DGAC unveil achievable IR for France

[noblue]

Remarkable news from France:D . If you read French you can click here. (http://www.aerobuzz.fr/spip.php?article2009)

Let's hope the CAA and other NAAs both recognize the qualification and introduce their own versions asap.
A glimmer of hope for us FAA IR pilots?

COLRE

[SkyCamMK]

Google translates this as:



The DGAC announced the launch of the French private IFR


Security, published Friday, June 24, 2011 by Editor

In a press release dated June 24, 2011, entitled "Private IFR: instrument flight open to private pilots," DGCA announced the completion of its work on the establishment of an IFR suitable for private pilots.

As she explains in its press release, " the Directorate General of Civil Aviation has decided to facilitate the access of private pilots to flight rating (IFR: Instrument Flight Rules) aircraft on single or twin piston. The organization and the length of the theory test questions are lighter and will be refocused on the knowledge actually required to practice instrument flying on this aircraft type. The practical training will be organized under the responsibility of an approved flight school with the possibility of a part of the program in the flying clubs covered by a protocol. The drivers will be able to adapt the pace of their training to their availability . "

France expects the regulations on private IFRPhoto: © Gil Roy / Aerobuzz.fr
DGAC states that " the redefinition of the review responds to strong demand for pilots, who felt the current requirements ill-suited to their practice which encouraged them more to obtain the qualification American. The new training should begin by fall 2011 . "

The DGAC has been careful to emphasize that " the French evolution was made ​​in a transparent vis-à-vis the EASA and the primary concern that these changes will inspire thoughts in progress and the transition to the new rules Europe will easily ". The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is currently working on a development of this qualification at the community level.

[BEagle]

They have merely adopted the provisions of JAR-FCL 1.175(b):

JAR–FCL 1.175 Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required

(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.


It will be interesting to see whether this Rating will be able to be used outside French airspace - my understanding is that it won't be. As is the case with the UK IMCR.

At least it'll cause a few surprises at the tower of €urobabble in Köln!

[IO540]

How many drachmas would you pay to be a fly on the wall in Goudot's office?

[noblue]

The new French IR, which will require 45 hours training and a single written exam, is ICAO compliant and I can see no reason why it should not be recognized abroad.

Now, I wonder what arrangements they will make for FAA rated pilots.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I'd not be surprised to see my own national administration following suit very soon, that is to say, as quick as they are able, which has never been impressive... And as we seem to be lacking a government, it might be impossible to turn the basic decision into law right now.

But they might well introduce a similar ruling. Whether they'd also recognise the French original seems a bit more doubtful, but it would be a nice addition.

[echobeach]

I am puzzled as to why this is labelled as so easily achievable and the JAA IR considered to be so difficult. I have given up waiting and with worries re imc, FAA ir, limited ppl ir etc and decided to do jaa multi ir. It's only 10 hours more than the French 'achievable' ir.
The written exams I have just finished and passed and started in jan. All done in spare time and if one is remotely interested in aviation all reasonably straightforward. Maybe not all relevant as IO540 will rightly point out*
I am trying to get this all done in 9 months to prove it's possible for an average ppl such as myself. At the end of the day seems less stressful than worrying about what will happen to my IMC rating or waiting for an 'achievable' 45 hr limited ir.

[patowalker]

The new French IR, which will require 45 hours training and a single written exam, is ICAO compliant and I can see no reason why it should not be recognized abroad.

French and German Class 2 medicals are ICAO compliant, but they are not accepted in the UK.

[David Roberts]

Of course, this is a French wheeze of putting pressure on EASA, which has been dithering too long over FCL.008. I see the hand of a certain Hughes xxxx in this before he left DGAC for private pastures new.

Unless EASA comes up with the 'EU goods' for a more proportionate IR, thereby giving the French the ability to cancel their IR in favour of a new EU IR, the French will be left with an IR that cannot legally be used by pilots of aeroplanes within the scope of EU rules.

Bet there have been 'conversations' between senior guys at EASA and DGAC on this. The senior (French) guys are in the same 'club'.

[IO540]

Most of the work in the JAA IR is not the flight training. It is the stupid irrelevant theory with the 7 exams.

The 45 hrs is probably about what most ab initio pilots will need anyway, one way or the other. It would however be excessive to force it all to be dual time at an FTO, with no allowance for any previous IR etc. Such a requirement (which the present JAA IR basically has) is both bluntly disproportionate, and pointlessly expensive. I'd like to see the details of the French proposal.

Great news, anyway.

[englishal]

As usual, we in Great Britain form committies, groups, organisations to discuss this at great length (over Whisky at the boys club no doubt) then approach EASA and grovel with them, and when they tell us to run and jump, we do. Whereas the French just announce that this is what we are doing, get used to it.

