JAR compliant licences
The Bumblebee
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopper,
Correct me if I am wrong, you can consult your examiner if you wish.
My understanding is that the exam papers belongs to the school and not the flight examiner. The examiner is only the custodian of the exam papers and if he/she leaves the school, the exam papers either remains with the school or sent back to the CAA.
If your examiner have kept the exam papers without being attached to a CAA FTO/RF I'd like to know how he/she has done that. In fact, I might call CAA and ask them to send me a set of exam papers as well
(what do you reckon KeyGrip, can it be done!!)
What I don't understand is why you say it is JAR Compliant licence. Why not just say that come to us, do the FAA licence and one can exercise the priviledges of FAA licence in the UK airspace.
Cheers,
Jatin
Correct me if I am wrong, you can consult your examiner if you wish.
My understanding is that the exam papers belongs to the school and not the flight examiner. The examiner is only the custodian of the exam papers and if he/she leaves the school, the exam papers either remains with the school or sent back to the CAA.
If your examiner have kept the exam papers without being attached to a CAA FTO/RF I'd like to know how he/she has done that. In fact, I might call CAA and ask them to send me a set of exam papers as well
(what do you reckon KeyGrip, can it be done!!)What I don't understand is why you say it is JAR Compliant licence. Why not just say that come to us, do the FAA licence and one can exercise the priviledges of FAA licence in the UK airspace.
Cheers,
Jatin
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR Compliant PPL is an FAA PPL with orientation of UK procedures, the RT prepartion and RT practical test. I do not think there is any requirement for RT or any other exams but it definately makes sense as it makes flying easier and safer on return. I could have gone to my local flying club and done the same after my return.
I did my PPL with them and I have flown to France in a G reg aircraft without any problems. The school provided me a written statement by the French Civil Avaition that they do not have any problem as long as UK CAA is happy for me to fly on my FAA PPL.
I did the FAA PPL or JAR Compliant as the school calls it because its much easier to maintain. I can also add the Multi Engine rating to my FAA PPL and use it in the UK. I will be a fool to do the JAA Multi Engine Rating where I need to do 8 sectors and a flight with an examiner every 12 months.
Happy Flying...
I did my PPL with them and I have flown to France in a G reg aircraft without any problems. The school provided me a written statement by the French Civil Avaition that they do not have any problem as long as UK CAA is happy for me to fly on my FAA PPL.
I did the FAA PPL or JAR Compliant as the school calls it because its much easier to maintain. I can also add the Multi Engine rating to my FAA PPL and use it in the UK. I will be a fool to do the JAA Multi Engine Rating where I need to do 8 sectors and a flight with an examiner every 12 months.
Happy Flying...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vinil,
You only need 1 sector (15 minute cruise included in the proficiency check) but why have such a rating on a PPL if one never uses it.
---
Even if the UK have said that it is OK for pilots with US licences to have the same priviliges as UK pilots (with some exceptions) the JAA has made no such allowance.
Isn't the UK required to follow JAA requirements when validating ICAO licences?
At the very best, this can be called a UK NPPL compliant licence - but I think that even to say that, the statement would have to be included on the licence.
European licences that are JAR compliant have a statement to that effect in the licence. The FAA can not put such a statement on their licences.
I have yet to see that letter from France. It must be only sent to those who apply directly to fly G reg aircraft on non-JAA licences. What must be remembered is that if one holds a copy of a letter sent to another pilot in response to an application by them, that approval may only apply to that individual and may not be a general exemption. Such general exemptions are normally the subject of an AIC or will be publicised through a representative organisation such as AOPA.
What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence.
IMHO, if the training is not JAR compliant then the resultant licence can not be either.
Regards,
DFC
You only need 1 sector (15 minute cruise included in the proficiency check) but why have such a rating on a PPL if one never uses it.
---
Even if the UK have said that it is OK for pilots with US licences to have the same priviliges as UK pilots (with some exceptions) the JAA has made no such allowance.
