Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
By Shoestring Flyer
#1826540
Miscellaneous wrote:I'm becoming paranoid! :( Is my understanding correct?

What is being referred to as a UK FCL and a European Union FCL is one and the same and use of a PMD to fly a non Part 21 (LAA Permit) aircraft is permissible?

TIA


Yes ...Or at least thats what I understand as well!
Just carry on flying !
The CAA obviously doesn't know what it is doing so how are we supposed to make any sense of it all :x
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1826543
The CAA obviously doesn't know what it is doing so how are we supposed to make any sense of it all :x


The Authority is doing the best it can within the constraints of the law. The recent <2000kg alleviation, which does NOT apply to Part-FCL licence holders, was the best which could be achieved in the short term.

Extension to include Part 21 aircraft within the privileges of non Part-FCL licences should come quite soon; in the longer term the use of PMDs should be regularised across all licence types.

Don't underestimate the considerable 'behind the scenes' efforts the Authority has been making to achieve what has now been achieved
kanga, lobstaboy, patowalker and 4 others liked this
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1826545
nickwilcock wrote:The recent <2000kg alleviation, which does NOT apply to Part-FCL licence holders...

Nick, I am reading it that the above is the case for Part 21 aircraft and that FCL licence holders can fly non Part 21 aircraft on a PMD. Am I misunderstanding? :?
By Oldfart
#1826558
Absolute madness. You have a UK compliant licence and can't fly a G Reg aircraft, you couldn't make it up. And possibly includes the aircraft in which you carried out your first solo is now deemed by law to be dangerous to fly.
Surely a simple download from the CAA, saying to the effect if you have a UK licence you are deemed to be authorised to fly g-reg aircraft. As they have done with the old EASA Headings on licences and medicals. Remains in force until the licence re issued by the CAA.
Could be done overnight.
PaulSS liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1826560
The recent <2000kg alleviation, which does NOT apply to Part-FCL licence holders,


Are you saying that the exemption to allow FCL holders to fly part 21 aircraft with a PMD until 31st March no longer applies?

If so, how does the CAA propose to promulgate this information to those who do not read this forum?
By ak7274
#1826567
How any of you expect even a modicum of common sense from any Government or quasi Government department astounds me.
The list of lack of common sense exceeds anything I have ever encountered.
Apologists and excusers of the CAA in particular are part of the problem. The cynic in me would see them as prospective employees. There was NO common sense in the NPPL to LAPL door slamming in 2018( The DGAC didn't do it with the BdB). No route to PPL? Min 20 hours to convert LAPL to PPL?
The debacle stopping a UK PPL (which is an ICAO licence) from flying EASA aircraft( now part 21) was mindless.
Anything the CAA/DFT do in the future with GA should go through a common sense department. And I don't mean one set up for the benefit of the usual suspects.
As for " The CAA have got lots to do post Brexit and pandemic" excuse. Have the GA units at CAA and DFT been transferred?
Of course those in the ivory towers believe that they actually have common sense. Trust me they don't.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1826568
ak7274 wrote:The debacle stopping a UK PPL (which is an ICAO licence) from flying EASA aircraft( now part 21) was mindless.

But it does not prevent a FCL licence holder flying a non part 21 on a PMD? Is that correct? :?
User avatar
By PaulSS
#1826579
The debacle stopping a UK PPL (which is an ICAO licence) from flying EASA aircraft( now part 21) was mindless.


Too true. At the moment I need my UK PPL (full cream version obtained in 1983 on C152/C172) in order to fly my Eurofox. I need this as my 'Fox is a factory-built microlight and, as my EASA/Part ATPL doesn't have anywhere to add 'microlight', I have to use the microlight differences training added to my PPL. In the meantime I am not allowed to fly the very aircraft on which I obtained that UK PPL (C152/C172) and, instead, have to use the SEP rating on my EASA/Part ATPL. What a complete bloody shambles and just typical of the CAA who, incidentally, took nigh on one year to get their act together and re-issue my UK PPL :roll:
User avatar
By Gustosomerset
#1826580
I'm genuinely confused:
"We regulate and implement medical requirements..." CAA Website
"The Authority is doing the best it can within the constraints of the law." nickwilcock
What exactly is the law that now prevents the CAA from regulating and implementing this aspect of medical requirements in the way it previously could?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1826582
flybymike wrote:
The recent <2000kg alleviation, which does NOT apply to Part-FCL licence holders,


Are you saying that the exemption to allow FCL holders to fly part 21 aircraft with a PMD until 31st March no longer applies?

If so, how does the CAA propose to promulgate this information to those who do not read this forum?


It's a bit more complex.

Holders of UK-Part FCL licences may fly (part 21 or non-part 21) aircraft with a PMD, provided they can sign up to the PMD statements for aircraft <5,700Kg; That is to say the conditions in parts a)-e) under "Holders of UK national and Part-FCL Licences, to fly any aircraft less than 5700kg MTOM" here https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/pilot-licences/medical-requirements/medical-requirements-for-private-pilots/

What has gone is the ability for UK-Part FCL licence holders to fly (any aircraft) using the reduced requirements under "Holders of UK national licences only, to only fly aircraft no greater than 2000 kg MTOM" in the above document.

