Bizarre CAA ruling
 

I hold a JAR CPL(A) and a JAR ATPL(H)/IR (both converted from UK licences)

I enquired of the CAA what theory exams I need to sit for a frozen JAR ATPL(A) and what credits I would be given.

I have been told that I must sit ALL the ATPL exams and will be given no credit!!! I have been a professional pilot for 26 years and I'm qualified to operate fixed wing and helicopters anywhere in Europe but to upgrade to ATPL(A) level I am treated exactly the same as Joe Bloggs off the street with no flying qualifications at all!!!!!

Their reasoning is that because I passed UK exams at CPL level they don't count. Yet they were good enough to allow me to convert to JAR licences. I never knew that the old UK qualifications were so useless and that I would have to be taught principles of flight and meteorology from scratch! (Amongst others). How is it that they allow me to operate with my JAR licences yet consider that I have not proven my theoretical knowledge at all?

As Jim would say "AAARSE"

A man of such experience would find it a walk in the park - a couple of weekends should do it?

no sponsor - well said!
whoateallthepies - experience is only worth having if you use it - think of the poor wannabies who have to pass without the benefit of your experience!

A couple of very unsympathetic responses there!

I agree Who. It seems very unfair to me too. Like you I, along with others, promised ourselves that we would take it up with the CAA once we'd done all the trivia and got the license. Then when those precious licenses finally flopped through peoples letterboxes we all thought, "Ah what the hell."

Not very comforting I know. You've obviously tried appealing to them on an individual assessment basis?

Many people who have done these exams (including me) press the brain dump button and rid ourselves of the unnecessary rubbish once we get through them. Having to do them again no matter what your experience is a daunting thought. I was down to my fourth shot on a couple of my exams and the thought of having to do them all again, was very worrying!

whoateallthepies, I hope you manage to get the situation resolved soon.

B-W: In my case that's because I have little sympathy! Though both are more postive then telling someone how tough it'll be!!

Seriously - if the system is wrong it should be changed, but individual exceptions are just a cop out.

What credits would you have been given under the old UK national licence system?

None at all.

I am in almost the same situation as who..., I have UK national CPL(A)/IR/FI/FE (8500 hrs) and ATPL(H)/IR/FI (3500 hrs) and have always understood that I would have to pass the appropriate exams, be they UK or JAA, in order to gain an ATPL(A). I guess that the difference is that I never saw the need to gain an ATPL(A) just to qualify as a glorified bus driver. I'm just having too much fun being a real pilot!

Thanks for all the replies
Tins Under the old system it would only have been necessary to sit a few extra exams to have a frozen ATPL/A from CPL level.

To my unsympathetic chums - I wasn't looking for sympathy. I admit I'm too old and ugly to need a shoulder to cry on, I'm just trying to show the ridiculousness (is that a word?) of the situation.

I am going to appeal to the CAA and I hope to have the help of BALPA in this.

Just a thought - Ex-military pilots are exempt from most of the JAR ATPL exams despite having no civilian experience. How come experienced civilian pilots are being discriminated against? Is there a human rights issue here I could exploit?
Would the Wicked Witch help?:confused:

BillieBob

I find this kind of attitude both unhelpful and unnecessary. One could suggest "glorified this" or "gloried that" for every type of flying, including Helicopters. However, I do not. It only serves to undermine the hard work and determination of the individual and is to the detriment of the industry as a whole. I was particularly disappointed watching an episode of Airline, only to hear an EasyJet pilot say the same thing.

Very frustrating. Back to the thread, I agree withwhoateallthepies - it's pointless that past experience is not taken into account. Experience is one thing, but you still have to re-learn exam technique - which as I have found from my current industry, only becomes more tedious with experience.

Bodie

whoateallthepies,

Whatever the outcome of this business, don't forget to send a copy of the whole correspondence to both your MP and your MEP.

Regardles of how much study may or may not be involved, the other issue here is how much dosh are they going gain in exam fees.

Of course, such considerations could not possibly be a factor....

CPB

As a fixed wing pilot who qualified under the "old" system I can assure you that first I got my CPL, then I got my I.R. then I did some air taxi stuff (P1) then I did some night freight (single crew - P1) then I flew a Twin Otter for a scheduled airline (single crew P1) then the airline decided to get some bigger aeroplanes so I had to get my ATPL if I was going to remain a captain. The idea in those days that you would have difficulty in passing the writtens for the ATPL if you hadn't got some experience of commercial flying with your CPL/IR. Like everyone else, I had to do every exam from scratch at ATPL level with the exception of air law. I remember one question in flight planning - where the time constraints were severe - was made much easier for me as I had actually flown the route in question. Hands on experience was also very helpful in many other questions - particularly in met practical.