No wonder France is listed as one of the top countries to live in these days. We roll over and take it from these Europlebs, they say Up Yours. Viva La France !

[patowalker]

Comment on the forum where the news was posted:

"Pas mal. Si je me souviens bien en 1980 on en parlait déjà.", which loosely translates as "Not bad. If I remember correctly, they were already talking about this in 1980"

[IO540]

the French will be left with an IR that cannot legally be used by pilots of aeroplanes within the scope of EU rules.

I don't see why.

There is no "international police" - except NATO and similar and they won't get involved in enforcing EU directives.

Maybe China would do it for a 10% kickback, when they get their new aircraft carrier sorted?

Every country has sovereignity within its own airspace and can tell EASA to sod off. The EU cannot do anything about it - especially now that the EU has almost disintegrated (anybody read a newspaper anytime in the last few weeks?).

And France will always get its way. Goudot is French and his career prospects upon his return to French political life post-EASA would be nil, zero, zilch, nonexistent if EASA screwed up French aviation.

I have spoken to some top French aviation execs about the EASA proposals, ages ago, and their reaction is "hmmm, this is serious, hmmm" and they go back to their bottle of wine, despite maybe 50% of their European sales being N-reg and it being patently obvious that there is no way most of their (middle aged plus) single pilot customers are never going to grind through a JAA IR. They just "know" that on the last day the DGAC will stick a finger up to the EU.

The FCL008 IR has a very long way to go through the EU sausage machine. A great idea but relying on it to magically arrive intact on a particular date in April 2012 is just silly. The Germans haven't got their hands on it yet, for starters. And AFAIK nobody worked out a FAA IR to FCL008 IR conversion route, and without that it is all basically a waste of time.

[David Roberts]

IO

A correction. The EU FCL rules will not be a Directive but primary EU law. As in 'Regulation' and 'Implementing Rules'. i.e.statute law. Each member state is responsible for compliance and the EU police in this case is the standardisation division of EASA. It is not a question of national sovereignty over airspace, it is the fact that all aircraft within the scope of EU airworthiness rules will have to be flown by pilots with an EU licence (or 'third country acceptance' criteria), including the various ratings etc. A Directive is a different thing and has to be adopted specifically by each member state in national legislation. EU Regulations do not - they over-ride national law automatically.

Now I would expect any problems over French compliance to be discussed over a good lunch and bottles of wine, but....

Remember, at the political level, if France (and Germany) put up the proverbial finger to the EU then it is all over. Very unlikely, despite current difficulties over the euro and Greece etc.

As for FCL.008 output, we have to wait and see (I know, it's been a long time...). Let's assess the NPA when it is published, rather than pre-judge it. I know the EASA officials are very conscious of the importance of the ('simplified') IR, conversions etc etc. As for the date of implementation, it cannot possibly be April 2012 and that's why I have lobbied for some time to have sensible continuity and transition provisions which I am sure will be put in place.

Anyway, I would guess the French IR plot has the connivance of EASA.

[IO540]

Remember, at the political level, if France (and Germany) put up the proverbial finger to the EU then it is all over. Very unlikely, despite current difficulties over the euro and Greece etc.I don't think it is so clear cut.

The only EASA output so far to make law is the Basic Regulation. This is so vague it is worthless. For example is says the EU has authority over foreign regs. Well, what else could it say? That the EU has no authority over foreign regs? Nobody would have voted for such an abdication of sovereignity, so everybody voted for the BR. It's an old political trick.

And nobody has a real issue with the BR. It merely states (vaguely or otherwise) the infinitely long established present position which is that if the CAA rep at LHR sees a Thai 747 whose engine is about to come off, they can ground it and it will stay grounded until somebody comes along and tightens up the engine bolts :)

It is all the stuff in the EASA pipeline that is the problem. None of it is EU law yet, and all of it is subject to " a good lunch and bottles of wine, " etc.

It is the anti foreign reg provisions in the later stuff, not law yet, which have been dishonestly justified by EASA as being required by the BR (which is already law) which are subject to change if somebody makes a really strong stand.

It's like Bob Geldof going on stage and saying "tonight we will abolish poverty" and after everybody cheers (and everybody with more than 2 braincells knowing it is just plain daft) BG then sends the military to take over Africa, etc :) That's essentially what EASA has done - a fairly basic political trick.

If say France sticks a finger up to the EU at this stage on the IR, the EU will have to modify the stuff in the pipeline, otherwise (as you say) the EU game is over. It's quite a gamble, but France will always win that one because it is not worth fighting over in Brussels. Not when Greece is about to bring the whole edifice down anyway.

