EASA Licensing / FCL Gatwick
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, I have it as FACT, don't cut it up, it'll be invalidated. That's a FACT. It's not debatable. If you don't know something - ask. The CAA's phone number isn't a secret, you may have to wait 10-15 mins to be spoken to and they will confirm what I have said. Don't guess based on the number of sleeves, page numbers or mumbo jumbo. Waste £46 and fly on an invalidated licence if it makes you feel rebellious but don't try and confuse others into the same path.
DO NOT CUT YOUR NEW EASA ATPL LICENCE. IT WILL INVALIDATE IT.
End of story.
DO NOT CUT YOUR NEW EASA ATPL LICENCE. IT WILL INVALIDATE IT.
End of story.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we should all phone the CAA on the same day and ask them the same question about which page should go in which sleeve 
Seriously, the CAA haven't made this decision, it is from EASA and the CAA has to comply. Non negotiable, not debatable.
What I resent is that it took them 3 1/2 months (2 months after it expired) to reissue my ATPL, and I have no come back, no compensation, no apology, and I expect (you just know really) that despite the back log of work everyone grabbed their bags at 5pm, and thinned out for the day.
Seriously, the CAA haven't made this decision, it is from EASA and the CAA has to comply. Non negotiable, not debatable.
What I resent is that it took them 3 1/2 months (2 months after it expired) to reissue my ATPL, and I have no come back, no compensation, no apology, and I expect (you just know really) that despite the back log of work everyone grabbed their bags at 5pm, and thinned out for the day.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the CAA.
They are responsible for their own aviation!
Have other EASA countries got a stupid licence as well ?
Is it the CAA interpretation of EASA rules? If so did they ever question them and ask WHY or heres a better idea, or can we do it this way (I bet the french did there own thing).
I'm sorry but if you can co*k up the issuing of a simple licence, I do not dare think what else they are capable of. Unprofessional yet again, time to take the blinkers off.
They are responsible for their own aviation!
Have other EASA countries got a stupid licence as well ?
Is it the CAA interpretation of EASA rules? If so did they ever question them and ask WHY or heres a better idea, or can we do it this way (I bet the french did there own thing).
I'm sorry but if you can co*k up the issuing of a simple licence, I do not dare think what else they are capable of. Unprofessional yet again, time to take the blinkers off.
It's a disgrace and systematic of the whole EASA implementation by the CAA. The simple act of getting new licences to people who need them for their livelihood in a format which is useable is beyond them. They are quite simply beyond the task and not fit for the role of administering aviation in the UK.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently it's because your license details aren't on the bottom of each page as they were with the old JAR licenses. Therefore once cut up there's no easy way to be sure the pages relate to the license holder.
Seems like there's a relatively simple fix there which will please everyone...
Seems like there's a relatively simple fix there which will please everyone...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry chaps - big red box in CAP 804 Sect 1, Part C, Appendix 2, Page 1 states:
"Pilots are not permitted to cut up their licence as its format and layout is stipulated by EASA regulations."
Good 'ere innit?
"Pilots are not permitted to cut up their licence as its format and layout is stipulated by EASA regulations."
Good 'ere innit?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then the format is screwed and needs re-designing! I really think a court may not agree with EASA if it came to be challenged!!
When I had my A320 and JAR licence converted about 2 weeks ago I used the same day service which worked out quite well. I appreciate not everyone can do so though which has created a big problem for those in the pending tray!
The CAA are a disgrace, the worst kind of civil service mentality draped in the guise of a viable commercial entity!!
When I had my A320 and JAR licence converted about 2 weeks ago I used the same day service which worked out quite well. I appreciate not everyone can do so though which has created a big problem for those in the pending tray!
The CAA are a disgrace, the worst kind of civil service mentality draped in the guise of a viable commercial entity!!
Last edited by Crosswind Limits; 20th Feb 2013 at 17:10.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAA licence. Just done a recurrent. I have been given a whole load of sh1t paperwork which I can only assume is EASA sh1t?
The TRTO has no idea so what chance do I have?
What an utter sham of sh1t!
I will continue to fly as per norm, they can stop me!
The TRTO has no idea so what chance do I have?
What an utter sham of sh1t!
I will continue to fly as per norm, they can stop me!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KH
Any UK TRTO should know what forms are needed, one of which will need to be completed by the TRE signing off your recurrent. I needed just three forms and I am guessing so will you! It's not so bad until you have to send off the paperwork!!
If the TRTO is US based, then I would agree with you!
Any UK TRTO should know what forms are needed, one of which will need to be completed by the TRE signing off your recurrent. I needed just three forms and I am guessing so will you! It's not so bad until you have to send off the paperwork!!
If the TRTO is US based, then I would agree with you!
Last edited by Crosswind Limits; 20th Feb 2013 at 17:56.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has got me so curious that I've actually looked up the EASA regulation. LINK
Nowhere does it say that everything has to be shoehorned onto one piece of A4.
