PDA

View Full Version : EASA Update


Pace
4th Jun 2011, 09:20
EU committee gives qualified nod to EASA-FCL

The European Parliament’s Transport Committee has expressed
reservations about EASA’s FCL proposals but will not stand in their
way, pending a further debate when all the proposals have been
translated into all European languages. At a debate on May 25th MEPs
were given sometimes-incomplete answers – the European Commission’s
representative claimed there were ‘safety concerns’ over FAA licences
– and the Chairman of the Transport Committee, Brian Simpson MEP, said
that the issue was America’s refusal to accept European licences. “Is
this a case of America dictating to us?” he asked. “If the US won’t
recognise ours, why should we recognise theirs?”
Some MEPs made very good cases on behalf of European pilots, notably
the British Conservative MEPs Jackie Foster and Philip Bradbourn and
the Austrian Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger. Ms Foster said that from a
UK perspective, there had been a mutual recognition of FAA licences
down the years and it wasn’t a big issue. “Clearly the UK was okay
with FAA-trained pilots and there were no safety issues,” she said.
Even though the deadline had been extended to 2014,
Philip Bradbourn added: “This EASA decision threatens a long-standing
status quo. It is a solution without a problem. The domicile of the
pilot is irrelevant.” There was no reason to change the system, he
said. “Is there any evidence that FAA licences are unsafe? Cost is a
real issue. If pilots have to convert – it’s estimated that some
68,000 pilots will be affected, and that’s a very conservative number
– the cost of retraining will be £125 million.” The solution was quite
simple, he added – in July the European Parliament should reject
EASA-FCL until a firm bilateral agreement was found.
They received support from Ms Lichtenberger, who asked: “Are European
pilot tests so outdated now that we are requiring unnecessary things
from our European pilots? Is there also an element of age
discrimination concerning medicals?”
But Brian Simpson said the European Parliament had passed the Basic
Regulation with the European-licensing element included and could not
now say it didn’t want it. (The Basic Regulation was outline law
written by the EC, on which EASA was then expected to put flesh.) “The
solution seems to be mutual recognition of pilot licences,” he said.
“The issue seems to be the US not accepting EU licences.”
For the EC, aviation policy director Matthew Baldwin said he believed
the FAA licence issue was among those that had been ‘satisfactorily
resolved’. The EC had a ‘clear mandate’ from the Basic Regulation for
the licensing of pilots residing in the EU. They were trying to settle
this through an annexe to a Bilateral Agreement with the United
States. He added: “In certain respects, we believe some of the US
licences may need to comply with additional EU requirements for safety
reasons.”
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson says: “While this issue
was certainly in the Basic Regulation, that did not give EASA carte
blanche to hang any baggage in pleased on it. The idea of genuine
mutual acceptance of licenses and ratings being enshrined in an annexe
to the BASA is, at best, a very long-term expedient. Mr Baldwin’s
raising of safety concerns demands and explanation. Thousands of FAA
licence holders fly in Europe every day, and have done for decades. On
what is the claim of ‘safety concerns’ based?
The Committee is now waiting for the full translations before making a
decision. The final proposals are expected to be published in
November.

IAOPA to quiz Goudou

EASA Executive Director Patrick Goudou will be present at the EASA
Advisory Board meeting on June 8th, where he will face questions from
IAOPA Europe on FCL issues, and in particular how EASA is going to
communicate what it is doing its bilateral discussions on licensing
with the FAA. Martin Robinson says: “I think EASA has a duty to
consult with industry on the content of the annexe, and we would
welcome a more open dialogue on this issue.”

Can EASA ‘partnership’ change the rules?

EASA’s recently-formed Part-FCL Partnership Group met for the second
time last week, with Nick Wilcock of AOPA UK is IAOPA’s
representative. The FCL-PG meets twice a year for a two-day conference
in Cologne and has the following stated objectives:
To reach a common understanding of the European system for pilot licensing;
To provide information regarding possible gaps in Part-FCL discovered
during the preparation of implementation, thus providing input to
rulemaking activities in the field of FCL;
To exchange mutual information on implementation issues to support the
transition process;
To develop a common understanding of the new rules with the help of
EASA where interpretation of rules is needed;
To exchange information and to discuss alternative means of compliance
for the common understanding of how they are to be implemented;
To provide input to the respective Advisory Group of National
Authorities and Safety Standards Consultative Committee members (by
way of the meeting results) for their task of prioritisation of
rulemaking tasks, thus contributing to a strategic view on further
improving Part-FCL;
Originally, there was an additional objective:
To support EASA activities in the respective NAAs and
Organisations/Associations.
However, at Nick Wilcock’s insistence this has been amended, as it
could well have conflicted with IAOPA’s political lobbying rights. It
now reads:
To provide an EASA forum for NAAs and Organisations/Associations.
The next meeting will be in November; if you have FCL issues you wish
to raise, please forward them to Martin Robinson no later than October
15th.
For the FCL-PG to have any worthwhile purpose, it is vital that EASA
heeds our concerns and produces a methodology which enables swift
regulatory amendment to be achieved. Currently there appears to be no
such methodology available, and EASA rulemakers have shown scant
interest in amending unsatisfactory legislative proposals.

