mm_flynn and Pace
Spot on with your comments #60 and #61.
Fuji – re comment #59
People are nominated and appointed to EASA working groups as EXPERTS in their own right, not as representatives of any particular organisation. Though of course it is known ‘where they come from’ so to speak. The nominations are done generally by the OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED pan-EU representative bodies such as IAOPA Europe, Europe Air Sports (EAS) and ECOGAS for the lighter end of the GA sector.
EAS nominated Jim (of PPL IR Europe) in August last year plus two of the other members of the FCL.008 group, one of whom is a UK gliding specialist and the other French.
PPL IR had been active in making representations to EASA well before FCL.008 was set up.
Jim is an expert on the IR. His mission and that of PPL IR, which is a member of both EAS and AOPA UK (
afaik), was to have a better replacement for the JAA IR. Nothing more, nothing less. Which BTW looks like it might be realised, but we have to wait for the NPA. There may be pleasant surprises that the proposed new IR will be more accessible for those who would go for the IMCR in the UK. But I won’t enter the technical debate as others will be better qualified to comment on that in due course.
No one was nominated (
afaik) and no-one appointed to FCL.008 with the specific IMCR retention or Europeanisation of the IMCR agenda. That would something for AOPA to do through IAOPA Europe, who as far as I am aware nominated Michael Erb of Germany who is on the group.
One has to ask the question as to whether anyone was actually nominated by an organisation other than EAS to be the IMCR expert but not accepted for the IMCR. EAS did not see it as its job as EAS is a pan-EU organisation looking after the interests of air sports and non-commercial recreational pilots across 27 countries, not just the UK. And we had to focus on other issues that needed solving in FCL.008 so there were limits how many people we can effectively secure places for.
As another point, one should treat with a certain (large?) degree of caution comments attributed recently to one of the EASA officers at a publicised conference, to the effect that ‘if IMCR does not happen from within FCL.008 it is that group’s fault’. That is being somewhat ‘economic with the realité’, to be polite.
As I have said to others, tactically the IMCR interests need the UK CAA on your side. There is precedent in principle in the Basic Regulation 216 for having something ‘where national rules allow’ as well as the provisions of Article 14.
One lesson on all this is of course that folks should get involved with the organisations that do have access and influence at EU level, and in advance not arrears, rather than grinding their teeth through a forum. But then I would say that wouldn’t I? As some have said, politics is the art of the possible, which is what EAS practices mostly. With some success in other areas.
In case there is any doubt, I support the retention of the IMCR but the way to achieve that is not how the majority of scribes here suggest.
DGR
President, Europe Air Sports