Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
I don't get it Irv. Why like a form that simply isn't fit for purpose? Its a dreadful mishmash and thus open to incorrect completion playing into the hands of the “10 day turnaround” jobsworths.
AndyR liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
This information just received from AOPA. Make what you will of it but one wonders whether a “certified copy of a logbook” includes a countersigned copy of every single page of every logbook right back to year zero.

1. SRG3108. The CAA Flight Crew Licensing Team has released the following, which includes further information concerning Form SRG3108:
Most recently, we published our new online form (SRG3108) for rating applications. This form replaces the following PDFs, which will be removed on 13th January : SRG1119A, SRG1119B, SRG1119C, SRG1119E, SRG1173 and SRG1161.

Whilst writing, we wanted to clarify the requirements for revalidation by experience once SRG1119E has been removed.

If the pilot’s licence has been signed up in the field, there is no need for them to make an application to the CAA. Their examiner/instructor should fill in SRG1157 and email this to [email protected] , so it can be stored on the pilot’s file. The pilot may also choose to notify us by filling in online form SRG3108 and uploading SRG1157. If they do this, they will not be charged a fee.

If the licence has not been endorsed, the pilot will need to submit online application form SRG3108 and upload: a copy of examiner report form SRG1157 or form SRG1107 (section 3), a certified copy of their logbook, and a certified copy of their licence. There is a fee of £93 for this application.

The online forms are tailored to the application being made and can be saved part way through, so applicants do not need to complete them in one go.
By DavidC
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
The CAA clarification emailed out on 7th did help explain what they are up to and the specific changes in this case.

For 95% of pilots who are simply revalidating by experience or even renewing by proficiency check after a brief lapse, then this new online form doesn't apply. The instructor/examiner should email a copy of SRG1157 to the CAA and endorse the licence. Job done.

For the 5% (my estimate) of pilots whose rating lapsed and it was reissued without the SEP rating on the front, then an online application will be required and their examiner should assist them to do this.

For the 0.1% (my estimate) of pilots whose rating lapsed but they can't find an examiner to sign their licence and so require the CAA to do it for them, then this new form and procedure do apply. I guess this might be the unusual case where a pilot is abroad and can't get to an examiner in person to do this. However, since the form does require original documents to be certified by an examiner, it kind of defeats the purpose.

Regarding certification of documents, the CAA website does explain what is required in detail

AOPA's weekly email roundup of regulatory news is quite useful but sometimes I wonder if it might add a little bit more interpretation to explain the effects/impact where this has been overlooked by the legalese of the CAA original. This being a good example where misunderstandings could easily arise.

So all in all, good news and I am no longer concerned. We just need to broadcast that SRG1119E has been replaced by SRG1157 for revalidations and that the instructor/examiner should scan/email this in to the correct CAA email address.
No not really good news. A 1157 is really inappropriate for a revalidation by experience and doesn’t cover the FCL945 terminology at all. We are now increasing paperwork from 2 pages to 3 pages, only a few lines of which are relevant. Moreover the new 1107 they have issued has all the old 1119E stuff on it, updated to reflect FCL945, which is all now apparently redundant.

The 1119E was short and easy, they just needed to keep this and update it for FCL945 terminology. Instead they’ve increased the page size and changed to a form that’s is mostly irrelevant and doesn’t reflect FCL945.
Kemble Pitts liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
Sir Morley Steven wrote:I don't get it Irv. Why like a form that simply isn't fit for purpose? Its a dreadful mishmash and thus open to incorrect completion playing into the hands of the “10 day turnaround” jobsworths.