Basically we have all been conned and screwed where do we go from here ?

IO540
4th Jun 2011, 18:31
Writing to Euro MPs, with good well reasoned information, is the best way.

They have it in their power to sink this dishonestly sneaked-in rubbish.

The problem is that most of them do not understand the issues they are voting on, and most of the smaller countries vote YES anyway because they have a straight need to brown-nose the EU. Can you imagine Greece voting against, for example? And that is a "big" place; there are umpteen smaller ones with a vote.

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Jun 2011, 20:21
Writing to Euro MPs, with good well reasoned information, is the best way.
Fing is tho, from where might one obtain the "good well reasoned information"?

I'm quite happy to write to my Euro MP, or indeed simply have a chat with him next time I meet him, which I do from time to time, but what to say?

As far as I personally am concerned, if there's some Euro-bollocks that means I'll have to pay £186 to convert one piece of paper to another in order to continue flying or there's some Euro-bollocks that says I won't be able to continue using my IMCr on 172s rented from the local club then I've got a problem, otherwise I haven't.

The CAA have told me absolutely nothing at all, other than "it's all up in the air, wait and see, but why not give us £186 in the meantime just to be on the safe side", and various pundits on various web sites have said all sorts of contradictory things, so without hiring my own lawyers and private detectives (which my wife won't accept as part of my flying budget) I haven't a clue what's actually going on, and thus haven't a clue what "good well reasoned information" to give to my Euro MP.

Erm ... ... ... ?

:confused::confused::confused:

proudprivate
4th Jun 2011, 21:21
there's some Euro-bollocks that says I won't be able to continue using my IMCr on 172s rented from the local club then I've got a problem, otherwise I haven't.

Your MEPs : Constituencies (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/zoneList.do?country=GB&language=EN)

Dear X,

My name is Gertrude the Wombat :p and I'm a private pilot living in Y near Z. I've been flying for quite a while now and have invested in a skills upgrade to obtain the UK Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions Rating.

To my dismay it has come to my attention that under the new EASA FCL regulations I'm about to lose the flying privileges of my IMC-rating. This is essential when traveling across the country so that I can still get back should cloud cover unexpectedly develop, a condition that we British more than often face.

The proposed EASA legislation doesn't offer any reasonable alternative or compensation for the lost course money and flight lessons. The CAA also hasn't been very communicative, mainly because the proposed legislation is currently undergoing a scrutiny procedure in the transport committee of the European Parliament.

[the next bit varies as to where you live. If you're lucky enough to be from West-Midlands, you have two MEPs that are members of the Transport Committee, otherwise you could go indirectly]

It would help me a lot if you could reject the current proposal, sending EASA and the Commission a strong signal that imposing the abolition of a safety enhancing feature in private flying in the UK is not the way to go.

At the same time, we would like to ask you if you could urge the Commission to amend Basic Regulation 216/2008 so as to postpone its implementation until a viable alternative for private flying under instrument conditions (similar to the UK IMC and with a grandfathering principle) can be worked out. It has come to my attention that only the implementation article (article 70) of this regulation needs amending.

[....]



otherwise I haven't.


You might have a problem even if the IMCR gets saved (at the moment this is not on the cards), in the sense that some axe grinders at the Commission have a vision of private flying only during the week-ends, in uncontrolled airspace and with clear skies.

As such, your local airport might go bust if all the N-registered planes suddenly stop flying and don't contribute in landing fees, maintenance etc... anymore.

