Commenting on EASA proposals

[tdbristol]

From what I have read, we now have until 15 December (Monday) to comment on the EASA FCL proposals.
I have seen various articles saying that the proposals mean
(a) IMC Rating will be dead
(b) flying an N-reg on an FAA IR will not be allowed for European residents.

I am likely be dim (although the documents are not easy to get through) but I have just spent the last two hours trawling through the EASA documents and website (CRT) and cannot find references to these specific points.

For (a) in NPA 2008-17b section 31 refers to "Instrument Rating". I have done a search for "IMC" but there is no reference to "IMC Rating". I presume the "IMC Ratig is dead" is implied by omission of a reference to IMC Rating?
I have commented on section 31 to say that the IMC Rating should be retained.

WRT (b), which NPA and which section states this? Where should I be putting my comment about this? I simply cannot find the right document/section.

I would be grateful if those that are closer to this can state explicitly:
(1) what are the EASA document numbers and sections that refer to (a) and (b)
(2) where they feel is the most appropriate place (section of document) to put opposing comments

Thanks

[LH2]

Indeed. It would be most interesting if anyone could give you a specific answer to your query about

what are the EASA document numbers and sections that refer to (a) and (b)

Purely out of curiosity, as I have no stakes in the matter, I have been trying to find those answers myself for a long time now. The only result so far has been to find the new legislation, as it applies to GA, largely sensible and an improvement over the current state of affairs.

But somehow it seems that people have set out to moan and complain out of principle/habit/sport. Either that or there is an agent provocateur behind all this (now who stands to lose income, power, or influence once EASA takes over regulatory authority?), however as they say, do not ascribe to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity.

[chrisN]

It's extended, to allow comparison etc with other EASA papers - I think to 28 Feb, but check. (Since first posting that, I just checked BGA web site, where it says it is definitely 28 Feb.)

Chris N.

[LH2]

Incidentally, the deadline has been extended to 2009-02-28. Please check Rulemaking | Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs) (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_npa.php)

[Sorry, did not notice the above by ChrisN]

[IO540]

There is nothing in the current proposals on the IMCR or its possible replacement.

What happened was that a while ago EASA set up a committee to develop the LPL and with an IFR add-on. The committee "somehow" got itself loaded with representatives of VFR-only organisations (light/sports plastic plane makers, etc) who did a deal between themselves to sink the IFR option, presumably to get a smooth passage for a VFR-only Euro PPL which runs on a GP medical.

This is the way aviation regulation politics works - you can achieve more or less anything if it is VFR only, for ever. IFR drags in the airline pilots and their unions, and all the other assorted elitist interests.

EASA has now set up another committee which is specifically tasked with re-examining the IFR options for private pilots. This even has a representative from PPL/IR Europe (http://www.pplir.org) on it which is very good news.

The current very aggressive proposal on foreign licenses bans their privileges in Europe by EU residents, and EASA is hoping to achieve mutual license acceptance by signing reciprocal treaties instead. Whether this will work is hard to say. A climbdown is much more likely IMHO.

[jez d]

As far as the IMCr is concerned, my uninformed guess is that there won't ever be an EASA IMC rating - too many Member States are against the idea - but a national UK CAA one will continue once the CAA make a differences filing with the EC. Surely even the Commission can't make the UK bin a rating that directly contributes to flight safety? Or am I being naive?

Great news that a member of PPL/IR has made it onto the WG. Hopefully a sensible PPL IR will be the result. It could be a double-edged sword however, as a non-commercially biased European PPL IR could sound the death knell for N reg aircraft based in EASA land.

jez

[robin]

Surely even the Commission can't make the UK bin a rating that directly contributes to flight safety? Or am I being naive?

I'm afraid you are.

I was at the workshop organised by the RAeC to discuss the response to EASA NPLs. What was made incredibly clear was that EASA activities are based on a simple premise - safety comes from standardisation. National ratings are out and only put their backs up. If you use comments like

'...but a national UK CAA one will continue once the CAA make a differences filing with the EC.'

this goes against the very beliefs of EASA and will be kicked into touch.

To win agreement you have to play a clever political game, which is how the French manage to hold on to the altiport rating and Brevet de Base.

