Throughout what seems like years, firstly with EASA threatening, then with Brexit and the switch to UK legislation and, apparently getting control of licensing back, then the seriously divisive and complicated consultation on licensing with various interested parties in the BBAC, which nearly brought it to its knees, and beyond, the CAA have been relentlessly pressurised into finally taking at least some notice of the gaggle of balloonists which form a tiddly corner of aviation.
Especially, in the case of balloons, the task of trying to make the CAA realise that they already had a simple working model, which, granted, may have needed reviewing here and there and that could lay down the foundation for a their proposed vision for a new licence could have saved them enormous time, effort and cost. Add to this the fact that the old Air Navigation Order type licensing was really under the control of the BBAC with scant interference from the CAA apart from the appointment of Examiners, and worked well, gave them more time to concentrate on more pressing matters. Their apparent stance that an all new common style of licence across all flying disciplines and then adapting it to fit ballooning was plainly daft. As has often been said, especially by Don Cameron, ballooning, especially at PPL level, should never have been treated the same as fixed wing and helicopters. Fact is, that at that level, it is less complicated than hang gliding and certainly an awful lot safer. The effort to get them to at least retain some of the seriously sensible things that years of balloon licensing have proven through the excellent UK safety record have worked, and might actually be retained, has been monumental.
Following the Consultation they produced their ‘Considered Response’. It is no small credit to all those that responded that it wasn’t worse or more fuddled than turned out. However there were substantial bits that made no sense, or rather produced what were clearly ‘get outs’ on their part to avoid changing anything. There were questions not put that were demanded, or seriously slanted in such a way that the preferred answer was not possible. That’s the beauty of multiple choice questions. You can manipulate the question to get the answer you want.
Best example was the fact that the requirement for training required that all flights had to be undertaken by an Instructor. No response should have allowed you to say that wouldn’t work. Based on the CAA’s own figures, this was never going to be attainable. There are simply not enough Instructors. Someone came up with a simple solution….make everyone a ‘Restricted Instructor’. Contained the word ‘Instructor’ so that worked, but what a nonsense. It was a ‘get out’, a ‘rating for the sake of it’. Fortunately further meetings and correspondence with the CAA during the wait between the Consultation period closing and the publication of the CAA response meant it was but one aspect that was challenged and now seems, may have, actually sunk in.
|
This Consultation and Revue was heralded as yet another ‘Simplification’! I think not. I have lost count of the number of ‘Simplifications, Red Tape Challenges and the like the CAA have had over the years. Retention of the old ANO PPL licence and privileges were also requested and it appears a working solution may have been found. The idea now is that the old UKPPL will no longer be issued after the 30th September 2025. Existing PPL licences will now be ‘deemed valid’ along with any ratings, such as ‘Instructor’, for life. This means that existing UKPPL holders can teach students and that existing PPL Instructors can carry on as usual, thus the rating will be valid for the four Instructor flights currently required. This equates to, basically, you won’t have to have a BFCL2025 (which is apparently what the new licence is to be, or is, being called) to train new pilots, a rare commodity in their own right.
The aspects of the retention of the Commercial Licence were also challenged and discussed with the CAA through representatives of the Commercial Rides Pilots and the Commercial Ballooning Association, their aim being to ensure the highly respected UKCPL and associated safety record is maintained. The UK CPL will be renamed something or other but will now retain its standards (mostly). For more information on that side of things contact them directly. Here we are only looking at the PPL aspect from whence future Commercial Pilots come. For information on this side of things contact them at < https://www.commercialballooning.org.uk/Contact-CBA/ >.
Now, one must remember that all this has to go through the Department of Transport which, to be fair, don’t really know , puttung it kindly, as much as the CAA, so continued pressure may still be required despite the promising statements made by the CAA through their answers. It is also fair to say that it is now the case that the BBAC have a united face to support the wishes of the balloonists so, going forward, any shortfalls should be picked up and dealt with in a consolidated fashion. The only other scenario is that the process may not be completed by 30th September and may be postponed.