So you might consider not just writing to your local MEP or specific people at the transport Committee : best to choose one that is from a political party that you support yourself, explaining that you don't vote for him/her but for his/her buddy in wherever it is Wombats live... Alternatively, an MEP with some particularly strong views about intransparency at the Commission might also work, even if you don't vote for her/him. If you don't like the fact that EASA and the Commission have been trying to sneak this through the back door, holding secret meetings and giving deliberately misleading information, you might quickly find some common ground there. Obviously you then want to put more emphasis on "intransparency", "absence of a true consultation process", "having to be a lawyer to grind through this mud", etc...

Transport and Tourism (TRAN) : Members (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/membersCom.do?language=EN&body=TRAN)

And you might consider going beyond that : write to an MEP in the transport committee whose country you regularly visit (maybe as a tourist) and whose support you want to pledge to protect the UK IMC rating at the very least until an achievable and affordable European equivalent or better exists.

And finally, spare a thought for your fellow pilots on the N-register who have invested £££ to obtain an American Instrument Rating and who are about to be stripped of their privilege too. It might be a good opportunity to join forces, because this is the moment of truth.


I hope this is useful for you. Good luck,

PP.

postscript :

Sorry Gertrude, I've just noticed that Cambridge would be in the East of England Constituency.

Geoffrey Van Orden is a Tran Member (CON) - substitute.

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Jun 2011, 22:34
Ta.

My local airfield won't go bust as a result of this, being Marshalls which has plenty of other business.

My MEP knows perfectly well who I vote for btw ... we belong to the same party (not CON) and he has been known to knock on doors canvassing for me in my ward.

tdbristol
5th Jun 2011, 10:28
Gertrude,

I fly an N-reg so clearly have a vested interest, but would urge you to do whatever you can - particularly if you have MEP contacts - to fight the proposed FCL as hard as possible.

When you say "otherwise I haven't" [got a problem], then that is really not the case - if these proposals go through it will affect all GA very very badly in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.
As you said, the lack of an IMC rating continuing will personally affect your safety.

With no N-reg IRs continuing it will affect the safety of thousands of pilots and passengers throughout Europe [me included].

And many many N-reg pilots will simply give up: I must admit I plan to do so if this goes ahead. I did the FAA IR: it was a lot of work, but worthwhile. I only fly in quite benign IMC but I often do so, on one end of a trip or another. Without an IR ability, the vast majority of my European trips would not be feasible, or would be too uncertain [in having to ensure to remain VMC] - for me there would be no point in having a plane.
But I cannot spend 2-3 months full time, nor am I willing to spend the money, to learn about the pressurisation systems in a Boeing, the jetstream across the North Atlantic and so on to get an EASA/JAA IR. (And I don't see why the hell I should when I already have an IR, and if I just happened to live outside the EU but had exactly the same qualifications and same airplane would be considered acceptable by EASA.)
I love flying but in the end it will just be too much hassle to continue.

So my nice 5-year old, fully equipped IFR airplane will be for sale, along with thousands of others.
There will be a flood of top-end planes coming on to the market, depressing enormously the values of all GA planes for a long time to come.

Along with other N-reg pilots, I currently spend a lot on maintenance, avionics, hangarage, fuel, etc.
As just one example, there is a large maintenance company where I am based; I would guess 80% of their revenue is from N-reg, most of which will be lost when these EASA proposals go through. The result will be that many people at this company will lose their jobs.

The fact is that these EASA proposals will cause a lot of people in GA - who spend a far disproportionately high amount - to stop flying and/or spend way less.

A lot of highly skilled people who depend upon this expenditure will lose their jobs; many small companies will go out of business.

It may not cause your airfield to go out out business, but will mean that other airfields close, or shorten their hours, or no longer have hangarage [converted for other business], or can no longer afford to maintain instrument approach aids, or no longer have a fuel bowser, or don't have maintenance or avionics facilities when you need them.

So please be clear that these proposals will affect you whatever registration airplane you fly.

jxk
5th Jun 2011, 14:48
I fear that there appears to be no way to get any leverage on the people making these bureaucratic decisions allegedly on our behalf.

Pace
5th Jun 2011, 16:31
TD

As a mid fifties Captain on jets if this is pushed through as it stands it will be the end of my career in corporate jets.

To convert to an ATP at my stage in life would mean £20 K and 6 months full time to do 14 ATP exams.

I have neither the time to take off 6 months nor the time left in flying to draw back that £20 K.

Most of all I dont have the motivation to do a whole lot of meaningless work to achieve the ability to do what I am already doing as a Captain.

What for to satisfy some power crazy burocrats in Europe?

I could understand this if there was some indisputable safety arguement which needed addressing BUT THERE IS NONE!!!