[Pace]

makes you wonder why our own CAA doesnt back france up and state they will do the same?

pace

[IO540]

I think there are 3 issues:

1) The UK CAA has never had a top level connection to EASA; the EASA top brass is mostly French

2) Most people with a brain left the UK CAA within the past two years

3) France has a very high level of integration across its political/industrial elite. This is frowned upon in the civilised world because it blocks transparency of Govt and corporate behaviour (it is basically corruption) but this is the only way to deal with EASA, which has been carefully set up to be relatively unaffected by straightforward commercial lobbying. If EASA was run by Germany, we would all be stuffed years ago.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I can not see the relevant press release on teh DGAC site; has someone found it on there?

FD

[patowalker]

No. But then they have all been at Le Bourget this week, where the announcement was made.

[vfr-uk]

This has appeared on the French AOPA site

Point sur l'avancement de l'IR privé et des sujets associés -French (http://www.aopa.fr/Point-sur-l-avancement-de-l-IR-prive-et-des-sujets-associes_a199.html)

And google translated: Google Translated AOPA Page (http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.aopa.fr/Point-sur-l-avancement-de-l-IR-prive-et-des-sujets-associes_a199.html&ei=EPoKTtW1C8nLhAe58dTTDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddgac%2Bir%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3De n%26prmd%3Divnsfd)

[Whopity]

The UK had an identical IR up to 1999 but the JAA prevented us from continuing with it. I seem to recall France was once a member of the JAA as well, so how come the requirements don't apply to them? Of course, they couldn't give a diddly squat pas!

I note that the UK has failed to notify a difference from ICAO in the 11 years it has followed the JAA requirement which is considerably different.

[IO540]

Could you elaborate on that, Whopity? It's most interesting but I've never heard of it.

[proudprivate]

This has appeared on the French AOPA site


1) It refers to a meeting in September 2009, so pretty dated (an era ago, when counted in EASA years)
2) Maxime Coffin participated at the Meeting and in his current capacity he is Deputy Chairman of the EASA supervisory board
3) A recognition of FAA IR's is suggested

So here's my theory :

- EASA (or at the very least its deputy chairman) was not unfavourable towards grandfathering or immediate recognition of FAA IR's towards a European (Private ?) IR.
- The European Commission's Aviation "Safety" Unit got pissed off by EASA gradually gaining importance and expanding its remit, at the expense of the Commission.
- This resulted in Kazatsay writing an angry letter, telling EASA to stick to its mandate and use JAR as narrow guidance.
- This, in turn, lead to a few medium to high ranked EASA people getting quite frustrated and reasoning along the lines of "They (the Commission) want a dogs breakfast ? They're gonna get a dogs breakfast !"
- Mix that with a few incompetents and a couple of axe grinders (some I can think of have a dual capacity) together with some UK FTO lobbying and some civil servant pecuniary coersion for good measure, and we have what's on the table.

Pretty pathetic for a bunch of reasonably well paid civil servants pretending to have aviation expertise.


The UK had an identical IR up to 1999 but the JAA prevented us from continuing with it.


Which one was that ? And why was it, unlike the IMC-rating, discontinued, if only applicable in UK airspace ?

And if the CAA/DoT/UK was so pro private IR, why was it always insisting that the FAA IR was insufficient to navigate the airways ?

[mad_jock]

Because the FAA tolerances are higher than the UK IR for a plain SEP IR.

From memory

Heading, airspeed,RMI and dme arc is double that of UK tolerances

The CDI allows 3/4 deflect in the Uk its half scale.

The method behind holding procedures is also different.

I think the only limit that they are the same on is +- 100ft on altitude.

There are other small things as well such as ADF dip not occuring in the FAA world but in everyone elses.

Similar tolerances to an IMC which is what it was classed as equivalent to.

The tolerances on an FAA ATP IR on a type I believe are the same as the european ones.

[IO540]

ADF dip... really relevant (not).

Let me let you into an industry secret. The Comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet) is finished.

From memory

Your memory needs a refresh, MJ. Not a single item in your list has any relevance to today's IFR.

[Whopity]

We had an "unapproved" IR where you just did enough to pass the test. You did need 600 hours experience to do it but it was at least realistic and fully ICAO compliant.

[IO540]

How many private pilots got this IR?

[Whopity]

I would suspect all those who wanted an IR and had 600 hours; however that probably didn't amount to very many.

[mad_jock]

Just looked and the limits are still as I mentioned according to the FAA IR test document.

Double on everything bar the Altitude, same as the IMC limits.

[IO540]

I would suspect all those who wanted an IR and had 600 hours; however that probably didn't amount to very many.

Is this by any chance the "700 hour IR route" which has come up here previously?

I think a high proportion of the "older" UK IR private pilots (and they form the majority of UK/JAA IR private pilots in almost any pilot gathering) went via that route. It was ended by JAA in 1999.

[Whopity]

Indeed it was. 700 hours was required for issue but you could use that route with 600 hours.