[Romeo India Xray]

It will be interesting to see what happens with regard to the EASA IMC rating. The brief I received for comment had it laid out something like the UK IMC. I made some comments (mostly about currnecy and related to accidents that have been the result of PPLs pushing their IMC rating beyond the limits of their abilities). Shame my first hand experience was not accpeted onto the comittee :sad:

RIX

[jez d]

Robin, this may go against EASA's standardisation remit (I do note that you didn't write harmonisation) but there is, under the Basic Regulation, an avenue open to the CAA if an EASA IMCr is rejected which, unfortunately, I believe it will be. At the very least I think it would be negligent of the CAA not to pursue it if the political game fails and no EASA IMCr is agreed upon.

Also, can you shed any light on the Annex II aircraft situation which AIUI, fall outside of the scope of EASA? Presumably, these aircraft will need to be operated on national licences, or will the CAA simply issue them UK-limited EASA licences?

Regards, jez

[tdbristol]

Thanks for the update about the time extension to 28 Feb.

"The current very aggressive proposal on foreign licenses bans their privileges in Europe by EU residents, and EASA is hoping to achieve mutual license acceptance by signing reciprocal treaties instead."
But where specifically does it say this? In which document/section?
On the EASA CRT I can only comment on a particular section of a particular document - so if I can't find the right one I can't comment.

IO540 - it seems you are in this process somewhere - are you able to answer my questions (1) and (2) I originally posed?

[IO540]

EASA is hoping to achieve mutual license acceptance by signing reciprocal treaties instead."
But where specifically does it say this? In which document/section?It doesn't say it anywhere I know, but is widely known. I was also told this by the most senior possible EASA official, face to face.

IO540 - it seems you are in this process somewhere - are you able to answer my questions (1) and (2) I originally posed?I am not involved officially - I am merely an interested observer who keeps his ear to the ground.

There is NO more official information on the future of any IFR privilege in Europe at the moment - end of story. Obviously it is obvious that the JAA IR will be grandfathered into whatever EASA comes up with, but lots of private pilots are looking for something nearer the FAA version, and lots of people are looking for something to grandfather the UK IMCR into.

My guess is that an "EASA IR" of some sort will eventually emerge, which will contain some intermediate stage at which some IFR privileges will be available, and the UK IMCR will be grandfathered into this, at the level of the appropriate module.

The CAA can indeed apply for an extension to EASA on the IMCR, and they said openly that they would do that, at the Feb 08 IMCR conference which I attended (email me if you like a copy of the notes I made), but this tactic is not a permanent solution; it merely buys some time.

European aviation politics is a pretty dirty business at times, with vote trading going on outside the rooms and under the table. You merely need to visit Brussels to see what a blatent expenses driven gravy train the whole place is. There are a lot of good people there but the useless and incompetent are everywhere. Also EASA is merely an agency of the EC transport commission which means that they must do as they are told by the latter - despite appearances. This in turn means that top-end political issues can and do come into it; for example the not-yet-published OPS proposal has been delayed by some unspecified political problem. The whole thing is pretty opaque and will remain hard to guess for at least a year or two, IMHO.

I reckon the IMCR will survive - either as I describe above or in some last minute hack which will be Europe-wide (because it has to be...) but which everybody but the UK will be able to opt out of to whatever extent they feel like doing.

The general drift in any EASA IR will be for it to be more competence based than the blunt 50/55 hrs of the JAA IR, so IMCR holders could reasonably expect to have their instrument training allowed - just like the FAA allows towards the FAA IR.

But as I say nobody knows what will happen, and nobody can possibly know for 1-2 years at least. Sure, we will have people speculating on, and occassionally leaking, EASA committee minutes, but these do not necessarily mean much because the EASA exec can chuck a proposal right out if there is a serious political problem with it.

[robin]

Also, can you shed any light on the Annex II aircraft situation which AIUI, fall outside of the scope of EASA? Presumably, these aircraft will need to be operated on national licences, or will the CAA simply issue them UK-limited EASA licences?

Regards, jez

Jez

Now that was interesting. The LPL issues only affect EASA aircraft, so Annexe II are specifically outside this scope. You will be able to fly an Annexe II on a National Licence and not the ICAO or EASA licence, but the transitional arrangements have not even been thought about yet.

One little funny that was mentioned was what if you fly, say, a Jodel and occasionally a PA28. The answer seems to be that the Jodel hours won't count towards the hours needed on the EASA licence.

But remember, this is what the consultation is about. We need to hit the stupidities asap, but do it in a rational and well-structured response using the EASA comment tool. If we don't in large enough numbers then we have only ourselves to blame.

