EASA FCL - who has commented?

[Contacttower]

Just wondering whether PPRuNe members have been sending in responses to the EASA consultation on the draft flight crew licencing proposals?

There were several threads announcing the publishing of the proposals, but none seemed to get much response....which I found surprising considering the threads discussing EASA in general last year.

[dublinpilot]

Yes...responded.

[IO540]

Certainly N-reg owners should wait till the (now delayed) OPS proposal comes out, before commenting on the already published FCL proposal.

[BEagle]

I certainly have!

Mainly to oppose everything and anything to do with the ridiculous 'one size fits no-one' sub-ICAO 'Leisure Pilots Licence' - it is a total and utter crock and wholly unnecessary. Member States should retain competence for pilot licensing at sub-ICAO level, where so permitted under national law - there is absolutely no need for the €urocrats to poke their noses into such activity.

[IO540]

I would generally agree, Beagle, and the proposal is a mess, but I think a lot of pilots who have gone for the NPPL because they cannot pass the CAA Class 2 medical, and who have hassles flying abroad, will actually be quite happy to get a GP-medical pan-European piece of paper. The GA pilot population is not getting younger and medicals are a major issue.

[David Roberts]

I understand from my contacts at EASA that there are over 3,000 comments received to the FCL proposed implementing rules, on the EASA CRT so far.

I take issue with Beagle on the question of the LPL. For several reasons.

Firstly, this licence is embodied in the Essential Requirements of the Basic Regulation (216/2008) which became EU law in early 2008. That is not going to change, and what EASA is consulting on currently are the supporting Implementing Rules for FCL. Whilst many of us representing the lower mass end of GA at EASA – certainly from the UK perspective, but also that of many European colleagues - agree wholeheartedly that ‘our’ end of aviation should never have been encompassed by EU law (and a subscript to that is ‘sub-ICAO’ licences), the fact is we suffered regulatory capture back in 2002 when virtually no effective consultation took place by the EU Commission on the introduction of the first Basic Regulation (1592/2002), which set the scope of what we are dealing with now. The political and legal processes behind this cannot simply be unravelled now. Even if there was the political will to do so, it would take 4 -5 years to achieve that.

Secondly, one should remember that the LPL is aimed at replacing the equivalent NPPLs in many countries, not just UK. The NPPL (UK) has proved its worth not only for those who cannot or can no longer meet the JAR Class 2 medical standards (thus allowing such pilots to fly again with minimal risk to third parties from medical incapacitation), but also as an entry level to private aviation. I know this from close involvement as chairman of NPLG Ltd which has handled the NPPL SEP and TMG applications since it started in 2002. Some 3,500 successful applicants can’t all be wrong. The LPL(A) is an important proposal to encourage a more affordable entry level to private flying, and indeed, the Basic LPL(A) goes further in this direction, being modelled on the French Brevet de bas.

Thirdly, prior to the EU initiative and EASA coming along, there was no JAR equivalent of a PPL(A) for glider pilots or balloon pilots. These aircraft were included in the scope of EASA, wrongly in my view. But because they were included it is necessary to have the EU pilot licences to fly gliders and balloons. There are some 85,000 glider pilots in the EU and the associated states such as Switzerland, Norway etc. There are also a considerable number of balloon pilots. What this group of aviation enthusiasts do NOT want, is disproportionate regulation such as has been witnessed in the precursor to EASA, the JAA. So they support very much the entry level LPL for gliders (or sailplanes – the LPL(S)) and balloons. In particular, to maximise the availability of this licence, the medical standards needed to be as light as possible. The EASA proposed medical standards are very close to the UK NPPL. Again, the empirical evidence of incapacitation risk relative to uninvolved third parties supports these standards as appropriate and proportionate. If the medical standards are set too high (such as JAR Class 2) then many pilots or prospective pilots are disenfranchised. As to the sub-ICAO aspect of the LPL(S), for example, the only difference between that and the ICAO-compliant PPL(S) is the medical standards. The syllabus and training is exactly the same.

So would you deny people the opportunity to be a pilot just because the medical hurdle was inappropriately high?

