It is possible, and absolutely what I want to achieve but at the minute it would involve a considerable investment of time and money which I don’t really have to spare. My problem yes, and I agree that it would have been easier for the UK to remain in EASA. It also (I think) would me paying out of my own pocket (and time) for an extra LPC every year to keep my EASA type rating valid, or risk it becoming expired by more than 3 years and requiring considerably more training to get back. Maybe I have this wrong but I that’s my understanding of it as things stand.
Pirho wrote:
… requiring considerably more training to get back. Maybe I have this wrong…
Renewal of class, type, and instrument ratings in Part-FCL licences does not require formal training or an evaluation by an ATO when the equivalent rating is held on an Annex 1-compliant licence. The third-country rating must be valid.
FCL.625
(e) Holders of a valid IR on a pilot licence issued by a third country
in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention shall be exempted
from complying with the requirements in points (c)(1), (c)(2) and (d)
when renewing the IR privileges contained in licences issued in
accordance with this Annex.
FCL.740
(b) […]
Applicants shall be exempted from the requirement in points (b)(1) and
(2) if they hold a valid rating for the same class or type of
aircraft on a pilot licence issued by a third country in accordance
with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention and if they are entitled to
exercise the privileges of that rating.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2193 of 16 December 2020
The 3 year bit is mentioned here. The UK ceased to operate it in 2014; not sure about EASA.
My normal approach, which usually pays off, is to never act on fear 
Things usually turn out to be better than the worst-case. One exception I made to that was to obtain the JAA IR conversion in 2011, which cost me many thousands and a huge amount of hassle. And even on the last revalidation the CAA “lost” the papers for 9 months so in the end I got only 3 months’ validity, and while they told me they will give me a fresh 12m, they basically told me that since I had not recorded the phone call they won’t do it.
AFAIK, The UK was unable to remain part of EASA without agreeing to remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Which in part was one of the reasons for Brexit.
Thanks for that info, I wasn’t aware of it (having never had reason to before!). That is at least some good news if I do manage to get an EASA licence back.
Pirho wrote:
Thanks for that info, I wasn’t aware of it (having never had reason to before!).
Considering that this was an amendment published only one month ago and which entered into force 9 days ago, you shouldn’t feel bad for not knowing about it. I had no idea either. This looks like a Brexit-motivated change, particularly in view of item 8 in the motivation part of the amending regulation:
Negotiations between the Union and certain third countries are still ongoing, including on the conversion of pilot licences and associated medical certificates. In order to ensure that Member States may continue to recognise third country licences and medical certificates for an interim period in light of those negotiations, it is necessary to prolong the period during which Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 in their territory to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of certain aircraft.
This does not reference the precise changes Qalupalik mentioned, but I’d be surprised if Brexit didn’t play a role.
Those rules have been in force in the EU since 22 Nov 2019 having been first included in the EU Aircrew Regulation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1747 of 15 October 2019. The provisions prior to that time existed in the form of derogations granted by various Member States and approved by the European Commission. For instrument and aircraft ratings respectively these decisions were notified in:
The UK began granting a derogation from FCL.625 in early 2013 as indicated in para 1 of Annex V to the first decision (instrument ratings):
By letter of 18 March 2013, the Government of the United Kingdom (UK)
notified the Commission and EASA of their intention to derogate from
this provision of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on the basis of Article
14(6) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
That derogation was granted by the UK under threat of legal action by a group of British pilots returning from Hong Kong.
It was UK policy in the early days of JAR-FCL to take third-country and military instrument ratings into account when determining renewal requirements. The requirement to retake theoretical knowledge exams for IRs, which had been expired for 7 years, was introduced in JAR-FCL 1.185 amendment 1 (adopted by the JAA on 01 Jun 2000) (pdf link):
(e) If the IR has not been revalidated/renewed within the preceding
7 years, the holder will be required to retake the IR theoretical
knowledge examination.
In amendment 4 (adopted by the JAA on 01 Sep 2005 and in force in the UK from 15 Mar 2007) the renewal actions were extended to retaking the skill test:
(c) If the IR has not been revalidated/renewed within the preceding
7 years, the holder will be required to retake the IR theoretical
knowledge examination and skill test in accordance with Appendix 1 to
JAR-FCL 1.210.
