Why can't you fly IFR in G-reg with an FAA IR?

[Slopey]

Could someone please explain *why* it is that you're not allowed to fly IFR in a G-Reg aircraft if you hold an FAA IR?

I know you can't, but provided the aircraft is appropriately equipped for flight in IFR, why does the CAA/ANO not allow it? After all, aircraft in general fly the same way in the air over in FAA land as over here in Euroland (although in FAA land you get less red-tape accumulation over the wings!).

Is it a case of trying to protect the UK flight training industry, or more likely, the CAA's pockets?

Just wondering is all! :)

[rustle]

AFAIK, you can't fly an "N" reg under IFR on a CAA ticket either.
Or can you?

You can't fly a "VH" reg IFR under an FAA/CAA or JAA ticket, you need a CASA one.

[englishal]

why does the CAA/ANO not allow it?
No it doesn't. We choose not to validate an ICAO IR in the UK.

Who knows the real reason. Probably the same reason that you still need to have a class 1 audiogram - a throw back from the 30's when you used to listen to ranging stations.....(never seen an Airbus pilot listening to one, but no doubt they are still in existence all over Europe)...:eek::}

AFAIK, you can't fly an "N" reg under IFR on a CAA ticket either.
Or can you?
No you can't. But the Fed are nice enough to validate your CAA one if you sit a 50 odd question Multi choice exam and pass.......

[porridge]

The CAA does allow you to use your FAA IR on G-reg aircraft. You can use the ICAO IR outside the country because as long as you have a UK CAA/JAA issued pilot's license then you are flying under the rules of the license issuing country (UK). Of course you may only use the IR for private flying and thus you cannot use it for any hire and reward.
Source of info - CAA FCL. PM me with your email address and I'll send you a copy of the email from FCL that confirms this.

[Whopity]

Article 26 applies to you whether you are in the UK or not so I am afraid your email from CAA is CRAP!
26 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom unless he is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.

(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Order:
(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b), a licence granted either under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence or a licence granted under the law of a relevant overseas territory, purporting in either case to authorise the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft, not being a licence purporting to authorise him to act as a student pilot only, shall, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, be deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order but does not entitle the holder:
(i) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of public transport or aerial work or on any flight in respect of which he receives remuneration for his services as a member of the flight crew; or
(ii) in the case of a pilot's licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in
controlled airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the
Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction in flying;

[IO540]

This one has been done here before many times.

An ICAO (non-JAA) PPL/IR should be good for a G-reg worldwide, VFR or IFR, but only outside controlled airspace (OCAS).

If the CAA has offered an alternative interpretation of the OCAS bit that would be very interesting. I am not going to say it's crap because the ANO has so many nooks and crannies in it and very few people actually understand it properly. But it appears unlikely since it would avoid to need to fly an N-reg.

Is it a case of trying to protect the UK flight training industry, or more likely, the CAA's pockets?

Both.

[Life's a Beech]

I'm with IO540. I was always told that a holder of an FAA PPL/IR was entitled to fly IFR OUTCAS in a G-reg aircraft. Why does Slopey think otherwise?

[Contacttower]

I am awaiting an email (from the CAA) from porridge about this which claims that you can fly IFR in G-reg. It may turn out that it just says, yes, but only outside CAS. I wait in hope.

[Slopey]

My personal interest is to/from Class D which is what I meant in #1 - I should have clarified that. I'm assuming that flight within Class D, in G-reg with FAA IR is not permitted - correct?

If you can fly outside CAS in a G-Reg with an FAA IR, then so much the better. :)

[Whopity]

(ii) in the case of a pilot's licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the
Instrument Flight Rules or to give any instruction in flying;

You can fly IFR outside controlled airspace so long as its not forbidden in the licence i.e. You can fly IFR outside CAS on a UK PPL with no IF qualification but not on a JAA PPL because its specifically forbidden.

If the CAA change Art 26, then they can only do so by issuing an Exemption, not an email.

[S-Works]

And just to add that only the UK allows the concept of flight under IFR outside CAS. So as we have always know you can fly in cloud in Class G. But nothing else. This is the reason why FAA IR pilots get an IMCR issued on the basis of the IR so they can enter CLass D for an IAP.

