Just out of curiosity, to fly a national regulated aircraft, a.k.a. Annex I aircraft, what document is required by your local CAA?
Here is the situation in Sweden(my own summary):
Up until last year, it was fully accepted to fly a Cessna 172(EASA) and a Piper Cub(Annex I) with your Part-FCL license and SEP(land) rating.
Now the rules have changed since some rulemaker found out that the CAA regulation did not follow national aviation law in that regard.
So the new regulation says the following:
To fly Annex I aircraft you apply for an additional attachment(annex) to your EASA license. It is a separate paper valid for 10 years and you have the ratings there as well and they also have their own expiry dates. If you have flown annex I aircraft previously you can just send a copy of your logbook together with the application to get it.
If you have not flown Annex I you must do it with an instructor who will sign you off before you send in the application.
You can revalidate the national rating at the same time as you do the EASA rating, anything done in an EASA aircraft can be credited
A lot of us find this a bit silly. It has no added value nor safety benefit. The information from our CAA has been very confusing and misleading.
To get it issued now was for free but I am sure that the extension after ten years will come with a (smallish)cost. One can argue(which the CAA does) that this is not that much of a burden but that is not the way I see it. The problem for most of us is that we already have too many dates to keep track of and many of these “small burdens” combined are problematic, sooner or later the camel’s back will break.
So, what is the situation in your country? I will not be suprised at all if most of you just fly any aircraft(EASA or Annex I) with your normal EASA license and ratings…
(@Peter, I realize that we do not have a forum section for regulations, maybe that should be created?)
In France EASA Part FCL licence with SEPA(land) rating basically covers both Annexe 1 and annexe 2 aircraft, except ULMs which need a ULM licence given by an instructor.
A lot of us find this a bit silly. It has no added value nor safety benefit
Then you get into if French F-PPL holder can fly Swedish SE-Cub?
Can FCL FI in Switzerland do 1h refresher and sign/send to revalidated “national SEP” ?
PS: I know this in UK for Annex1 TMGs, where you can fly them on BGA, SPL, SLMG, TMG… and instruct on them with BGA, MGIR, FI.S, FI.SLMG…but there is a big mess of who flies with who !
Annex I is a broad range of aircraft from historic fighter jets to motor powered gliders and small balloons – many different license requirements in Germany for different classes.
But a Cub (or any other "SEP-type Annex I aircraft) in Germany can be flown with a PPL/LAPL/etc. w/o any additional national license.
This sort of beaurocratic nonsense really needs to be stopped before it gets (even more) out of hand.
As others say, there is absolutely no value in this extra piece of paper. The EASA Part-FCL licence should be recognised to fly any SEP aircraft whether Annex 1 or not, including those registered in other EASA countries. Of course where appropriate, pilots would conduct familiarisation or differences training as and when appropriate – in many cases it will be required by the owner, club or insurance company. But the issuing of yet another piece of paper, with expiry date to keep track of provides no safety benefit.
As an instructor, I still get pilots coming for SEP revalidations who have both Part-FCL and UK National Licences and have me sign both. I simply can’t see the benefit of the second piece of paper, and frankly nor can the pilots, but confusion reigns and many accept the duplication just in case it might help them in the future.
I hope there is some pilot organisation that can challenge this new ruling and have it reversed. It would not be helpful if this behaviour were to be adopted by any other countries.
Yes, Annex I is indeed a broad range. But if we stick to SEP or SE TP, the EASA license will fly them all. The only exception is UL, which requires a proof of competence, which can be considered as a kind of rating (sort of, if you have a PPL or higher).
@DavidC – many of us that either live in Europe of fly European registered aeroplanes SOLI’ed to an EASA country but kept the UK ICAO PPL. Back in 2016-17 nobody knew what Brexit would look like or how insular (or not) the CAA would become or if the UK would even leave EASA… and so hedged our bets.
I would like to see the “part FCL” and “UK ICAO” licensing become one “UK PPL” and I would also like to see mutual acceptance of this with EASA PPLs. Logically and by extention, that would then let the whole UK LAPL/NPPL become one also, and so be mutually accepted with the EASA LAPL…
…I can but dream…
Thanks for your input. Then we have some info from Norway, Germany, UK and France. Would be happy to hear from more countries! :)