It actually says that an item such as the ratings page can be a separate item, as long as it is clearly identified.
Basically the CAA have chosen to interpret the regulations in a completely cocked-up manner for reasons known only unto themselves!!! I would say it beggars belief, but then it is the CAA we're talking about!
Originally Posted by Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Annex VI, Appendix 1
The flight crew licence issued by a Member State in accordance with Part-FCL shall conform to the following specifications:
(a) Content. The item number shown shall always be printed in association with the item heading. Items I to XI are the “permanent” items and items XII to XIV are the “variable” items which may appear on a separate or detachable part of the main form. Any separate or detachable part shall be clearly identifiable as part of the licence.
deletions to the form will be clearly authorised by the competent authority.
(c) Language. Licences shall be written in the national language(s) and in English and such other languages as the
competent authority deems appropriate.
(a) Content. The item number shown shall always be printed in association with the item heading. Items I to XI are the “permanent” items and items XII to XIV are the “variable” items which may appear on a separate or detachable part of the main form. Any separate or detachable part shall be clearly identifiable as part of the licence.
(1) Permanent items:
(I) State of licence issue;
(II) title of licence;
(III) serial number of the licence commencing with the UN country code of the State of licence issue and
followed by “FCL” and a code of numbers and/or letters in Arabic numerals and in latin script;
(IV) name of holder (in latin script, even if the script of the national language(s) is other than latin);
(IVa) date of birth;
(V) holder’s address;
(VI) nationality of holder;
(VII) signature of holder;
(VIII) competent authority and, where necessary, conditions under which the licence was issued;
(IX) certification of validity and authorisation for the privileges granted;
(X) signature of the officer issuing the licence and the date of issue; and
(XI) seal or stamp of the competent authority
(II) title of licence;
(III) serial number of the licence commencing with the UN country code of the State of licence issue and
followed by “FCL” and a code of numbers and/or letters in Arabic numerals and in latin script;
(IV) name of holder (in latin script, even if the script of the national language(s) is other than latin);
(IVa) date of birth;
(V) holder’s address;
(VI) nationality of holder;
(VII) signature of holder;
(VIII) competent authority and, where necessary, conditions under which the licence was issued;
(IX) certification of validity and authorisation for the privileges granted;
(X) signature of the officer issuing the licence and the date of issue; and
(XI) seal or stamp of the competent authority
(2) Variable items
(b) Material. The paper or other material used will prevent or readily show any alterations or erasures. Any entries or (XII) ratings and certificates: class, type, instructor certificates, etc., with dates of expiry. Radio telephony (R/T)
privileges may appear on the licence form or on a separate certificate;
(XIII) remarks: i.e. special endorsements relating to limitations and endorsements for privileges, including
endorsements of language proficiency and ratings for Annex II aircraft when used for commercial air
transportation; and
(XIV) any other details required by the competent authority (e.g. place of birth/place of origin).
privileges may appear on the licence form or on a separate certificate;
(XIII) remarks: i.e. special endorsements relating to limitations and endorsements for privileges, including
endorsements of language proficiency and ratings for Annex II aircraft when used for commercial air
transportation; and
(XIV) any other details required by the competent authority (e.g. place of birth/place of origin).
deletions to the form will be clearly authorised by the competent authority.
(c) Language. Licences shall be written in the national language(s) and in English and such other languages as the
competent authority deems appropriate.
It actually says that an item such as the ratings page can be a separate item, as long as it is clearly identified.
Basically the CAA have chosen to interpret the regulations in a completely cocked-up manner for reasons known only unto themselves!!! I would say it beggars belief, but then it is the CAA we're talking about!
Last edited by Flying Wild; 20th Feb 2013 at 18:21. Reason: Added link to regulation
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FW
Thanks for the link and relevant regs - I agree with your interpretation!
Our nutty CAA is at it again - a law unto themselves! I did say above that I don't believe any court would uphold the CAA's contention that cutting up a licence in the way "it suggests" would invalidate it but it needs clearing up asap for everyone's sake!
Thanks for the link and relevant regs - I agree with your interpretation!
Our nutty CAA is at it again - a law unto themselves! I did say above that I don't believe any court would uphold the CAA's contention that cutting up a licence in the way "it suggests" would invalidate it but it needs clearing up asap for everyone's sake!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is with the CAA's current implementation. They don't have the license holders details at the bottom of each section, so once cut up, there is nothing to say that the pages relate to the license holder
The EASA regs clearly say each page should be 1/8th the size of an A4 page.
It doesn't say anything about being 1/8th of the same sheet of A4. I've had a look at the old JAR regs and the only difference I can see is that the old one says each page should be no smaller than 1/8th A4.
It also has each page numbered 1-8. Why would they be numbered if it's all intended to be on one sheet?
I think the CAA have misinterpreted it but now that they have if you cut it up then the ratings pages don't have any licence number so could belong to anyone.