Fourthly, you are probably looking at these (LPL) proposals from the point of view of a power pilot used to meeting the ICAO compliant, and / or maybe the JAR PPL with additional ratings for IFR etc. Fine, but that is not the only world in which there is aviation activity. I would even venture to suggest that there are greater numbers flying the lighter end aircraft, primarily under VFR, for which an appropriate licence should be designed. So why would you object to that?

I would hope that you would restrict your comments to the areas of the proposed licensing that directly affect you, and not destroy what many of your fellow aviators have fought long and hard for in a different sector. The EASA proposals for LPL may not be perfect, but overall they represent perhaps 90% of what we want. It is the remaining 10% we need to try and get right through responding to the consultation. And of course we are witnessing the design of the ‘European camel’ not a UK camel, like it or not. That is the political reality.

I took a pragmatic decision a long time ago that we were not going to be successful in fighting the high level EU initiative as represented by the birth of EASA, and therefore one had to work from the inside to get the best we could rather than just throwing stones from the outside. That process involves a degree of compromise and negotiation.

[trevs99uk]

I have been looking around the net to see what responses have been sent.

I found this one from the BMAA. it makes intresting reading.

there was one for the BGA but since the date for the NPA rewponse has been put back they have taken it off and rewording it.

http://www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/BMAA_Response_to_EASA_NPA_2008-17_FCL.pdf


anybody know of any other responses on the net....

[StillStanding]

Sadly the medical requirements specified in the LPL, required as driving medical requirements vary from country to country, are slightly more restricted in some areas than the current NPPL.

Yes, the advantage of flying overseas is a positive move, but if the NPPL does disappear in the future then some of us will have no option to becoming ex-pilots.

[trevs99uk]

found this from the IAOPA europe

Flight Crew Licensing



EASA’s deadline for comments on its plans for Flight Crew Licensing has been extended to December 15th, largely because its proposals on Operations have not yet been published, and one should not be considered in isolation from the other.
Jacob Pedersen of AOPA-Denmark reported to the IAOPA-Europe Regional Meeting in Zurich in October that there’s a lot of good in the EASA proposals. In particular, EASA will revert to ICAO medical requirements, which the JAA abandoned, causing much misery and dislocation in general aviation. All those who lost their licences to JAR medical requirements would be able to retain them under EASA. It also reintroduces the PPL instructor, killing off the need to show a “CPL level of theoretical knowledge” before you can be paid to instruct.
But there is a certain amount in the NPA that is truly dreadful and is being strongly opposed by IAOPA. The proposals would effectively render it impossible to base an N-registered aircraft in Europe and fly it on an FAA licence, which would render the FAA Instrument Rating useless here. IAOPA’s position is that the reasons why so many FAA licenses, ratings and aircraft are in use in Europe is because of the manifest deficiencies of European regulation, and these fundamental problems cannot be ignored. European pilots have been forced by bad regulation to go abroad for their flight training, and the solution is to improve the regulation, rather than simply to ban the better system.
It is expected that the Operations proposals will make the problem worse, requiring foreign-registered aircraft to conform to EASA rules, even if they invalidate their Certificates of Airworthiness. Removing the opportunity to operate on an FAA IR would be especially harsh as EASA’s own moves towards a reasonable and feasible IR seem to be running into the sand. EASA cannot be allowed to take the easy option (for them) of banning third country aircraft and licenses. Such an action would impose massive costs and disruption on general aviation, and make flying in Europe less safe.
IAOPA-Europe was making common cause with the business aviation lobby, with flight training organisations and with companies like FlightSafety, who would be effectively forced to close down if EASA has its way.





Five more concerns with the EASA FCL Proposal



Apart from foreign-registered aircraft and licenses, there are five main issues of concern in the 647-page FCL document on which IAOPA Europe has established a common position.


More paperwork
The extensive requirement for management and quality control systems will be completely overwhelming for small training organisations. The current “registered facilities” will have to be fully compliant with much more onerous regulations, while the definition of “commercial operation” seems to include a number of activities that used to be considered non-commercial. The full text on this is, however, not yet available.

LPL safety?
Some of the provisions of the new Leisure Pilots Licence for SEP aircraft up to 2000 kg would seem to raise safety issues. The basic LPL allows a pilot to take a passenger after 20 hours flying, ten of them dual. Is it sufficient? Emanuel Davidson of AOPA-France said the French brevet de base, with similar requirements, was not noticeably more dangerous than an ICAO-compliant licence. While some delegates thought the law should prevent a 20-hour pilot flying an aircraft as big and complex as a Seneca V, others thought it should be left to the good sense of the GA industry; no buyer of a Seneca V would fly it with 20 hours experience, and no renter of Seneca Vs would let him have it, either. No law was required.