[IO540]

And just to add that only the UK allows the concept of flight under IFR outside CAS

That is categorically untrue. I have done loads of OCAS legs around Europe, as a result of asking for a shortcut on an airways flight.

ATC normally advise you that you are now outside controlled airspace and they want you to confirm that is acceptable.

[S-Works]

Don't be such an arse, you know exactly what I mean. Being off airways is a very different matter to filing IFR outside CAS and you know it.

[TheOddOne]

And just to add that only the UK allows the concept of flight under IFR outside CAS. So as we have always know you can fly in cloud in Class G. But nothing else.

Bose-x,

You've got me REALLY confused now!

Where is the correlation between flying UK concept IFR OCAS and flying in cloud i.e. IMC? AFAIAC, the two are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT concepts. IFR, UK-style is ONLY about flying above obstructions within 5NM, you are still obliged to meet the VMC criteria if you have a plain licence, no ratings.

Perhaps, as well as the campaign to keep the IMC rating, we should start another to get the definition of IFR changed to mean 'flight by sole reference to instruments' or similar, which seems to be the universal meaning around the world, except the UK.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[S-Works]

Not sure why you should be confused. The discussion is about the use of the FAA IR for IFR flight. IFR flight in this respect is Instrument Flight Rules regardless of the conditions and will include flight in IMC.

Only the UK allows flight under IFR in VMC. Anywhere else in the world if you fly IFR you have to have an IR.

Try filing an IFR flight plan across France as a vanilla PPL and then try and explain to the controller why you can't enter cloud.......

The point of my post is that the holder of an FAA IR in a G-Reg aircraft can fly under IR and in IMC in Class G airspace in the UK. They can file a flight plan as IFR but what they can't do is enter controlled airspace to carry out an IAP. The way around this is for them to get an IMCR based on the IR which then allows them to enter limited Classes of CAS to do a let down.

Outside of the UK it is worthless as the rest of Europe do not have our liberal rules when it comes to IFR.

As IO540 points out you can fly outside CAS in Europe under IFR but only if you have a full IR and are on an IFR flight plan. Try flying under IFR in the airways in a G Reg with just an FAA IR and see how many books get thrown at you.

edit for crap spelling

[TheOddOne]

Not sure why you should be confused. The discussion is about the use of the FAA IR for IFR flight. IFR flight in this respect is Instrument Flight Rules regardless of the conditions and will include flight in IMC.

Only the UK allows flight under IFR in VMC. Anywhere else in the world if you fly IFR you have to have an IR.


Bose-x,

Not confused any more, thanks for the full and complete post, as usual with threads there had been creep to include UK PPL priviliges.

As has been said in the past, the UK and the US are two nations separated by a common language.

TheOddOne

[IO540]

Don't be such an arse, you know exactly what I mean. Being off airways is a very different matter to filing IFR outside CAS and you know it.

OK, you are saying that it is impossible to file a Eurocontrol routing which has any part in Class F or G?

I would agree that one would not do it deliberately for fun (and indeed it is impossible in airspaces which have a max DCT distance of zero and thus force all flight plans to be on airways, e.g. Albania) but that is not the same thing as saying it is not allowed.

Sometimes, filing an flight plan with a DCT section which goes OCAS is the only way to get it into the system.

Incidentally, the reason why flying a G-reg on the FAA IR is not useful abroad is not because it is not allowed but because Europe doesn't have UK's extensive Class G (UNcontrolled) airspace. For example, France is Class E in most useful areas. One could do it but not generally, on airways routings.

[S-Works]

I say again don't be such an arse. This discussion is not about IFR flight planning. To be able to fly under IFR in Europe you are required to have an IR valid for the state of registry of the aircraft you are in. The fact that you may be able to get off airways for certain sections of the route is a moot point. You can't leave an airfield in Europe under IFR without an IR.

