I think we are all familiar with the Article 62 permission that allowed a UK registered aircraft to be flown by an ICAO licence holder and no doubt there are pilots operating accordingly
Deeming a non-United Kingdom flight crew licence valid 62.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted— (a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence
What you may not have noticed is that in August 2012 an amendment to the ANO was issued to take into account EASA changes. Article 62 now only applies to Annex II aircraft and not EASA aircraft:
Deeming a non-United Kingdom flight crew licence and any Part-FCL licence valid for non-EASA aircraft and deeming a non-United Kingdom radiotelephony licence valid for any aircraft 62 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this article applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is: (a) granted under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a Part-FCL licence
Therefore with no provision in the ANO you must refer to Reg 1178 Annex III
General 1. A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State. Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business. 2. The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid. This period may only be extended once by the competent authority that issued the validation when, during the validation period, the pilot has applied, or is undergoing training, for the issuance of a licence in accordance with Part-FCL. This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL. The holders of a licence accepted by a Member State shall exercise their privileges in accordance with the requirements stated in Part-FCL.
I was under the impression that this would not come into effect until April 2014 however it appears to have happened already.
Another change to the ANO has implications for pilots still flying on a BCPL. The CAA FAQs indicate that such a licence will be deemed to be a UK PPL, but reading the ANO there is no such provision and the BCPL no longer exists in law!
When the CAA stated in their letter of Oct 2010 they said they would not inform pilots individually of any further changes; they appear to have stuck to their word!
I am not sure if this is a subject for debate or a word of caution!
I think that
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business.
is a corruption of EASA FCL which states
The Basic Regulation (216/2008) says:
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
...
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community;
...
shall comply with this Regulation.
This is not the only place it happened. This CAA doc makes the same mistake: the CAA requires both the pilot and the operator to be non EU resident, whereas EASA requires only the operator to be non EU resident.
I have some stuff on the above here, but my acrobat reader on this laptop cannot open these new PDFs...
It won't IMHO make any different to straight private owner-pilots with obvious UK residence but it is going to be challenged by some less UK based operator eventually. For example it probably means that all foreign airlines (who are exempted from EASA FCL by virtue of having a non EU based operator) flying into the UK are doing so illegally 
More practically, how many people are flying a G-reg on a non UK PPL? The conversion is relatively trivial. The 100hr route means 2 exams and the skills test. I can't think of any problem except where the pilot cannot pass the CAA Class 2 medical, which is probably a significant population! But they will be able to move to the EASA LAPL, one would think...
I am not familiar with the BCPL, but isn't its history something like this:
Until 20-30 years ago, a PPL could teach a PPL and get paid for it.
That got stopped, and all such "PPL instructors" got a honorary BCPL.
There was some other change under JAA (c. 1999) whereby BCPLs got honorary CPLs.
Such CPLs could not be used for public transport but as with all UK CPLs automatically included the IMC Rating. One instructor I had (a CFI and a PPL examiner) explained to me how he got to where he was without ever doing any instrument training He got grandfathered all the way, and is now retired.
Presumably they must be grandfathering all those BCPL instructors? OTOH EASA supposedly allows a PPL to teach a PPL and get paid for it, so maybe it doesn't matter.
but as with all UK CPLs automatically included the IMC Rating.
No, the BCPL did not include IMC privileges it had to be added as a separate rating.
Presumably they must be grandfathering all those BCPL instructors?
No need to, they have the privilege to instruct and can be remunerated on a PPL they are simply returning from whence they came however; it is up to the individual to obtain a valid licence. The only problem will be those who let the FI go and then discover they need CPL level knowledge to get it back again.
There are two types of BCPL. The BCPL came about because it was decided to you had to hold a CPL to be a FI (I think that was an ICAO requirement) and thus the BCPL came into being.
To aid compliance all PPL FI were given a BCPL (restricted) and they carried on as before and if they now try to renew their licenses they will be given PPL which of course you can now be paid on. So noting gained nothing lost.
