The positive side of EASA. But - a question as well.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, we all know that EASA is here whether we like it or not. True, most of us don't like it. Let's put that aside for a moment.

EASA is bringing in a few changes that might just be useful. These seem to be:

(1) Teaching for PPL without needing a CPL

- Which *might* improve the calibre of PPL instruction by introducing people with a real motivation towards light aircraft flying, and little interest in building hours to get an airline job.

(2) The En-Route Instrument Rating

- Certainly added to an IMC will give people a full IR in all but name (in the UK anyhow) AND will give us the ability to fly in class A without a full IR. (http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/npa/2011/NPA%202011-16.pdf)

(3) Sensible Theoretical Knowledge requirements for the full IR

- Let's face it, it's the TE requirements that are one of the biggest impediments to doing an IR right now. EASA proposes 100 hrs groundschool followed by 3:50 of examination. That is a massive reduction on the current state of affairs and might open up the IR to PPLs at last. Particularly if it's possible to do the cheaper EIR first (and get credit against that for the IMC), and according to the NPA above 30 of the 40 hours flight instruction can actually be in a sim.

(4) LAPL

- An NPPL that is valid across Europe. Hopefully.


(5) An aerobatic rating.

- The existence of a single approved package of training and a rating should have some benefits, even if it'll pee off people quite happy to do aeros now.



Most of this should just happen. But I do wonder where the training providers are in this at the moment? Is anybody gearing up to provide the aerobatic rating or these new slimmed down IRs as soon as they're available? I can't see any evidence of it at the moment.

Speaking for myself, I'd quite like to get the EIR as soon as it's reasonably possible.

G

[Dan the weegie]

I only know a few schools but the impression that I'm getting is that they are just running as normal. It's pretty hard work as you almost certainly know and very few of them have capacity to start gearing up for something which as yet doesn't really exist and is somewhat vague in what it's requirements will be.

Most schools are most likely to wait and see what pans out, I don't think there will be any great benefits for schools who start gearing up early. I also thing it's monumentally dumb to enforce such huge changes right in the middle of when people are full steam in the busy season.

[Zulu Alpha]

(5) An aerobatic rating.

- The existence of a single approved package of training and a rating should have some benefits, even if it'll pee off people quite happy to do aeros now

Why is this a benefit? Nothing wrong with AOPA and the British Aerobatic assoc. as currently exists. EASA will just add cost and bureaucracy not safety EASA have also stated that you can't do the aerobatic rating until you have 40 hrs post PPL.

There will be grandfather rights so get some evidence of having done aeros in your logbook now. Entry to a BAeA beginers day will probably qualify. http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/pdf/BAeA%20Open%20Beginners%20Events%202012%20v2.pdf

[The500man]

I do wonder where the training providers are in this at the moment? Is anybody gearing up to provide the aerobatic rating or these new slimmed down IRs as soon as they're available? I can't see any evidence of it at the moment.

Around here I think they're too busy trying to think of ways to stay in business during the olympics.

Also 40 hours P1 to undertake an aerobatic rating is stupid which ever way you look at it. How many aerobatic accidents are there to justify this and how will bimbling around for 40 hours in a spam-can reduce that number? It's just another pointless hoop.

[BackPacker]

Entry to a BAeA beginers day will probably qualify.

Will it really? As I understand, you can participate in a beginners day with no aerobatics experience at all, and no solo endorsement and/or BAeA proficiency card, as it's possible to fly with an experienced instructor all day.

I would assume that the aerobatics rating would, at a minimum, be at the level where you should be able to fly the BAeA "beginners" sequence solo, safely. And that, in turn, will require that you've completed something along the lines of the AOPA Aerobatics syllabus, or the lesson plan that's in Robson, or something similar.

I don't mind an aerobatics rating per se, provided the following:
- A sensible grandfathering scheme for those currently proficient
- Sensible entry requirements for the course. 40 hours PIC after license issue? Why?
- A sensible syllabus. IME, about eight lessons are required to fly a typical "basic" sequence safely.

[Memphis_bell]

I have to admit, the EIR sounds really appealing to me.....and its come at exactly the right time !!! Definately one of EASA more positive moves ! I'm still pi$$ed with though for the changes during my ATPL training !!!!!!

[Miroku]

(4) LAPL

- An NPPL that is valid across Europe. Hopefully.



Providing the medical requirements are sensible!

[ppl_fresher]

It seems that those of us in the UK with an IMC have the most to gain from the EIR - I'm sure there will be quite a few people queuing up to get the piece of paper as soon as it's available (at a guess, at least a hundred in the first year - is there even that much training capacity around?).

