Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811200
I've put this under licensing as the examples I quote are all in that area. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but I've been wondering why "we" :roll: often try to stop pilots doing things, for no apparent safety reason, rather than trying to allow as much as possible within safety boundaries? Clearly there are forward thinking and open minded people in national regulation, (thank you those people), or we would not have PMDs, or NPPLs. But what drives the other people, the ones that felt they could raise some of the issues below in the first place, never mind find enough backing to invoke most of them:
    Why would/did anyone ever suggest totally banning national licences from flying what we currently call EASA aircraft - licences that were most likely gained in those aircraft?
    Why would anyone suggest that someone who has hundreds of hours flying such things as microlight Eurostars around Europe on an NPPL(M) cannot have a full ICAO PPL without doing a full 45 hours ab initio PPL course, ground and flight training and test, in order to do the same thing in a C150?
    Why would anyone suggest that it is ok to let a pilot who, through not being the sharpest skilled person, took 100+ hours to get an FAA PPL fly here on a simple declaration yet a talented pilot who got an FAA PPL in minimum hours cannot have a licence conversion here unless they fly another 50+ hours or have a full 45 hour ab initio PPL course?
    Why would we ban non-UK lapls, which we fully understand, and even issue ourselves to the same training and standards, from flying across our airspace say between Eire and Belgium. I know what pretext would be used if we did that ("non-ICAO"), but why would this even enter our heads that we would disapprove of this, or even banning non-UK Lapl pilots flying into the UK? (I've seen this sort of thing suggested, it hasn't been done yet).
    Why would anyone think that flying 12 hours in a second year of 2 years 'means anything' in itself for flying 2 more years?
What drives people who think like that?
JAFO, Jimmybob, Stampe liked this
#1811203
Irv Lee wrote:Why would we ban non-UK lapls, which we fully understand, and even issue ourselves to the same training and standards, from flying across our airspace say between Eire and Belgium. I know what pretext would be used if we did that ("non-ICAO"), but why would this even enter our heads that we would disapprove of this, or even banning non-UK Lapl pilots flying into the UK?

Reciprocity. I have no problem with EASA LAPLs flying in the UK but I would expect EASA to offer the same rights to UK LAPLs. If EASA refuse to allow UK LAPL holders to fly in EASA airspace then we should reciprocate.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811209
People are often stupid, that's we have regulators who inevitably err heavily on the side of caution....and that often translates into a sort of, "the answer's no, now what was the question?" culture that can become very deeply embedded and the compensation culture and blame game in the UK doesn't help.
User avatar
By AndyR
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811286
low&slow wrote:
Irv Lee wrote:Why would we ban non-UK lapls, which we fully understand, and even issue ourselves to the same training and standards, from flying across our airspace say between Eire and Belgium. I know what pretext would be used if we did that ("non-ICAO"), but why would this even enter our heads that we would disapprove of this, or even banning non-UK Lapl pilots flying into the UK?

Reciprocity. I have no problem with EASA LAPLs flying in the UK but I would expect EASA to offer the same rights to UK LAPLs. If EASA refuse to allow UK LAPL holders to fly in EASA airspace then we should reciprocate.


Or we could lead the way and shame ‘them’ into a reciprocal arrangement......

.....oh hang on, that would be positive, we couldn’t possibly do that :roll:
JAFO, Kemble Pitts liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811288
Lapl: I can see why I might be in a minority (maybe a very small one) but I think it is better not to descend to their expected level, (not that they have actually set a definite level officially yet as far as I know.)
Kemble Pitts liked this
#1811295
My understanding of the CAA webinar was that non-UK EASA licence holders, including LAPL, would have a 2 year window during which their licences would be considered valid for UK airspace & G-reg aircraft. I think that is a very practical & generous compromise. If EASA are incapable of offering a similar compromise within the next 2 years then we should not be afraid to give them a taste of their own medicine.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811299
Everybody is out of step except our Jimmy ...... again.

There are 31 countries in EASA (not including the UK as we have already left it's just that the transition has not completed) who are slowly and steadily engineering a common regime and agreeing assorted messy compromises, why would they be interested in spending time on the UK's moans and whinges???
Kittyhawk liked this
#1811300
johnm wrote:Everybody is out of step except our Jimmy ...... again.

There are 31 countries in EASA (not including the UK as we have already left it's just that the transition has not completed) who are slowly and steadily engineering a common regime and agreeing assorted messy compromises, why would they be interested in spending time on the UK's moans and whinges???


Because, apparently unlike some people on here, many people still like Britain and would like to visit. Pilots from Europe would like to be able to fly here.
Supercat, rogerb, ak7274 liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811303
JAFO wrote:
johnm wrote:Everybody is out of step except our Jimmy ...... again.

There are 31 countries in EASA (not including the UK as we have already left it's just that the transition has not completed) who are slowly and steadily engineering a common regime and agreeing assorted messy compromises, why would they be interested in spending time on the UK's moans and whinges???


Because, apparently unlike some people on here, many people still like Britain and would like to visit. Pilots from Europe would like to be able to fly here.


and so they can if they hold a PPL if LAPL then they will need an agreement and, if there's enough of them, they can push the discussion up the EASA priority list.
Last edited by johnm on Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811306
JAFO wrote:So, you've answered your own question, that's why they'd spend time on it. Not everybody in the world wants, needs or can gain a PPL, IR, Bells and Whistles.


Indeed and if that group is strong enough to get the attention of CAA EASA I have no doubt an agreement can be reached. The issue is all about priorities and resources. The irony is, of course, that we have to spend significant amounts of time and energy getting back to the answer we first thought of....t'was ever thus....
By rogerb
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811322
low&slow wrote:My understanding of the CAA webinar was that non-UK EASA licence holders, including LAPL, would have a 2 year window during which their licences would be considered valid for UK airspace & G-reg aircraft. I think that is a very practical & generous compromise. If EASA are incapable of offering a similar compromise within the next 2 years then we should not be afraid to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Unless good sense breaks I expect an extension in about 23 months. :D
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1811324
low&slow wrote:My understanding of the CAA webinar was that non-UK EASA licence holders, including LAPL, would have a 2 year window during which their licences would be considered valid for UK airspace & G-reg aircraft.

That statement is not quite correct. As things stand, non-UK EASA licences and rating will be accepted for the current period of their validity up to a maximum of two years.

If your French SEP rating expires Jan 31, you’ll get a month. For an LAPL I assume that means if you can keep it valid through currency, it rolls on for up to the two years, but if you let the rolling requirements lapse and you need a PC, it’s game over.