As a finally chuckle moment. It is reassuring to know that the CAA have, in certain areas, maintained their skill at nonsense writing. Does the introduction of the term ‘Falling away’ suggest a gentle acceptance and brushing aside, or that the idea has fallen off a cliff? It appears in the answer to Question 4 and, blow me down, there is further ‘Falling Away’ in the answer to Question 5. If it will ‘fall away’ then how much further will it fall or is now simply (see what we did there) ‘No longer applicable’. As for the answer to Question 7. Well, does that mean they intend to discuss how to have further discussions? Best they draw up a ‘Road Map’ for such a meeting with ‘Stakeholder input’. On balance it seems the BBAC has also had a go with terms such as ‘outwith’, probably to put the CAA at ease. Does anyone know what that infers, please? Hmmm.
As there are many balloonists that are not in the British Balloon & Airship Club but have either knowingly, or unknowingly, left the decisions up to them, herewith are the Questions from the BBAC and the CAA’s response. There will be a BBAC response to the CAA response, I’m sure, for the membership to study which we will have look at in due course.
The reason for the title to this piece is that one of the CAA representatives actually did ask that well into discussions. Amazing but not unexpected.
From the CAA and stated as ‘OFFICIAL – Public’. This information has been cleared for unrestricted distribution. 4th November 2024 CAA General Aviation Unit
CAA Response to questions from the BBAC regarding the Licensing and training simplification project (balloons):
BBAC Q1. Decision no.1: Please confirm that the deeming arrangements for Part 21 will apply for the life of the holder, subject to the limitations that you give regards group size, instruction and commercial work. Particularly, we should like to be assured that an administrative touchpoint would not trigger the issue of a BPL with associated costs.
CAA Answer: We confirm as such.
BBAC Q2. Your intention is that all commercial work, outwith the BFCL framework will cease on 30th September 2025, unless further delayed. We have long been in discussion with
CAA regards the age 70 limit for CPB under Part BFCL, though our request for further engagement in Phase 2 was rejected. This restriction will result in some of our members losing their entire income. I will send details of our legal arguments in a separate mail but meanwhile must insist on further engagement in this area, in the hope of avoiding legal action that will inevitably flow if changes are not made.
CAA Answer: We are engaging with medical on this. We need to take advice on incapacitation risk and look more closely at relevant safety data. We will take forward a discussion with the Chief Medical Officer and his team. We appreciate the historic safety record without an age limit has not raised concerns, but we may still be carrying risk in this area and need to maintain parity with what is acceptable for other categories of flying that involve paying passengers.
Possible legal action is not a factor in our decision making – whether we recommend to DfT a change to the BFCL age limit will be established based on safety assessment. If the limit is subsequently challenged as to whether it contravenes other legislation, that would be for a legal process to decide – it is not for CAA policy officials.
BBAC Q3. Why is it not possible to maintain the conversion route to BPL beyond 30th September 2025?
CAA Answer: The conversion report was meant to be a temporary measure until the regulation comes into force. The wording we have proposed to the drafting team effectively makes a PPL(BA) compliant with BFCL but limited to the privileges set out in the CRD. Practically speaking if a PPL(BA) holder wished to obtain further privileges, they could undertake the required BFCL training and then could be issued with a BPL at that point.
We may be able to maintain some conversion mechanism for CPL(B) holders who do not convert by 30th September 2025, but the overriding message remains that licence holders should convert by that date.
BBAC Q4. The Restricted Instructor Rating concept was not consulted. Though this is a useful device to allow all pilots currently instructing to carry on doing so, it is life-limited. CAA consulted on a system that was future-proofed and available to all pilots. It is completely unacceptable to now have a system not available to pilots qualifying after 30th September next year. We seek urgent engagement to help you in rectifying this at the earliest possible opportunity.