[porridge]

Dear All
Here is the email edited for privacy.
Regards, P
From: FCLWEB [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 17 November 2007 13:26
To: *******
Subject: RE: could you enlighten me?
Dear Mr *****
Thank you for your e-mail, apologies in the delay of replying. In regards to your query, I can confirm that you may fly IRF on a CAA (G registered) plane with a CAA PPL combined with a FAA IR.
Regards
Personnel Licensing Department
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ********
Sent: 24 October 2007 09:59
To: FCLWEB
Subject: could you enlighten me?
I get varied advices on the use of n FAA IR (Instrument Rating) on a G registered plane
The question is simple:
Is it legal to fly IFR on a CAA (G register) registered plane with a CAA PPL combined with an FAA Instrument Rating in British and/or European airspace for private flights (ie not commercial)?
If it is not legal where can I find the legislation that applies?
If I have directed this question to the wrong department, whom should I address it to?
Many thanks,
******

[gcolyer]

Porridge.

I think you should ask them if it is legal to do so in IMC. Anyone (with a license) can fly IFR in VMC (not in CAS) in the UK in whatever reg aircraft.

[mm_flynn]

unfortunately I don't think your e-mail moves things forward.
It is unquestionably true that the CAA allows IFR flight in a G-Reg for an FAA IR holder, which is what your copy email says. Unfortunately, this has normally been interpreted to only allow non-commercial operations OCAS (Atcl 26 - 4 i & ii from the ANO quoted above seems pretty clear about this) and your copy e-mail is silent as regards to any reason why this normal interpretation is wrong.

I will leave Bose and IO to argue the finer details of IFR OCAS in Europe, but your email does not change the basic concept that one can not use an FAA IR to usefully operate a G-reg under IFR outside the UK, and in the UK it provides only limited functionality due to the inability to go IFR into any CAS.- ammended language

[S-Works]

Perhaps you want to write back and ask what date they amended article 26?

[Contacttower]

porridge thanks very much for the email but you should have asked about Outside controlled airspace vs. Inside controlled airspace!

I myself will write to the CAA soon about this....it is very hard to think straight with the seemingly hundreds of IFR related threads at the moment and there are also one or two other things I'd like clearing up.

[englishal]

The story changes from person to person....and is as clear as mud.

A friend of mine once asked some bigwig in FCL at some training exhibition and his response was that "it gave the same privileges as the IMC rating". This also used to exist on the CAA website, but was later removed.

The problem is also one of definition of "Controlled Airspace".....Although CAS now refers to any CAS (D, A etc...) in the past this was not the case and the IMCr used to allow "flight Iaw IFR OUTSIDE CAS".....Controlled airspace being class A......

Confused? :)

[Roffa]

This section of LASORS (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/SECTION%20E.pdf) indicates how an ICAO IR holder can get a UK IMC rating by submitting the paperwork only, perhaps that's where the FAA IR = same privileges as UK IMCR comes from...?

[BillieBob]

This is, of course, becoming increasingly academic as one of EASA's intentions, along with removal of the IMC rating, etc., is to remove altogether the right to fly a 'G' (or any other EU) registered aircraft on a non-EU licence.

[IO540]

That CAA email is just ambiguous enough to be not quite good enough for the job.

As has been stated, there is no argument than any ICAO IR is good for IFR worldwide but only outside controlled airspace.

The way the writer set out his question to the CAA, it's damn well obvious (to anybody who actually flies IFR for real) that he meant flying in controlled airspace as well. But he didn't use those words. Had he used them, he would have had a very valuable email which would make it practically impossible to get prosecuted.

mm_flynn

your email does not change the basic concept that one can not use an FAA IR to usefully operate a G-reg under IFR outside the UK or in controlled airspace anywhere

Did you mean to quite say this? I don''t think the "UK" comes into this at all. What you cannot do is go into CAS, which means you can fly OCAS worldwide.

This is, of course, becoming increasingly academic as one of EASA's intentions, along with removal of the IMC rating, etc., is to remove altogether the right to fly a 'G' (or any other EU) registered aircraft on a non-EU licence

Maybe, at some future date, something might happen, but it hasn't happened yet. And until it happens......... do you give up flying just in case it happened? Short of a JAA ATPL, nothing in this game is sacred if one is to take on board everything in the media.