[IO540]

What exactly did that route allow you to skip?

My recollection was that you could skip the mandatory classroom, but still had to do all the exams and the dual training.

[youngskywalker]

My FAA IR test consisted of (if I recall correctly 5 years later) a 2-3 hour oral, depart on a SID from an airport I had never once previously been, join an airway, an intersection hold off a VOR, DME arc to a VOR approach to mda then missed, another intersection hold, NDB tracking, procedural ILS with engine failure just before localiser intercept, single engine go around, vectored ILS approach to DH then missed, go around partial panel vor approach to mda then circle to land single engine. A few unusual attitude recoveries chucked in for good measure along the way.

Granted not the same NDB requirement as JAA land but all things considered I'd say it was hardly just given to me on a plate! A tad trickier than my IMCR in my opinion. That was on a Duchess although I later did a similar IR renewal on a King Air sim.

[IO540]

Yeah; mine was mostly partial panel, timed turns, route I had never done before, unusual attitude recovery on partial panel, a 4 hour oral before that. Not easy stuff at all.

[Whopity]

What exactly did that route allow you to skip?All approved training, so you could train to test standard with anyone, pass a F170A with an authorised person and then take the test. You needed a total of 40 hours Instrument Flight time and 10 hours dual instruction logged, which coincided with the IMC course training, plus a pass in the relevant exams unless you held an exemption! Essentially, you met the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 Paras 2.6.1.2 ans 2.6.1.3.
JAR-FCL increased the 40 hour approved course to a 55 hour approved course, and less people obtained first time passes! Probably because of the shift to STDs and a reduction in aircraft time.

[IO540]

That's astonishing. It explains why nearly all the "old boys" I have bumped into and who have a UK IR did it under the 700hr route ;)

Incidentally, a 170A appears to be a UK-only thing.

[Whopity]

The F170A was introduced in the late 80s as lots of people were turning up to take tests and failing. The CAA was having trouble meeting the demand for tests as they did all the CPL and IR Skill tests so introduced the F170A as a form of filter. It is not a JAA requirement but has remained in place ever since. Its not an EASA requirement either. The F170A is actually a Course Completion Certificate!

[vfr-uk]

1) It refers to a meeting in September 2009, so pretty dated (an era ago, when counted in EASA years)

Oh yeah, sorry about that. Saw June 2011 in google and didn't check the actual date on the page. Duh. Not very exciting then.

[IO540]

Here (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/110628france_announces_private_pilot_instrument_rating.html? WT.mc_id=ebrief) is the US AOPA release.

The French propose to validate FAA IRs. This is a bombshell, of course.

Not unexpected when one looks at the wider political picture of aviation.

With a bit of luck, we may be watching EASA's bogus FCL initiative come apart at the seams.

[giloc]

Double on everything bar the Altitude, same as the IMC limits.
Actually the UK IR and IMC Skill Test tolerances are the same (as each other - not the FAA IR) for: Altitude in Normal flight (+/- 100'), on Limited or Partial Panel (+/- 200'), initiating a Go-around at DA (+50' -0'), at MDA (+50' -0'), at circling minima (+100' -0'); VOR tracking(+/- 5) ; ILS tracking (1/2 scale deflection); Heading with simulated engine failure (+/- 10) or on Limited or Partial panel (+/- 15).

[Contacttower]

The French propose to validate FAA IRs. This is a bombshell, of course.

My reading of that bit in the article is that they will get the validation for the new French IR, not the full JAR one though, so a similar arrangement by which the CAA gives FAA IR holders an IMC rating.

[IO540]

I agree it seems that way but the French IR will not be sub-ICAO like the IMCR is, which means it could be potentially valid worldwide.

[Contacttower]

Would be quite funny if everyone started moving to F reg and doing the French IR...want to go to France?..quick scud run to the FIR boundary and then you could go anywhere in France IFR...

[Pace]

With the French very bad VFR accident statistics we have to commend them for doing this.

Are there any comments from the CAA? A replacemnt for the IMCR with allowances towards getting the new rating..

Two major GA countries in Europe accepting this would soon have others following and EASA quickly trying to claim it as their own.

The UK CAA have a good arguement with the abolishment of the IMCR to follow suit.

A shame that our CAA had not got the guts to have done this themselves

France thanks for the spoon :E

Pace

[Whopity]

We have EASA run by a very nice but rather useless Frenchman called Goudu; his FCL team of clerks run by another Frenchman named Cluzeau, no relation of course, and now the French DGAC pulling in entirely the opposite direction whilst the man at the CAA is bending over backwards to kiss Goudu's arse. Better than a Whitehall Farce. Vive la France

[VMC-on-top]

Is there anything official available about this from the French CAA?