Isn't the UK required to follow JAA requirements when validating ICAO licences?
At the very best, this can be called a UK NPPL compliant licence - but I think that even to say that, the statement would have to be included on the licence.
European licences that are JAR compliant have a statement to that effect in the licence. The FAA can not put such a statement on their licences.
I have yet to see that letter from France. It must be only sent to those who apply directly to fly G reg aircraft on non-JAA licences. What must be remembered is that if one holds a copy of a letter sent to another pilot in response to an application by them, that approval may only apply to that individual and may not be a general exemption. Such general exemptions are normally the subject of an AIC or will be publicised through a representative organisation such as AOPA.
What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence.
IMHO, if the training is not JAR compliant then the resultant licence can not be either.
Regards,
DFC
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 69
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence.
I know of many schools that have applied for JAA approval - there are bigger problems in the application system - and "meeting the standards required" is not currently one of them.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I didn't make any comment on the school's ability to provide FAA training - I am sure that they prepare pilot's excellently for flying in the USA.
It was simply a comment based on the fact that if they could provide JAA training then they would.
We all have to do whatever is required so that we can train under the jaa.
What we don't do is train people for the NPPL and call it a Jar compliant licence which is what I feel is happening here.
Regards,
DFC
It was simply a comment based on the fact that if they could provide JAA training then they would.
We all have to do whatever is required so that we can train under the jaa.
What we don't do is train people for the NPPL and call it a Jar compliant licence which is what I feel is happening here.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only go by what the CAA infomed me of. I thought the CAA represented the JAA in the UK, therfore when they say that you can fly a G reg aircraft with a FAA PPL, they are quoting from the JAA rules.
Here is the letter from the French Civil Aviation:
Concerning the questions you asked me yesterday, here're the answers.
Question 1: a british citizen with a ICAO private licence wants to fly from England to France on a British registred aircraft.
Answer : As long as the British Civil Aviation recognize the ICAO private licence and allows the pilot to fly over UK, the pilot can fly to France on a British aircraft (but not on a french one) regarded to the British autorisation.
********************************
Send all the documents to:
DISTRICT AERONAUTIQUE ILE DE FRANCE
BUREAU DES LICENCES
ORLY SUD N°108
94396 ORLY AEROGARES CEDEX
FRANCE
I hope you have all your answers, if you need more informations contact me.
Approval:
I went to Headcorn airfield and saw sheep grazing around the runway with a fence on the approach end. There were many days the runway was closed due to rain.
After seeing the state of general aviation UK airports I decided to train in the US where I experienced first class facilities. I was flying in the same airspace with the big boys.
There is no need for CAA approval for FAA training.
Here is the letter from the French Civil Aviation:
Concerning the questions you asked me yesterday, here're the answers.
Question 1: a british citizen with a ICAO private licence wants to fly from England to France on a British registred aircraft.
Answer : As long as the British Civil Aviation recognize the ICAO private licence and allows the pilot to fly over UK, the pilot can fly to France on a British aircraft (but not on a french one) regarded to the British autorisation.
********************************
Send all the documents to:
DISTRICT AERONAUTIQUE ILE DE FRANCE
BUREAU DES LICENCES
ORLY SUD N°108
94396 ORLY AEROGARES CEDEX
FRANCE
I hope you have all your answers, if you need more informations contact me.
Approval:
I went to Headcorn airfield and saw sheep grazing around the runway with a fence on the approach end. There were many days the runway was closed due to rain.
After seeing the state of general aviation UK airports I decided to train in the US where I experienced first class facilities. I was flying in the same airspace with the big boys.
There is no need for CAA approval for FAA training.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR compliant licence
There seems to be an unpleasant movement to rubbish one particular school in the USA and others, including mine, by association:
"What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence".
I have to say that looking at the website at www.ukft.com they advertise JAA professional licences including JAR modular CPL (frozen ATPL) and the JAA PPL. It therefore appears that the statement above is not true in that they do train for JAA licences and therefore do apparently meet the standards required.