Remember too that EASA will be looking at ways of bringing Annexe II and the microlighters into EASA's orbit. They don't like our Permit system and it will be brought into alignment with PArt M in due course. Consultation to start sometime in 2009.

One funny story told to us by David Roberts was an example of EASA lawyer stupidity. They have working groups to plan the requirements for each of the different aircraft types (light aircraft gliders, helicopters and balloons.)

As far as possible these requirements are aligned, so in the documentation it was proposed that balloons should carry an ASI. It took 4 meetings to convince the lawyer that it might not need to come out of its packaging.....

[PlasticPilot]

Another tricky thing with the proposed rules for revalidation of the SEP class rating is that the usual "one hour instruction flight" shall now be taken with an examiner one out of three times. In countries where examiners are already hard to find (read Germany), it will make the situation even worse. Raise your voice !

[trevs99uk]

I read somewhere that EASA had not had a great deal of response / comments on these NPA proposals, Because the average pilot does not know what its about or how to make replies. I sent some details to my local flying club...So they could pass on to pilots.
The owner does,nt want to know as he see these proposal as increasing his business i e more training, more club rental......

Also you should be checking out all the other NPA docs. and reply to these as well.
Rulemaking | Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs) (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_npa.php)
NPA 2008-22a
NPA 2008-22b
NPA 2008-22c
NPA 2008-22d
NPA 2008-22e
NPA 2008-22f

[IO540]

Just one of those is 600 pages. Very few normal pilots will comment on it. Myself, I will comment only on the foreign license stuff (3 pages).

One can only hope that some major interests out there are going to throw some resources at it and raise hell at the appropriate political level.

But the really smart people are all waiting for the OPS proposal before commenting on any of these, and that one has reportedly been delayed by an unknown time.

[flybymike]

Needing a degree in IT just to figure out the mechanics of actually placing a comment via the EASA website doesn't exactly help.

[LH2]

Needing a degree in IT just to figure out the mechanics of actually placing a comment via the EASA website doesn't exactly help

How did it work back when the CAA was in charge of making the rules? Did they provide a 0-800 number for you to discuss your inputs? Collect mail? Did they visit your club and asked "what d'you think of this?"

One is still waiting for anyone on any of the EASA-bashing threads to point out specific sections in the proposed regulations that they have an issue with. Nobody has yet done that.

I know that a couple of people who post here have sent constructive comments to EASA in the past, such as 'tdbristol' is attempting to do, but the majority seem to be complaining purely out of habit based on simple hearsay (i.e., with zero knowledge of what they're talking about. Bit like the PPL version of a NIMBY)

For the record, I am far from a Europhile. With close friends in the EU bureaucracy I can often see how all this works (or rather, doesn't), and I am happy to place criticism wherever it's due.

However, the vast majority of comments here strike me as pure insularism. I can't see how that is going to promote any useful cause you might be trying to defend--although again, I doubt the majority here are trying to defend anything at all.

As an exception, I believe the (multinational?) PPL-IR group mentioned a few posts back might have been doing some useful work as regards private IFR. Perhaps any members would care to enlighten us as to what's going on in that camp? As a new, separate thread would be best. IO? Care to post a few lines on that?

[IO540]

I've sent you an email, LH2, to your usual address. I don't think the PPL/IR position can be discussed publicly at this early stage. I am not an executive member there either. Also, for those who want to see more detail I recall that a number of specific items came up on the flyer.co.uk forum a while ago.

The FCL proposal is quite big and contains many many little items. I reckon any comments are going to be thinly spread; the only real "killer" is the crude stripping of foreign pilot license privileges and I know this will draw lots of comments but for obvious reasons all those who will comment on that bit are waiting for the OPS proposal to come out.

But most people will not read it because they won't have the time to read it.

The other thing is that if you already have a JAA PPL (true for the vast majority here) these will carry on, and looking at it purely selfishly there is no point in worrying about the LPL proposal. A large chunk of the FCL proposal is to do with the LPL (essentially a Euro-wide version of the UK NPPL) which is a bit of a mess but if the NPPL is anything to go by, almost the only people who will do the LPL will be those who cannot pass the JAA medical. I could be wrong though; the UK NPPL is severely crippled by being usable only in the UK whereas the LPL will be usable all over the EU, so it may actually become the default private license for EU pilots especially as flying GA outside the EU is fraught with so much hassle (airport/overflight permissions, avgas, crew Visas etc).