That makes me feel sick because disregarding my own situation EASA are supposed to protect the safety side of aviation. That is their mandate, their reason for existance.

Yet the 70 to 100000 pilots involved will be made less safe overnight.
Look at the apalling safety record of the french VFR pilots who have no IMCR or achievable PPL IR.

Pilots will without doubt be killed because of EASA their supposed safety regulators who are regulating for self and political reasons.
I am stunned that there is NO legal redress where EASA cannot be challenged in court.

The whole thing stinks of manipulation, false promises, blatant lies and misinformation to get their ill thought agenda through.

A total lack of caring about pilots who will be severely financially damaged and even worse will loose their lives through this.

EASA YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.

Pace

tdbristol
5th Jun 2011, 16:38
I fear that there appears to be no way to get any leverage on the people making these bureaucratic decisions allegedly on our behalf. That does appear to be the case. There are some MEPs who understand, such as Jackie Foster and Philip Bradbourn, but regrettably it seems that they are in the minority and are unable to prevent this stupidity.

Brian Simpson is head of the Transport Committee, and seems keen to push this through - for whatever reason. He also seems to be disingenuous in saying "its all the fault of the US for not accepting European licenses" when he knows perfectly well that this is not true.
He knows well enough that the planned legislation will actually create a problem, far from solving anything at all, that the status quo is fine, and the BASA is a joke.
And he knows perfectly well that in fact the US authorities already accept European licenses more than JAA/EASA accepts American licenses - you can get a 61.75 piggyback PPL from the FAA based upon a JAA license just with some form-filling, but the JAA/EASA won't reciprocate.

So my suggestion would be to write vociferously to Brian Simpson - perhaps if he gets 5,000 letters/e-mails telling him he is plain wrong; that what he is backing will be extremely damaging to European aviation and jobs; and that he ought to actually start representing his constituents he just might change his stance.

And if anyone has the chance of giving him and the EASA crowd bad publicity - do what you can - they deserve it in spades.

mad_jock
5th Jun 2011, 17:00
Pace I managed to do my ATPL's in 6 months while doing a 10hour a day IT job via distance learning.

You will get hammered though for 4 weeks brush up and 2 weeks exams. Cost less than 3k.

And sim session with CAA examiner will be less than 6k.

Medical 300 and license issue 300 ish.

Which if your VAT registered you can get that back and offset against tax as well halves the face price payed out of your pocket. So in total proberly less than 5k.

And the uk will allow FAA pilots with no additional paper work PPL VFR rights only. In the US you have to get a piggy back which is limited to PPL only if you want any other ratings including IR you have to sit the theory test and also the flight check. If you want to convert you again have to do the theory test and the flight checks just as you do in the UK. So I don't think Brian is wrong.

I might add I don't want the IMC to disappear

Gertrude the Wombat
5th Jun 2011, 17:27
Well, I've sent this, for whatever good it might do:
Dear Andrew,

As you may know I am a private pilot and have been flying for quite a while now. I have invested in further training to upgrade my skills and acquire the UK Instrument Meteorological Conditions Rating.

To my dismay it has come to my attention that under the new EASA FCL regulations I'm about to lose the flying privileges of my IMC-rating. This rating is very useful as it allows me to fly through cloud cover, should the weather conditions deteriorate below what was forecast, a condition that we face quite often in the UK; without it there would be far fewer days of the year on which it would be prudent to take off.

The proposed EASA legislation doesn't offer any reasonable alternative or compensation for the lost course money and flight lessons or for the removal of the rights that I currently enjoy. The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) also hasn't been very helpful, mainly because the proposed legislation is currently undergoing a scrutiny procedure in the transport committee of the European Parliament and the CAA's line seems to be "we don't really know exactly what's happening, and it's out of our hands anyway, so we can't help you".

There is no conceivable public policy driver for removing this right that I and other pilots have worked hard for and paid out thousands of pounds for; indeed the only relevant public policy driver that anyone can think of, safety, points the other way - pilots with an IMC rating are safer than those without. As far as I can see this rating is falling through the cracks of a regulatory harmonisation effort that is really aimed at commercial pilots who are responsible for fare-paying passengers, and general aviation (GA) pilots like myself have simply not been thought about properly. (There are other problems with the proposed EASA regime that will hit other GA pilots - I'm only writing about the IMC rating because that's the one issue that I understand as I am directly affected.)

I would like to encourage you to do what you can to reject the current proposal, sending EASA and the Commission a strong signal that imposing the abolition of a safety enhancing feature in private flying in the UK is not the way to go.

