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/doc...%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