The same 2008 EU law that gave EASA power over FCL made it clear there would be NO accomodation for national qualifications that did not become EASA FCL qualifications.
Exactly. A complete absence of clarity on which national qualifications would and wouldn’t be embraced by EASA.
I think broadly the position people have taken for a long while has been
- IMCR grandfathering: possible
- IMCR continues as a UK qualification: unlikely
- IMCR adopted as an EASA qualification: utterly unlikely
No-one has been able to give clearer answers because no one has had clearer answers.
You only re-enforce my point because you confuse the debate with a very different process:
No-one can give you "transparency" on how the euro crisis is going to be solved, because no-one knows.
No one knows the out come of the Euro crisis because it is not a regulatory process. A regulatory process is artificial and controlled by its perpetrators. A regulatory process is born from a perceived need to pass legislation to address a problem (in this case the need for uniformity in aviation regulation throughout the Community). The process should comprise consultation, to establish how the legislation should be framed to address the problem, proposing legislation, further consultation to identify any deficiencies in the proposal, and enacting. Broadly this is precisely what has taken place. Unfortunately the consultation was poisoned by national interests, stakeholder self interest, international politics and an agenda which was known to be unpopular and therefore was covert.
None of these elements have any place in the safe conduct of aviation.
You and I have had similar debates before. I always enjoy our debates and you always put your arguments eloquently. In some respects however you and I live in very different worlds. I fully understand why some never wanted the process to be clear and I fully understand that is often the way of politics. Never the less that neither makes it right, nor does it ensure a desirable outcome.
In the case of aviation, and in particular General Aviation, the population is so transient and the representation so ineffective that there are few of us already that remember when this debate started let alone will be around at the end of it. Of those, few have the desire or energy to do anything about it. For those reasons the “Regulator” may get away with murder, but it says something when the Commission overseeing the whole process has had to take EASA aside on a number of occasions already and read them their fortune.
No, the process was poisoned from the start, bereft of clarity (albeit I would concede possibly by intention) and in consequence has become bogged down in one delay after another, statement, retraction and eventually silence, so in as much as you and I agree you are quite safe in your earlier comment that “no one has any clear answers”.
It is a farce, you know it, I know it, and this forum leaves us in very little doubt.
Will any good come of it? Well I am an optimist – I think we are getting there, but my goodness it is model if you repeated in industry would be a sure certain way of quickly ending up in the London Gazette listings.
In so far as it has any similarity with the Euro crisis it does in this much - a Europe which is bereft of the political will to face up to its United responsibilites because the politicians cant escape their national interests.