Examiner checkride
The recurrent “flight with an instructor” is apparently being turned into a checkride with an examiner on every third renewal. With 70 percent of PPL holders not renewing after five years, this was seen as a further disincentive. It will be less useful than an instructor flight, where pilots can practice manoeuvres instead of just flying for a ‘pass or fail’ with an examiner. There is no evidence that the current system was deficient, and in many countries there is a severe shortage of examiners. This proposal is a backward step.

Sensible IR
There is still no solution for a simplified instrument rating targeted at the PPL pilot, and also no solution for the holders of a UK IMC rating who risk losing their current privileges. This problem already has been recognised and EASA is now forming a working group specifically to deal with these issues. Whether anything will come of it is another matter; often, working groups are simply a smokescreen for a lack of action.

What’s in a name?
The name of the Leisure Pilots Licence, which IAOPA has criticised from the start and which EASA’s Eric Sivel told us would be changed, has not been changed. IAOPA has always said that the name misrepresents the nature of the licence and will be a gift to those who would stop us flying and shut down aerodromes. It was promised that the name would be changed to Light Aircraft Pilots Licence, but this has been reneged upon. It is deemed vital to convince the European Commission that a name change is relevant and necessary. Martin Robinson of AOPA-UK stressed the need for delegates to go back to their national authorities and make them aware of IAOPA-Europe’s standpoint on these matters. The national authorities would then reinforce IAOPA’s voice at EASA and the Commission

[trevs99uk]

Commect to EASA on these have to be in by Feb 28th..

I tried looking around the Net to find any more comments on this but nothing much out there.. Has anybody replied/commented.


I suspect most pilots out there won,t have even realised what is happening.

like this rule.

NPA 2008 17b

In previous 24 months - 12 hours as P1 including 8 take offs and landings or
In previous 24 months - 6 hours as P1 and one training flight with an Instructor

At least once every 6 years pass a proficiency check with an Examiner.
(Basically every pilot will have to pass a GFT every 6 years ie the same test as any new pilot has to take)


The idea of a proficiency check with an Examiner will concern some pilots so it should. This is a requirement of the European Parliament it is not something EASA have asked for. It is very unlikely this can be changed. Every six years a large number of Examiners will be required to conduct all these proficiency checks. It would be better if Instructors were allowed to conduct these as there are more Instructors available.

[David Roberts]

The point about using instructors rather than examiners has been made in several comments already submitted. Others should do likewise. Examiners should be reserved for checking instructors and instructors for the ordinary pilot after they have their licence. The 6 year timescale would need to be phased otherwise we all end up in a queue in year 6.

So far EASA have had over 4,000 comments logged on the CRT. They are not visible to the world at large until we get the CRD this summer.

[421C]

I would reinforce David's comments on the importance of the Basic Regulation and the "Essential Requirements" in the Annexes. It's a pain, but anyone commenting might want to read through this first. It's available at

Regulations structure (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_regulations.php)

then click on the link at the bottom to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:079:0001:0049:EN:PDF)

It's not that long a document. The main items affecting FCL are Article 7 starting on page 9, and Annex III starting on page 34.

The EASA system has several layers. The top layer is the Basic Regulation, the "Articles" in the document. The next layer are the "Essential Requirements", in the Annexes. These are both now European law, done and dusted, and nothing in the EASA NPA consultation can change them. Therefore, tempting as it is to write rants about fundamental things like the LPL, all you are doing is making it easy for EASA to ignore these comments. I absolutely predict that this sort of comment will come back in the CRD with a brush-off along the lines of "Noted. However, this is in contravention of BR Article X,Y,Z and thus can not be applied to the FCL Implementing Rules".

The Implementing Rules are the next layer in the system. They will become EU law at the end of the process. They are everything in Part I of the FCL NPA - up to page 168. All the rest is Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material. Very critically, AMCs and GMs are "soft law" - alternatives and changes can be made relatively easily. One key point people can make is to argue that something detailed or prescriptive in the IRs shoudl be pushed into the AMCs and GMs - to allow for flexibility in the future.