I gather (I haven't studied the details of the relevant law, this is advice I've received) that it would also be helpful if you could urge the Commission to amend Basic Regulation 216/2008 so as to postpone its implementation until a viable alternative for private flying under instrument conditions (similar to the UK IMC and with a grandfathering principle) can be worked out. I have been informed that only the implementation article (article 70) of this regulation needs amending.

If you would like me to take you for a ride to demonstrate the type of flying that EASA is seeking to ban I'm happy to try to arrange this; however this could be difficult - British weather being what it is, any day we arrange will turn out to have clear blue skies!

mm_flynn
5th Jun 2011, 20:20
And the uk will allow FAA pilots with no additional paper work PPL VFR rights only. In the US you have to get a piggy back which is limited to PPL only if you want any other ratings including IR you have to sit the theory test and also the flight check. If you want to convert you again have to do the theory test and the flight checks just as you do in the UK. So I don't think Brian is wrong.

The UK->US and US->UK PPL VFR validation and issue based on are both very 'easy' compared to the proposed new rules (with the UK being automatic for the validation). However, in general UK->US is much easier and more economical for all of the other steps. for IFR, it is only a matter of taking the instrument exam for foreign pilots (a single, broadly relevant to US operations, cheap, accessible exam).

I believe for all of the others licences it is a matter of having the qualifying hours/experiences in the log book, taking the flight test, the written, and a modest (3 hr) pre-flight check training. In concept this seems similar to the US->UK process, but the scale of the exams, scope of examined knowledge and intrinsic process cost (time, money, and rigidity) are much higher in the UK system.

BillieBob
5th Jun 2011, 20:24
Unfortunately, the vast majority of MEPs will vote as directed by their political grouping, irrespective of their personal views or those of their constituents. You may be lucky enough to find one of the very few whose principles outweigh their greed but the chances are vanishingly small. This, regrettably, is the nature of the wholly undemocratic farce that is the European Union, whose members are, in the main, concerned only with extending their influence and lining their pockets at your and my expense.

mad_jock
5th Jun 2011, 20:51
But what the chairman said is correct.

The fact that the US is easier to jump through the hoops is neither here nor there.

The US tax payer pays for alot of the things that as an individual you have to pay for in Europe.

And its not the UK system any more.

If they did change the system allowing an easy transition from FAA to EASA in one swoop would kill off alot of the European training system. Airlines in europe work on the fact there is an over supply of fresh meat out of the training establishments. If the schools go bust there will be a lack of supply which will mean that the industry will not be able to expand at short notice.

And BTW I don't like that last fact one little bit. But its just to point out how far reaching and who will be lobbying to keep the proposal.

proudprivate
5th Jun 2011, 21:49
the vast majority of MEPs will vote as directed by their political grouping, irrespective of their personal views or those of their constituents.


That could be very true on matters where the underlying political theme is clear. However, the least you can say is that some political groups don't have a strong view about the matter at hand.

I've seen opposition to this proposal from the Greens, the Conservatives, Labour, NI's such as UKIP, Liberals and Christian Democrats.

I've seen many diverse points of views across parties and across countries. I've also witnessed quasi-continuous disinformation from EASA and the Commission, so it comes as no surprise to me that MEP's are still in the process of forming an informed opinion.


If they did change the system allowing an easy transition from FAA to EASA in one swoop would kill off alot of the European training system.


Wouldn't it be a good idea to look at the precise reasons behind this (assuming what you're saying is true) ? What exactly makes the European Training System inefficient / expensive ?
- taxes on fuel : In USD / Volume, European fuel costs about 3 : 1 compared to the States.
- a ridiculous theoretical training programme with 3rd rate instruction syllabi and training materials (as opposed to first rate online materials for free at the FAA website)
- a bulky set up of Registered Facilities and Flying Schools, even at private pilot instruction level.
- expensive landing fees, even for training purposes
- higher wage cost, mainly due to social security payments
- higher maintenance cost of planes, mainly due to excessive paperwork that can only be done by a few oligopolistic operators that work at anticompetitive rates.

Some of these can be fixed through regulation or deregulation, others are more difficult to amend. Nevertheless I think it should be possible to organise training system in Europe which is competitive against having to fly across an ocean and stay at a hotel in the US for the duration.

But that is of course not what EASA wants. EASA wants to kill off private flying and general aviation and thrives on bureaucratic and financial barriers preventing citizens from enjoying private travel by airplane.