[Justiciar]

What is rather sad is that to read some of this material you would think that the French are the only ones to have thought that PPLs need an instrument qualification suited to their needs. Good luck to them though and this is something which EASA will either have to confront head on or give way to.

There is nothing about limiting it to particular types of aircraft. I cannot yet see how this is going to sit with the Part FCL proposed regulations. The truth may be that this is wholy incompatable with Part FCL, which begs the question as to where those regulations are going .... maybe they are going nowhere:\

[IO540]

For many years the French (and the Brits, and the Germans) were perfectly happy about N-regs providing the solution to an "achievable GA IR", right under the noses of their constantly campaigning FTOs, because it suited them.

They all knew that if they let the FTO rottweilers loose onto the GA IR community (by crippling the N-reg option) the result would merely be a virtual elimination of IFR GA.

But they could never go public with this policy, while taking nice fat fees from the FTOs, drafting national regs, etc.

So the status quo was maintained. With various pressure limiting devices like no commercial ops, no training by flying schools, etc. Throw in a bit of FUD and there you go... ATPL wannabees will "always pay whatever it costs" and that keeps the FTOs in the money.

The jet scene could never be touched because the planes are too mobile. Most of the owners have multiple homes, etc. You would drive a bus through ICAO if you messed with jets.

Outside of Africa and various assorted dictatorships / police states around the world, Denmark was the one place which persecuted N-regs (sporadically, on the basis of long term parking).

But now EASA has threatened to actually do the deed and cripple the IFR GA community, so the French (and the others) had their hand forced, but only the French have the balls to do anything. The UK CAA just sends out handwashing letters, like the one I got the other day.

I also think the French know something we don't know about the FCL-008 IR e.g. it is not going to happen. Otherwise, why bother with their own IR proposal? It's obvious really, and the French must have the total inside track on everything in EASA.

It would not suprise me if most other EU countries follow suit and introduce their own non-EASA IRs, just before EASA gets around to doing the dirty work (IF indeed it does get around to it). Amazingly, one FTO boss told me recently that his local CAA told him this will happen. This was unprompted and I was very suprised. But it makes sense. :) If they do it now, they can because JAA is dead but EASA FCL does not yet exist. The only EASA law (the BR) is so vague it is meaningless.

[Contacttower]

I also think the French know something we don't know about the FCL-008 IR e.g. it is not going to happen. Otherwise, why bother with their own IR proposal? It's obvious really, and the French must have the total inside track on everything in EASA.

All things considered there must be an element of truth in that..or at least they are confident they can head Part-FCL off without too much trouble. The fact that the release stated that it could start as early as September suggests they are not wasting any time.

[bookworm]

Here is the US AOPA release.

The French propose to validate FAA IRs. This is a bombshell, of course.

Not unexpected when one looks at the wider political picture of aviation.

With a bit of luck, we may be watching EASA's bogus FCL initiative come apart at the seams.

What the AOPA article says is:

"While the rating is limited to French-registered airplanes in French airspace, it includes a provision for foreign pilots with instrument ratings, such as those from the United States, to validate their instrument rating on their French certificate."

Part-FCL also includes a provision for foreign pilots with instrument ratings, such as those from the United States, to validate their instrument rating on their Part-FCL licence. You just don't like the small print. ;)

[Pace]

I wonder how much Socata sales in europe has to do with this? It would not suit Socata to loose N reg in Europe.

Pace

[proudprivate]

Bookworm :


Nous retenons particulièrement les points qui sont mis en avant dans le document de la DGAC tels que:


Allégement du théorique IFR
Reconnaissance des IFR américains et report de ces derniers sur la licence Européene
Eventuelle mise en application par la France, avant même la publication des textes EASA et Européens définitifs


You don't seem to like the French print ;).

I must say I found your earlier references to Ian Richardson quite appalling. I hope you remember how the story ends ? You might end up being held more accountable than you had wished for.

Pace :

It is Socata Sales; also Dassault Sales; even Eurocopter Sales
It is also BNP Paribas Assurance;
It is the Syndicat d'Initiative of many a touristic place in France


Contacttower :


they are confident they can head Part-FCL off without too much trouble.

From what I hear, I think the road ahead is still quite bumpy.

[Mickey Kaye]

"All approved training, so you could train to test standard with anyone, pass a F170A with an authorised person and then take the test. You needed a total of 40 hours Instrument Flight time and 10 hours dual instruction logged, which coincided with the IMC course training, plus a pass in the relevant exams unless you held an exemption! Essentially, you met the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 Paras 2.6.1.2 ans 2.6.1.3.
JAR-FCL increased the 40 hour approved course to a 55 hour approved course, and less people obtained first time passes! Probably because of the shift to STDs and a reduction in aircraft time."