No change for me in the current arrangement, I've used 1157 for years for normal revalidation by experience, reasons below, and the new scheme is to do exactly what I do now and have been doing - fill in an 1157 and scan and email in a copy.
1157 was changed early in its EASA life (let's say 2013, could even have been earlier) to include reval by experience, because 1119E required 2 pages to be printed and copied, and some people objected to the waste of ink/paper. The CAA decided it didn't need the 'training date' and the 'hours' that it was asking for on 1119e so it just added the ability to 'reval by experience' into 1157 without them, and accept just page 1 of 1157 for reval by experience as it was all detailed on page one.
So I have used 1157 for 8 years-ish for reval by experience, and must have done 'three figures' of them or high double figures, so saved a lot of ink and copying. 1157 is much easier than 1119e in practice as you don't have to total anything other than know the requirements have been met/exceeded. If someone comes up to me for a reval by experience, i don't have to look at every flight, I only need to know they have done enough. I just spot the training hour has been done, (tick), see that more than 12 flights have been done for 12 to&l without needing to count the actual totals, and often see just 11 separate flights have been done that are 1 hour or more - without actually totalling or even counting up the minutes, because a training hour plus 11 flights of an hour or more meets requirements.
Obviously if there aren't many flights, they have to be looked at in more detail, and perhaps added up to check the 12 hours, but often there are enough entries with 'times' of an hour or over to mean requirements MUST have been exceeded - so with 1157 I often don't need to check any totalling in the log book or copy any date of training flight as long as I know everything required has been exceeded - whereas for the 1119e, I have to actually 'total'.
Then of course, much more recently, the curse of the 'new CAA staff' arrived, and presumably being millennials, had no interest in history, so when they were told to add a single small tick box for 'PBN' to 1157, had no interest that it had been designed as a one-pager for reval by experience, and duly allocated about a 6th of page one of the form to one tiny tick box, forcing an extra page. I was also lucky enough to be in the right place to eavesdrop on one of the remaining old lags in the CAA when he found out his newer colleagues had pushed 1157 to 3 pages (therefore now needing 2 for reval by experience) without consulting the 'longer-in-the-tooth' members of the team. I couldn't have expressed my feelings better than he did.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
Bathman wrote:But it still ended up being two pages and not one.

Yes, Which sort of tells us a bit about the modern CAA and why they are unlikely to get out of the mess they are in easily, (and that means we are in a mess too), as they are doing things without really understanding the side effects. (Have a look at how much space they decided was necessary for one tick box - section 3 on srg1157, from memory). But on the other hand, i still don't have to add up all sorts of hours and minutes to write them on a form knowing they are not needed
And perhaps the biggest worry is this has been pointed out to them numerous times. Yet we are stuck with the two page form.

Same for the LAPL skills test (SRG2127). Two pages to submit. Yet its just one for the PPL(SRG2128).
Irv , thanks for the info on using pg 1/2 of SRG1157 for ' reval by experience ' ....
Anyone know the email address to send it to please ? It's not on the form .

As a byline , you can still download SRG1119e form from the CAA !
As of Friday pm .

rgds condor ,
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
@condor17 it is not on the pdf but it is in the webpage that provides srg1157 pdf -

[Description:Examiners Record]

In order to avoid unnecessary delay in our processing times we ask that a single copy of this form is submitted to our department. This can be done by post or by email to [email protected]. Please ensure you do not submit more than one copy. If submitting via email there is no need to post the original.

But as @Bathman and I have mentioned, before the newbies decided a new tiny tick box needed to be socially distanced from other data on the form, your notation of 1/2 meant 1 of 2 but now means 1 and 2

Ps: nice to know someone is interested in unnecessary delay at their end whilst it appears others there are going out of their way to ensure extra delay by rejecting some forms for spurious / wrong reasons, once their ten day measurement clock ticks past 9 days, as doing so resets their clock to zero
By pembroke
Read through above and it's still is a mess! Take "renewal by test", SEP(land). Use 1157, no problem (as FE) but I should also need 1107 to either account for training at an ATO/DTO ,or "no further training required". Then I see the 1107 includes "reval. by experience" by either 945 or FE!
That is potentially 5 pages to scan, assuming you have a scanner, more importantly more pages for the CAA to wade through. 1157 should have a "no further trng. reqd. prior to Prof ck" and 1107 should return to its aim, ie "Course completion".
PS, I haven't tried the 3108 yet, most my flights are reval/renewal by prof check, which I understand has to be e mailed to "licenceapplications"?
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
@pembroke it was always the case that 1157 for renewal only needed a course completion certificate sent with it if the caa had to do something. Otherwise the examiner kept it for x years. No idea what now, no real user guide. Same complaint for e-licensing