Problem with Modular JAA FCL training outside member state?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with Modular JAA FCL training outside member state?
Hello all,
I'm currently researching the various options available for modular flight training. In doing so, I've found a few threads on PPRuNe that have given me reason to question the benefit of training for a JAA licence in a non-member state, even if the the FTO is approved by the UK CAA.
I've pasted an example below taken from a previous posting by member "rolling circle". suffice to say that it clearly illustrates my point.
---------------------------------------------
rolling circle . .Just another number
Member # 5868 . . posted 20 November 2001 16:21
"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.". .-----------------------------------------
Is this in fact reason enough NOT to train outside the JAA (ie: USA, SA)- even in part? I'm assuming this will also effect licence conversions from ICAO to JAA. I had thought one benefit of a JAA FCL was its validity in all member states therefore allowing for pilots to fly aircraft registered by ALL member states. Just wondering your thoughts are on the subject.
Thanks...Global . .(Edited for Spelling)
[ 21 February 2002: Message edited by: globaltrek ]</p>
I'm currently researching the various options available for modular flight training. In doing so, I've found a few threads on PPRuNe that have given me reason to question the benefit of training for a JAA licence in a non-member state, even if the the FTO is approved by the UK CAA.
I've pasted an example below taken from a previous posting by member "rolling circle". suffice to say that it clearly illustrates my point.
---------------------------------------------
rolling circle . .Just another number
Member # 5868 . . posted 20 November 2001 16:21
"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.". .-----------------------------------------
Is this in fact reason enough NOT to train outside the JAA (ie: USA, SA)- even in part? I'm assuming this will also effect licence conversions from ICAO to JAA. I had thought one benefit of a JAA FCL was its validity in all member states therefore allowing for pilots to fly aircraft registered by ALL member states. Just wondering your thoughts are on the subject.
Thanks...Global . .(Edited for Spelling)
[ 21 February 2002: Message edited by: globaltrek ]</p>
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rodders,
That's exactly what I had thought until recently. I was having a conversation with a pilot who ran into problems with his JAA-FCL ATPL(A)-Modular route. He had applied for a job flying a French regestered aircraft. The company had said his application could not be processed because the French authority (DGAC)will not recognize his credentials. This was because his "modular" flight training had taken place partially in a non-member state (USA) - even though it was taken at an approved FTO. They said only "integrated" courses taken in part outside the member state and therefore his FCL is not valid. According to JAR-FCL 1.055 (a) " Provided that the approving Authority considers proper supervision to be possible, training will be confined to all or part of the ATP integrated course" - it would appear thet they have a point.
Obviously this route is acceptable for pilots wanting to fly G regestered aircraft, but I'm wondering about flying other member-states regestered aircraft.
Thanks again...Globaltrek <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: globaltrek ]</p>
That's exactly what I had thought until recently. I was having a conversation with a pilot who ran into problems with his JAA-FCL ATPL(A)-Modular route. He had applied for a job flying a French regestered aircraft. The company had said his application could not be processed because the French authority (DGAC)will not recognize his credentials. This was because his "modular" flight training had taken place partially in a non-member state (USA) - even though it was taken at an approved FTO. They said only "integrated" courses taken in part outside the member state and therefore his FCL is not valid. According to JAR-FCL 1.055 (a) " Provided that the approving Authority considers proper supervision to be possible, training will be confined to all or part of the ATP integrated course" - it would appear thet they have a point.
Obviously this route is acceptable for pilots wanting to fly G regestered aircraft, but I'm wondering about flying other member-states regestered aircraft.
Thanks again...Globaltrek <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
[ 22 February 2002: Message edited by: globaltrek ]</p>
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once you have your JAA licence, issued by the very same CAA that approved the off-shore FTOs, no JAA country can or will refuse to recognise it. It doesn't say on your licence where you received your training!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rodders - RTFQ. The quote reads "all or part of the ATP integrated course"
Scroggs - While you are correct in some of your posts, in this case you are wrong. As globaltrek relates, other member states can and will refuse to accept JAA licences issued by the UK CAA where training has been conducted outside the JAA.
Scroggs - While you are correct in some of your posts, in this case you are wrong. As globaltrek relates, other member states can and will refuse to accept JAA licences issued by the UK CAA where training has been conducted outside the JAA.