So you passed the IR test on merit. Oh for such a system today

[FlyingStone]

JAR-FCL increased the 40 hour approved course to a 55 hour approved course, and less people obtained first time passes! Probably because of the shift to STDs and a reduction in aircraft time.

Minimum amount of training for a JAR-compliant IR(A) (single engine though) is 50 hours. The additional 5 hours are only if you are doing straight ME/IR - I believe you know this, I write this just as clarification to others.

I believe the aircraft time is much more valuable than STD, but then again, you can't simulate anything in the aircraft - and of course, it's cheaper to do some (or even maximum possible) training in the STD (FNPT) than in real aircraft. This being said, I doubt any FTO would categorically refuse student, who would want to do all the training for IR(A) in the aircraft instead of doing it mostly in the STD.

[FREDAcheck]

The UK CAA have a good arguement with the abolishment of the IMCR to follow suit. (shouldn't that be "abolishification"?)
Some of us are still hoping the IMCR won't be abolished. We think we've been told it won't be - at least for existing holders.

I'm really pleased that someone is doing something for an achievable IR. But this really isn't a replacement for IMCR, which is about IMC flight outside CAS, not IFR touring.

[bookworm]

You don't seem to like the French print

I haven't seen any "French print" yet, have you? The DGAC seems to be silent on this. The point is simply that IO-540 should not assume that "validation" means "validation without further requirements". I hope it does.

I must say I found your earlier references to Ian Richardson quite appalling.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Pace]

Some of us are still hoping the IMCR won't be abolished. We think we've been told it won't be - at least for existing holders.

FREDAcheck

I think we were also told that EASA had no desire to remove European N reg Pilots but were working for a bi lateral agreement?

Giving existing holders the right to exercise its privalages means just that! There will be NO IMCR rating.

What puzzles me is the CAA in all this! If the French can unilaterally create a brand new IR whyt are we even in this position of hoping the IMCR will be given a last minute stay of execution by EASA.

As with the French shouldnt the CAA just tell EASA that they will be maintaining a full IMCR rating for the uk! End of story.

The French can do it so how come our CAA are such wet lettuces

Pace

[FREDAcheck]

What puzzles me is the CAA in all this! If the French can unilaterally create a brand new IR whyt are we even in this position of hoping the IMCR will be given a last minute stay of execution by EASA.

As with the French shouldnt the CAA just tell EASA that they will be maintaining a full IMCR rating for the uk! End of story.

The French can do it so how come our CAA are such wet lettuces
Quite. We make a lot of noise, grumble about the EU, then do what we're told. The French don't complain, they just do what they want.

[IO540]

The point is simply that IO-540 should not assume that "validation" means "validation without further requirements". I hope it does.

The EASA FCL IR validation provisions are worthless.

Historically, a precedent for a conversion of a foreign PPL/IR or a CPL/IR might be

- an air law exam
- a flight test

and I would expect the DGAC to do something like that.

The JAA IR Air Law contents is at least 90% bollox (it has tons of irrelevant garbage like traffic separation between two parallel runways; apparently the syllabus was written by an ATCO) but looking at it from the emotional/political angle (always the best way; forget this is "aviation") it is hard to argue against the proposition that a "foreign pilot" needs to know the local laws.

And same for the flight test. If you can fly, you will pass the test, no? And if you can't fly, you have no business here :)

The 700hr IR option would save somebody about £15000 today. I bet the FTOs loved JAA when it arrived :) What they didn't realise is that the number of private IRs would fall to single figures per year for all of the UK.

[proudprivate]

I haven't seen any "French print" yet, have you?


The French print I was referring to comes from VFR-UK's reference. As it happens, I have also seen recent French print.



What on earth are you talking about?


I was referring to your saying

...you might think that, Billiebob, I couldn't possibly comment

which is symptomatic for the cynicism applied by a number civil servants and consultants, at European and National level alike, and which acts to the detriment of the credibility of Europe and the civil service (at all levels)

[bookworm]

It is true that there is no malicious intent on the part of EASA personnel insofar as they do not deliberately set out to do damage to the industry. However, it is also true that the motives of the movers and shakers in Cologne are purely political; the health of the industry and safety are both so far down their list of priorities as to be invisible. In pursuit of their political ends, they have absolutely no consideration of the effect that the means they employ will have on the individual pilot or on any part of the aviation industry. Lies and broken promises are the stock in trade in a world where the end entirely justifies the means, however despicable.

Are you saying, proudprivate, that you do not agree with Billiebob?

[proudprivate]

Are you saying, proudprivate, that you do not agree with Billiebob?


I wasn't directly commenting on Billiebob's view; rather, it was your formulation of acknowledging it that upset me.

In view of your involvement on the UK side in this file, and in view of the suffering it causes to N-reg pilots now and the whole General Aviation community in the near future, I read your quoting Ian Richardson in the House of Cards trilogy as totally misplaced.