As for the comment about the UK NPPL compliant licence, where did that come from? Who has ever mentioned that before? Yet another example of unfair sniping?
You will know from previous posts that I am the owner of Dutch Country Helicopters Ltd and I am getting fed up with the inaccurate sniping going on. Training in the USA, in my view having trained under both systems, is at least as good and is a hell of a lot cheaper. That is why I left the UK and bought a flight school in the USA. I know that does not sit well with one or two regular posters but it really would be better to get the facts straight before engaging computer keyboard.
"What people doing this licence must remember is that the only reason why this school does not train for JAA licences is that it can not meet the standards required to provide the training safely. So people do the same hours at the same cost but don't get the licence".
I have to say that looking at the website at www.ukft.com they advertise JAA professional licences including JAR modular CPL (frozen ATPL) and the JAA PPL. It therefore appears that the statement above is not true in that they do train for JAA licences and therefore do apparently meet the standards required.
As for the comment about the UK NPPL compliant licence, where did that come from? Who has ever mentioned that before? Yet another example of unfair sniping?
You will know from previous posts that I am the owner of Dutch Country Helicopters Ltd and I am getting fed up with the inaccurate sniping going on. Training in the USA, in my view having trained under both systems, is at least as good and is a hell of a lot cheaper. That is why I left the UK and bought a flight school in the USA. I know that does not sit well with one or two regular posters but it really would be better to get the facts straight before engaging computer keyboard.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it true to say that in order to own a US flight school and US aircraft that one must be a citizen of the US?
Can't seem to equate that with being "British Owned".
The only "JAR Compliant Licence" that I would spend money on is one that "JAR Compliant" printed on it by the issuing authority.
Some people believe that these schools are claiming compliance with JAR-FCL 1.015. However, the FAA licence is only part of the process and unles the pilot holds a JAA medical then it counts for nought.
There is also the small matter that validation of an FAA PPL with IR is for a maximum of 1 year!
I believe that if one enrols on the professional course that part of the training is done in Scotland.
"Module 5
CONVERSION TO JAR MULTI ENGINE & MULTI ENGINE INSTRUMENT RATING
10 hours Simulator FNPT 11, 7 hours PA34 (includes 2 hour allowance for Skill Test)
(Reduced from 55 hours) "
Both the US and UK training establishement seem to have forgotten that the trainng requirement is based on an assessment of the pilot and thus can not be fixed in advance. There is also the fact that it would have to be a very poor IR pilot who would need 55 hours to convert to UK flying!
Are we wrong to say that people to pay without checking deserve what they get?
Regards,
DFC
Can't seem to equate that with being "British Owned".
The only "JAR Compliant Licence" that I would spend money on is one that "JAR Compliant" printed on it by the issuing authority.
Some people believe that these schools are claiming compliance with JAR-FCL 1.015. However, the FAA licence is only part of the process and unles the pilot holds a JAA medical then it counts for nought.
There is also the small matter that validation of an FAA PPL with IR is for a maximum of 1 year!
I believe that if one enrols on the professional course that part of the training is done in Scotland.
"Module 5
CONVERSION TO JAR MULTI ENGINE & MULTI ENGINE INSTRUMENT RATING
10 hours Simulator FNPT 11, 7 hours PA34 (includes 2 hour allowance for Skill Test)
(Reduced from 55 hours) "
Both the US and UK training establishement seem to have forgotten that the trainng requirement is based on an assessment of the pilot and thus can not be fixed in advance. There is also the fact that it would have to be a very poor IR pilot who would need 55 hours to convert to UK flying!
Are we wrong to say that people to pay without checking deserve what they get?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK owned
A British citizen can own a flight school in the USA. Both Dutch Country Helicopters Ltd and UK Flight training are British owned by British citizens. The aircraft and helicopters are registered through a USA corporation.