CAA Answer: We will submit a proposal as part of the drafting package to maintain the arrangement accepted under the ANO, so the need for the restricted instructor falls away. This (as with everything) is subject the rulemaking process, but we will work with DfT legal to resolve this. now have to apply to have the R-FI(B) added to their licence.
BBAC Q5. Pilots who have already transitioned, with the explicit encouragement of the CAA, will now have to apply to have the R-FI(B) added to their licence. We seek assurance that there will be no fee involved for the issue of this rating.
CAA Answer: The issue falls away, further to the answer above.
BBAC Q6. We seek clarity on how the option given at Decision 7 to allow training “under the supervision of an FI(B)” will work, particularly regards the recording and documentation of training. Your decision is to modify BFCL.130 to allow for this, while the necessity of a DTO in other areas of training for the initial issue of a BPL is woven throughout disparate parts of Part BFCL, particularly including BFCL.135. This introduces inconsistencies that must be addressed during legal drafting. If your intention is to relieve the community entirely from the burden of having to run a DTO for private training, then many further changes will be required.
CAA Answer: The number of changes required is not that great, essentially it is the recommendations for theoretical knowledge exams and the skill test, which will be addressed in the drafting process and reenforced with appropriate AMC. Guidance will also be provided on maintenance of training records.
BBAC Q7. On the consolidation of exam papers at 6.6, we look forwards to working with you in drafting the appropriate AMC and would certainly wish to see the four balloon systems papers combined. We also hold the view that, for safety reasons, the Meteorology TK exam should be Balloon-based (as it has always been with the PPL(BA)) and not a common paper. We fly in very particular meteorological conditions, with subtle effects and factors that are of high importance to us but less value to other branches of GA.
CAA Answer: We are sympathetic to this issue and will review between now and September 2025, but we are reliant on the eExam contractor Aspeq being able to make the relevant changes. We will endeavour to provide an update before Christmas and can discuss further engagement on this.
BBAC Q8. At 4.3, regarding transitional arrangements for CPB pilots who will not have met the progression or total hours requirements under BFCL2025, we suggest that a transitional period of two years, not one, would be appropriate.
CAA Answer: We think preserving existing privileges is more straightforward – i.e. any CPB privilege that the licence holder held on 30th September 2025 would carry over, regardless of hours. For privileges not held under the existing BFCL on that date, the new requirements would apply.
BBAC Q9. Some present examiners for the BPL Commercial Rating do not meet the hours requirements of BFCL2025 with respect to the largest sizes that they are examining in. We seek engagement to produce transitional / alleviation arrangements for these examiners.
CAA Answer: We will follow the same principle as per CPB privileges.
BBAC Q10. Decision 21. The requirements for an instructor to extend their privileges to instruct in additional classes will increase to 15 flights and 30 hours. On reflection, the SMEs with experience with airships and gas balloons consider this to be too high and we propose that the reference to hours should be deleted, to just read “15 flights”.
CAA Answer: We accept this change.
BBAC Q11. We seek an assurance that the timing of legal introduction of BFCL2025 will remain synchronised with the expiry of the Statutory Instrument that facilitates the extended validity of the PPL(BA) and CPL(B). It would be unsatisfactory to have an unspecified period when the original Part BFCL is the only legal basis for licensing.
CAA Answer: We will endeavour to avoid this situation.
BBAC Q12. Having already endured the imposition of fees for transitioning to the BPL we seek an absolute assurance that no further fees will be charged as a result of transitioning to BPL2025.
CAA Answer: We have no plans to change the conversion fees or charge additional ones. BPL holders who have already converted, or convert between now and 30th September 2025, are not required to make any additional transactions due to the BFCL changes that will come in from October 2025. We cannot make this same guarantee post September 2025.
BBAC Q13. Agreement on a Training Conversion Report is now urgent, particularly since students must plan their training during the remaining 12 months of the ANO system, bearing in mind which flights could be credited into the new system.
CAA Answer: A training report will be published in due course. The basic principle will be that training commenced prior to 30th September under the ANO system will be credited towards BFCL.