That all being said, it lives in the bottom of the bag and only sees the light of day once a year for the LPC or more if some nice inspector shows up. Does it really matter what it looks like? I do feel sorry however for the TREs with long surnames
It doesn't say anything about being 1/8th of the same sheet of A4. I've had a look at the old JAR regs and the only difference I can see is that the old one says each page should be no smaller than 1/8th A4.
It also has each page numbered 1-8. Why would they be numbered if it's all intended to be on one sheet?
I think the CAA have misinterpreted it but now that they have if you cut it up then the ratings pages don't have any licence number so could belong to anyone.
That all being said, it lives in the bottom of the bag and only sees the light of day once a year for the LPC or more if some nice inspector shows up. Does it really matter what it looks like? I do feel sorry however for the TREs with long surnames
Last edited by EGPFlyer; 20th Feb 2013 at 20:31.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cut up thing dates back to when the JAR licenses were issued.
Immediately 50% of the pilots chopped them up so they would fit in the provided book because it was obviously stupid not to.
Someone who proberly never has to carry one day in day out didn't like this and started saying that the license was invalid if it was chopped up. Typical civil servant attitude to documentation to be honest.
Then it was proved that there was nothing stopping the practise.
This time they made sure it was written that you couldn't for some reason.
The reason for not having a sensible sized license I would think is purely because they have a printer and don't want to buy a new one and want to use the stocks of paper that they already have. It could be sorted for under 500 quid in real terms but by the time you add in all the internal billing costs and training etc your more than likely looking at 10k to get a new printer in.
I am willing to bet it coming from the same people who are enforcing all the PDF security nonsense to try and get you to print out a form sign it and then scan it back in again. When its pretty well known that all you do is print the thing off as a pdf to get rid of the security after you have filled it in. Then paste in your signature with a transparent back ground and then print it again to PDF and email it in. Takes all of 60 seconds and you don't need access to scanner.
Immediately 50% of the pilots chopped them up so they would fit in the provided book because it was obviously stupid not to.
Someone who proberly never has to carry one day in day out didn't like this and started saying that the license was invalid if it was chopped up. Typical civil servant attitude to documentation to be honest.
Then it was proved that there was nothing stopping the practise.
This time they made sure it was written that you couldn't for some reason.
The reason for not having a sensible sized license I would think is purely because they have a printer and don't want to buy a new one and want to use the stocks of paper that they already have. It could be sorted for under 500 quid in real terms but by the time you add in all the internal billing costs and training etc your more than likely looking at 10k to get a new printer in.
I am willing to bet it coming from the same people who are enforcing all the PDF security nonsense to try and get you to print out a form sign it and then scan it back in again. When its pretty well known that all you do is print the thing off as a pdf to get rid of the security after you have filled it in. Then paste in your signature with a transparent back ground and then print it again to PDF and email it in. Takes all of 60 seconds and you don't need access to scanner.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA have no control over the interpretation of the rules by other National Aviation Authorities however at a recent EASA meeting the vast majority of NAA confirmed that they would consider the licence as defaced if it was cut up.
It follows on from this that if a ramp inspection was carried out by one of those NAA inspectors then they would consider your licence invalid and refuse to allow you to proceed.
Therefore the advice from the CAA is based on their interpretation of the rules and the consensus of other NAA. For the CAA to say that it may be okay to cut up your licence would be ludicrous, consequently in order to ensure that your licence is definitely considered as valid the CAA say that it should not be cut up. If you then choose to cut up your licence (despite advice from the CAA to the contrary) and a flight gets delayed then it probably will not be viewed favourably by your employer.
It follows on from this that if a ramp inspection was carried out by one of those NAA inspectors then they would consider your licence invalid and refuse to allow you to proceed.
Therefore the advice from the CAA is based on their interpretation of the rules and the consensus of other NAA. For the CAA to say that it may be okay to cut up your licence would be ludicrous, consequently in order to ensure that your licence is definitely considered as valid the CAA say that it should not be cut up. If you then choose to cut up your licence (despite advice from the CAA to the contrary) and a flight gets delayed then it probably will not be viewed favourably by your employer.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone done the over the counter service recently?
The CAA website is clear as mud; is the counter service in Aviation House and is there parking outside or does one have to use Gatwick Short Stay?
The CAA website is clear as mud; is the counter service in Aviation House and is there parking outside or does one have to use Gatwick Short Stay?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Monaco
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Artie, if you are making any cpl/atpl licence changes/amendments involving the issue or reissue of a licence, strongly suggest getting there very early before the office opens. Security will let you wait in the warmth. Its worth getting there early before the rush and they will only deal with a limited number of requests each day. I got there just before 7.00am and was number 3 in the queue.
JB, the new season approaches and I haven't got to put up with a tweeting ijit with earings driving next to me.
JB, the new season approaches and I haven't got to put up with a tweeting ijit with earings driving next to me.