[Roffa]

This is, of course, becoming increasingly academic as one of EASA's intentions, along with removal of the IMC rating, etc., is to remove altogether the right to fly a 'G' (or any other EU) registered aircraft on a non-EU licence.

Whilst it's within "the rules" of being a signatory to ICAO it doesn't, imho, sit very well with the spirit.

Article 32

Licenses of personnel

a) The pilot of every aircraft and the other members of the
operating crew of every aircraft engaged in international navi-
gation shall be provided with certificates of competency and
licenses issued or rendered valid by the State in which the
aircraft is registered.

b) Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to
recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory,
certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its
nationals by another contracting State.

Article 33

Recognition of certificates and licenses

Certificates of airworthiness and certificates of competency
and licenses issued or rendered valid by the contracting State
in which the aircraft is registered, shall be recognized as valid
by the other contracting States, provided that the requirements
under which such certificates or licences were issued or
rendered valid are equal to or above the minimum standards
which may be established from time to time pursuant to this
Convention.

[Fuji Abound]

Roffa

Exactly the conclusion I am coming to.

There are some on here that think none of this matters.

It very much doesnt fit with the spirit.

I fully intend make formal complaint in due course to the ICAO that certain member states are not honouring their treaty obligations and I shall also be pointing this out to my Euro MPs in so far as EASA are concenred when the time is right.

[Roffa]

This part (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#10) of an ICAO FAQ on license recognition may be of interest.

Currently the FAA does the conversion bit whilst the UK does the validation bit via the ANO (I think I'm correct in saying?).

Still think it would be a bit naughty if the EU under EASA ultimately refused to validate or convert another ICAO issued licence.

[S-Works]

All contracting states are entitled to file differences without being in breach of the convention. The US files differences on medicals for eyesight and hearing as an example.

You guys really don't understand what you are getting into here do you.

[Fuji Abound]

All contracting states are entitled to file differences without being in breach of the convention. The US files differences on medicals for eyesight and hearing as an example.

You guys really don't understand what you are getting into here do you.

I am far from convinced you do either. Have you any legal background?

Roffa has made a good point on the face of it. Your comment about differences is totally irrelevant to the issue he raised. It should not be forgotten that the UK has filed differences - in fact so have nearly every European member State. Have you read the differences?

However, so what. The differences have nothing to do with the principle set out in Article 33. I suspect Roffa is correct - it is just about possible to wriggle out of the terms of the convention but not the spirit.

[IO540]

I bet you anything you like that for every amateur lawyer (no offence intended) on here, there will be a team of full time top-notch aviation lawyers looking at the viability of any proposal that actually makes it out of the "let's screw everybody who doesn't have a gold plated JAA ATPL" committee stage.

Then, when they try to work out how to kick out everything with N on the side after 90 days, they will tear their collective hair out.

And when they are finished, a bunch of politicians will look at the big picture.

Did anybody ever find out why the DfT "kick out N-reg" proposal was dropped so suddenly? I haven't heard anything. Same in France, a bit earlier.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes.

.. .. .. and the issue is that the CAAs record of successful prosecutions is dreadful. Moreover on the whole the legislation is a total mess.

Just recall the debate on here about the IMCR minima - just about everyone was wrong.

The problem is AOPA and the other GA organisations do not have the resources or the talent to to be taken seriously. Unless some one can correct me they have presided over a period of ten years or more when the availability of an instrument rating to private pilots has become more and more inaccessable without achieving a single "victory". Even the about turn on the N reg issue they cannot claim any credit for.

Have a look at www.AOPA.com - you will find that things are very different the other side of the pond -what a whole page on Government Advocacy - shock horror they should be concerned to tell their members what they are doing and why - I cant see one comment along the lines - "you dont know what you are dealing with", "you dont understand what you are getting into" -just a forthright confronting of the key issues no quarter given.

Hardly surprising that their politicians sit up and take note when AOPA has something to say!

[172driver]

Fuji, I think you are on to something much larger than aviation here. It's the general attitude Europeans (and, like it or not, this includes the UK) and Americans have to their respective governments. By and large, the Europeans bow their heads, sigh, mumble something about 'ah, there's nothing we can do about it' and accept it. The Americans, by contrast, say, 'wait a minute, we elected you - you can't do this!'