So if you have a PMD, and meet the extended requirements, you are OK, but if you do not meet them then you (currently) require a formal medical. As has been mentioned we're all hoping this is a temporary status while the collective legal minds get their kn***kers un-twisted!

Confused ? You bet :roll:
Last edited by ls8pilot on Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
G-BLEW, flybymike, Robin500 and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1826583
Oldfart wrote:Absolute madness. You have a UK compliant licence and can't fly a G Reg aircraft, you couldn't make it up. And possibly includes the aircraft in which you carried out your first solo is now deemed by law to be dangerous to fly.


I don't recall anybody saying it was "dangerous". There are aircraft that I can fly safely, but not necessarily legally. The two are not the same.

We have to bare in mind that the document that finalised what we as a nation would be doing, was signed less than 2 months ago. Every governmental department is going through the wringer trying to sort it all out and keep stuff moving at the moment.

The licence problems of us "hobby pilots" are just one of dozens of issues the CAA have to sort out, and no doubt will given time. They can't do it all at once, and changing laws takes time and we are not at the top of the list as our livelyhoods don't rely on it.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1826584
Gustosomerset wrote:I'm genuinely confused:
"We regulate and implement medical requirements..." CAA Website
"The Authority is doing the best it can within the constraints of the law." nickwilcock
What exactly is the law that now prevents the CAA from regulating and implementing this aspect of medical requirements in the way it previously could?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.


An interesting question! The CAA seem to be referring to the ANO(2016) and the imported EASA Part FCL/SFCL legislation. The issue is twofold

1. The ANO(2016) never covered Part-FCL/SFCL licences, so they amended it in January to cover UK Part-FLC/SFCL medical requirements

2. The ANO(2016) never had the distinction between <2000Kg and <5,700Kg. This seems to have been introduced by the CAA (on request from LAA and BMAA) but (as far as I can see, unless there is an ORS I missed) never enacted into formal legislation.

So when they did the amendment there was nothing to reflect the earlier reduction of the PMD requirements for <2000Kg . To further complicate things we did have the ability to operate EASA-Part FCL licences under this (<2000Kg) regime for a few months as part of the Covid ORS extensions....... although technically the pre-Jan21 PMD's only state on the form that they are valid for UK issued licences.

At least this is my understanding - open to correction if I'm wrong as I have no inside knowledge! It would be nice if the PR people in the CAA just came out and said what had happened and what was going on.....
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1826585
Sooty25 wrote:....
We have to bare in mind that the document that finalised what we as a nation would be doing, was signed less than 2 months ago. Every governmental department is going through the wringer trying to sort it all out and keep stuff moving at the moment.
....


Well, yes & no..... The final result was not known until quite recently. However there were a predictable and small number of likely outcomes and 2 or 3 scenarios could have been predicted well in advance. A commercial enterprise would have carried out some scenario planning for each likely outcome and had everything prepared, ready for when the final outcome was know. I could be wrong but I don't get the feeling this was done in several areas (not just the CAA).
PaulSS liked this
User avatar
By Gustosomerset
#1826588
ls8pilot wrote:
Gustosomerset wrote:I'm genuinely confused:
"We regulate and implement medical requirements..." CAA Website
"The Authority is doing the best it can within the constraints of the law." nickwilcock
What exactly is the law that now prevents the CAA from regulating and implementing this aspect of medical requirements in the way it previously could?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.


An interesting question! The CAA seem to be referring to the ANO(2016) and the imported EASA Part FCL/SFCL legislation. The issue is twofold

1. The ANO(2016) never covered Part-FCL/SFCL licences, so they amended it in January to cover UK Part-FLC/SFCL medical requirements

2. The ANO(2016) never had the distinction between <2000Kg and <5,700Kg. This seems to have been introduced by the CAA (on request from LAA and BMAA) but (as far as I can see, unless there is an ORS I missed) never enacted into formal legislation...


So in its capacity as regulator the CAA was able to amend the ANO(2016) and then introduce a further modification on request. Presumably both actions were legal (even if not enacted in formal legislation). But now they are constrained by (a new?) law that prevents or somehow restricts them from making, changing or extending such modifications. What is that new law?
By oldbiggincfi
#1826589
ls8pilot wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:....
We have to bare in mind that the document that finalised what we as a nation would be doing, was signed less than 2 months ago. Every governmental department is going through the wringer trying to sort it all out and keep stuff moving at the moment.
....


Well, yes & no..... The final result was not known until quite recently. However there were a predictable and small number of likely outcomes and 2 or 3 scenarios could have been predicted well in advance. A commercial enterprise would have carried out some scenario planning for each likely outcome and had everything prepared, ready for when the final outcome was know. I could be wrong but I don't get the feeling this was done in several areas (not just the CAA).


Well, consider this to be another National Emergency .

I could recommend a replacement team from Astrazeneca.

In my earlier hypothetical scenario
Steddyeddy, for all his lack of flight planning, after a diversion only 20 or so miles into France, would in days past, enjoyed a night with his party and flown back next morning .

Not always , did I have a passport ,when called to do an impromptu charter but carried a very prestigious British ATPL which had photo and access back into the UK .
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27