Tiresome as it may sound, I think anyone commenting should try and stick to the following rules:

1. First, scan the Basic Regulation for anything relevant to the topic, and make sure your comment is not worded in contravention of the BRs. Many Implementing Rules are stronger and more prescriptive than the BRs require, but you must be aware of the degree of freedom within the scope of the BRs. Anything beyond that, and EASA can and, IMHO, will ignore your comment.

2. Secondly, write in your own words. I think they will discount and ignore a lot of "cut and paste" commentary

3. Thirdly, keep it brief, propose alternative wordings and provide some support for your proposal. Long ranting rambles I think they will tend to brush-off with a "Noted"

4. Pleas for nationally specific licensing features will get ignored, because the EU law tells EASA they have to have a homogenous European system. Therefore you have to propose a wording which would apply across Europe, and explain how and why.

It looks painful but the reality is that the EASA Comment Response Tool is actually pretty neat, just needs a few minutes of getting used to. Equally, FCL 17b looks like a horrific 700pager, but, a bit like LASORs, if you take some time to navigate around it, you realise that all the critical stuff is in a handful of pages. Well worth taking some time to get familiar with this stuff before commenting - 2 weeks to go to the closing deadline!


brgds
421C

[David Roberts]

Spot on, 421C. I think I have said very similar things in another thread - maybe on the other site!
I also think the article about EASA in the current edition of 'Loop' by Peter Moxham, is well balanced and accurate, putting many things in context.

[421C]

anybody know of any other responses on the net....


Here: PPL/IR Europe - PPL/IR Europe comments on EASA FCL NPA (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416)

[IO540]

I have just spent a while looking for the comment response page... here (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/)

You have to register and go from there.

An hour later I have not found where one puts one's comments .... help is here (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/_static/help/viewer/index.html).

:)

One has to be logged in (this means receiving two emails and clicking on links in both) and access the documents straight from that login - not by pasting the link to a browser. If one does not login, one can view the NPA but cannot comment.

Also I have up on Firefox and am using IE7.

There is no apparent "Save" button and logging out loses all your comments, so best to save them elsewhere just in case.

[bookworm]

The save button is the little disk icon in a toolbar. (Yes, it's awful!)

[IO540]

Found it :ok:

All done.

It's quite an obscure interface. Someone familiar with IT will work it out within an hour, but what about the rest?

Still, they do say email comments are accepted if people cannot use the website.

The best way I suggest is to refer to specific pages by page number, quote a paragraph you want to comment on, and put in the objection or proposed wording.

They seem to have had about 5500 responses - impressive and will keep the armies of translators busy for months.

I have concentrated my comments on pages 159-161 which is the stuff that cripples European residents from using foreign licenses. This kind of stuff makes the EU a laughing stock of Europe. Then they compound it by not accepting any foreign license - even an ATPL - for any European privileges whatsoever, not even flying a C150 privately, after the first year.

However, some months ago I did send individual named letters to every mfg of turboprops, jets and turbine helicopters in the world, drawing their attention to this. They won't be responding to the NPA; they will go straight to the European Commission. I am pretty damn sure that, apart from EASA and Dassault, none of them knew about this little bombshell.

[Legal Beagle]

I got my response in a week or so ago. At first sight the CRT is daunting but once you get the hang of it it works very well.

I would encourage anyone who hasn't responded yet but is thinking of doing so to get on and do it. We may not have another chance to influence our own flying futures.

And I would endorse previous comments to the effect that we should stick to the areas that directly affect us, avoid being negative and try to make constructive suggestions in respect of proposals we don't agree with.

I think comments on this thread by David Roberts and trevs99uk merit re-reading if you are unsure what to comment upon. We all have our particular areas of concern. Don't assume somebody else will argue your case, you have the opportunity to do so, but only until 28th Feb.

[IO540]

Just bumping this thread to the top - it is very important for you all to respond, especially if you are in any way depending on licenses or ratings from abroad, or know someone (e.g. a corporate pilot) who is.

The registration process involves creating an identity and this results in an email containing a URL which you have to click on. The email address supplied by you has to be real and must not be anti-spammed because the EASA email is automated.

Next, you get another EASA email with the login details, and the best way to get access to the comment context is to login straight from those details.