork was involved ?
Regards,
As I have only been told this by one person, could anyone confirm or deny this, or share similar experiences ?
Has anyone yet obtained a JAA licence in one country, and used it in another JAA country, and what sort of paperwork was involved ?
Regards,
The whole point of JAA FCL was that the license was valid in all countries. It is. Your info was duff.
Cheers,
WWW
Cheers,
WWW
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Surrey, England.
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard this rumour also. So far as I am aware it is peculiar to France. The real truth of the matter is that any state in Europe can opt out of anything about Europe it doesn't like. Two classic examples of this being Britain's opt out of the 'Social Charter' and Britain's refusal to participate in the Shengen Agreement. I suggest that it is always best to check with the CAA equivalent in your own country before relying on the claimed (but not quite real) principle of European 'harmonisation'.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW - completely wrong!
The French DGAC, as I have highlighted on previous occasions, consider that training for a JAA licence carried out in a non-member state (except in the case of the integrated ATPL) is not permitted by JAR-FCL and that any licence issued on the basis of such training is not a valid JAA licence. They are, of course, quite correct.
That part of JAR-FCL that requires Member States to recognise each others licences is JAR-FCL 1.015(a), which states, in part:
(1) Where a person, an organisation or a service has been licenced, issued with a rating, authorisation, approval or certificate by the Authority of a JAA Member State in accordance with the requirements of JAR-FCL and associated procedures, such licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates shall be accepted without formality by other JAA Member States.
However, Appendix 1b to JAR-FCL 1.055 which deals with Partial Training outside JAA Member States, reads, in part:
FTOs partly training outside the territories of a JAA Member State may perform training according to the following:
(a) Provided the requirements set out in this Appendix are met, approval may be granted. Provided that the approving Authority considers proper supervision to be possible, training will be confined to all or part of the ATP integrated course..... (My emphasis)
The logic, therefore, is that any training, other than as part of the integrated ATP course, that takes place outside JAA Member States is in contravention of Appendix 1b to JAR-FCL 1.055 and thus is not "in accordance with the requirements of JAR-FCL" as required by JAR-FCL 1.015. Any licence issued as a result of such training has not been gained in accordance with JAR-FCL and there is, therefore, no obligation on other Member States to recognise such licences.
The UK CAA is currently the only JAA Member State to approve FTOs outside the JAA, much to the displeasure of the rest of the JAA. It would not be surprising to see the attitude of the DGAC reflected elsewhere.
The French DGAC, as I have highlighted on previous occasions, consider that training for a JAA licence carried out in a non-member state (except in the case of the integrated ATPL) is not permitted by JAR-FCL and that any licence issued on the basis of such training is not a valid JAA licence. They are, of course, quite correct.
That part of JAR-FCL that requires Member States to recognise each others licences is JAR-FCL 1.015(a), which states, in part:
(1) Where a person, an organisation or a service has been licenced, issued with a rating, authorisation, approval or certificate by the Authority of a JAA Member State in accordance with the requirements of JAR-FCL and associated procedures, such licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates shall be accepted without formality by other JAA Member States.
However, Appendix 1b to JAR-FCL 1.055 which deals with Partial Training outside JAA Member States, reads, in part:
FTOs partly training outside the territories of a JAA Member State may perform training according to the following:
(a) Provided the requirements set out in this Appendix are met, approval may be granted. Provided that the approving Authority considers proper supervision to be possible, training will be confined to all or part of the ATP integrated course..... (My emphasis)
The logic, therefore, is that any training, other than as part of the integrated ATP course, that takes place outside JAA Member States is in contravention of Appendix 1b to JAR-FCL 1.055 and thus is not "in accordance with the requirements of JAR-FCL" as required by JAR-FCL 1.015. Any licence issued as a result of such training has not been gained in accordance with JAR-FCL and there is, therefore, no obligation on other Member States to recognise such licences.
The UK CAA is currently the only JAA Member State to approve FTOs outside the JAA, much to the displeasure of the rest of the JAA. It would not be surprising to see the attitude of the DGAC reflected elsewhere.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Perhaps they are referring to the fact that if you do the ATPL theory in the UK you must do the flying for the licences in the UK.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