In my profession the picture is exactly the same. The various European associations / professional bodies are completely useless, whereas our US counterparts actually get things done and laws changed. I belong to associations on both side of the Atlantic and believe me, the difference is striking, to say the least.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, I know and agree.

We forget just how poweful a lobby group we could be, not helped by those only to willing settle for a crumb when their goal should be a slice of the cake.

I am afraid the argument has already been lost when there are those already saying this is the most we can hope for before ever having the argument.

The crumb will sustain you for precisely this long, what a waste of time.

[Roffa]

bose:

You guys really don't understand what you are getting into here do you.

If by "you guys" you include me, without getting into one of your usual pissing contests , I suspect that whilst I'm by no means an expert I have in the past studied ICAO to some greater degree than you have.

But hey, ho. Far be it from me to disagree with such a self appointed bulletin board luminary of light aviation as yourself so I'll just bow out quietly with my tail between my legs :rolleyes:

One does wonder why one bothers at times.

[Fuji Abound]

Roffa

Please dont. I am aware of your background.

The sad thing is personalities always seem to get in the way and that is why nothing is achieved.

I would very much like your support please (see the sticky thread).

Bose is doing his best with AOPA, I think it is really AOPA that is the issue.

[S-Works]

roffa, my comment was not aimed at you. I stand by to be enlightened by your experience.

[Fuji Abound]

But hey, ho. Far be it from me to disagree with such a self appointed bulletin board luminary of light aviation as yourself so I'll just bow out quietly with my tail between my legs

Me to, I suppose?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have been flying IFR for a few years ( Did my initial training in 1957 when we still had the Radio Range for airways ) and have flown in so many countries under the IFR rules I can't even remember how many.

Regardless of what country the airplane was registered under I filed every flight plan and flew every flight using either my Canadian IFR license or under a FAA license.

Never ever was the question of what license was I filing under brought up.

Never ever have I been asked to produce the license except when doing instrument re rides...so the inspector could sign it, or when I was asked to send copies to foreign governments for special authorization to fly airplanes under their registration.

[IO540]

That may be so Chuck but nowadays in all of Europe you would have been doing it illegally.

Of course one gets away with it - ramp inspections are rare. There have been some reports from Germany and many more in the past from France (N-reg specifically in France). The French police were reported to be carrying special briefing packs telling them where to check for the FAA IR if the pilot arrived in an N-reg.

My suspicion would be that pilots of big stuff are never ramp checked - unless suspected of being drunk, had some major incident, or are suspected of doing illegal charters.

Flight plans are never queried anyway.

Insurance is the real problem in this area, not enforcement.

[Chilli Monster]

Of course one gets away with it - ramp inspections are rare. ..................................My suspicion would be that pilots of big stuff are never ramp checked

I would dispute "rare", and define "big stuff". I've been ramp checked three times in France, once in Switzerland and once in Germany - all with something bigger than the usual GA SEP.

[IO540]

That was in a Citation, CM, I assume.

I can imagine those getting checked, over the well publicised "RHS not being type rated" business.

[Chilli Monster]

It was - but they were doing everyone on the ramp who was near their aircraft, with more emphasis on aircraft than crew.

[BillieBob]

IO540 said Maybe, at some future date, something might happen, but it hasn't happened yet.Judging by that comment it would seem that Bose-X is right and you don't know what you're getting into - or, at least, don't realise how close you are to being in it. The EU Regulation that, among other things, requires that all pilots involved in the operation of aircraft registered in an EU member state must be qualified in accordance with Part FCL (i.e. hold an EU licence) has already been drafted. You will have one chance to comment, during a 3 month window, expected to commence in March 2008, after which it will be a done deal.

Once that comment period is over, there is nothing you, I, the CAA or the UK Parliament can do about it - the Regulation will be nodded through by the EU parliament and will become EU law, superseding UK law and subject to appeal only through the European Court.

And don't expect to be able to claim 'grandfather rights', the EU doesn't recognise such a concept - any privileges you may have had under UK law will, unless included in the EU Regulation, be lost.

