Don’t give [the CAA man who threatened legal action unless his name is removed from the forum] any ideas 
Noe wrote:
… National!
So “N” in “NPPL” means “national”, but it isn’t the “National PPL”?
I think my UK PPL has other privileges over my EASA PPL. One is flying with a pax qualified to fly the plane without having done 3 landings an take-offs in the previous 60 days.
Noe wrote:
Is there currently a paperwork way to go from 1 EASA (UK) licence → 1 EASA (non-UK) + 1 UK licence?
Ideally keeping all my ratings ( ME / IR / CRI)?
Yes…well, paperwork and money…. This is exactly what I did.
skydriller wrote:
Yes…well, paperwork and money…. This is exactly what I did.
So you get to keep BOTH licences – EASA?
(I actually need to keep my UK EASA because I’d rather have to do again the FAA paperwork (61.75))
You may hold only one EASA Part-FCL licence. In the highly unlikely event of UK leaving EASA it will be possible to hold both UK Part-FCL and EASA Part-FCL licences.
John Overall, policy lead in personnel licensing, has assured that UK CAA will facilitate the acquisition of a UK Part-FCL licence by personnel previously under UK CAA administration but who changed SOLI.
None of this has any bearing on UK pilots’ licences, such as the UK PPL and NPPL, defined in UK law and distinct from Part-FCL licences. The present limitation on the exercise of privilege of a UK licence will be unchanged. Under retained EU law the words “the territory to which the Treaties apply” as used inter alia in the Basic EASA Regulation will be changed to “United Kingdom.”
Now and if UK leaves EASA a UK PPL or higher may be used as the basis for the issue of a US restricted private pilot certificate pursuant to 14 CFR 61.75 in US regulations. I don’t see what advantage this arrangement would bring as a UK PPL may already be used to pilot a US-registered US-controlled aircraft in UK iaw art 148(3)(b) of UK ANO.
Qalupalik wrote:
I don’t see what advantage this arrangement would bring as a UK PPL may already be used to pilot a US-registered US-controlled aircraft in UK iaw art 148(3)(b) of UK ANO.
In my case, I use a 61.75 on the basis of my EASA (UK) licence to fly N-Reg outside the UK
I would rather have to avoid doing the paperwork again (this time maybe even for a completely new licence).
I just wanted to hedge against the capability of losing privileges on EASA (non G-) aircraft if the sh!t hits the fan, but it looks like I might hold on worrying for a little more now
Qalupalik wrote:
In the highly unlikely event of UK leaving EASA
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal (which apparently the odds are about 33%), does the UK have some sort of mechanism to remain in EASA?
Asking nicely?
EASA membership would cease immediately although some transitional arrangements would cover air transport, see eg Contingency Action Plan—COM(2018) 880 (link). To enjoy EASA associate membership UK would need to accept the remit of the CJEU over the relevant laws. This would be the case by default under the Withdrawal Agreement which requires accepting full CJEU jurisdiction during the transition or implementation period following the exeunt. Article 131 (link):
During the transition period, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have
the powers conferred upon them by Union law in relation to the United Kingdom and to natural and
legal persons residing or established in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Court of Justice of
the European Union shall have jurisdiction as provided for in the Treaties.
For some background see European Scrutiny Committee, EU Withdrawal: Transitional provisions and dispute resolution, 20 Mar 2018, HC 763 2017–9, para 128 et seq (link).
The previous PM accepted the principle of continuing CJEU jurisdiction in the relevant areas as a condition for associate membership of agencies like EASA (link , link para 36 et seq). The former Head of the Air Services Policy at UK CAA points out that CJEU has never made a decision on EASA. See para 14.41 in documents considered by the European Scrutiny Committee on 21 February 2018 (link):
14.41 The House of Lords EU Internal Market Sub-Committee [ link ] also recently took oral evidence from stakeholders on the subject of EU exit and aviation. In response to concerns about CJEU jurisdiction and the probable loss of voting rights on EASA, Dr Barry Humphreys CBE, BKH Aviation, said that:
“The fact remains that EASA is a technical body that reaches decisions primarily by consensus. The UK and France are the two principal contributors to EASA.”
“The ECJ has never made a decision on EASA; it has never been involved. I believe the Commission has threatened to use it once or twice, but it has got no further, so in practical terms the answer seems obvious. The UK should continue to be as full a member of EASA as possible, and the fact that it will not have a vote on the management board, and that decisions are theoretically subject to the ECJ, should not, in the view of most people in the industry, be a factor at all. That is what most people want to see.
Paras 14.44–45:
14.44 On 5 September 2017, Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of the Civil Aviation Authority, gave a speech [ pdf link ] in which he stated that:
“We at the CAA are very explicit that we want to remain full members of EASA. I have to say in my 8 years in the aviation sector, I don’t think I have ever come across an issue that has such broad consensus in the sector. It’s almost universal. It makes no sense to recreate a national regulator. At best, you replicate the vast majority of European regulation, and you’d have to do it over an extended period of time. At worst, you create unnecessary barriers, and you start to breach my first successful outcome. What does this do to trade, and what does this to choice and value for consumers?”
14.45 In the same speech, he stated that the CAA was not undertaking any preparatory work for taking back responsibility from EASA, as it did not consider doing so to be a viable option:
“We are very uncompromising in our view that we should not be planning for a new independent aviation safety system in the UK. Indeed, we have consciously decided not to do that work as it would be misleading to suggest that’s a viable option.