Over the next year or so, I would hope that at least a couple of schools in the UK will start canvassing for demand and figuring out what the outline of a course would look like. The ideal would be for some group like PPLIR to get together with a couple schools that are interested and hash out a training manual for people with a current IMC.

Some people will be horrified at this 'inflation' of the IMC - taking at far beyond the "get out of trouble" rating that it is sold as: my view is that an ability to fly more of a route higher, above more weather and under positive radar control simply makes it an even more useful safety tool.

Genghis and I can't be the only ones on here looking forward to the EIR..

[2high2fastagain]

(2) The En-Route Instrument Rating


...has got to be the dumbest thing that a faceless bureaucrat could dream up IMHO. I mean you wouldn't teach someone to fly the cruise and then send them solo without teaching them how to land would you. That would be criminally negligent in my book. I just can't square the concept of cruising 'on-top' in IMC and 'hoping' to find a hole to in VMC as 'good airmanship' either.

Funnily enough, one member state has a solution for this problem which has apparently been working with spectacular success for 40 years . The country authority says that it has saved many lives and backs this up with enviably low accident rates.. All we need is for EASA to say 'hey guys, look at this. Wow! It works. Let's get this implemented across the community asap so we can get everyone up to the high water mark in the UK".

[soaringhigh650]

has got to be the dumbest thing that a faceless bureaucrat could dream up

Not really. The EIR has been created through the hard work and input of GA representatives and advocates.

If you think of the rating as one which permits you access to the IFR en-route system in good VFR conditions, it can get you to your destination faster and safer under the watchful eyes of the controller.

Yeah some people will like the EIR. It has also been slated tons of times.

The bottom line is that if you don't like it, don't take up the rating. But don't have a go at others telling them what they are proposing to do is somewhat stupid.

[Genghis the Engineer]

(2) The En-Route Instrument Rating


...has got to be the dumbest thing that a faceless bureaucrat could dream up IMHO. I mean you wouldn't teach someone to fly the cruise and then send them solo without teaching them how to land would you. That would be criminally negligent in my book. I just can't square the concept of cruising 'on-top' in IMC and 'hoping' to find a hole to in VMC as 'good airmanship' either.

Funnily enough, one member state has a solution for this problem which has apparently been working with spectacular success for 40 years . The country authority says that it has saved many lives and backs this up with enviably low accident rates.. All we need is for EASA to say 'hey guys, look at this. Wow! It works. Let's get this implemented across the community asap so we can get everyone up to the high water mark in the UK".

I agree with everything you say. But, if EASA is with us and refusing to listen to experience and logic, as I said, let's find and use the positives.

For me, my IMC, which I already use routinely within UK airspace for long trips and approaches, will keep me current on approaches if I need to fly one, whilst the EIR will give me IFR internationally and use of airways. If I am flying to Liege or Waterford and the conditions prove worse than the TAF when I left - well sod it, I'll declare an emergency and fly the instrument approach procedure I'm trained to use and that I conveniently brought the plate for with me. If that's what EASA want me to do, and refuse to create a much more sensible system that allows the rest of Europe the abilities I have, fine, I'll play by their rules and thanks very much for it.

ALSO, the new proposed EASA IR will have simplified exams, only 10 hours flight time (+30 sim, but that's a hell of a lot cheaper), and be do-able in 2 stages. So the IR may become accessible to far more people than at present. I am quite happy to add the EIR and then in turn the full IR to my IMC if that's the way ahead.

G

[Zulu Alpha]

And that, in turn, will require that you've completed something along the lines of the AOPA Aerobatics syllabus, or the lesson plan that's in Robson, or something similar.

I haven't done either. My understanding is that to claim grandfather rights, you will need documentary evidence that you have done aerobatics. Nothing about what training you may have done. Hence entry into a documented aerobatics event will suffice.

BTW, you won't need this rating if you fly an LAA A/C on a non expiring UK PPL.

This very much based on other countries who currently have aerobatic ratings and who are insisting that they exist under EASA. There is no evidence to show that this will add anything to safety and will just add cost as I'm sure they will charge money to get a new piece of paper printed out.

[bookworm]

So the IR may become accessible to far more people than at present. I am quite happy to add the EIR and then in turn the full IR to my IMC if that's the way ahead.

Still not sure why anyone would do the EIR in these circumstances. If you have an IMC rating and have used it a bit, you probably have the hours requirement for the "full" IR. The proposed TK is the same for the IR and the EIR. The EIR is really intended for someone learning IF from scratch, to enable them to get some utility out of the rating before they've got 40 hours.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Still not sure why anyone would do the EIR in these circumstances. If you have an IMC rating and have used it a bit, you probably have the hours requirement for the "full" IR. The proposed TK is the same for the IR and the EIR. The EIR is really intended for someone learning IF from scratch, to enable them to get some utility out of the rating before they've got 40 hours.