[IO540]

The EU Regulation that, among other things, requires that all pilots involved in the operation of aircraft registered in an EU member state must be qualified in accordance with Part FCL (i.e. hold an EU licence) has already been drafted.

So, that would prevent a G-reg being flown on an ICAO PPL. That will affect some very unfortunate people but not a huge number.

Once that comment period is over, there is nothing you, I, the CAA or the UK Parliament can do about it

Why have a comment period then? ;)

Do you work for EASA?

[Fuji Abound]

Once that comment period is over, there is nothing you, I, the CAA or the UK Parliament can do about it - the Regulation will be nodded through by the EU parliament and will become EU law, superseding UK law and subject to appeal only through the European Court.

IF it is, of course you are quite correct laws never change.

That is why I still take my carriage, carriage racing on the local dual carriage.

- what a p*a*.

[IO540]

One has three options with these "EASA will screw all of you 'looking for easy route' pilots and there is nothing you can do about it, your days are numbered" threads.

- Take an overdose of Prozac, or

- Take a normal dose of Prozac and jump off Beachy Head.

- Enjoy your flying while you can, and deal with things as they appear when they appear.

[S-Works]

or bury your head in the sand kidding your self it may only effect you but you have seen no proof to demonstrated otherwise so it must all be conjecture and rumour.......
:):):):):):):)

[Fuji Abound]

Bose - come on, I have provoked more discussion about this topic in a few days than AOPA has managed all year.

You are doing a fine job, but you have to find a way of AOPA getting the message to the wider community.

AOPA will only be taken seriously IF it has the support that AOPA US enjoys and it is not going to get that support when it isnt taken seriously.

It is as urgent you address that issue as it is this.

On here you see a fraction of the UK GA population, never mind the European community.

You need to take seriously the comments about AOPA that reoccur time after time and see if you can persuade AOPA to address these issues.

It is simply no good expecting people to bring the bad news to you, you have to take it to them - everyone loves reminding us how things work, so for a change let me remind AOPA that is how it works.

[S-Works]

I am sorry fuji but you are so far off track here that you are not even on the same continent. I find it unbelievable that you can blame AOPA. They have broadcast the message, they have formed working groups to address the issue and have made representations at the correct level. It is now down to the rule makers to decide if the case is valid. What do you want to do hold them to ransom with a grenade until they come around to your way of thinking?

It is also your responsibility as a pilot and as an adult to keep abreast of developments in aviation not expect to have someone hold your hand and guide you through it. I spend my time sifting through the EASA and CAA sites to keep abreast just like many others. I take the time to read and digest the stuff that is out there and judge what effect it may have on me. This stuff has been in the public domain for more than TWO YEARS!

As a result I chose to do something about it not gob of about how bad a job others were doing about it.

As has been said by others I think AOPA are doing a good job, they were hard in a difficult climate and as a result I will keep on paying to support them. You are clearly unhappy with what they are achieving and are starting your own crusade. Good on you. But I would suggest that if you really want to make a difference you get an understanding of the process.
I AM NOT AOPA, I am a MEMBER, I was unhappy with what AOPA were doing so rather than slagging them off on a faceless forum I took my concerns to them and they invited me to help put things right. The other was extended to a few other people on these forums and the result is the MWG. We influence AOPA, we assist by bringing manpower and experience to the table and participating in the process that effects us all as pilots.

I think this clearly shows that AOPA listens to it's MEMBERS and acts on feedback. There is still improvement to be made, but I as is demonstrated on here as a very vocal forthright person feel they are making good progress and deserve support.

I realise that you are frustrated and concerned about the loss of the IMCR, but bashing AOPA and those that support it does nothing to further your cause.

Getting a few words of support on a faceless forum is not going to get you a seat at the table either.

This time we really are done, so I would ask that you desist from the constant goading and AOPA bashing, as I said it does nothing to help you and will end up in a fallout.

Good luck with your crusade.

[Fuji Abound]

I am sorry fuji but you are so far off track here that you are not even on the same continent.

Dont blame me.

Here are a few comments - none from me I might add!

Worth listening to what pilots say me thinks.