[chrisN]

LH2, the way things were done in the old days was that if the CAA consulted at all, which they very often did, they did so with various representative bodies. Individual pilots were given as much or little chance to input to those representative bodies as the latter made available. In the case of gliding, where I have been involved for well over 30 years, the BGA used to take a view as to whether to publicise to all clubs and gliding participants a matter on which views would be submitted. Generally speaking, my impression was that big issues were widely ventilated, and local ones were handled with consultation with the club or limited number of clubs likely to be affected. From what I saw of the other associations, they acted similarly.

For a large number of GA pilots who refused to join AOPA or one of the other associations, this of course meant that there was often no very good avenue for them to make their views felt.

The new way of doing things, where the authorities extend the chance to comment to the public as a whole, may appear to be more democratic. I noted, however, that the CAA comments on responses to the most recent Mode S consultation included:

“2.2.3 The data in Tables 1 and 2 above highlights that the vast majority of responses received came from private individuals operating in the GA sector. Moreover, a significant proportion of responses from the GA sector were from individuals and flying clubs involved in gliding. It is recognised that there were ‘awareness campaigns’ conducted by several of the representative GA associations to ensure that the CAA received a large number of responses from their memberships. Many of the responses received as a result of these campaigns reiterated and supported the views of their respective associations or contained a précis of the actual consultation inputs received from the associations. In accordance with the Government’s Consultation Guidance, no particular weight has been attached to the number of responses . . . . “

So, unless an individual makes a significant point that one of the associations has not already covered, it’s going to get ignored anyway. Numbers don’t count, it would appear.

In fact, in the case of Mode S, the CAA seem to have taken the position that “ We heard you, we are doing most of it anyway; we pay no attention to the numbers. You have to pay because it benefits airlines and the UK economy.”

So much for democracy.

Chris N.

[robin]

Actually Chris - for EASA numbers do matter. What they have is a 'copy filter' machine.

Responses are put through this software and any response that looks like a form letter is automatically junked. They want individual responses and not a petition.

[chrisN]

Robin, that’s interesting. I was responding about how CAA used to do it (because EASA wasn’t there then), and how they also do it now, of which Mode S is a prime example. And they quote UK government guidelines as the reason for ignoring numbers unless they make different points (not just different “in your own words”).

I wonder if UK will have to follow Europe eventually?

Regards – Chris.

[IO540]

I read somewhere that EASA had not had a great deal of response / comments on these NPA proposals

The other point about the above is that most people will comment only on what directl affects them.

For example, I fly on an FAA CPL/IR and own an N-reg plane. I will therefore comment on the foreign proposal (pages 159-161) and the rest doesn't matter. I never commented on the NPPL because it was never relevant, and since I can renew my old JAA PPL (with a checkride I think) the EASA LPL will be of no relevance to me.

To me, what matters is that pilots are taught what they actually need to know to fly safely and confidently from A to B, and this doesn't happen under the present system, isn't going to happen under the new system, and I don't see any way it will happen short of a drastic overhaul / modernisation of the syllabus (which would be fiercely resisted by the training industry).

The vast majority of people coming into contact with this proposal already hold JAA PPLs (or some other JAA-land ICAO PPL) and they just rent, so it doesn't affect them either.

Which leaves only a few to wade through the 600 pages...

[trevs99uk]

Somebody was asking where the UK IMC was mentioned in the EASA documents see:-
http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17a.pdf

Page 29 Subpart I section 48.

[IO540]

Finally, the Agency considers it necessary to refer here to the more general issue of the qualifications required for flying an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).
This issue was raised several times during the development of the implementing rules, both by members of the FCL.001 rulemaking group and by stakeholders contacting the Agency independently. In this context, the most controversial issue was the future of the UK IMC rating, which allows the holder of such a rating to fly in IMC in certain UK airspace categories without having an instrument rating. After discussions with the FCL.001 rulemaking group, the Agency has decided to initiate a new rulemaking task on this issue, which has already been included in the Agency’s Advance Planning 68 and will
be started after the summer. The working group for this task will review the existing instrument rating requirements and the training syllabus of the UK IMC rating.

Yes, this new rulemaking task is what I referred to earlier.

[David Roberts]

This working group is FCL.008 and held its first meeting in Cologne on Friday 12th December. The members of the group are in the pdf document on the EASA website at:
http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/TORs1/FCL.008%20(a)(b)%20Group%20Composition.pdf

Feedback I have had from the first meeting, which is really a scoping meeting and first overview of the issues, is 'so far so good'.