IAOPA Europe e-News July 2011

[Mike Cross]

Now available here. (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=492&catid=1&Itemid=247)
More AOPA News here. (http://www.aopa.co.uk/)

[Whopity]

I am puzzled as to why an ICAO compliant IR should only be valid in France. It is after all an International Standard recognised by all contracting States. Similarly, I cannot understand how it will be possible to exercise a non EASA rating in an EASA aeroplane! If the French can do it, we all can do it, but the great concern at the moment is that EASA, who largely haven't got a clue what they are talking about, are attempting to tell us all what we can and can't do. Is this new French proposal a classic two fingured gesture to EASA, or something more serious? The UK should reintroduce the old unapproved ICAO IR which it dropped in 1999, with a revised French style exam.

[proudprivate]

The UK should reintroduce the old unapproved ICAO IR which it dropped in 1999, with a revised French style exam.


But you seem to ignore that it is the UK* who is the most adamant in preventing an achievable conversion route for the IR, because they want to protect their precious FTO industry.

*The UK being represented by a number of DofT and CAA axe-grinders; a couple of CAA examiners; and of course the FTO lobby.


I cannot understand how it will be possible to exercise a non EASA rating in an EASA aeroplane! If the French can do it, we all can do it, but the great concern at the moment is that EASA, who largely haven't got a clue what they are talking about, are attempting to tell us all what we can and can't do.


Precisely to avoid a regulatory pandemonium, we should all make our MEP's in the transport committee aware to what extent the draft FCL proposal is unsatisfactory and why they should resolve to object to it, while at the same time urging the European Commission to propose a suspension of the BR (by suspending article 70) until at the very least important issues such as the future of the IMC rating, the various routes to the Instrument Rating etc are cleared out in a for all parties acceptable manner.

Ceterum censeo Goudou destituendum...

[Jan Olieslagers]

I am puzzled as to why an ICAO compliant IR should only be valid in France.

Because, AIUI, national agencies still are in control of national airspace. Even if the upcoming EASA ruling will be binding, as was pointed out, that will only mean the member states really really ought to turn it into national ruling and if they don't they will get chided, and be the bad pupil in the class, and that's that. My own country is very good at disregarding European ruling, and so far we're none the worse for it, or so I understand.
So if the French do create this license, as they really seem to be doing, and even at rather short term, they can, and that's that. And if any other national authority follows suit, for their own citizens and/or their own airspace, that is that too. If they have the good sense to set them up identically, it is easy to mutually honour the others' - and before you know it we have a de facto European IFR license, and EASA will have perfectly illustrated their uselessness.

I can't help dreaming that this is what the French DGAC is really up to: they waited patiently for EASA to come up with something, but after due patience they simply pushed ahead. If the rest of Europe follows suit, so much the better. If not, I'll have one more reason for migrating into France.

[Whopity]

What exactly is this FTO Lobby you refer to? Where would one find it? There is no organisation that effectively represents FTOs in the UK!national agencies still are in control of national airspace.All the more reason why an ICAO rating should not be restricted by National boundaries!

[Jan Olieslagers]

You really want EASA to control il all?

[Contacttower]

I don't think there is any need to get at FTOs . Most of their customers go onto ATPL anyway so they have nothing to fear from a separate PPL/IR rating, in fact they might even welcome a new rating to teach....

[bookworm]

Because, AIUI, national agencies still are in control of national airspace. Even if the upcoming EASA ruling will be binding, as was pointed out, that will only mean the member states really really ought to turn it into national ruling and if they don't they will get chided, and be the bad pupil in the class, and that's that. My own country is very good at disregarding European ruling, and so far we're none the worse for it, or so I understand.

I'm afraid you understand wrong. EU Regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)), such as what is usually called the "Basic Regulation (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:079:0001:0049:EN:PDF)", are directly applicable at a national level. It doesn't have to be "turned into a national ruling".

[BillieBob]

But you seem to ignore that it is the UK* who is the most adamant in preventing an achievable conversion route for the IR, because they want to protect their precious FTO industry.proudprivate - your credibility, such as it was, suffered severe damage when you chose to lie in an earlier post about my part in last October's meeting of the EASA Committee. Your entirely ill-informed comments and assumptions since that time, especially this last one, have served only to make your position more ridiculous. You clearly do not have even the most basic knowledge of the UK's part in the the current EU legislative process and I can only guess at your motives for misrepresenting the facts (a.k.a. lying again). If you wish to to avoid becoming an even bigger laughing stock than you already are, I suggest that, in future, you engage brain before opening mouth.

[proudprivate]

What exactly is this FTO Lobby you refer to?


There is no such thing as "NAFI" in the UK that would actively lobby the CAA and EASA as an organisation. However,

There are quite a few large and medium sized UK training organisations that have actively approached EASA and more recently MEP's like Brian Simpson and Jaqueline Foster trying to avoid any concessions being done on the training (conversion) front.

The direct motivation for this is that they hope to make money from expensive IR conversion trainings, and hate competition from individual FAA CFI's on the PPL-side. Indeed, the standard JAA-ATPL route, usually the bread and butter of the larger FTO, is not under discussion here. However, no commercially run operation dislikes an influx of new business opportunities.


Where would one find it?


Here on PPruNe (mostly on the instruction forum) you have DFC, for instance, but in front of MEP's they would of course act in the name of their flight training organisation.


I don't think there is any need to get at FTOs . Most of their customers go onto ATPL anyway so they have nothing to fear from a separate PPL/IR rating, in fact they might even welcome a new rating to teach....


Sure they would teach whatever comes their way, whether it is necessary or not. They are happy to teach you ear anatomy in ground school, as long as it makes money.

They would of course fear an easy conversion route FAA to JAA, as that would expose the inefficiencies in the current JAA-system (which you cannot directly blame the FTO's for).

That being said, "the FTO's" certainly don't act in unison. Many are as surprised as we are. Also many instructors have a detached view and could have given EASA some valuable insights, had they been asked.


@ Billiebob :


Your entirely ill-informed comments and assumptions



You clearly do not have even the most basic knowledge of the UK's part in the the current EU legislative process


I leave those comments entirely for your account and let the audience judge how laughable my observations and assumptions in this file have been thus far.

I also believe my motives (which you admit you can only guess), are a lot more honourable than yours.