There is another type of BCPL (unrestricted) and these were guys you passed all the CPL TK passed a CPL GFT and were the issued with a BCPL (unrestricted) and when you got to 700 hours you where automatically given a CPL. Which has in built IMC privileges.
Despite BCPL holders having to hold a BCPL as it was a prerequisite for the CPL GFT they didn’t get in built IMC privileges but once they got to 700 hours then a simple paperwork upgrade to CPL and they got in built IMC privileges for life.
So to be frank the standard for the BCPL was in my opinion higher than the current CPL.
And if you wanted to upgrade to an ATPL you needed 1500 hours and 100 night. You also had to pass CPL to ATPL upgrade exams. Also all written exam passes were valid for life for IR issue.
Under EASA all those BCPL (unrestricted) holders will be issued with a UK CPL. Which of course can be converted to an EASA CPL.
Which is were I get pissed of.
Come 1999 or 2000 I can’t remember the CAA would no longer upgrade BCPL holders with 700 hours to a CPL.
Unfortunately muggins here couldn't hold a Class one medical at the time and so couldn't be issued with a CPL. A couple of years later my health improved and I could but by then it was too late.
There was however a JAR upgrade route in LASORS and this involved passing a CPL GFT in a complex type. However in the last edition of LASORS a date was given when this update pass was to be removed.
At the time I was under the impression (as was everyone else) that all BCPL holders would be issued with PPLs. As I work at a FTO that offers CPL training I wouldn't be able to do this on a PPL. So with a month to spare I forked out about 6 grand in MEP training and passed a CPL LPC and got issued a JAR CPL.
I know of 3 other instructors that did this.
Then come CAP 804 out of the blue it states that all BCPL (unrestricted) holders are now classed as CPL holders and when it expires you apply to the CAA and will be given a UK CPL with in built IMC privileges.
So I've wasted 6 grand on absolutely nothing. In fact I've come out with less because I don't have in built IMC privileges. In fact I spent more money then I've earnt in the last 3 years working part time as an instructor.
Not happy
The PPL FIs were given a BCPL(Restricted), not those who took the exams; they qualified fora full BCPL. The BCPL is convertible to a UK CPL and thence an EASA CPL but the BCPL(Restricted) is only convertible to a PPL.
The lack of warning regarding the CAP804 conversion was very unfair and left a number of people with a large bill for nothing gained.
Correction:
When I wrote
For example it probably means that all foreign airlines (who are exempted from EASA FCL by virtue of having a non EU based operator) flying into the UK are doing so illegally
I meant to say
For example it probably means that all foreign airlines who might employ an EU resident pilot (who are exempted from EASA FCL by virtue of having a non EU based operator) flying into the UK are doing so illegally
This was discussed at length in other places and nobody could think of a way in which such a foreign airline would be legal, other than via the use of "operator" in EASA FCL, which does not contain any special dispensation for airlines, AOC holders, etc.
Now that the CAA has expanded "operator" to "pilot or operator" (in effect) you get this stupid side effect.
The world has gone mad - because somebody in the CAA didn't read EASA FCL before drafting their own version of it.
The fact that the foreign reg attack in EASA FCL is in many cases meaningless is another story...
The world has gone mad - because somebody in the CAA didn't read EASA FCL before drafting their own version of it.
It really does't matter if the CAA read it or not, because their version of events has no legal standing. EU Regulation takes precedence over anything the CAA may produce and they in turn cannot be more stringent than the basic regulation.
"The lack of warning regarding the CAP804 conversion was very unfair and left a number of people with a large bill for nothing gained."
Thank you tumbleweed I feel much better after venting my spleen and it’s nice to know someone out there actually cares. It’s a shame you don't work for the CAA cause I don't think they give a toss.
Anyway I'm off home now as its started snowing and I'll hop in my car with 183 thousand miles on the clock. Which the misses is nagging me like mad to replace but I can’t afford to. If she ever finds out what I’ve spent 6 grand on it will be one hell of a cold day in hell.