That's the trouble with facts, they get in the way of rumour don't they?
That's the trouble with facts, they get in the way of rumour don't they?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC has too much time on his hand. He needs to get his facts right.
DFC,I am still trying to to figure out where the NPPL fits in with obtaining a FAA PPL in the USA. As we all know that one can fly a G Reg aircraft in the UK and overseas. If one still wants a JAA PPL then they simply need to take a few more written exams and a Skill test that UKFT offers for FREE..
DFC,I am still trying to to figure out where the NPPL fits in with obtaining a FAA PPL in the USA. As we all know that one can fly a G Reg aircraft in the UK and overseas. If one still wants a JAA PPL then they simply need to take a few more written exams and a Skill test that UKFT offers for FREE..
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was said is that the UK NPPL is equally "JAA Compliant" as an FAA licence. They both are not.
JAR–FCL 1.005 Applicability
(2) Whenever licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates are mentioned in JAR–FCL, these are meant to be licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
In all other cases these documents are specified as e.g. ICAO or national licences.
(3) Whenever a reference is made to JAA Member State for the purpose of mutual recognition of licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates, this means JAA full Member State.
So since the FAA licence is not issued in accordance with JAR-FCL it is an ICAO licence or a National Licence of the USA...whichever one likes.
Perhaps the USA wants to join the JAA?
Regards,
DFC
JAR–FCL 1.005 Applicability
(2) Whenever licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates are mentioned in JAR–FCL, these are meant to be licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
In all other cases these documents are specified as e.g. ICAO or national licences.
(3) Whenever a reference is made to JAA Member State for the purpose of mutual recognition of licences, ratings, authorisations, approvals or certificates, this means JAA full Member State.
So since the FAA licence is not issued in accordance with JAR-FCL it is an ICAO licence or a National Licence of the USA...whichever one likes.
Perhaps the USA wants to join the JAA? Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR compliant
It now seems clear that whatever is said will be misinterpreted by DFC. I don't really want to get into a competition but like others I dislike inaccuracy. DFC raised the NPPL by saying "UK NPPL compliant licence" he did not mention JAR compliant NPPL. It formed no part of the discussion and took us absolutely nowhere.
The facts are that the FAA licence is an ICAO licence which is in no way inferior to the JAA licence. It can be used in Europe in exactly the same way as in the USA. In G registered aircraft that means at night, because it contains a night rating, and across borders without hinderance. That has been confirmed with the CAA. It applies to every licence holder not individual ones who went to the trouble of obtaining written confirmation.
A number of inaccurate assertions have been made by DFC which have been politely answered by myself and others. I would have thought that an apology would now be offered by him but that is probably expecting too much. Or is it?
The facts are that the FAA licence is an ICAO licence which is in no way inferior to the JAA licence. It can be used in Europe in exactly the same way as in the USA. In G registered aircraft that means at night, because it contains a night rating, and across borders without hinderance. That has been confirmed with the CAA. It applies to every licence holder not individual ones who went to the trouble of obtaining written confirmation.
A number of inaccurate assertions have been made by DFC which have been politely answered by myself and others. I would have thought that an apology would now be offered by him but that is probably expecting too much. Or is it?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts are that the FAA licence is an ICAO licence which is in no way inferior to the JAA licence. It can be used in Europe in exactly the same way as in the USA. In G registered aircraft that means at night, because it contains a night rating, and across borders without hinderance. That has been confirmed with the CAA. It applies to every licence holder not individual ones who went to the trouble of obtaining written confirmation
I never said anything to contradict the above other than to remind people that if the PPL inlcludes an IR, the maximum validation period is 1 year. The CAA does not permit IFR ops in controlled airspace with a G reg/FAAlicence so an IR is not of much use anyway unless flying an N reg aircraft.
but like others I dislike inaccuracy
Couldn't agree more. That is why I say that an FAA licence is not JAR compliant. It is simply an FAA licence.
