Snoopy wrote:
I can get a UK CAA ATPlicense, requiring only- Paperwork
- a UK CAA Cl. 1 Medical
Used to be like this, I did it about 10 years ago 🤓, before going back to a ICAO Part-FCL 4 years ago… good thing I did, as licence renewal could only be done by a UK FI (or TRE/TRI)
Peter wrote:
Although it doesn’t say 12 miles, and sometimes it is 3 miles. I bet nobody knew about this
The 3nm is very short, I think it’s 12nm the right answer: come on we need something enough to make DVR-CGN on UK to France !
PS: I am currently flying N-reg on DGAC PPL & CAA PPL (FAA61.75 BFR has lapsed and I have no FAA IR), I don’t measure things in inches but as long I stay within gliding range it should be fine
Peter wrote:
Can you commit a crime outside 12 miles?
I am sure if Canadian fights an American while swimming in that corner, the UK & France are not interested
On N-reg aircraft, I am sure FAA and DoJ will get very interested as the aircraft carries their land mass and flag (although Sala case showed CAA and UK court was interested as aircraft & citizens were based in UK)
Audoore_CAE_Aviation_2015_Legal_Interpretation local copy
That’s very funny… so the 61.3 privileges are not valid all the way to the country’s FIR boundary.
Although it doesn’t say 12 miles, and sometimes it is 3 miles. I bet nobody knew about this…
FIR > 12nm is not owned by CAA not even NTAS, it’s only managed by NATS (or Brest), in reality it’s not owned by anybody !
Can you commit a crime outside 12 miles?
FIR > 12nm is not owned by CAA not even NTAS, it’s only managed by NATS (or Brest), in reality it’s not owned by anybody !
Peter wrote:
Do you have a reference for the 12nm?
This is the FAA view on where they think 61.3 works (you can fly in BOT with UK PPL issued by CAA)
It would have been very good if “EASA license” is valid to fly N-reg in “EASA airspace” or “EASA FIR” as one can’t hold PPL in two EASA states…
Let me add, CAA PPL is valid on N-reg in British Overseas Territories ?
It’s just you can’t fly 12nm in water with it !
Do you have a reference for the 12nm?
Normally it works on the basis of who owns the country’s FIR boundary – otherwise you could never be busted for busting CAS outside the 12 mile line.
The 61.3 privileges work on who owns the air and who issued the license.
Qalupalik wrote:
Are you sure that a UK licence is automatically deemed valid in the British Overseas Territories on aircraft registered there?
Let me add, CAA PPL is valid on N-reg in British Overseas Territories ?
It’s just you can’t fly 12nm in water with it !
@Snoopy , re 02. I believe that’s correct for licences. However, any instructor or examiner certificate which has been granted or varied after 31 Dec 2020 will require at least an assessment of competence with a UK training inspector or examiner. @Ibra uncovered these relevant flow diagrams (link).
dutch_flyer wrote:
I do wonder if there would be a separate revalidation requirement for the UK license
It should be possible for proficiency checks to be done concurrently. There are presently 245 records in the Danish examiner list (link — manually add pdf extension when saving) for examiners with an FCL.1000(c) authorisation, viz examiners who do not hold an EASA licence. The FCL.1000(c) examiner privileges can be exercised only outside the EASA member states. Many of the UK IREs, and CREs with IR renewal/revalidation privileges, should be on the Danish list. For comparison, the UK CAA examiner lists are published as CAP 1585 (link).
dutch_flyer wrote:
… or want to rent an aircraft in the British Virgin Islands
Are you sure that a UK licence is automatically deemed valid in the British Overseas Territories on aircraft registered there?
dublinpilot wrote:
Then maintenance requires…
A UK licence holder who maintains the validity of equivalent ratings in a third-country licence is exempt from the requirement to undergo evaluation and refresher training, if any, at a UK ATO before renewing an expired rating in the UK licence. FCL.625 and FCL.740.
Airborne_Again wrote:
a Swedish PPL costs €40/year just to have
South Africa has a similar fee.
It is ridiculous; it is like the police being paid with money collected from criminals.
gallois wrote:
I hope there’s no one from the DGAC on this forum
I would guess the difference comes from different government fiscal principles. In Sweden, it is a basic principle that oversight work done by government authorities shall be financed with fees from those overseen, rather than with tax money. That may make sense in some cases, but generally I think it is ridiculous.
I hope there’s no one from the DGAC on this forum🙂