Airlines in europe work on the fact there is an over supply of fresh meat out of the training establishments. If the schools go bust there will be a lack of supply which will mean that the industry will not be able to expand at short notice.


Here's Economics 101 for you : if a cheaper training system becomes available and mutual license conversion is automatic, then the airlines will have more recruitment potential thus lowering the cost of expansion. So if I were BA, (or Ryanair or Flybe or Lufthansa or whomever) and I had a vague idea about economics, I would lobby against the proposal.

By contrast, if I were BALPA or Oxford Aviation, I would lobby very much in favour of the proposal, using every dirty trick in the book, because such protectionist measures would advance my members' interests or my business interests, even if this were to the detriment of aviation in Europe as a whole.

mad_jock
5th Jun 2011, 22:46
By contrast, if I were BALPA or Oxford Aviation, I would lobby very much in favour of the proposal, using every dirty trick in the book, because such protectionist measures would advance my members' interests or my business interests, even if this were to the detriment of aviation in Europe as a whole

Yep thats what you up against. Add in as well the rest of the pro pilot groups.

Your also up against the fact that you use the same resources as a revenue generating CAT aircraft when you inside the airways system. So you have most of the ATS providers against you as well.

FAA training material is payed for by the US tax payer. In europe the individual has to pay for it. Landings fees again are payed for by the local taxpayers of the local airport. Every airport in the UK is a commercial concern and doesn't get any help apart from the scottish HIAL airports which do get subsidised from central goverment to allow transport links with the rest of the UK.

If the US did become the defacto training provider to europe the whole of the european aviation would be dependent on the US not changing the rules to allow european pilots to use the system. After the schools are gone thats it. The number of training aircraft will decrease, the supply of instructors with the skill set will be gone. It would take years and a hellva lot of capital to kick start the industry again.

But all that aside I still can't get past my view that if your a perm resident of europe you should jump through the same hoops as the rest of us. Bollocks they maybe and I am not disputing that fact all though what you say is 3rd rate I found I have used more and more of it over the years.

IO540
6th Jun 2011, 05:24
The US tax payer pays for alot of the things that as an individual you have to pay for in Europe.That is irrelevant to the very generous FAA policy on foreign license acceptance for private flight.

There is no cost involved in the FAA accepting ICAO training, etc.

If they did change the system allowing an easy transition from FAA to EASA in one swoop would kill off alot of the European training system. No, really? :)

That (European protectionism) is the real reason we have this crap. Also, anti US attitudes amond the self proclaimed Euro intellectuals, who are really just bent gravy train riders.

On top of that, much of what EASA is trying to push through is the personal private project of a few individuals.

Airlines in europe work on the fact there is an over supply of fresh meat out of the training establishments. If the schools go bust there will be a lack of supply which will mean that the industry will not be able to expand at short notice.I don't think the FTOs will ever go bust, because there will always be a supply of starry eyed kids who want to be like Leonardo DiCaprio, getting laid after every long haul flight :)

You must separate the ATPL training pipeline from private flying. EASA has dishonestly lumped together private GA with airline stuff and is trying to force a deal right across the board. This is standard politics but that does not make it honest, or even practical. It is like me saying to my kid "you can have the new bike if I get a pass on my IR Met exam".

But EASA and honesty are two widely separated ideas.

Fuji Abound
6th Jun 2011, 06:41
But all that aside I still can't get past my view that if your a perm resident of europe you should jump through the same hoops as the rest of us. Bollocks they maybe and I am not disputing that fact all though what you say is 3rd rate I found I have used more and more of it over the years.

You have a point but not born out by commercial practice.

Doctors, lawyers and accountants to name a few can all qualify abroad but on the whole, with minimal fuss, be licensed to practice here.

We rail against protectionism and we encourage free enterprise, we embrace the global village well we do unless we are easa.

IO540
6th Jun 2011, 15:51
Yes; it is true that the 3 major GA nations in Europe (UK, Germany, France) have happily allowed N-reg/FAA to run here, for decades.

The UK and France did, 2004/2005, kick off some "little private projects" to kick out N-regs, which were probably some private agendas run at a certain fairly low level in the national CAAs, but these were rapidly terminated as soon as the news reached somebody who knows how to spell "aviation".

EASA has got as far as it has got purely because it runs out of a bunker in Germany, and the most controversial proposals are the private projects for maybe 3-4 people there. Those people are very clever in using "safety" to get everything through. They were very clever (well, they used a tactic known since at least Ceasar) to introduce a Basic Regulation which was very vague but drafted so that nobody could vote against it (like Geldof saying "tonight we will abolish poverty" on stage).