The biggest sin AOPA UK are guilty of is a failure to adequately explain what they do.

However, personally speaking, I don't find it an organisation that I find does a lot for me personally compared with others, such as the PFA and BGA.

I don't mind championing the cause of GA in this country, but may find some other way of investing my £72 for the priviledge.

I am surprised to read that your AOPA UK Membership is 72 pounds..
Here in the US AOPA membership is just $39 per year - and I reckon that we get a good service from AOPA here in the US when it comes to lobbying Congress etc.. Bearing in mind $39 is only around 21 pounds..... that makes your 72 quid damn expensive.

I am a member and I personally dont get much from them in material sense .

By comparison AOPA trends to be supportive of its corporate members, which is a vital source of money for them.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply from AOPA. Unless it involves them hob-nobbing it on quasi important committees they're not really interested. And as for Mr Robinson

OK, so why don't they talk about it more openly. I have tried explaining in the past that if AOPA wants to attract members, not only do they need to act on their behalf but they need to be seen to do so.

and finallly

Like any member based organisation, AOPA needs the support of its members but it must realise that it has no absolute right to expect that support automatically, it must work with and for its members.

I say again it is no good AOPA going down a path pilots arent interested in.

Far better to fight for the IMCR and lose, than claim a victory for tinkering with an IR that remains as inaccessible to most as it ever was.

Bose you need to understand it is not personal, just a case a picking up on the evidence without which we have nothing.

[S-Works]

Fuji, I dont care, you have take a thread that is nothing to do with AOPA and turned it into an AOPA bashing thread. As has been pointed out many times the field is littered with those whose represent GA. Non have them have met your criteria either but I don't see bashing going on there.

At the end of the day you are a licensed pilot responsibility of keeping up to date with the legislation that effects you is your responsibility. If you chose not to read and act on it when it first appeared more than TWO YEARS ago you only have yourself to blame.

It is the total apathy expecting others to do the job for you and then complaining when it all goes wrong that pervades these forums. Lets not blame AOPA, lets have a look internally first........

[IO540]

To be fair, bose x, a lot of people (incl myself, and probably many other private IFR pilots) did write to EASA when that proposal came out 2 yrs ago.

IIRC the subject was publicised by the very good PPL/IR Europe (http://www.pplir.org)group (which BTW every IFR pilot should join and support, whether he is at the IR or IMCR level) and people did respond to it.

The problem here is the way EASA works. There are various committees which generate various proposals. These committees don't care about submissions like I refer to above - they just do their own thing, and if you stuff a committee with old airline types you wouldn't expect them to support the IMC rating would you? You would expect them to generate the standard hard line view, and it appears that this is what we are getting. The result will always be entirely according to the national makeup of the committee; we would expect the UK CAA to back the IMCR (it's their baby after all) but they will always get outvoted.

The mistake is to believe this is the end of the legislative process.

The time to use up one's gunpowder is at the next stage, not now.

[gcolyer]

At the end of the day if they can the IMCr they cannot take it way from the guys that already have it! it will just mean that know one else will be able to get it.

I was speaking to an IMCr and IR instructor last night (someone that you know Bose). He thinks the reason why those that have and will retain it is two fold:

1) Thee CAA will not reomve the privelage from those that have it.
2) Many airline pilots have complained as they wish to keep their embedded IMCr so they dont have to worry about Sinlge pilot SEP IR's later on.

Bose-x,
Maybe you can confirm this. There has been and still is cards on the table for an EASA IMCr as well as a more obtainable PPL IR which at the moment is being aimed at being similar to the FAA IR.

As I mentioned this stems from a long conversation I had with someone in Bose's circles last night.

[Fuji Abound]

The reason why the discussion moved on to AOPA is because there is a perception that AOPA are seeking to protect the future of the IMCR. Were that the case we might well conclude the work was in safe hands and that AOPA would do their best to achieve what they set out to do.

I think I am correct in saying that the message is clear - AOPA are not seeking to save the IMCr - so far as AOPA is concerned it is already dead and their attention is solely focused on trying to persuade EASA to adopt an IR that is more accessable by private pilots.

