[Arrow Flyer]

I'm trying to understand the basis on which the examiner issued the temporary certificate. It's a moot point now as your new licence has been issued, but was your CAA brown licence one of the non-expiring ones or had it expired?

Purely as an academic point, I was under the impression:
- Students can be authorised to fly after passing their skill test in accordance with FCL.020 and outlined here
- Existing licence holders can exercise new class/type rating privileges etc via the SRG1100 temporary licensing certificate
- Expired licence holders cannot be authorised as even after an SEP proficiency check the underlying licence has expired and requires re-issue by the CAA

The only valid combination I can fathom is a non-expiring brown licence, in combination with the ORS 1471 exemption which became law in June, plus an SEP proficiency check and SRG1100?

Any ideas @Cookie?

[YorkshireMatt]

I passed my FRTOL two weeks ago, did the form on the CAA website and it turned up in the post today. So about 2 weeks from clicking submit to it arriving with me.

[Cookie]

Any ideas @Cookie?

Funny you should mention that as I wondered the same.

The only valid combination I can fathom is a non-expiring brown licence, in combination with the ORS 1471 exemption which became law in June, plus an SEP proficiency check and SRG1100?

Even with an old brown licence, a SRG1100 would not be valid as Temporary Licence Certificates (SRG1100/1100A) can only be issued for ratings and certificates within Part-FCL licences. It specifically states this at the top of the certificate.

Lifetime licence, class rating in Section XII, medical (or PMD) and examiner signing the Certificate of Revalidation following SEP Proficiency Check would have provided a valid combination.

Cookie

[TrickyWoo]

I passed my FRTOL two weeks ago, did the form on the CAA website and it turned up in the post today. So about 2 weeks from clicking submit to it arriving with me.

Hi,

I took my FRTOL test last week and the language level 6 box is ticked too. The examiner said there's no separate license or document to come - it will just shows up as an item on my LAPL when I get it. What turned up in the post pls?

[Irv Lee]

@TrickyWoo my guess: nppl microlight

[TrickyWoo]

Ah - thank you

[CessnaWarrior]

I received my freshly minted PPL (LAPL Upgrade) today, took exactly 10 working days. Fairly good from the CAA (credit where it is due).

I did notice a subtle change in the validity section from the LAPL/NPPL to full fat PPL.

The LAPL/NPPL did state that the license was valid for the holders life time. That whole line has been removed in my new UK CAA PPL.

Not sure if it's meant to say this or if has been purposefully removed...

[Bathman]

I'm sure we will be heading back to licences that are only valid for 5 years now we are out of EASA.

[GrahamB]

I'm sure we will be heading back to licences that are only valid for 5 years now we are out of EASA.

Why?

Before the emergence of JAR they were lifetime licences; and they went back to being lifetime once EASA took over.

The CAA would have to look very hard to find any safety benefit from the JAR stupidity.

[TopCat]

I'm sure we will be heading back to licences that are only valid for 5 years now we are out of EASA.

Why?

Before the emergence of JAR they were lifetime licences; and they went back to being lifetime once EASA took over.

The CAA would have to look very hard to find any safety benefit from the JAR stupidity.

Who cares about safety benefit?

There's plenty of money-printing benefit.

Just because they were less prone to extracting cash for no reason at all in the distant past is no reason to expect they will be again.

[kanga]

.. they were less prone to extracting cash for no reason at all in the distant past is no reason to expect they will be again..

now, it is not 'for no reason at all'; it is because Treasury has told all regulatory agencies that they must

[GrahamB]

There is a big difference between recovering your costs on processes which have to exist, and creating additional processes just so you can charge for them.

There is a cost base which by law has to be recovered. Like it or not, it is what it is. Adding new unnecessary processes with no safety justification actually increases that cost base and would not stand challenge.