The democratically-ineffective EU machinery has done the rest, and continues to do so. It makes one sick to watch these crooks and liars, openly on TV, lie through their teeth about what is happening, and see the Euro MPs just take it in, and clap just like one used to at communist party meetings in Czechoslovakia.

That said, the JAA PPL/IR is not impossible to do. I am perhaps more than halfway done. The 7 exams are ~ 95% drivel and not relevant to flying, but are intellectually about Grade 6 CSE level. The worst of them (Met and Air Law) are best tackled by banging the QB entirely. Most current IFR pilots will get 50% in all the exams (actually all 14 ATPL ones) with no study at all. The next 25% is hard, but with the QB it is just a matter of time, and treating it as having to wash some dog turd off one's drive - unpleasant and with it was not needed, but not intellectually hard, and satisfying when it's all cleaned up. I estimate 50 mock QB tests in each subject will take you over the 75% mark. The printed study material from the FTO is basically worthless because its relevance to aviation is less than 10%. There are "certain tactics" there which can be followed ;)

There are some good checkride options in Spain and Greece. I checked out a Greek one yesterday; quite pleasant actually, for 2 weeks.

IO540
6th Jun 2011, 15:57
Has the Edit button vanished, or is it my browser?

mad_jock
6th Jun 2011, 16:01
Its gone on mine as well from only your posts.

proudprivate
6th Jun 2011, 22:11
1. Your also up against the fact that you use the same resources as a revenue generating CAT aircraft when you inside the airways system. So you have most of the ATS providers against you as well.


If this money is being used to fund 2/3 the €107 Mio EASA budget, I have a better suggestion for cost saving. It would involve, among other things, not sending the Comitology 7/8 december-meeting members for a 3 year expat contract to Cologne in exchange for a horse traded vote, for starters.


2. FAA training material is payed for by the US tax payer. In europe the individual has to pay for it.


It is not as if the principles of flight or navigation differ from the US here in Europe. European Students are made to pay for question databases that contain the most ridiculous questions, often erroneously framed.

By trying to be clever, European CAA's put emphasis on physics or medicine, but then without a complete grasp of the physical or physiological principle at hand. Also, by subsidizing flight schools to come up with new questions, question designers, long deprived of real life experience or true didactic inspiration, questions, question styles and question framing have truly degenerated into monstrosities (don't believe me - check the reports on the French PPL-IR ideas).

The cost of providing proper training materials would be minimal. Instead, a lucrative parallel industry has developed in providing 3rd rate (I have no other word for it) "course material", not to educate people in the principles that would enhance flight safety, but to get around the monstrosities that the questionnaires have degenerated into.

If there were a real cost for study materials that would properly teach the necessities to safely navigate an airplane in the European Skies, I think most of us would be happy to pay up.


3. Landings fees again are payed for by the local taxpayers of the local airport.


In order to provide a steady stream of trained and current pilots (recall our earlier little Economics 101 excursion), it would not be bad government policy to provide for landing fee - free training environments.

I'm not advocating subsidizing private aviation (there is neither a need nor a public support basis for this, although in the US municipal airports get better utilization, bringing in other returns for the municipalities). But just as we use taxpayers' money for vocational schools, swimming pools and the Eurotunnel, it does make sense to provide for training facilities in aviation for the whole pilot community. For a country the size and population density of Belgium, two airports with this facility would suffice. I can imagine a similar regional setup in the UK.


4. If the US did become the defacto training provider to europe the whole of the european aviation would be dependent on the US not changing the rules to allow european pilots to use the system.

That is a comment simply without merit. Apart from air law, there are not that many differences between flying in the US and flying in Europe. For European Aviation Administration with a true focus on Air Safety (I know, I'm getting carried away by my own fantasy here...) it cannot be an unsurmountable task to provide training materials to accompany rule changes. Incidentally, if the rulemaking body where to be forced to provide explanations and training materials to accompany rule changes, it would avoid a lot of unnecessary regulation.

Also, it would be high time to provide these European wide training materials, because all of them are actually focussed on a particular nationality.

For instance, in Belgium, I had to study the entire Belgium airspace structure (really !), which you could find in the AIP or on a map if you wanted to know. Interesting differences, such as UK MATZ penetration procedures, or German noise abatement rules, are conspicuous for their absence. Another good one, which isn't exactly covered in the Oxford Aviation booklets (which you found "I have used more and more of it over the years"), is blind A/A circuit calls in France or Germany.