If I can, I will. As I'm sure will a lot of other people.

My (and probably other people's) issues are twofold - (a) the cost, and (b) the time to get through the written exams.

If EASA publish a syllabus that cracks these two problems, I'll be there like a shot - along I'm sure with quite a few other people.

If I have to do the current 9 JAR writtens (which in reality means I'd do the 13 ATPLs so that I can fly multi-crew if I ever want to), I have a serious time issue with that. The equivalent of 100hrs study time and only 4 hours worth of exams is really quite appealling.

But, where's the syllabus? As yet, "traffic not seen".

G

[abgd]

If the real purpose of an EIR were only to fly vmc in the airways, why have any IMC component in the rating at all?

[Genghis the Engineer]

If the real purpose of an EIR were only to fly vmc in the airways, why have any IMC component in the rating at all?

Because you can't accept an IFR clearance without the ability to go IMC.

G

[421C]

But, where's the syllabus? As yet, "traffic not seen".

It starts p24 of the FCL008 NPA from Sep 2011, the version linked below has some bookmarks and comments that make navigating it easier:

PPL/IR Europe - EASA IR NPA - Commentary by Vasa Babic (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=576)

[Sir George Cayley]

EASA is toxic for GA and more. Worst thing to ever, ever happen to the UK, Aviation and our type of GA. Period.

SGC

[Whopity]

If EASA publish a syllabus that cracks these two problems, I'll be there like a shot - along I'm sure with quite a few other people.It is not the role of EASA to produce a syllabus. Their task is to produce safety related requirements! The AMC contains hundreds of pages of meaningless crap that purports to be syllabi; these unquantifiable lists are not a basis for teaching, examining or anything else, they are just junk, and you want more of the same!

[Genghis the Engineer]

421c & Whopity - the point is made here: a syllabus comes from an FTO, enabled by EASA legislation. The best we have at the moment is an annotated legislative document (thanks for that), but I want to see what an FTO can offer me, and for how much (time AND money).

George - as I said, none of us like EASA, but if we have it, let's make the best of it. Simply whingeing and saying that EASA is "toxic", however true, ain't getting us very far.

G

[fireflybob]

EASA is toxic for GA and more. Worst thing to ever, ever happen to the UK, Aviation and our type of GA. Period.

SGC, how I agree with you!

As an experienced aviator who has now retired from full time airline employment I was considering revalidating my flight instructor rating but with all this bureaucratic garbage flying around I really wonder whether or not to bother.

The politicians who agreed to this claptrap should hang their heads in shame or better still be "dealt with".

The only solution is a peaceful revolution but it doesn't seem very likely.

[Pace]

EASA have nothing to do with safety and all to do with politics and hidden agenda.

Just look at the stupid EIR. Anyone who flies IFR across Europe will know that reality is far from the truth to office bound regulators.

An example I left South East UK in good VMC albeit in a jet!

Crossing into France we were way on top of solid cloud. Tops were thousands of feet below probably around the 10K mark.
Passing Dinard we checked a few airfields. 200 overcast 700 vis.
The same with Nantes A!

I was thinking of the EIR and the poor sod banging along just on top at 10K!

His Donkey quits, He has a major failure in his machine or himself which requires an instant landing! 200 overcast and 700 vis???

That is not even looking at a descent in VMC at or near destination. Weather really is not that compliant and your TAFS are not always so compliant either, neither are forecast winds! I have had a forecast 30kt tailwind turn out as a 50 kt headwind!! Short on fuel where are you going to go on your 500 mile on top trip to the VMC let down at destination? Especially if the airfields below are way down weather wise.

Those who look to EASA for positives sound like women married to abusive and agressive spouses who make excuses for their behavior! They say" really he is quite nice on the rare occasion that he is not drunk and I probably deserve the beatings". That is the reality of what I have so I better be greatfull and accept rubbish.

EASA Exterminate Aviators Strangle Aviation


Pace

[soaringhigh650]

There was once a saying that the regulator is only as good as how well GA is represented.

Weak representation + poor funding = poor regulation. :)

All too easy for pilots to turn into a EASA slating match. But when it comes down to your average pilot actually doing voluntary work to engage, build teams, and sit alongside regulators and governments and actively work with them, I think most people just couldn't care.

[mad_jock]

So so true, and guilty as charged