Between 2008 and 2010 guidance published by UK CAA in LASORS (Licensing, Administration and Standardisation & Operating Requirements and Safety) changed which had the effect of disenfranchising JAR-FCL licence holders who had been working outside the JAA member states. The change in policy occurred without consultation or proper notification. Several years later Part-FCL came into effect with the same failure to recognise third-country IRs. By that time a group of British pilots had returned from Hong Kong with JAR-FCL IRs which had expired by more than 7 years. They successfully argued that retaking the IR theory exams and skill test would be disproportionate owing to the on-going exercise of IR privileges on a third-country licence. The UK in response granted the derogations mentioned above and they have now been incorporated into the Aircrew Regulation. You can find some of the history of this by searching online for “UK CAA IR Fiasco”.
The LASORS guidance material is copied below for reference.
| LASORS 2008, section E (pdf link) | LASORS 2010, section E (pdf link) |
|
Renewal of an IR The requirements to renew an IR are based on the period of time elapsed since the rating expired i.e. calculated from the date of expiry of the most recent IR proficiency check entered in the licence. However, where IR privileges have been exercised in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a UK military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry date of that IR. |
Renewal of an IR The requirements to renew an IR are based on the period of time elapsed since the rating expired i.e. calculated from the date of expiry of the most recent IR proficiency check entered in the licence. Where where less than 7 years have elapsed since the IR expired but IR privileges have been exercised since in another category of aircraft (i.e. UK/JAR IR) or under the privileges of an ICAO licence (Aeroplanes and Helicopters) or under a military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary), the renewal requirements for the IR will be based on the expiry of that other IR. If more than 7 years have elapsed since the IR expired, no credit will be given for any other IR rating or qualification, and the terms set out below for more than 7 years since expiry shall apply. |
I don’t think many spotted the above post. It is very relevant to many…
This is just a brief note on the 1st Jan 2021 changes for UK retail customers buying stuff from the EU, which came up further back in this thread:
Packages worth less than £39 don’t attract any extra charges (duty or VAT). The seller would normally charge VAT. So this is like the pre-brexit situation.
With packages over £135 the seller is not required to charge VAT, so the recipient has to pay VAT on import, plus potentially a shipper charge for collecting the VAT (the UK Post Office charges £8 and upwards). The difference with the pre-brexit situation is that back then the seller would always charge VAT so the recipient did not have to pay such an admin charge.
Between £39 and £135 it is a grey area and some people are getting caught. The seller is supposed to charge VAT but not all do, which can result in those items appearing attractive, and a shipper charge of even £8 (and more typically quite a bit more with the couriers like Fedex) appears a lot of money on a £40 item.
I hope I’ve got this right.
The news here is full of people who fairly obviously saw a bargain (a price not including VAT but they didn’t spot it) and got burnt for both the VAT and the shipper charge. The media is ultra sympathetic to them; they can’t say people need to be smarter and less impulsive. But some shippers charge a lot for the admin, even though they offer great bulk deals to the supplier.
There is an incentive for EU sellers to get this right (or not sell to the UK at all) because the customer can just refuse the package, and get a refund. And the shipper will then bill all their charges to the seller Much of the problem is that many companies never learnt to use ordinary airmail, which takes 3-5 days within Europe but offers by far the best value, especially to the recipient. A lot of the courier firms have been offering bulk discounts which approach airmail pricing, which the suppliers found seductive, not least because they can just chuck everything on one big pile and the Fedex/etc man just collects it.
For GA parts, I don’t know how many are bought from the EU. Quite a lot are bought from the US and there it is like the “over £135” situation above, and always has been. I am not sure if the below-£39 exclusion applies; from experience I think it might. I guess some EU based pilot shops are affected because a lot of their stuff will be in the “difficult” price range.
Peter, duty is being charged on more expensive items (that is new), plus some of the sellers don’t discount the VAT and so I saw some reports where the customer was charged the VAT twice… Not sure if that is normal, but not all sellers are VAT registered I think. And I don’t know how this works for the rules of country of origin (which part of the product was manufactured in the UK, which part was imported from, say, Asia).
duty is being charged on more expensive items
Yes sorry I forgot to mention that. If the item is not of “EU origin” (complex rules, with most fashion stuff for example being from China, Vietnam, etc) there is import duty at the UK end.
I am surprised this is a change but perhaps it wasn’t previously monitored, and I guess duty is being paid twice: once China → EU and again EU → UK. It would make sense to buy fashion on Ebay and then you just pay once
I guess this will be solved in due course at least for B2B. The EUR1 and EUR2 forms performed that function, while creating lots of high value jobs for rubber stampers who never had sight of the goods