As for Billiebob's comment, I also believe the rulemaking processes at EASA are completely outdated and inefficient; quite peculiar for an organisation that only exists for a couple of years.

So coming back to your statement about "EASA being underfunded", which at first could only draw Homerical laughter, I would answer :
"It depends on what you want to do at EASA and how".

If it's just to get in a few more admin drones who plan schemes of the legislative planning calendar (really !) or to set up a pointless "task force" to reward some NAA civil servants with an expat contract for services rendered, then of course its a nono. Then € 107 million is already way over the top, as I'm sure you can agree.

If, by contrast, you want to implement a Copernican revolution, which gets rid of the drones and which aims at actually promoting aviation in Europe and save some costs at the NAA level, you would have my blessing.

[englishal]

Just looked and the limits are still as I mentioned according to the FAA IR test document.
There is also a VERY stringent oral examination not to mention that the examiner is liable to make you do most of the test partial panel.....You might also have no idea what he is going to throw at you. In the UK you know it is Exeter or Yeovil Monday to Thursday, Southampton on friday as the CAA examiner wants to knock of early.

[421C]

I bet the FTOs loved JAA when it arrived
IO,
My memory may be wrong here, but I have a feeling the JAA route reduced the cost for the majority of IR candidates. Although it increased the hours a bit (eg. from 40/45 to 50/55), it raised the amount that could be done on an FNPT2 a lot: from 10 to 40. (numbers I believe roughly correct).

What the JAA seemed to do was put smaller clubs/schools out of the commercial/professional/IR training business, I guess through the FTO approval requirements being to onerous if you had a small training business. I seem to remember an awful lot more schools could teach the CPL or IR pre-JAA?

brgds
421C

[mad_jock]

From what I could see just as I was getting into flying you are correct 421c.

But at the time the FNPT II's used to cost a fortune and the cost of a sim hour wasn't far off paying for the aircraft.

When I was making my choice the cost for an IR course was 10k unless you went to oxford.

It didn't matter which way you did it

1. all in the aircraft, single followed by twin
2. FNPT I +45 hours aircraft
3. FNPT II +15 hours aircraft.

I went for the second option because you got more logged hours. And we got free solo on the FNPT I

But alot went for the 3rd because you had less chance of wx issues or tech aircraft issues.

Then the MCC reared its ugly head and everyone went to FNPT II's so they could milk that fat cow.

[BillieBob]

I read your quoting Ian Richardson in the House of Cards trilogy as totally misplaced.Yes, the English sense of irony is a little difficult to grasp, isn't it?

[IO540]

Here you go (http://www.aopa.fr/IFR-Francais-enfin-visible-_a263.html) - French and English.

Amazing stuff.

[Contacttower]

Only thing I noticed that was a bit strange; in the French bit it seems to say the rating is restricted to non-retractable aircraft...

[Jan Olieslagers]

What phrase led you to this? The closest I came is Avions non complexes (pas réacteurs). which I would translate as "non-complex aircraft, no jets". But it is not clear what exactly is understood by "non-complex" in this context, for me it would mean "having either retractable gear or a constant speed prop or both" but it can hardly mean that in this context because it wouldn't make sense to limit this nice new license to Jodels and Cubs.
I guess we'll have to wait for a clear definition of these "avions non complexes, pas reacteurs".

[patowalker]

Nothing to worry about. According to EASA a complex-motor-powered aircraft means:

(i) an aeroplane:
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5700kg, or
- a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 9, or
-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots, or
- equipped with (a) turbo-jet engine(s)

(ii) a helicopter
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 3175kg, or
- a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 5, or
-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots

(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft

[bookworm]

That's a dated version of the definition. The definition in the BR is:

(j) ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:

(i) an aeroplane:
— with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
— certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
— certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
— equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
(ii) a helicopter certificated:
— for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
— for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
— for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft;

The differences are irrelevant for most of us, and your point -- that most PPLs fly non-complex aircraft -- remains a good one.

[Contacttower]

Oh right I see...I just assumed that "complex" in this context meant the same as it is used in the UK...ie VP prop and retractable UC.

[proudprivate]

Yes, the English sense of irony is a little difficult to grasp, isn't it?

If you're a civil servant and you are actively participating in deceiving the general public - and in your case for your own personal benefit - at the expense of general aviation, then it is no longer irony; cynicism at best. Definitely beyond the pale.

As for your last quote, I fear it shows that racism is a lot more prevalent than irony in the British society. The fact that explaining this little bout of "irony" took laying it on with a trowel to the esteemed gentlemen of the DofT and the CAA paints a grim outlook indeed for the aviation community.