So, the danger that the US would be the de facto training provider for European Air law is rather remote. But it would be fantastic if there existed a training provider that would really train people for pan-European flight, and it would be even better if this subject matter were then covered on an actual exam.


5.
...if your a perm resident of europe you should jump through the same hoops as the rest of us


No I should not. I should jump through hoops that are necessary to make me a safe pilot in Europe "up to certain standards". Nobody's perfect, but I had the impression that, after passing my FAA PPL, I was reasonably safe pilot but with plenty of scope for improvement. The JAR PPL (with 21 hours in class training and the nonsense exams) did not add anything as regards safety. The real upgrade came with my FAA IR. That was intense work, because it not only entailed going through the IR rules / procedures / maneuvres (those lovely 3M post its all over the 6 pack), it forced me to fly a lot more accurately. Since then, I've added bits and bobs to my flying skills, but I still consider my instrument rating as my survival kit.

The fact that EASA and the Commission are precisely going after that safety enhancing skill is bordering on criminal negligence. In their protectionist scheming combined with a contempt for private travel by airplane, they are preventing pilots from becoming safer through a feasable additional training programme.


6. (point made by jxc)
I fear that there appears to be no way to get any leverage on the people making these bureaucratic decisions allegedly on our behalf.

Your fear is unjustified. By contacting MEP's in writing or in person (you can ask for a meeting in their constituency or in Brussels), you can make your case in a structured manner.

Unlike some of the negativity I've heard around here, MEP's are beginning to form a clear opinion about what EASA, the Commission and a few individuals at French, UK and Dutch CAA have been up to. The Transport Committee of the European Parliament truly has the last word on this dogs breakfast.

That is a great thing, because you do have leverage over these people :
1) because you can vote / not vote for them, depending on how they treat you and how they vote on this proposal
2) because of lots of anti-European rhetoric (some of it entirely justified, some of it populistic drivel), they tend to thread carefully when massive protests such as from the private pilot community are being mounted. Ignoring it would not just cost them votes, it would also damage the credibility of the European institutions as a whole.

For me personally, the way the Transport Committee of the EP is going to treat this proposal is going to be decisive in my opinion of Europe as a project. And quite a few people are looking at this with the same anxiety.

Which is why I'm reasonably optimistic about the final outcome, although it will require a continuous effort from a lot of us in the months to come.

Gertrude the Wombat
6th Jun 2011, 23:08
That is a great thing, because you do have leverage over these people :
1) because you can vote / not vote for them
Not very easy, with the horrendous closed party list system used for Euro elections. The real fight is getting yourself at the top of your party's list, which is done by some private process internal to the party - once there, there's no real prospect of not ending up in Brussels.

proudprivate
7th Jun 2011, 16:58
The real fight is getting yourself at the top of your party's list, which is done by some private process internal to the party


That is the same for a lot of national elections in many member states. However, if specific MEPs in a constuency region get lousy scores, a well organised political party will quickly put two and two together and turn that into a Sayonara post for that "Right Honourable" party comrade.
:ok:


Some more interesting European issues I dug up for both MEPs and Honourable PPruNe members to consider (for those looking for inspiration when writing their 3rd letter or 4th letter to an MEP):

1) There appears to be an operational programme for regional development in the EU. The second priority axis of this programme is "Regional and Local Accessability". This is not unlike the US programmes of keeping specific Municipal Airports open, provided they truly contribute to regional accessibility. So supporting local airports, with the aim of promoting tourism, for instance, fits perfectly in the European Fund allocation process. Obviously, killing off private travel by airplane affects local accessability in a negative way...

2) There is something like a European Policy on Transparency : The Commission (admittedly not the Transport Directorate and its four letter Agency) is actively pushing Member States for citizens' participation in the decision making process. Key elements recurring in the various policy statements are
* Accountability :ok:
* Transparency :ok:

I must say I smiled when I read that, thinking about the surroundings of the two EASA committee meetings at the end of last year, with nearly inexistent minutes and keeping the horse trading participant members' names a closely guarded secret. :=

But it's good ammo in your letters to MEPs, because it is again proof of the fact that the secret agenda of Eh-Arse-Ah and a couple of Commission & local CAA axe grinders are pursuing flies in the face of what even their colleagues in the European Civil Service are aiming for.

Happy landings and inspirational letter writing,

PP.