Feel free to copy that part of the JARs that says an FAA (or any other ICAO licence) complies with the requirements of JAR-FCL without further requirements.
The fact that FAA medical standards are different from JAA ones alone means that one can hold an FAA licence but be unable to hold any JAA licence - not very JAA compliant then is it.
Regards,
DFC
I never said anything to contradict the above other than to remind people that if the PPL inlcludes an IR, the maximum validation period is 1 year. The CAA does not permit IFR ops in controlled airspace with a G reg/FAAlicence so an IR is not of much use anyway unless flying an N reg aircraft.
but like others I dislike inaccuracy
Couldn't agree more. That is why I say that an FAA licence is not JAR compliant. It is simply an FAA licence.
Feel free to copy that part of the JARs that says an FAA (or any other ICAO licence) complies with the requirements of JAR-FCL without further requirements.
The fact that FAA medical standards are different from JAA ones alone means that one can hold an FAA licence but be unable to hold any JAA licence - not very JAA compliant then is it.
Regards,
DFC
Last edited by DFC; 10th Feb 2004 at 17:07.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jar compliant
If DFC had previously said what he said at the beginning of his message above we would not have had much to argue about. He now says, "I never said anything to contradict the above other than...........".
What he actually said on 23 January 2004 was ,"The holder of an FAA licence can fly a G registered aircraft within the UK by day VFR. They can not fly by night". This inaccurate assertion was the problem and was not something I could let pass without comment.
I suppose the good thing is that DFC now seems to accept that ICAO licence holders can fly at night and outside the UK in G registered aircraft. That has been my position and the position of the CAA all along.
Hopefully we can put this behind us now and concentrate on what is important and that is to provide the best training we can whilst providing the best value for money.
Regards,
Chopperpilot47
What he actually said on 23 January 2004 was ,"The holder of an FAA licence can fly a G registered aircraft within the UK by day VFR. They can not fly by night". This inaccurate assertion was the problem and was not something I could let pass without comment.
I suppose the good thing is that DFC now seems to accept that ICAO licence holders can fly at night and outside the UK in G registered aircraft. That has been my position and the position of the CAA all along.
Hopefully we can put this behind us now and concentrate on what is important and that is to provide the best training we can whilst providing the best value for money.
Regards,
Chopperpilot47
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ther was I thinking that the argument was about someone advertising a "JAA Compliant Licence" when the licence issued is not JAR Compliant? 
IMHO if the UK CAA can't put "JAA Compliant" on my old licence which has been round for the past 20 years and renewed several times in accordance with JAR-FCL (or claim that it is such), the FAA sure can't put it on any of their licences and no organisation can claim that an FAA licence is JAR compliant.
Are we debating questionable advertising or are we debating the uses of ICAO licences?
Regards,
DFC
IMHO if the UK CAA can't put "JAA Compliant" on my old licence which has been round for the past 20 years and renewed several times in accordance with JAR-FCL (or claim that it is such), the FAA sure can't put it on any of their licences and no organisation can claim that an FAA licence is JAR compliant.
Are we debating questionable advertising or are we debating the uses of ICAO licences?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR Compliant Licences
Having looked back on this thread I should point out that the assertion made by DFC that an IR qualification is only valid for a year is incorrect. Have a look at "Flying N Reg aircraft in Europe" on the questions in Flight Deck Forums where DFC was corrected when he repeated the incorrect information there.
Makes a habit of it doesn't he?
Makes a habit of it doesn't he?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Albans
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Instructor License
I'm interested in obtaining a Flight Instructor's License such that I can instruct for profit in the UK. I'm interested in doing the course as cheaply as possible. I have a British CPL. It seems that a JAR compliant licence may be the answer, BUT I'd like to check it out with the CAA before I pay out any monies. Can the owner of Dutch Country Helicopters please give me the name of his CAA contact so I can verfy this. Also does anyone know of any good schools in the US where I can get my License.