Subsequent to this, the ground schools found that it was possible to instill sufficient knowledge in candidates to enable them to pass the ATPL theory papers without having done any "apprentiship". This saved candidates money in exam fees and the problems of having to do a load of exam work in mid career. Thus "frozen" ATPLs have now become the norm which has been taken on board by the JAR system.

Whether the modern licencing system is better I would not like to say, but these days you don't have to perform mercator plotting or draw a synoptic chart from a map containing met station symbols and then write TAFs and METARS for various points on the map e.t.c. e.t.c. err... not that I am suggesting that it is necessary these days to be able to do this!

CPB Er.. no more so that the (far larger) financial gain may be a common reason for going for a JAR ATPL(A). There would have to be an awful lot of pilots in whoate's position to put a new lick of paint on the belgrano.

whoateallthepies - I might not be that sympathetic but I do wish you good luck in gaining JAR ATPL(A)!

:rolleyes: Hey Bodie........were you born without a sense of humour.

Come on......Lighten up man (or woman):rolleyes:

whoateallthepies - to say "Ex-military pilots are exempt from most of the JAR ATPL exams despite having no civilian experience" is factually incorrect.

Experienced military pilots, i.e. in the fixed wing world those with 2000+ total military flight time may receive accreditiation under JAR/FCL for their knowledge and experience. A joint CAA/MoD working group has agreed that, for example, to be granted the maximum accreditation, a pilot with 2000+ military TT must also have passed an Operational Conversion Unit course on an 'approved' ME multi-pilot aeroplane (e.g. C17, Nimrod, VC10, TriStar etc) and have 1500 hours on that type as P1, of which 1000 must have been as P1C. Having achieved such hours, it is highly unlikely that insuffcient 'civilian' experience will be a hindrance. Such hours qualify the pilot to obtain a JAR/FCL ATPL by: 1. Passing a JAR Class 1 medical, 2. Passing JAR/FCL Air Law at ATPL level and 3. Passing a ME multi-crew IR on the type of aeroplane flown. Then fill out the form, pay the dosh and wait for the thud of little green book on doormat! If said pilot already holds a UK professional licence and has completed the JAR declaration of knowledge requirements, then accreditiation is also given for the Air Law exam......

Fast jet pilots with 2000+ have less accreditation rights and will need to do a bridging course and some ME time (including passing an IR on something like a Seneca), pass the JAR Class 1 medical and 5 of the JAR/FCL ATPL exams and will then receive a CPL with ATPL knowledge - they will subsequently need to do the MCC course and achieve 500 hours as co-pilot of a multi-crew aeroplane before upgrading to ATPL.

This is a national obligation under JARs and replaces some of the daftness of the past. I once had to give the RT theory paper to a military pilot who had just flown a Tornado from South Germany to Brize Norton via airways. He obtained 100%, perhaps unsurprisingly.

I do, however, think that it wouldn't be unreasonable for 'upgrade' exams or an'upgrade course' to be available for CPL/IR holders to achieve the theoretical knowledge requirements of the ATPL. To have to do the whole 14 ATPL exams does seem rather over the top to me.

BEagle

Thanks for your reply. It was not my intention to try and belittle the expertise or training of our military friends, I know that they are a superb bunch and I think it is just and right that they should be exempt most of the exams. (I'm ex-military myself back in the mists of time!).

It's your last paragraph which hits the nail on the head for me. There should be some upgrade examinations from CPL to ATPL rather than doing the whole lot again.

For ATPL(H)/IR to ATPL(A)/IR (or vice-versa) there are "bridging examinations". The CAA, bless them, will not let me take these exams, despite the fact that I hold a JAR ATPL(H)/IR ,because it was issued on the basis of my UK licence.

So now there are two different types of ATPL. For one type (gained through JAR exams) the pilot is credited with sufficient knowledge merely to do the "bridging exams". For the second type (gained through the UK system) the pilot is credited with no knowledge at all and must do all the exams!

How can they allow me to continue flying if I am credited with no theoretical knowledge at all? Was the UK system so bad that the exams, passed by the majority of today's professional pilots, are worthless?