That's a dated version of the definition. The definition in the BR is:


The change in definition of "complex" aircraft was, if I've understood it correctly, again a horse trade with the Swiss wanting provisions for the PC-12.

This emphasizes the safety angle behind the basic regulation, drafted by professionals, in alignment with EASA's mission statements.

[englishal]

Complex = King Air
Non Complex = Pilatus or Socata

Geddit ;)

[BillieBob]

If you're a civil servant and you are actively participating in deceiving the general public - and in your case for your own personal benefit - at the expense of general aviation....To make that statement, you must know my identity. That being the case, you have my permission, in writing, to reveal that identity on this forum. Now, put up or shut up, or are you a coward as well as a liar?

[IO540]

I think what's happened here is this:

EASA now needs the FCL008 IR badly, and it needs it within the 2014 timeframe otherwise the s**t is going to hit the fan when it grounds a few thousand private IR holders in Europe.

This has come about because they got the (very vague) Basic Reg passed, and then they disingenuously stuck their anti N-reg FCL proposal on top of it, hoping they would get away with it, but they now realise they won't because too many MEPs know that EASA is about to screw most of the private IFR community.

So, France has done an under the table deal with EASA, to allow France to have a national IR, indefinitely.

In return for the deal, EASA gets French support on FCL, in comitology and elsewhere... but EASA gets a bigger prize: France having its national IR, crucially with easy conversion from the FAA IR, makes the pan-EU acceptance of the FCL008 IR proposal (with easy conversion options from the FAA IR) a fait accompli.

That would defuse the N-reg situation.

It doesn't deal with FAA CPL/IR conversions, of course, which remain in the 14-exam + load of bollox domain. But there is no current proposal to deal with that bit, anyway. Maybe EASA has something up its sleeve if all else fails; I certainly would have. Also I think you will meet the letter of the proposed FCL regs by getting the FCL008 IR, and then separately doing a 9-exam EASA CPL which is basically a load of pottering about the place VFR with a stopwatch ;)

This kind of linkage makes sense because that's how EASA works. They like to create inter-dependent regs in which the first stage is easily passed, and each subsequent stage presents the EU with the option of a Yes vote (and no hassle) or a No vote (and mayhem).

I see this in other areas of EU regulation e.g. ROHS, REACH, WEEE. It started with seemingly innocuous bans on some chemicals and has now grown to a huge number of substances which nobody can have a clue if some product they are buying-in contains or doesn't contain. Industry has got tired of protesting, and now everybody covers his a**e by getting a piece of paper from every supplier confirming the substances are not present, and everybody just signs this... So e.g. Siemens has to get such a statement from their supplier of bog rolls. It's all a load of balls, a total charade with no enforcement.

[CelticRambler]

As usual, we in Great Britain form committies, groups, organisations to discuss this at great length (over Whisky at the boys club no doubt) then approach EASA and grovel with them, and when they tell us to run and jump, we do. Whereas the French just announce that this is what we are doing, get used to it.

The French can greatly out-do GB when it comes to forming commitees, groups and organisations and talking at length for years on end. I've lived with them for seven years and still hear of projects being discussed at a "preliminary" stage that were at that point when I first came here. :zzz:

But, as IO540 pointed out, there is a separate level in French society where things do get decided and done, usually very quickly, without much "public consultation" or transparency and - for the most part - with a fair bit of common sense (as long as a certain N. Sarkozy hasn't had a hand in the matter :suspect:).

They got rid of their royal family, but the French never really did away with the ruling élite, and sometimes they highlight the frustrating flaws of accountable democracy. :8

[IO540]

The French regulation can be found here (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024313213&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id)

I saw a translation of this 2 days ago (before it was officially published) but it may be slightly different.

Amazing stuff, and it's obvious France is going to run with this until EASA comes up with something similar.

[Justiciar]

So, a conversion route via 100 hrs IFR, 3 exams and flight test (+Class II medical)

To train, 3 exams over 3 hrs 5 mins with a total of 150 questions. The French have taken a large knife to the TK requirements.

[IO540]

Moreover it is obvious they have no intention of chopping it in April 2012 or even in April 2014.

This is going to run until EASA delivers something into which this can be merged.

It is also known now that this is done with EASA's blessing, so the "plan" is clearly like I said earlier i.e. EASA is colluding with France on this to create a "momentum" behind the FCL008 IR which, if successful, will defuse the private N-reg issue in Europe. In return for that, France gets protection for its IFR community which is almost totally N-reg and a lot of which is expensive hardware flown by rich and thus politically well connected individuals.

If EASA fails to deliver, France will stick a finger up to the EU and carry on. EASA can hardly argue with that; to do so would be an admission that the FCL008 IR was merely a piece of meat to pacify the dog for a bit.

Good old politics.... never changes.

I just hope that EASA hasn't got something nasty up its sleeve.