The suggestion is that it is all our faults that so far as AOPA is concerned the battle has already been lost. I am sure we would disagree on whether or not AOPA ever went to battle over this in the first place, but we do agree that would not be productive.

My purpose has not been therefore to bash AOPA as you put it for bashing sake but becasue I think it is important everyone understands that they should not look towards AOPA to argue their corner for the IMCr - because AOPA have already given up on that - unless I am very much mistaken?

Personally I dont think AOPA should have given up on us so early -as I have said that is my view, and one I know you will disagree with.

What I hope we can agree on is that a purpose of this forum is to provide people with factual evidence of what is taking place - rather than relying on gossip so they can make up their own minds - personally I think people could be given the impression (or indeed have the misplaced expectation) that AOPA will be fighting their corner on this one - well the fact of the matter as I understand it is that they will not.

[BillieBob]

IO540 said So, that would prevent a G-reg being flown on an ICAO PPL. That will affect some very unfortunate people but not a huge number.True, but that is exactly what the thread was about before it was hijacked to bash AOPA. Why have a comment period then?RTFQ - I said that once the comment period is over you will have lost your chance.

Fuji Abound said IF it is, of course you are quite correct laws never change.I assume that was an attempt at sarcasm. Of course laws change but, in this case, only at the behest of the European Commission on the opinion of EASA. what a p*a*.Personal abuse is usually the first sign of a lost argument. a purpose of this forum is to provide people with factual evidence of what is taking placeWhich is exactly what I am seeking to do - everything I have posted here is fact. No, I do not work for EASA but I have a very good source who does.

gcolyer said if they can the IMCr they cannot take it way from the guys that already have it!Oh yes 'they' can. The EU does not recognise the concept of 'grandfather rights' - if the IMC rating is not included in Part FCL (and it is not) then nobody can exercise the privileges thereof. Thee CAA will not reomve the privelage from those that have it.The CAA will have no say in the matter, it will, by law, have to enforce whatever EASA tells it to enforce.

It is essential that one fact is not lost in all this bickering and silly name-calling. There is one, and only one, chance to influence what appears in the final Regulation that is presented to the European Commission and that is the 3-month consultation period expected to begin next March. It is vital that everyone with an interest in UK general aviation reads and comments on the document - it will probably not make much difference to the future of the IMC rating, given the strong opposition to it within the rest of Europe, but there's plenty else that will be unwelcome and worthy of comment.

[dah dahdit dah]

slightly off topic but... Does anyone know if there are any FTOs in the UK that offer conversion courses from JAA to FAA licence?

Currently have a JAA licence at present and I believe its a case of taking the US exam and a skills test?

thanks in advance

[S-Works]

Sorry but alas not, they can and will remove the IMCR, EASA do not have the concept of grandfather rights. That is the key reason for this discussion. In due course you will swap your JAA and CAA licences for EASA licences and they will not have any national ratings under the current proposals.

It is not in the remit of the CAA going forward to preserve any ratings, the concept of a national CAA with it's own ANO vanishes under EASA.

This is where the new offense of flying with an expired license as sprung up from and is designed to force people to move to the new licenses as they appear.

There is currently a battle being fought to try and preserve this as part of retaining the IMC or at least allowing a lenthy transition period.

The next phase is when the NPA comes out in March.



t the end of the day if they can the IMCr they cannot take it way from the guys that already have it! it will just mean that know one else will be able to get it.

I was speaking to an IMCr and IR instructor last night (someone that you know Bose). He thinks the reason why those that have and will retain it is two fold:

1) Thee CAA will not reomve the privelage from those that have it.
2) Many airline pilots have complained as they wish to keep their embedded IMCr so they dont have to worry about Sinlge pilot SEP IR's later on.

Bose-x,
Maybe you can confirm this. There has been and still is cards on the table for an EASA IMCr as well as a more obtainable PPL IR which at the moment is being aimed at being similar to the FAA IR.

As I mentioned this stems from a long conversation I had with someone in Bose's circles last night

[NuName]

FAA ATPL, operating JAROps, AOC. 6 monthly OPC's conducted under CAA requirements. Can I fly full IR on a G reg? NO.:ugh: