N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA

[BEagle]

Yesterday I learned from a FCL001 group person that EASA will continue to allow 'third country' (i.e. N-reg) aircraft to be used in €uroland, provided that they 'Shall be maintained and operated' in an identical manner to EU registered aircraft.

"Does that mean that pilots operating such aircraft under IFR will need to hold EASA FCL IRs?", I asked.

"It means that the owners must maintain and operate their aircraft as though they were on an EU register", came the unhelpful reply...

I repeated my question, rather slower and rather louder. The reply was that there would be no exemptions, so yes, to fly N-reg aircraft with a FAA IR wouldn't be acceptable.

"So who is going to stop all those airline pilots flying N-reg IFR in Europe", I asked...

Errm....aaah....errm....yes, well....good point, well made!

EASA - really is totally unift for purpose and the is proving to be the worst example of a pointless, unnecessary European regulation-generating nonsense organisation ever.

[S-Works]

As I understand it they were giving a 90 day exemption.

As no airline pilot is based in europe for anything close to that it was a neat side step. Clobbers the N Reg based operators which was always promised and part of the reason the DofT dropped the n reg deporting exercise.

I did point this out on a number of occassions but as usual lost in a hundred pages of telling me why I was wrong.

I do agree that the worst thing that is going to happen to GA is EASA.

But I am sure you can get gte Fuji to organise a petition and speak to some of his new MEP friends to sort it all out..... :E:E:E:E:E:p

[derekf]

Interesting to see what happens in Jersey :confused:

[englishal]

Could you not just *base* your aircraft outside the EU and "visit" there once per 90 days? The EU is the worst thing that ever happened to Great Britain.

I was chatting to a danish bloke today who reckons that the EU should be split in two.....England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland forming their own union...and then the other half. I agree with him, let the ones who think alike be together..........

This leaves the Oily part of Europe (My southern french Aunts words, not mine), the Germans and the new Eastern Europeans to get on with life as they see fit, and the Northern Europeans to get on with their ways...

Would suit me, the Norwegians are smart....best thing they ever did was NOT joining the EU.........Had they done so, all their fish would have been poached by Spanish fishermen.

[Justiciar]

the EU should be split in two.....England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland forming their own union


The trouble is the booze is so expensive in these places :{ Still, I suppose we could trade our beer for something they have got, like Swedish women ....... and saunas :cool:

[411A]

What you folks in EASA-land need, is for the FAA to take over.
Much better, and far less expensive...:E

Having personally held an FAA ATPL for over forty years, with numerous jet, turbopropellor, and large piston type ratings, never once was I charged for a rating endorsement.

And, least you think that a large aircraft type rating is an easy exercise, try it sometime with a hard-nosed FAA inspector...:E:E

[Contacttower]

What you folks in EASA-land need, is for the FAA to take over.


You are so right 411A.

[Life's a Beech]

englishal

Have discussed the same ideal with Danish colleagues. I would invite the Netherlands as well though. Northern Europeans seem to get on very well together. How about the Irish? I would like them along, but maybe they would want to stay a while with the southerners, as they are making money from the current arrangements!

[IO540]

411A, you are no doubt right, but at present there are some disputes between the FAA and EASA (not related to GA at all, AFAIK) and these are causing the FAA to be treated as a 3-letter word at EASA.

This is in turn creating some anti N-reg sentiment and proposals in the EASA "the European way is the only way" committees.

Hopefully it will pass....

[dublinpilot]

How about the Irish?
No doubt we'd end up with a fudge, where we were some sort of half members of both groups, but recognised as full members by both groups, but with derogations from all the rules of both groups, because of our special status. :}

We'd fall out with nobody, and continue on like nothing ever happened :)

[172driver]

What you folks in EASA-land need, is for the FAA to take over.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[TheOddOne]

Having personally held an FAA ATPL for over forty years, with numerous jet, turbopropellor, and large piston type ratings, never once was I charged for a rating endorsement.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the US taxpayer as a whole pays for your type ratings and the rest of the FAA setup...

Is this fair? Should the non-benefiting taxpayer pay for the few to enjoy this boon?

I'm sure that if the direct user of aerodromes and the licencing, certificating and approvals system had to pay then the real cost of aviation in the States would approach European levels, less the economies of scale and the more pragmatic rule-making of the Feds.

The UK taxpayer through their elected representatives (long before EU and EASAland) held the view that the user should pay. The theory is that scarce tax money should go on genuine social need like a comprehensive health system and support for those less fortunate than ourselves who cannot help themselves.

Yes, there's plenty of scope for argument about the relative worthiness and inefficiencies in our social benefits system, likewise in the way in which our civil aviation is regulated, but the basic principle of user paying won't change.

There's a rumour (this is a rumour site, after all!!!) that the US are considering relieving the US taxpayer of the burden of paying for civil aviation and making the aviators (and their passengers) pay direct.

TheOddOne

[mountain-goat]

Englishal!

Don't forget Switzerland in the free-thinking Northern European crowd! ;)It's only the Francophones in Geneve that seem to think the grass is greener:ugh:

MG

[mm_flynn]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the US taxpayer as a whole pays for your type ratings and the rest of the FAA setup...
Is this fair? Should the non-benefiting taxpayer pay for the few to enjoy this boon?
You are correct that the funding is very different from the UK. However, the amount from general taxation is small. BUT...

The US hypothicates fuel taxes (road and air) so the user can efficienctly pay (as compared to the UK that views both of these as general taxation measures)
The US has PAX taxes for the user to pay
Many localities view having air access (so freight, tourists, businessmen and holiday makers want to come to /live in the locality as a general benefit that they should financially support (sort of like parks)
Finally, there is a view that aviation helps drive the general economy to be more productive and provides society wide wealth

The current debate in the US is around trying to move the funding from airlines towards GA and to remove any use of the general fund so that Congress no longer has an oversight roll.

[411A]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the US taxpayer as a whole pays for your type ratings and the rest of the FAA setup...

Every time I fill up my private aeroplane with fuel, a federal tax is imposed on each gallon (and yes, we still use gallons and not this litres nonsense) which goes to pay for the FAA, and indeed, together with individual airline ticket taxes paid by every passenger, as well as a tax on airway bills for cargo...all goes into a fund specifically for FAA use.
The FAA is thus, essentially, self funding.
Seems like a reasonable arrangement to me.

You folks in EASA-land are truly screwed, blued, and tatooed, and it is a damn shame.
In the USA, general aviation groups would never let this happen.
Even Dubya's ideas on user fees has been right and truly shot down by Congress, mainly due to complaints by GA/business aviation groups.

As it should be.

[Johnm]

The answer is for us all the join AOPA and refuse to implement EASA rules and carry on with the old regime.

:E

[Sam Rutherford]

Switzerland is in EASA, but not the EU - what happens if I register my aircraft there, and pop in every 90 days? It's 2+ IFR hours from here, also do my approaches at the same time?!

Sam.

[2close]

Switzerland is in EASA, but not the EU - what happens if I register my aircraft there, and pop in every 90 days? It's 2+ IFR hours from here, also do my approaches at the same time?!

Hey????

The last time I checked EASA stood for the European Aviation Safety Agency so geographically speaking Switzerland (and the CI and IOM) could join the party.

However, these countries are not in the EU and are not subject to EU law. As EASA regulations are such EU law, could we see a situation where certain EASA 'members' are free to interpret the regulations as they see fit?

Do I detect another crock in the making?

[IO540]

Switzerland is in EASA, but not the EU - what happens if I register my aircraft there, and pop in every 90 days? It's 2+ IFR hours from here, also do my approaches at the same time?!

The FACT is that all this stuff is no more than just discussions in some EASA committee.

There is a long way to go before something becomes a regulation.

A LOT of people wil have their say, and most of them are far bigger (in political influence) than any of us.

It would be a grave mistake for anybody to make decisions on the basis of what is written here.

As regards ways of circumventing some hypothetical 90 day rule, there are loads of ways to do it. Anyway, anybody operating a reasonable size fleet can just rotate the planes through the EU, parking them outside the EU for the appropriate times. And any maintenance will be done outside the EU, obviously (so, who gains??). Then there will be obvious commercial schemes where you lease a plane for 90 days at a time. Rest assured that if "we" can think of a way around it, the lawyers who might end up drafting the regs will see it too and they won't bother.

[DFC]

411A,

You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe.

The Litre is a natural measurment. The gallon was invented by the British for tax purposes who after you kicked them out made the gallon smaller so that they could get more tax. That is why the US gallon is larger than the UK gallon.

However, the litre of water will always be simply the volume of 1Kilogram of water no matter what the taxes.

Ironically, the winners in the no user fees are again the Europeans who will not have to pay for certificates because you do.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

I think you'll find that the UK gallon is, in fact, somewhat larger than the US gallon!

Exactly 20% larger.

:hmm:

[englishal]

You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe.
I contribute to the US economy because of my US certificate. I go there about 4 times per year and spend a minimum of $10,000 pa there supporting their GA.......plus all the ancillary bits, like hotels, hire cars, food, drink (that is the next biggest spend ;)) etc.....

So you see it works both ways. If I didn't have a US certificate I may not go there as much, spend as much (that is for sure!). I fly "carbon neutral" aeroplanes if anyone gives a sh*t (which I don't but to apease the whingers).....and end up supporting out flagging airlines (I normally fly BA).

Maybe we should try to attract people to come on flying holidays in the UK?....Nah, it'd never work, we'd be criticising them too much and slagging them off all the time......probably :ooh:

[scooter boy]

DFC - could you be a little bitter and twisted?

"You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe."


Doesn't everybody contribute equally through fuel taxation if the fuel is bought in the EU?:confused:


Also FYI a UK Gallon is bigger than a US one - :ok:.

SB

[DFC]

Sorry BEagle, you are correct. More reasons to stick with litres! :)

Scooterboy,

No.

Pilots in the US pay for the system through tax on avgas as one example.

Thus there is no fee at the point of issue for obtaining a PPL certificate or ratings etc

European pilots use US PPLs that they get for free and use N registered aircraft while paying no taxes towards the system that provides all the regulatory back-up etc etc. The cost of issuing certificates to European (and elsewhere in the world) pilots is borne by the US pilot population.

It is probably a very small percentage but it is the case that for every dollar in Avgas tax paid by a US PPL filling up their aircraft in california, some of that tax is used to provide European pilots with free certificates and the ability to fly European aircraft in European airspace.

European Enroute charges are ploughed back into the system However, they only kick in for IFR flights above 2000kg.

The tax on Avgas in most European countries is just a general taxation and there is no direct link with paying that tax and aviation support.

Having everyone in Europe on FAA certificates and N reg aircraft would be great - free certificates etc and the governments could save the costs of the NAAs and simply use the tax from avgas for other things. Oh sorry they already do use it for other things!

Regards,

DFC

[ShotOver]

Lets quantify taxes. What does one pay when paying for avgas in the US vs UK?

"Crude Oil = 44% ($0.6864)
Refining Costs and Profits = 15% ($0.234)
Distribution and Marketing Cost = 14% ($0.2184)
Federal and State Taxes = 27% ($0.4212)

The first three costs are mildly variable and can really be considered more of a constant no matter where you are in the world (probably lower in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia when compared to Europe and North America, however they will probably vary no more than say ±$0.50 per USG.) The true variable pricing factor that causes such a major disparage between the global prices that you pay for fuel, nation-by-nation is the amount that is charged as tax. This is illustrated by the total amount of tax levied on a US gallon of AVGAS delivered by fuel truck to a FAR Part 91 (equivalent) owner/operator on the ramp at one of the airports surrounding London in the UK. The tax charged there is approximately $3.80, while the taxes charged on the same specification and measure of AVGAS delivered on the ramp at a rural airport in Kansas is only $0.203. This type of tax disparage is prevalent all-through-out the world. According to the ' CIA World Statistical Handbook', out of a total of 212 countries in the world, only 98 of them are actually oil producing nations. Interestingly virtually all of the 212 countries elect to charge a fuel use or consumption tax."


The problem with many is that they have a narrow view as to the long reaching aspects of GA. It isn't just about user taxes, and who pays for a TR. It is an industry. The easier a government makes it for those who are able, and make it 'able' to as many as possible, the more is spent. The more is spent the better the economy......and the higher the overall taxes paid to the government. See the following:

"The GA sector contributed at least $150 billion to national output in 2005 and, directly or indirectly, employed more
than 1,265,000 people whose collective earnings exceeded $53 billion. It should be noted that these figures are very
conservative, first, because they reflect only the economic
output that likely would not have been generated if GA did not exist and, second, because the analysis was restricted
to those portions of GA’s contribution for which MergeGlobal found sufficiently detailed and reliable data. As will be
discussed later in this report, the estimates of GA’s economic contributions do not, by any means, include all of GA’s
significant net benefits to the U.S. economy.
General Aviation contributes to the U.S. economy by creating output, employment, and earnings that would not
otherwise occur. Direct impacts, such as the purchase of a new aircraft, multiply as they trigger transactions and
create jobs elsewhere in the economy (e.g., sales of aluminum, plastic, rubber, electronics, and the wide range of other
materials and components required to make an airplane). To capture these ripple effects, MergeGlobal estimated GA’s
“direct”, “indirect”, and “induced” contributions to the U.S. economy as summarized below:


General Aviation’s Contribution to the U.S. Economy In 2005
(All data except employment in $ billions)

General Aviation benefits people and communities throughout the United States, and its economic contribution is significant in all regions of the country, as shown on the following page

4:

Direct Indirect Induced Total GA % of U.S.

Output $39.8 $49.9 $60.6 $150.3 0.66% 2

Wages & Salaries
$14.5 $20.9 $17.8 $53.2 0.76% 3

Employment
225,000 560,000 480,000 1,265,000 0.90% 3



Apologies for a poor cut and paste. See for yourself at the following link:
http://www.nasao.org/Publications/pdf_files/GAMA%20Impact%20Study.pdf

So, as long as the EU sees GA as a bad word that should be taxed to the hilt, they will continue to loose the economic advantages, and the increased tax revenue from all those who choose to go the US and leave their hard earned Sterling in the economy of the US. I think the price of a TR is chump change compared to the effects on the economy.

[Wrong Stuff]

DFC, have you never used a GPS, then?

[nouseforaname]

I think the fact that the FAA IR is an ICAO recognised instrument rating may stand for quite a lot. It will be a really hard regulation to police also. But like IO540 said, these are just disucssions at the moment

[englishal]

DFC,

Not quite for FREE......I happily paid the US FTO for my CPL, my SE rating, my ME rating, my IR rating and numerous endorsements. They in turn paid taes on my "purchases" and their income generated from my purchase. I paid the FAA DPE thousands of dollars over time to examine me for these ratings. He in turn pays tax on what I pay him. I have paid tax on jet fuel and Avgas, I pay state taxes on my purchases while there, I pay city taxes on my hotel rooms, I pay airport taxes for my flights over. I pay city taxes for the rental car...I pay federal taxes on the petrol for the hire car. The instructors that I pay pay federal and state taxes, they pay taxes on the simulator time I have used......

But I am happy to do so, because I think it is VALUE FOR MONEY....which is something sadly lacking in Europe now we are one big happy euro-family.

[Justiciar]

European pilots use US PPLs that they get for free and use N registered aircraft while paying no taxes towards the system that provides all the regulatory back-up etc etc

That is a very simplistic view. That is why the US economy has been so inovative and why Europe is positively sclerotic by comparison. The US generally realises that excessive regulation and high fees discourage economic activity and as a result the country as a whole looses out. The question about GPS is, admitedly an extreme example, but illustrates how the availability of a free service to the user stimulates the economy - how many manufacturers of GPS units are US companies? The continuing benefit to the US economy of pilots holding or qualifying for US licenses and ratings I suspect outweighs the costs to the FAA of administering the process.

Europe has gone the other direction. The result is plain for all to see, with many European countries having little in the way of GA left.

[DFC]

Yes, GPS is another thing that the US tax payer provides to the rest of the world for free.

Regards,

DFC

[julian_storey]

God bless America :D

[411A]

God bless America :D
Amen to that!:}

OK, OK, we have Dubya...an aberation.

[BEagle]

This is the current information I have:

1. To operate any aircraft registered within the EU (+Switzerland, Norway and Iceland) you must hold at least the required JAA/EASA licence and ratings.

2. Aircraft operated on other Registers must comply with ICAO licence requirements and hold a licence and ratings with the state of registry of the aircraft.

3. However, aircraft registered outside the EU (+Switzerland, Iceland and Norway) which have their base within that region can only be flown by pilots holding the appropriate JAA/EASA licences and Ratings.

Thus (for example):

You cannot operate a 'N' registered aircraft on a JAA/EASA licence.
You cannot operate a 'G' registered aircraft using FAA Ratings and licences.
If you currently own and operate, for example, a 'N' registered PA28 which you base at a UK aerodrome, you hold an FAA licence and IR - then you will have also to hold JAA/EASA licences and ratings to meet the law.This not within the remit of the EASA FCL Rulemaking process - it is because of revised regulation 1592 issued by the EC (not EASA) which lays down all the requirements that EASA has now to comply with and which were all agreed and signed off at the recent Heads of State meeting.

Sorry to be the bearer of such news.....:(

[S-Works]

It's OK Beagle you aren't the bearer of the bad news, I was months OK, you have just reconfirmed it.....

[BEagle]

The old UK CPL will need to be converted to a JAR-FCL/EASA CPL......

[S-Works]

If you have a UK CPL you just fill in a form and they send you a JAA one now and in the future an EASA one.

It's hardly ruining lives and families now is it?

[2close]

Does anyone have a timetable (however tenuous) on implementation of EASA FCL 1 (if that's what it's going to be called!)?

EASA FCL 3 (medical stuff) is due to come to fruition in Spetember 2009 and I was informed (and kindly confirmed by bose-x in another thread - you don't happen to have the reference document, perchance?) that EASA medical regulations will prevent anyone flying a foreign registered aircraft based in EASA member states with anything but an EASA medical certificate.

That may have some implications in itself for those operating corporate N reg in the EU, even before EASA implements the rules mentioned above by BEagle.

Anyone know the way to the IOM?:ok:

[youngskywalker]

I think O-P-M was making a general observation on his current feelings towards aviation, frankly I'm feeling the same way!

On a different note, there is so written on here about EASA that is pure rumour and speculation (I guess this is PPRuNE). It's hard to separate on here from those who would love to see FAA rated pilots forced out/change licence from those actually in the know and with anything actually constructive to add. All this is doing is upsetting pilots for no good reason. EASA may well spell the end for faa in europe but this will likely take years and be met with very strong political opposition. Lets just wait for some hard facts, then make an informed decision...

[Johnm]

In theory it doesn't seem unreasonable, until you remember that most people with small light aircraft ONLY go N Reg to get a realistic IR for PPL use. Others won't be affected because they're on other registers for approvals reasons (e.g Socata TBM and YAKS)

The big argument still to be fixed in the context of IMCR and N Reg is a proper PPL/IR. I believe that if that is forthcoming the issues will be OK. If it's not forthcoming look for civil disobedience on a considerable scale, or maybe a commercial opportunity for the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or various places in North Africa:ugh:

[dublinpilot]

1. To operate any aircraft registered within the EU (+Switzerland, Norway and Iceland) you must hold at least the required JAA/EASA licence and ratings.

Am I to understand it that this proposal from EASA, would mean that an America, Canadian, Australian etc coming here on holidays could not rent an aircraft here because they don't have an EASA licence, and the aircraft they would be renting is EU based? :confused:

dp

[rustle]

Am I to understand it that this proposal from EASA, would mean that an America, Canadian, Australian etc coming here on holidays could not rent an aircraft here because they don't have an EASA licence, and the aircraft they would be renting is EU based? :confused:

dp

Can you rent an American or Australian aircraft on a CAA/JAA licence only?

Belay that, I know you cannot rent a "VH" one without a CASA approved bit of paper...

[julian_storey]

Does anyone know whether the EASA regulations will cover Isle of Man based aircraft?

If they don't, anything over 5,700kg based here on the 'N' reg will just shift over onto the 'M'.

[dublinpilot]

Can you rent an American or Australian aircraft on a CAA/JAA licence only?


You can't rent an American aircraft in the US with a CAA/JAA licence, but they do have a very simple straight forward proceedure to allow you to get an FAA licence based on your JAA one. If EASA allows the same, then fine, but that would seem to defeat their objective :confused:

[IO540]

These days, the pilot forums are stuffed with a constant stream of "N-reg will be kicked out" material.

These are mostly leaks of EASA committee proposals, discussed under nondisclosure rules, leaked out by various people with various agendas, and nobody knows whether, or in what form, these will make it into legislation.

It is hard to work out the motive behind some of what appears on here - written (or supplied to the author posting it here) by people who just want to spread fear. This is pointless because there isn't anything anybody can do about it!!!

And only an idiot would act on anonymous leaks on pilot forums, describing (if true) proposals which are specifically under nondisclosure to prevent interested parties lobbying too early. What a complete farce. The committee members who are coming out with this stuff must be laughing their heads off as they read it here.

The straight 90 day parking ban is quite obviously unworkable - just as the 2005 DfT proposal would have been; that one was along the same lines.

There is a long way to go and the proper action to take, in terms of where to lobby and who to lobby, will be apparent if and when anything takes shape and is openly published.

Whether this is the right time to dump a plan to do the FAA/N-reg route and put work into the JAA IR route (and either buy a G-reg or transfer your N-reg to G-reg) instead cannot be decided either, because there is a high probability that if N-reg is attacked the sheer number of high net worth (turboprop/jet) owners/operators around the EU will make such a massive fuss and make it at the very highest political levels that some kind of carrot will most likely be offered to ease the process of evicting the several thousand N-reg planes out of Europe. And NO the corporate ops cannot just be given an AOC and an AOC-linked exemption because that would undermine more or less everything which an AOC stands for in the whole area. So somebody going scared and spending a year doing the JAA PPL/IR could save himself a load of work by waiting for a suitable carrot to appear.

[BEagle]

Nonetheless, it is only fair that the fallout from the recent EU Heads of State signatory agreement should be widely publicised....

If only for the fact that it might serve to mobilise people to challenge this Eurocratic willy-waving - which leaves N-reg owners as the unwitting pawns who are in dnager of being screwed by politicians on both sides of the Pond.

[2close]

Publishing what may be nothing more than rumour (or may not!) may jolt someone who is considering "going down the FAA route in order to get a corporate job in EU" into thinking twice, doing some of their own FACT finding, paying a tad more attention to what is going on in the EASA sub-committees and maybe even joining in with the lobbying, which may have the net effect of altering the rumoured changes to a more beneficial outcome and also may save them a lot of cash, time and heartache.

On the flip side, we could all say nothing, do nothing, sit back and let the bureaucrats have their way and then whine about things having gone against us after the event!!!

We can only work with the information we have to hand and this medium is probably one of the best means for disemminating that information, although I do agree that on occasions some of it may be perceived as scare-mongering.

It is a shame that the authorities don't publish proposals and minutes of sub-committee meetings in an easily accessible media on a regular basis and in an easy to digest format. Would that be asking too much? ....or do they?????

[IO540]

Nonetheless, it is only fair that the fallout from the recent EU Heads of State signatory agreement should be widely publicised....

If only for the fact that it might serve to mobilise people to challenge this Eurocratic willy-waving - which leaves N-reg owners as the unwitting pawns who are in dnager of being screwed by politicians on both sides of the Pond.

I agree, but if you are going to do that perhaps you could ask other awkward questions, for example why the LAPL was pressed by MDM032 and against EASA's original wishes, to be VFR only from the outset, thus cutting off any possibility to a modular IR and a stepping stone for IMCR holders. That was brought about not by EASA but by another portion of GA - the VFR-only groups. I know this isn't N-reg but the two are linked because if you strip a pilot of IFR privileges one way he is going to look at how else he can get them back, in some form at least.

The time to lobby is when something is published, which should be in 2008. Then, write to all turboprop and jet manufacturers and draw their attention to it. This was done at the time of the DfT proposal and almost certainly did a great deal of help.

[BEagle]

MDM032 went for a 'minimum acceptable level' for a pilot licence. Hence the sub-ICAO LAPL (similar to the VFR-only UK NPPL) - but, against advice from many, this also includes the ludicrous Basic LAPL to allow the French to continue to kill themselves with their lunatic 'Brevet de Bass'e... This would see 16 year olds flying aircraft up to 2000 kg on A-to-A flights of up to 50km, carrying not more than 1 passenger.......after a mere 20 hours of training :eek:

No reason why the LAPL shouldn't be the EASA version of the sub-ICAO NPPL for the day VFR-only groups, although I don't really see the point of having harmonised sub-ICAO licences and would sooner they were removed from the remit of EASA altogether and left to national organisations.

The harmonised EASA PPL(A) should be the minimum licence to which IMC/IFR privileges can be attached - otherwise there would be no point in having both a LAPL and a PPL.

Absurdly, it seems that MDM032 intend to allow night qualifications to be added to the LAPL. Which would mean a change to 'all night is IFR' in the UK....:rolleyes:

[S-Works]

The straight 90 day parking ban is quite obviously unworkable - just as the 2005 DfT proposal would have been; that one was along the same lines.

No it's not..... You just make a law and the threat of enforcement is enough. Just like the offense's of flying without a medical an expired licence etc.

In theory it doesn't seem unreasonable, until you remember that most people with small light aircraft ONLY go N Reg to get a realistic IR for PPL use. Others won't be affected because they're on other registers for approvals reasons (e.g Socata TBM and YAKS)

Exactly, it is not unreasonable, a lot of people have ended up on the N-Reg as it is seen as an easy route to avoiding European rules. A red rag to a bull methinks?

Just as in the same way the Americans will not allow you to fly on a non US licence either. However the Americans are more enlightened when it comes to giving due credit.

The DofT dropped the N Reg vendette because they were made a promise by EASA to take up the mantle, one that is now being delivered on. I have said for quite some time that the N-reg is in danger and it does not matter how many times people like IO post pages of why it can't possibly happen the fact is that it is and at the moment there is no realistic defence.

Personally I think it is a master stroke of bureaucratic genius, don't get rid of the N-Reg, just make a reasonable request that if they are operating in European airspace they operate under European rules just the same as the FAA do and in a stroke it makes the N-Reg unattractive for the small guys and little difference to the big guys. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[scooter boy]

If this bureaucratic nonsense is enacted then the ****storm that will follow will be of biblical proportions.
Let's wait and see what happens.
A complete lack of reciprocity on the part of the eurocrats is where their plan falls down. They have not provided a suitable alternative.
Fret? Moi?
Absolutely not until the killjoys prize my aircraft keys out of my hands.

Bastards!

SB

[2close]

Something just sprung to mind.

I read constantly about what they propose or intend to do but nowhere do I recall reading WHY they are doing it.

Surely, in order to make sweeping legislative changes there has to be rational reasoning............or does there lie the oxymoron - 'rational' and 'aviation authorities'?

[Johnm]

Bose x wrote[Exactly, it is not unreasonable, a lot of people have ended up on the N-Reg as it is seen as an easy route to avoiding European rules. A red rag to a bull methinks?
Just as in the same way the Americans will not allow you to fly on a non US licence either. However the Americans are more enlightened when it comes to giving due credit.[
Actually this is a bit confused and neither reflects what I said nor represents the position of most N reg light aircraft users. The missing point is that for PPL/IR the playing field is not level. JAR and EASA FCL do not have the same accessibility of IR for PPL holders that FAA do. There is no question that FAA PPL/IR is rigorous enough for full access to controlled airspace. IMCR needs enhancement to reach this level but is a good start point to be enhanced to an IR for PPL. I remain convinced that enhancing IMCR to include IFR flight planning, more metereology and en route procedures as well as increased flying standards with more precision demanded and including holds, SIDs STARS etc would suffice and is probably a better route than trying to simplify the ATPL syllabus.

Edited to add:

This view is arrived at by a reasonably experienced IMCR holder who has looked in detail at the FAA/IR study material.

[mm_flynn]

Read the EASA web site. That will give some insight into the motivations. It then gets twisted into the position we are now in by the various lobby groups fighting their own corner.

The starting point of a lighter touch on regulation of light aircraft, a level playing field between similar types and manufacturers, and maintaining or improving safety is like Motherhood and Apple Pie - can't disagree - it's the reality being mooted along with its unintended consquences that are the problems.

[BEagle]

Johnm - the IMC Rating syllabus most definitely includes holding procedures. It also includes 'IFR flight planning' and meteorology.

What do you mean by 'en-route procedures'?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Transferring onto the M-reg is by application only, just because you weigh over 5700kg doesnt mean you will be able to be registered there.

There must be a commercial opportunity here, EASA are no doubt in a panic about low time IR equipped PPLs in VLJ's mixing it with the boeingbuses.

Aircraft are only going to get cheaper and faster - fact

Maybe further regulation limiting a max altitude of FL100 or something, but even then they may have a point about people who just aren't current enough being able to attempt complicated SIDS/STARS out of overcongested airspace.

The FAA are instigating a Mentoring scheme for VLJ's whereby the type rating is split into 4 different grades ranging rom Single Pilot IFR to a mentored 2 crew type rating which can only be used under supervision from a top graded type rated (Probably professional) guy.

The easiest way to enforce it would be to reclassify airspace - open entry to Class A airspace must be the main concern here.

[DFC]

but, against advice from many, this also includes the ludicrous Basic LAPL to allow the French to continue to kill themselves with their lunatic 'Brevet de Bass'e... This would see 16 year olds flying aircraft up to 2000 kg on A-to-A flights of up to 50km, carrying not more than 1 passenger.......after a mere 20 hours of training

So how does that A to A restriction match up against the current UK NPPL where you can qualify to fly A to B after just 8 hours training?

In fact it is still possible to obtain a UK NPPL from scratch without having never completed s single minute of dual training!!!!

Be careful about lobbing stones because some big rocks can be returned!!!

-----------

The IMC rating may have holds in the Sylabus but it is not tested on initial or renewal flight tests. Thus a student can be poorly taught holding and racetrack procedures and simply pass their test and never be required to show their lack of competence in an important element of instrument flight.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

If this bureaucratic nonsense is enacted then the ****storm that will follow will be of biblical proportions.
Let's wait and see what happens

Agreed completely.

Beagle - I see where you are coming from but the problem with not having any IFR add-on on the LAPL is that we are now not going to get anything which the UK IMCR (should it end) could have been grandfathered into.

If the IMCR were to go, that's roughly around 3000 pilots losing IFR privileges!! This kind of wholesale sodomy is quite unprecedented in aviation generally and pilot privileges specifically.

The problem with expecting an IFR add-on to be added to the EASA PPL (which is simply going to be a JAA PPL, in the first few years at least) is that anything short of a full IR will be politically unacceptable, as well as (possibly) requiring EASA members to file a difference to ICAO, etc etc.

The LAPL would have been the correct vehicle to carry something like e.g. the Australian modular IFR qualification.

Gspot - the situation is much more subtle than you suggest. FL100 ceiling is useless for European IFR, due to terrain alone in many places! The airways airspace is NOT congested; this is another enduring myth spread around pilot forums - try flying a 1000nm leg across any bit of Europe, FL100-FL200, on Eurocontrol routes, and count how many planes you spot. There would be a real problem with light jets at FL300-FL400 but flying a lot slower than large jets, but ............. the European sales will be one or two orders of magnitude lower than people like NATS are fearing (I've been to one of their silly presentations where they expected "hundreds" to be based at Luton).

[TwinkieFlyer]

Just as in the same way the Americans will not allow you to fly on a non US licence either. However the Americans are more enlightened when it comes to giving due credit.


Not exactly. You can't fly N-registered aircraft without a US license. You can fly G registered aircraft in the US under a UK license. N-registered aircraft must be owned by either a US citizen or a US corporation. The pilots can be any nationality, but must have a US license to fly US registered aircraft.

Any UK citizen flying an N-registered aircraft must be flying for a corporate owned aircraft or for a US individual. For the most part, in order to ban N-registered aircraft, you have to ban US corporate owned aircraft. Not an easy thing to do.

[IO540]

Not exactly. You can't fly N-registered aircraft without a US license. You can fly G registered aircraft in the US under a UK license. N-registered aircraft must be owned by either a US citizen or a US corporation. The pilots can be any nationality, but must have a US license to fly US registered aircraft.

No.

$61.3 (a) (1) says: "when operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used".

So, an N-reg can be flown in the UK on a UK issued license, in Germany on a German issued license, etc.

Any UK citizen flying an N-registered aircraft must be flying for a corporate owned aircraft or for a US individual.

Well, the owner must be a US citizen or corporation, but the owner doesn't have to be in the slightest way involved otherwise. He could be living on the moon.

For the most part, in order to ban N-registered aircraft, you have to ban US corporate owned aircraft. Not an easy thing to do.

That's very true.

[dublinpilot]

For the most part, in order to ban N-registered aircraft, you have to ban US corporate owned aircraft. Not an easy thing to do.


I presume you mean politically it's not easy to do, because the big multi national corporations won't be happy?

In fairness there is a very simply way around that. Ban everything below 3 tonnes. It achieves the same thing, but doesn't upset large industry.

dp

[IO540]

In fairness there is a very simply way around that. Ban everything below 3 tonnes. It achieves the same thing, but doesn't upset large industry

That right, DP, but then why bother in the first place?

It's a bit like banning convicted paedophiles from having unsupervised access to children, but exempting those who are Rotarians and Masons.

It's so easy to go down a road where legislation achieves actually nothing and just looks vindictive, mean and spiteful. It does happen occassionally but not very often.

This is indeed the key issue with all proposed action against N-reg. The bigger operators have multiple aircraft and will structure their parking within the EU so as to work below any long term annual parking limit. They will avoid having any maintenance done in the EU, as that would count towards their allowance (which will wipe out large chunks of very high value maintenance business in the EU). Other people will work around it by temporarily leasing in planes and rotating them, etc, etc, etc. Anybody employing a paid crew will be able to work around any FCL-based attack (crew with EU citizenship will be fired). Only the low end GA owner community will get hit, and one has to ask: for what purpose?

What I really really hate is when some righteous person on here (2 or 3 of them) says this is the right and proper thing to do, they are going to get you this time hehehe, when objectively the result will be a purely spiteful and vindictive measure effectively only against those with the least money.

[BEagle]

The only 'right and proper' solution to the N-reg saga is to make the EU equivalent more appealing, thus rendering the need for the N-reg and associated licences and ratings superfluous.

However, there is currently no evidence of this happening. The EU seems determined to use the blunt instrument of legislation - and has no real answer as to 'Why?'....

Hopefully someone will find a creative way round stupid legislation....:ugh:

[dublinpilot]

That right, DP, but then why bother in the first place?

I agree, but often these fudges keep the politicans happy :rolleyes:

A lot of it may be scaremongering too. Put out enough rumours that something bad is going to happy to N reg, and then people avoid it, and the "problem" goes away.

But as BEagle says, the real solution is to make things so good in Europe, that no one wants to go N reg. If only those in charge could see that, we would all be so much better off.

dp

[S-Works]

For the most part, in order to ban N-registered aircraft, you have to ban US corporate owned aircraft. Not an easy thing to do.

This is a non issue. All EASA have said is they want synergy of licence and maintenance. To a proper corporate operator they just insist on dual qualified crew.

I think that it effects far few 'corporates' than you would think and EASA know it.

This excuse get rolled out time and time again by the small GA N-Reg operators as the reason why things won't change. Personally I think they are wrong......

[DFC]

If the IMCR were to go, that's roughly around 3000 pilots losing IFR privileges

Yes but ICAO and a few Million other pilots would say that they should not have had such a privilege in the first place.

All this talk about high end operators is utter rubbish.

Netjets, the big American GA Fractional operator came to Europer some time ago. Now if there ever was an operator who would use the N reg if it suited then there is one. However, they in Europe operate all their aircraft on the European register, JAR-OPS and EASA and all that goes with it.

N reg may be good for the 172 flyer who will save a few grand on obtaining an IR but not worth it for the higher end players who spend lots more money and will have far more influence in cush matters.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

here we go again........... 2 done, any more?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

IO540

I appreciate your comments about the 1000nm leg in Europe, but really if you counted the amount of PPL/IR flown legs of that length regardless of nationality inbetween fl100 and fl200, I doubt you would count 10 sectors per day. Invariably the aircraft that will make such altitudes and then subject themselves to winds equal to their cruising speeds are that expensive then perhaps the cost admittedly in terms of Time/Avgas/Jet A1 is only a tiny part of the aquisition costs and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.

I once experienced a N reg malibu owner seriously overload his aircraft with people, fuel, bags and dogs and caused absolute chaos when he was asked to climb to FL170, he couldnt make the level due weight but tried, caused imeasurable problems for ATC. Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.

There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.

This will have a dramatic effect on corporate/private operators by shutting out professionally simulator trained and qualified pilots of the upper levels.

If EASA are capable of this much chaos, how much chance do you think the UK based FAA operators have of keeping their privileges.

[S-Works]

To be fair IO, the discussion is always going to be polarized with you on one side with a vested interest in N-reg ops and others on the other side.

I am sat on the fence just playing devils advocate...... :p

[youngskywalker]

Until any of this is actually approved and written down in law then it is pure speculation. I really don't think this is helping anybody, certainly not my stress levels (I really shouldnt read this crap but for some reason I seem drawn to it like a p#ss head is to curry).
Some of us (like me) actually make a living from professionaly flying 'N' reg corporate aircraft in Europe, converting to the JAR/EASA equivelant is not an option for some. I'm not trying to find an 'easy' or 'cheap' way around the regulations, simply flying with an FAA licence is the only way in which I will ever get to do this fantastic job.
When i'm in various European business aviation lounges and speaking to other FAA and JAR corporate pilots they all tell me that the rumours written on here about what EASA promise to do are quite wrong, some claim to have very close contacts within the EASA working group. Who to believe?

[PompeyPaul]

Is this fair? Should the non-benefiting taxpayer pay for the few to enjoy this boon?I don't get to enjoy living in Buckingham Palace but I still pay for it. I don't get to enjoy any sort of criminal prosecutions, crime reduction or crime detection from the police but I still fund it. I don't get to enjoy lucrative oil contracts from my friends and pals yet I still fund war to procure that.

So yes, I can get funded for something that I do enjoy, for once.

[DFC]

There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.

Utter tosh.

Especially since FL290 is an RVSM level.

Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.

OK, so a part time pilot with a PPL/IR does a few more written exams, some VFR training and a test and they are now a part time CPL/IR...........please explain where they suddenly gained more instrument flying ability?

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

I appreciate your comments about the 1000nm leg in Europe, but really if you counted the amount of PPL/IR flown legs of that length regardless of nationality inbetween fl100 and fl200, I doubt you would count 10 sectors per day.

A lot more than that, but not say 1000/day.

Invariably the aircraft that will make such altitudes and then subject themselves to winds equal to their cruising speeds

Where do you get this from? The jet stream doesn't go anywhere near that low. I have seen perhaps 70kt max, FL150. And any half decent IFR tourer will make FL180. The turbo ones tend to have a FL250 ceiling (e.g. TB21). Pressurised ones, almost universally FL250.

are that expensive then perhaps the cost admittedly in terms of Time/Avgas/Jet A1 is only a tiny part of the aquisition costs

Again, I do not believe you own a plane or fly IFR for real. The "tiny part" gives this away.

and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.

Can you provide supporting data for your "on the cheap" assertion? Again, I don't believe you are an owner/pilot of anything we are discussing here, otherwise you would know about aircraft operating costs, relative costs of G-reg private CofA v. FAA Part 91, etc. N-reg is not "on the cheap" at all. If anything, it costs slightly more, at the piston GA level, but most pilots use this route for the IFR privileges.

I once experienced a N reg malibu owner seriously overload his aircraft with people, fuel, bags and dogs and caused absolute chaos when he was asked to climb to FL170

Do you have more details or is this hearsay? I have never been asked by ATC to CLIMB anywhere above my filed level, or sometimes to a higher than filed level if changing a route and the MEA is higher there. If he filed for FL170 and could not make it, he was an idiot, but I don't see the relevance of this to N-reg because a Malibu can be G-reg or N-reg. Only the Jetprop conversion of the Malibu has to be N-reg.

, he couldnt make the level due weight but tried, caused imeasurable problems for ATC. Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.

OK, here we have the "only professional full time pilots should go into the IFR system" argument. Thankfully the chance of this getting anywhere is awfully slim, so long as ICAO exists.

And, of course, commercial flights are never overloaded. ATPs never do crazy things. What about that transport jet (727?) which gained only about 1000ft after 20nm out of Gatwick? That one didn't make the papers, but there are many cases like this.

Can you give precise details of the "imeasurable problems for ATC" assertion?

There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.

This "proposal" has been doing the rounds for years. Germany threatened ATPL-only for all jets. NATS claimed (2006, I was present) no single crew jets in UK airspace. Etc.

This will have a dramatic effect on corporate/private operators by shutting out professionally simulator trained and qualified pilots of the upper levels.

Which is why it is unlikely to happen. Anyway, the workload up there is minimal. Just pressing buttons on the autopilot - just like I do when flying IFR...

What WILL happen is that a slow jet trying to get upper airway routings is not going to get the good ones in the denser parts of Europe, and they won't like it very much.

If EASA are capable of this much chaos, how much chance do you think the UK based FAA operators have of keeping their privileges

None of this has happened. Proposals are cheap. They get floated up the flagpole to see if anybody claps. If they actually tried any of this high level stuff, there would be hell to pay on reciprocal rights outside Europe. Europe is a very small place - look on a globe. "We" think we are big and important but the reality is that Europe counts for very little in international aviation.

[scooter boy]

Bose-x, there is little mileage in your "sitting on the wall" stirring it up smugness.

People's livelihoods and significant extra (unproven benefit) expense are at stake here.

Just because (for some undiscernable reason) you decided to fork out a far larger sum of money and give up far more valuable time going through the convoluted path to obtain a european IR to go with the rest of your ("do I need any more") qualifications should not condemn the rest of us to do the same.

Come up with a reciprocal euro IR-lite and you will be forgiven, IO540 is far from alone in feeling concerned about proposals that would change the current infrastructure.

The eurocrats needs to make their qualification accessible and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification.

In the meantime - put a sock in it.
SB

[youngskywalker]

Now thats one of the best replies I've yet to read on this subject! :)

[Julian]

and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.


They are only cheap licence in respect of the £/$ rate at the moment, they are not sub-standard. I would rather someone hold an FAA IR than not hold a JAA IR as it still makes them a more capable pilot less likely to end up as a hole in the ground if he got into trouble. Most PPLs arent going to jump through all the pointless hoops and exams to get themselves a JAA IR.

Having to get a JAA IR to hold an FAA IR is crazy a lot of people just wont bother and will stick with their PPL. EASA are comprising safety in my books.

J.

[DFC]

The eurocrats needs to make their qualification accessible and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification.

If I remember correctly, IO540 chose the FAA IR route not for the cost but because he was medically unable to meet the minimum standard required for a JAA IR.

Many others are in the same situation.

ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same.

So are you really saying;

The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?

Should we start teaching guide dogs to fly so that the blind are not so disadvantaged in the future?

No matter where the line is there will always be some who do not reach the requirement.

Note that this is a flag of convenience issue rather than N reg. There are more flag of convenience registrations based in the EU than the N. VH, VP and of course M all come under that heading.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same

That is bull DFC but we have done this one before. I am responding to you only because it may mislead others.

JAA have taken an ICAO recommendation and gold plated it into a mandatory multi-frequency audiogram, which must be passed by each ear separately, mandatory for any IR holder even a private pilot.

The USA did the smart thing and filed a difference on this crap. Even an ATP doesn't need it, and I hold a Class 1 medical BTW, good enough to fly a 747 into Heathrow.

The problem with Europe is that European IFR pilots never had nobody looking after their interest (there is no "Euro AOPA") and regs didn't get noticed until it was too late. I dare say PPL/IR Europe (http://www.pplir.org)would draw attention to this kind of thing if somebody tried to pull the fast one again. Also the CAA IR was much easier to do in years gone by, with various grandfather routes enabling entry into the renewal stream (see below). This is how most old codgers like you got into the system.

To compound the irony, on a JAA renewal you get a demonstrated ability route which is what keeps large numbers of partly deaf airline pilots from losing their jobs.

You can that "flag of convenience" :ugh::yuk: Shame on you.

[scooter boy]

"So are you really saying;

The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?"

No, clearly I am not.


SB

[dublinpilot]

If I remember correctly, IO540 chose the FAA IR route not for the cost but because he was medically unable to meet the minimum standard required for a JAA IR.

Many others are in the same situation.

ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same.

So are you really saying;

The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?
Should we start teaching guide dogs to fly so that the blind are not so disadvantaged in the future?


Cheap shot DFC. The requirement in this case is particularly pointless. Perhaps ICAO and EASA have something to learn here.

Too much regulation happens on the basis of "That's the way it's always been" rather than thinking things through.

dp

[DFC]

JAA have taken an ICAO recommendation and gold plated it into a mandatory multi-frequency audiogram, which must be passed by each ear separately, mandatory for any IR holder even a private pilot.

and the ICAO requirement is..........

Where do we draw the line?

Should we let pilots who fail to meet the visual requirements fly?

Should we let pilots who fail to meet the requirements in respect of issues such as diabetes fly?

I am sorry that you (probably) through no fault of your own can not meet the international hearing standard for instrument rated pilots but there are lots of handicaped people out there who would oove to be pilots but can't pass the medical. Are you saying that they should not fly but your should becasuse you are a special case?

--------

Scooter boy,

If you are not saying that the standards should be lower, then what (in respect of PPL flying) is there to change without changing the standards of knowledge, proficiency and medical fitness?

------

Dublinpilot,

It would only be a cheap shot if IO540 had not previously told everyone why he went FAA.

It is simply an example of probably very few areas where one can circumvent the laws of a country where one is resident.

Give me an example of another area of the law where if you don't like it, you can import a version more to your liking?

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

It would only be a cheap shot if IO540 had not previously told everyone why he went FAA

where?

Anyway, there are two kinds of requirements: those that are relevant to flying and those that are not. You can fail the JAA audiogram and hear everything 100% perfectly. You can fail the JAA colour vision tests (all of them) and still see all colours you need to distinguish in the cockpit or outside.

[TheOddOne]

and the ICAO requirement is..........
Where do we draw the line?
Should we let pilots who fail to meet the visual requirements fly?
Should we let pilots who fail to meet the requirements in respect of issues such as diabetes fly?
I am sorry that you (probably) through no fault of your own can not meet the international hearing standard for instrument rated pilots but there are lots of handicaped people out there who would oove to be pilots but can't pass the medical. Are you saying that they should not fly but your should becasuse you are a special case?


I wasn't gonna get drawn in, but what the heck!

DFC,

Few of us are perfect specimens. There are those elsewhere in Europe (and probably beyond) who would demand Air Force standard medical fitness to fly. This is generally accepted as being unnecessary for civil aviation.
Please don't refer to differing medical standards as 'higher' or 'lower'. What is the purpose of having aural ability at all in a pilot? Well, for day VFR flight outside CAS, none at all, but IFR in CAS you do need to be able to hear and understand radio communication and in a Multi-crew environment your colleague(s). You don't need to have the discrimination of a sound engineer, though, so a simple audio test is sufficient, not the complex test I went through on my JAR Class 1 initial a year ago. The simple test isn't a lowering of standards, it's assessing the ability against the specific need for the task.
25 years ago, I was told that apart from being otherwise fit and having excellent corrected eyesight (which I still enjoy) the degree of correction required was just outside the limits then set so I was consigned to the Class 3 bracket. A couple of years ago, someone in JAR-land decided that the correction limits weren't right after all and I'm now comfortably inside the new limits and sailed through the test on the Class 1. In fact, my corrected visual acuity is very good for someone at any age, I can easily read the bottom line on the chart with either eye with my glasses on. So, my ability to see has been assessed against the perceived need and I pass. There are those who might say that any spectacle wearer shouldn't be granted a flying licence, are you one of those? I can see to land the aircraft, I can see traffic coming the other way, I can read the map and the instruments, what is the problem? I can assure you that any accident that knocks my glasses from my face will surely render me unfit to fly the aircraft for other reasons! I DO carry a spare pair to comply, but for no good purpose that I can see. The dangerous types as far as I'm concerned are those with reading glasses on idiot reins who are forever slipping them on and off to read the map or look outside.

In my new-found flying role I recently checked out a PPL hirer. He flew perfectly well and landed the aircraft with skill. Afterward, he confessed to me that he only had monocular vision and had required a special assessment of his fitness to fly. I'd say that was quite appropriate; in times past I think he'd have been dismissed out-of-hand which thankfully we're moving away from. We seem to be getting it right with the eyesight, next step sort out what we need hearing for and test appropriately.

Forgive the rant. The UKCAA medical department I believe, are at the forefront of campaigning to ensure that tests only measure against actual needs, not some dreamed-up way of producing a super-fit piloting elite.
Just remember it wasn't me who dragged this off-topic in the first place! How on earth did we get from N Reg to eyesight? Oh, yes, of course...

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Wow..
"Utter tosh" about single pilot IFR we'll see....
IO540
Pleased be reassured about two things however inaccurate you think my post was.

1. I witnessed the Malibu Incident with my own eyes, if the aircraft was required to be G registered it probably wouldn't have been on the ramp - fact

2. You make a pretty wide sweeping statement about me and what I fly, probably because I upset you by not agreeing with you. Let me reassure you that I have flown everything from Mooneys to Mid size bizjets under part 91. I have flown and managed aircraft on the G,N,M register and hold 2 ATP's. Not looking to get into a willy waving competition with you but you dismiss people at your peril on these forums.

I might also add that I am a IR instructor.

No problem at all with PPL/IR's in class A, the ones that I have flown with and on occasion trained have been excellent. There is a huge difference in standards between doing an initial IR with CAAFU and doing an initial IR in the states. Trust me I have experience of both systems and am therefore entitled to my opinion - regardless of whether or not it coincides with your one sided experiences.

Your idea of foreign registered 172's and trinidads flying IFR in any great or significant numbers and being of any interest to EASA is romantic at best. The safety card however valid, trumps all. If I was you I would start contacting your MP and delaying as best as you can what can only be described as inevitable.

Look to Guernsey or Jersey for the answer and pray that they are up and running before the door gets slammed in your face.

Once saw a groundspeed of 150 knots at FL180 in a Kingair, your comments about the winds don't increase your credibility

DFC

Netjets did the rounds of European agencys before settling in Lisbon, and originally NJE was three Citation 550's split from the American operation and indeed operated on the N reg initially.

What they proposed was pretty radical 10 years ago and nobody would take them on apart from the portugese after someody explained to them that there was probably 25 TAP a/c registered ini Portugal over 5700kg before netjets and they could probably expect NJE to have a fleet size of 140 aircraft and all the associated fees within 10 years. With the emergence of Subpart K in the US, the portugese had something to hang there hat on and basically gave them what they wanted and still do.

Its very similar to what the relationship that BA were "accused" of having with CAA in the 70's and 80's.

Your comment about "a bit of VFR flying" and a few extra exams is very valid, I would have no less "concerns" about a professional pilot flying IFR than I would about a PPL/IR flying IFR. Its all about currency and ability, PPL/IR's in the main do not have flying as their core skill and might fly serious IFR once or twice a fortnight maybe less (there are of course exceptions before I get pounced on, but that estimate is probably not a bad average).

For me its about ANY pilot getting to a certain standard and keeping it there before mixing it in Class A. If you are coming the other way and you shouldn't be then frankly I dont care what colour license you have!

And as for

Most PPLs arent going to jump through all the pointless hoops and exams to get themselves a JAA IR.


Priceless, lets not bother with standards shall we. I have a JAA ATPL and a FAA ATP if I had to give one up regardless of how difficult/awkward the JAA/EASA licensing system is it would be the FAA ATP. If you bothered to set yourself the goal of getting a JAA IR and achieved that goal I might suggest that you would feel the same way.

Regardless of the strong feelings on here we all need to start thinking like good europeans :yuk:. I fear the FAA/IR arrow has left the bow

[englishal]

Priceless, lets not bother with standards shall we
Well not if they are pointless and have no safety value.

Regardless of the strong feelings on here we all need to start thinking like good europeans . I fear the FAA/IR arrow has left the bow

Um,no, I don't think so.

[IO540]

We are seeing the usual elitist tosh from regulatory committee types - ATPs and ex IR examiners typically.

That's to be expected.

Thankfully they are always in a committee majority during proposed legislation, and in a great minority afterwards.

As Englishal points out, what should matter is competence for the actual job. Not compliance with arbitrary rules which for a large part don't make much sense. EASA is well aware of this and has said so and this does upset a lot of traditionalists. Unfortunately the initial committees are formed out of the only people who will sit on them...

Let's see how this all pans out.

[BEagle]

There is no such thing as 'CAAFU' and hasn't been for many years.

However, the 'spirit' lives on. For it is well-known that the CAA uses the Initial IR Skill Test as a 'last chance' filter to prevent what they consider the 'wrong people' going to the airlines....

It is also a very good revenue stream for the Authority.

The ludicrous gold-plated JAA IR (as administered by the CAA) is rather a nonsense. It is high time that the mystique of the IR was swept away - and more pragmatic methods put in place to meet the actual need for pilots to fly in IMC or under IFR.

[IanSeager]

1. I witnessed the Malibu Incident with my own eyes, if the aircraft was required to be G registered it probably wouldn't have been on the ramp - fact
I don't understand this bit. Are you saying that a pilot of a G reg. aircraft wouldn't overload his or her aircraft, or that European N reg pilots all suffer from similar (undesirable) personality traits?
Ian

[Johnm]

As an IMCR holder and thus a tolerable knowledge of instrument flight procedures, I have flown many miles in the RHS seat with both JAA and FAA IR holders. There's no difference in ability and technique that I've been able to discern and the most telling point of the experience is how much easier it is to fly long distances IFR.

I have flown a lot in Europe VFR and it's bl**dy hard work by comparison.

The nub of this whole issue is that most people are on the N Reg to get accessible IR qualifications and use them and if they own rather than hire an aircraft they can also get access to safety and performance mods that the Europeans, for purely jingoistic reasons, won't approve.

I have no doubt that if European regulations were made on the basis of PPL's using light aircraft as a mode of transport as is the case in the USA then we'd get a much better outcome. The regulatory mindset is just plain wrong in Europe.

[IO540]

There is a significant sub culture in European aviation regulation, where you have a chap with five ATPLs, a dozen type ratings, an IR examiner, sits on loads of committees, and if he got his way he would draw 2 pints of blood from the IR candidate immediately before the checkride. If the candidate faints during the checkride then he is obviously (self evidently!) a medically substandard specimen who is not fit for sharing airspace with PROFESSIONAL PILOTS.

One meets these types fairly regularly, here and in real life.

They are a minority but they load up the regulatory bodies. It will be interesting how EASA deals with this, compared to say the CAA for example. EASA ends up with the same types on the committees (can't be avoided) but the real power lies at the executive level.

[S-Works]

You know one of the most satisfying things for me as a JAA SPA-ME-IR holder amongst my little collection of licenses is that no one can accuse me of being sub standard compared to the professional pilots.

I have demonstrated my ability to exactly the same level and thus the can't deny me access to the toy box......

[DFC]

IO540,

Where? - In the previous discussion on medical standards.

Anyway, there are two kinds of requirements: those that are relevant to flying and those that are not. You can fail the JAA audiogram and hear everything 100% perfectly

It might surprise you to learn that the test checks hearing at 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000Hz.

The marker beacon in your aircraft will produce audio at 400 (Outer), 1300 (Middle) and 3000 (Inner) Markers.

Sounds relevant to me.

Also the frequency of the (poor quality) intercomm and communication radio outputs fall within the above range.

The JAA permitted loss of hearing at 3000Hz is 50dB. I would not describe someone with a more than 50dB loss of hearing as being able to "hear everything 100% perfectly".

While they are different dB systems, I hope your electronics do not get passed as 100% perfect if the standard is say a 3.5dB loss and you find a 5dB loss.

--------------

The Oddone,

The Jaa introduction to JAR-FCL 3 includes a comittment to early amendment in the light of experience.

Pilots elsewhere who prior to JAR-FCL had their Class 2 medicals done with their GP would not hold your view of the CAA system and the AME requirement that was imposed on them.

---------

Bose,

Congratulations for displaying basic PPL level Instrument flying skills.

Don't forget that you will have to sit another IR skill test if you want an ATPL because while the PPL level IR and associated exams credit you for the CPL they do not for the ATPL. :p

I have checked out many PPLs who were far better than ATPLs but at the end of the day there must be a line. By having a line even the private driving standard, there will be those that fail to meet the minimum standard. Unfortunately, in some cases, pilots can avoid complying with the law of the land and that goes against the whole reason for having a legal system.

If this was a tax loophole, it would have been closed years ago. :)

Regards,

DFC

[TheOddOne]

The Jaa introduction to JAR-FCL 3 includes a comittment to early amendment in the light of experience.


...so why did I have to wait 20-odd years for the system to decide I was fit to fly for a living after all? (I use the term 'for a living' in its broadest sense!)


Pilots elsewhere who prior to JAR-FCL had their Class 2 medicals done with their GP would not hold your view of the CAA system and the AME requirement that was imposed on them.


...but I know a few people who have benefited from the JAR-FCL way; there are winners and losers but of course many day-VFR pilots in the UK can now go back to the GP system with their NPPL - maybe more winners than losers??

Cheers,
TOO

[youngskywalker]

I can't imagine that not being able to hear the marker beacons was that important these days, a quick scan through my log book tells me that in the last 12 months as a European Corporate Pilot I have operated into over 50 different airports both big and small, I've yet to see an approach with marker beacons. Maybe one I can think of but that's about it, however I've no doubt that DFC will manage to list dozens and point out my inadequacies as a 'sub-standard FAA cretin'. By the way, I too am FAA because I failed the CAA class one, guess I really shouldnt be flying and sharing the same airspace as you...:ugh:

[IO540]

The problem with the JAA audiogram is if you fail in one ear while the other one is fine.

This is a common condition, though perhaps not among the 20+ year olds who make up the bulk of ATP recruits over here.

Then, you can hear fine (aviation headsets are monaural) so the exercise is a pointless restriction.

The ultimate demonstration of the pointlessness is the "demonstrated ability" route available under JAA on renewals. Why not on initials? Every pilot who is actually working has been running on a renewal medical for some years so this is just another "cannot join our exclusive club" restrictive practice with no logical basis.

BTW the -50db at 3kHz is a deliberate slant of the picture as the other frequencies are considerably stricter.

Anyway, this thread shows the culture difference between those who would like a competence based standard, and the old guard who want the club doors closed to non commercial pilots. Dealing with this represents the biggest challenge for the regulators in years to come if private IFR is to survive in Europe once the old pilots (who in most cases did their IRs in much easier times) leave the scene. Almost nobody new is doing the European IR nowadays.

[IanSeager]

Congratulations for displaying basic PPL level Instrument flying skills.

Don't forget that you will have to sit another IR skill test if you want an ATPL because while the PPL level IR and associated exams credit you for the CPL they do not for the ATPL.

DFC

Could you explain please?

Ian

[DFC]

Ian,

The IR that you obtain with the PPL gives you full credit at CPL level for having passed the written exams and having passed the skill test.

For the ATPL, there are different written exams.

There is also a requirement to obtain a multi-pilot type rating and multi pilot IR which involves training and a skill test. Then to gain 500 hours multi-pilot experience before with a minimum of;

ATPL exams,
1500 hours total
100 Hours night
500 Hours multi-pilot

You sit an LST which includes an IR test in order to get the ATPL.

In general this is completed at the LPC when the required experience has been gained and simply requires some extra checks and a few more boxes ticked........plus of course money to the NAA who issue the licence.

Ther is also the MCC in there in the middle. Does that explain it?

-------

IO540,

You are saying that there should be a standard but just not the standard that excluded you? Where do you draw the line? How many people will still be in your position based on the new standard you propose? Will they get to change the standard to suit them as well? Where will it end?

Remember the check has to be robust, and not open to intrepretation or legal challenge.

---------

youngskywalker,

I think you don't even have to leave the UK to find some.

However, the point you and many other are missing is that no one has a problem with the FAA medical system. It is the FAA medical system and no doubt suits the FAA and the American residents perfectly.

Heck, no one even has a problem with pilots certified to that standard visiting Europe and flying within the system.

However, countries do have a problem with creating a law for it's citizens / residents only to see those same citizens / residents fail to comply with the law. How many laws are you happy for people to work round.........why bother having a government creating laws if people can simply ignore them?

Remember that risk (which is what medical standards are based on) depends on both number of exposures and length of exposure.

A visitor poses less of a exposure risk than one based here.

I just wonder what the reaction is with the FAA medical examminer when applicants answer the "Have you ever been refused an aviation medical or had one canceled withdrawn or revoked?" with Yes.

--------

The Oddone,

...so why did I have to wait 20-odd years for the system to decide I was fit to fly for a living after all

We have had the JAR-FCL for nearly 10 years now. Seems like you have indeed gained quite a lot from the JAA having changed the old CAA standard. :D

Regards,

DFC

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Hot topic this one

From the top.......

EnglishAL said about standards Well not if they are pointless and have no safety value

Again - if you had bothered to study for the exams you might feel differently and would be able to comment - can you tell me whats on the syllabus ???

Imagine me saying University degrees are a waste of time and lets qualify doctors to a lesser standard because we found a loophole that allows us to

Standards might seem irrelevant but they act as a barrier, the highest standards required in this country are someothing to hold in high regard. At what point do we allow poor standards to infiltrate our skies. There are many areas that I have operated to that are truly shocking.

IO540

Your attitude stinks because I do not agree with you, If I came on here advocating your cause you would no doubt be all matey and cuddley :rolleyes:

Firstly you accuse me of having no experience of these matters being discussed and then when I take you to task about and demonstrate otherwise all of a sudden I'm elitist.

If you calm down and read again I actually said No problem at all with PPL/IR's in class A Whats elitist about that??? :ugh:

Anyway, this thread shows the culture difference between those who would like a competence based standard, and the old guard who want the club doors closed to non commercial pilots. Dealing with this represents the biggest challenge for the regulators in years to come if private IFR is to survive in Europe once the old pilots (who in most cases did their IRs in much easier times) leave the scene. Almost nobody new is doing the European IR nowadays.

Utter "tosh"

Its all about standards, the evergreen FAA IR can be maintained by some self monitored VMC IFR approaches and a scribble in a log book, compare that to demonstrating your ability not just to yourself but to somebody who knows IFR procedures and flying every 12 months (ie the IRE) - you can see they are poles apart.

With access to class A comes responsibility, the responsibility to perform to a certain minimum standard and I'll say again maintain it. I'll say again as long as the ability is there and maintained and assessed I dont care where your license is from and what colour it is

I dont want to get embrolied in all this medical bullsh1t, I'd have more respect if you were proposing some sort of mandatory training scheme like PPL/IR's who fly 300 & 400 series Cessnas in the USA have. Their insurance companies MANDATE that they take a three day safety refresher course each year in the sim and classroom, the cost of which is more than offset by the reduction in the insurance premium.

Just because the FAA rules and regs say you can do what you do doesn't automatically make it a good idea over here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-SPOTs Lost
1. I witnessed the Malibu Incident with my own eyes, if the aircraft was required to be G registered it probably wouldn't have been on the ramp - fact

I don't understand this bit. Are you saying that a pilot of a G reg. aircraft wouldn't overload his or her aircraft, or that European N reg pilots all suffer from similar (undesirable) personality traits?
Ian

The point I am making is that if that pilot/owner had had to demonstrate his ability every 12 months to a UK IRE he would not have bought that aircraft type. Because he had an opportunity to operate the aircraft on the FAA, he did and never needed to be looked at again.

Times move on, 30 years ago CRM had not been conceived, now it is an intrical part of our safety culture, I used to think it was bull****, but every time I attend a CRM training event I come out wiser. Point is time and regs move on - invariably demonstrated over time for the better

The new proposed regulations are an attempt to increase safety however blunt. Why not consider proposing or getting on side with regular checking like your professional brethren and cutting their arguments off at the knees. It would be more useful than bitching on here about why you deserve to be left alone.

If you dont want to why not - standards issue?

[Fuji Abound]

Threads like this always seem to bring out the worst in us, and the most polarised views.

Moreover the whole discussion ends up being totally emotive.

1. My standard is better than yours,

2. We are in Europe so why should any one else be able to fly here unless they comply with our standard

and so it goes on.

Who really cares.

Looking in, I think we end up appearing like a complete bunch of amateurs.

Every one has a view, and as interesting as they might be, every one is subjective. In reality they are worth diddly squat.

For a bunch of people who should have a relatively scientific approach to life what really should matter are hard facts. For example, is there any evidence that pilots self certifying by flying six approaches in six months are inherently any more or less safe?

Answer questions of that sort and you are on the road to determining whether the FAA IR is too liberal or the Euro equivalent to restrictive.

The legislation should naturally follow suite.

[dublinpilot]

Will they get to change the standard to suit them as well? Where will it end?


It will end when the standard is set at a level when not being able to attain it means that you aren't fit to do the job :ugh: It has no purpose ending before we reach that stage!

So what if you can't hear in one ear? So long as you can hear fine in the other there should be no difficulty. Transmissions by ATC are not in stereo, with one message going to one ear, and a different one going to the other ear :rolleyes:

A lack of sufficient hearing in one ear should not be an issue for a medical.

dp

[IO540]

With access to class A comes responsibility

More elitist nonsense. The majority of airways (relevant to GA i.e. lower airways) in Europe are not even Class A.

One is under ATS control the whole time. The workload is much lower than flying VFR under the LTMA.

[IanSeager]

The IR that you obtain with the PPL gives you full credit at CPL level for having passed the written exams and having passed the skill test.

For the ATPL, there are different written exams.

There is also a requirement to obtain a multi-pilot type rating and multi pilot IR which involves training and a skill test. Then to gain 500 hours multi-pilot experience before with a minimum of;

ATPL exams,
1500 hours total
100 Hours night
500 Hours multi-pilot

You sit an LST which includes an IR test in order to get the ATPL.

In general this is completed at the LPC when the required experience has been gained and simply requires some extra checks and a few more boxes ticked........plus of course money to the NAA who issue the licence.

Ther is also the MCC in there in the middle. Does that explain it?

It explains what you were trying to say, but as I am sure you know there is only one type of initial IR skills test (OK two if you want to split single and multi engine). That skills test is the same if you have a PPL, a (rare) BCPL, or a CPL with or without having passed the ATPL theory exams.

The skills being tested with a multi-crew type rating are different. That's why the holder of a multi crew IR cannot fly single pilot IFR without also maintaining that rating. It seems to me a little strange to belittle people who have an IR by comparing it with a licence or rating that exists for a different purpose.

The point I am making is that if that pilot/owner had had to demonstrate his ability every 12 months to a UK IRE he would not have bought that aircraft type. Because he had an opportunity to operate the aircraft on the FAA, he did and never needed to be looked at again.

Still not sure I follow this. There are plenty of Malibus on EASA registrations, or are you referring to an individual?

What a screwed up world we live in. Some ATPLs look down on CPLs some of whom look down on PPLs who in turn occasionally snigger at microlight pilots. SkyGods spend their time arguing pointlessly about the alleged value of EASA/JAA/CAA and FAA licences. Rarely if ever will any real evidence be used in the discussions, and rarely will anyone exhibit an open mind.

On that note I'll wish you all a Happy New Year and leave you to continue preaching the JAA/CAA* sermon.

Ian
"delete as appropriate

[englishal]

Again - if you had bothered to study for the exams you might feel differently and would be able to comment - can you tell me whats on the syllabus ???

Imagine me saying University degrees are a waste of time and lets qualify doctors to a lesser standard because we found a loophole that allows us to
What rubbish.

I have held and never let lapse an ICAO IR since 2002 and racked up a load of IFR/ IMC time since. I have "only" passed the ONE FAA written exam, (as well as the CFII written exam), but was subjected to a very rigorous oral examination which lasted 2 hours.

Since getting my IR I have learned far more than the JARboy exams teach you about: weather (try flying IFR across mountains with orthagraphic thunderstorms across your route), b) procedures, c) the rules and regs....etc.....

There is no mystical thing about flying IFR...it is EASY when you know how.....But then again I've probably racked up far more time ACTUAL (SE/ME SP) that many JAA IR holders who passed their IR this decade.

[S-Works]

Ther is also the MCC in there in the middle. Does that explain it?

Nope! Cos it has no relevance on IFR skills whether you fly a chav transporter or 172.

When you pass the IR skills test you have demonstrated in the words of the CAA that you have passed the single most difficult test in aviation, flying singe pilot IFR.

So my vote goes with Ian!

[Contacttower]

So my vote goes with Ian!

Mine too.

The JAA/EASA vs. FAA debate is back with a vengeance on this thread...to no avail at all as usual :rolleyes:. Personally I doubt EASA will kill off the FAA PPL/IR on N reg in Europe...but we'll see.

I know at least my IMC instructor would have jumped down my throat for suggesting the JAA IR was harder than the FAA one...but then he's in love with the FAA anyway (with good reason too). ;)

[172driver]

I have not read all the more than 100 posts in this thread but have been following it as interested party, as I intend to do my IR next year. Leaving the usual sandbox games of ‘mine is bigger/better/nicer’ willy waving exercises aside, methinks there’s a lot of energy here and in the various IMCr threads that could be put to much better use than pontificating on Pprune. Why not at least try to lobby EASA for a realistic PPL/IR along FAA criteria ? It would go a long way towards harmonization in European regs (something EASA likes) and would also promote the usefulness of GA in general, something they should (but might not) like. I say forget the IMCr, in the bigger scheme of things this is a lost cause. The only good use I can see in the fight for the IMCr is to have it as a bargaining chip along the lines, ‘ok, we give up the IMCr, IF we can get a realistic PPL IR’ or if EASA accepts the FAA ticket, at least on the PPL level.

Before running for cover now, I’d like to wish you all a great 2008, tailwinds, blue skies (even for the IMCr holders) and safe flying.

[rustle]

The only good use I can see in the fight for the IMCr is to have it as a bargaining chip along the lines, ‘ok, we give up the IMCr, IF we can get a realistic PPL IR’ or if EASA accepts the FAA ticket, at least on the PPL level.

:D

I love the way people think IMC rating holders are in a position to "bargain with" EASA (or anyone else)...

What's in it for them? What will you do if EASA just laugh at your "bargain"?

To be able to bargain you need to be able to offer something in return - can't see what's on offer so can you explain please?

This argument, like the "human rights infringed" argument, is comical and I thought you guys were serious about the rating ;)

Happy New Year :}

[172driver]

rustle, this could be something for the CAA - IF indeed they are interested. You should know that in political horsetrading - which is what we are talking about here - 'every little helps' ;)

Btw, I am neutral on this, I don't have an IMCr.....

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I am not elitist, I'll say it again s l o w l y........

I just want to know the guy coming the other way is properly trained and current and when he's given a climb to 1000ft below my level thats exactly what he will do.

Doesn't matter PPL/JAA/FAA/CPL/ATPL/IR/NASA ASTRONAUT/CHUCK YEAGER

By definition, because I might do this five times a week and your average FAA/PPL/IR once a week at most MINE and my PASSENGERS EXPOSURE IF ANY IS HIGHER.

Right some howlers......

IO540 Said

Quote:
With access to class A comes responsibility

More elitist nonsense

What is elitist about this statement. Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE, who should not be exposed to people who might have a piece of paper that entitles them to be there technically but lack the skills to provide proper safety levels because they are not current or their original skills have eroded over time.

Your nonchalant attitude to flying in congested and controlled airspace is very worrying, if I had not already posted on this thread and had just seen it for the first time I would be just as worried - I'm not point scoring here.

Anyway best of luck with your FAA IR in the UK, personally I prefer the FAA system but I'm fortunate enough to have taken the time and trouble to study for both and am lucky enough to get asessed every year when I go for recurrent training.

Its ironic that the FAA PPL/IR holders that I have met in the US take the responsibilities much more seriously than people who are using their licenses conveniently over here.

I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years

[IO540]

Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE

and the ATC imposed separation is??

and the skill set needed for the pilot to comply with ATC instructions is??

One can always tell those who don't actually fly GA IFR, because they would know the airspace, they would know the airspace is largely empty, and they would also know the whole business is as far from rocket science as one can get.

But like I said, it comes down to whether one is in the "required competence" camp, or the "exclusive club, with arbitrary entrance requirements" camp.

Finally, FYI, there are "airliners full of people" in Class C,D,E, and in the UK in Class G too, quite often. Yes class G where you can fly non-radio in IMC.

[bookworm]

Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE, who should not be exposed to people who might have a piece of paper that entitles them to be there technically but lack the skills to provide proper safety levels because they are not current or their original skills have eroded over time.

Is this why the US is littered with the twisted metal resulting from the endless midair collisions caused by the people trained and current to the same standards?

[DFC]

Dublin Pilot,

Humans in common with most other primates and animals have two ears for very good reason.

-------------

Ian, etc

I was not belitteling in any way. I was explaining the training system to you after you asked. I was pointing out that the IR is a PPL level addition to a licence not a "route to an airline seat" or a "final stop of the unsuitable" or even "the most difficult flight test".

Remember that it is now possible to obtain an ATPL/IR without ever having obtained a single pilot IR.

-------

G-SPOTs Lost,

Why are you only interested in protecting passengers in the limited Class A airspace that can be found below FL195.

Are passengers above FL195 (Class C everywhere in Europe) not entitled to the same protection? What about those in the parts of the Paris TMA where it is class E?

----------

As I keep repeating, if the standard is wrong then have it changed (if you can). Don't expect to find the law makers happy with your "work round" solution.

Regards,

DFC

[scooter boy]

G-SPOT said "I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years"

And there was I thinking that you weren't bigoted and had no agenda!:rolleyes:
Are you an angry bitter person by nature? Cause that's how you're coming across...

It's nice to know that you among others are wishing for the demise of the FAA/IR route so that we can all gain superior qualifications like yours.:rolleyes:

Merry xmas and happy New Year to you lost G-Spot - I hope you find the G-Spot in 2008 along with some tolerance and a better attitude!


SB - (by your definition a lazy and inept FAA/IR holder).:8

[Contacttower]

Its ironic that the FAA PPL/IR holders that I have met in the US take the responsibilities much more seriously than people who are using their licenses conveniently over here.

I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years

I doubt you really meant that did you G-SPOT?

One has got to be so careful when posting in these fast paced arguments on the 'Private Flying' forum to make sure one's arguments are watertight and sweeping generalisations like that are bound to get a broadside a la PPRuNe.

Just out of interest, apart from the idiot in the Meridian how many other inept FAA IR holders have you met in Europe? (Genuine question not having a go...)

[dublinpilot]

Dublin Pilot,
Humans in common with most other primates and animals have two ears for very good reason.


Yes they do. It's for directional hearing, which has absolutely no relevance to non stereo sound coming from a headset. For a headset, one ear is just as effective as two.

Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE, who should not be exposed to people who might have a piece of paper that entitles them to be there technically but lack the skills to provide proper safety levels because they are not current or their original skills have eroded over time.


How do you square that statement with airliners operating in class G airspace which they share with solo GA students who don't yet having anything other than an SPL, microlight pilots who may just have 25 hours training, gliders which don't paint very well on primiary radar, and deregulated single pilot aircraft which require no licence to fly at all? How come airliners choose to share airspace with these users, but aren't happy to share it with ICAO IR's in airspace where they need to be mode S equipped and under ATC control?

A phrase comes to mind....Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Maybe airlines should get their own house in order, before complaining about pilots with an international qualification to fly in class A airspace. (The most recognised and most widely used qualification to fly in class A airspace at that.)

dp

[rmac]

I fly N reg IR in Europe. Last year I was flying with a young man who had completed a modular JAA frozen ATPL course and had a JAA IR. We were initially VFR in the mountains but the weather closed in and I elected to pop up on top in uncontrolled airspace and get an IFR clearance. I asked young pilot to fly a heading to an altitude while I contacted radar and re-programmed the 430's. Without boring you all, I had to take control twice to put the aircraft upright again. Same young man was flying for a european low cost two months later.

The main thing I believe is actual experience. Psychologically its a lot different from the hood and even from full motion sims.

I might also add, for the benefit of previous posts on "avoiding effort" that I re-qual annually at sim com, and regularly train with a check pilot from a local charter company, and believe me, single pilot, light twin IR is not for the slow of thinking, or those who cannot make a decision without a second opinion. My primary motivator for N-reg is the nonsensical and overbearing regulation which has little basis in reality and a lot of additional costs when generated by EASA, and as a private operator I don't have a long suffering public to pass the additional costs to.

At my home airport, two weeks ago, a high hours European IR commercial pilot stalled a light twin and crashed killing all on board on a go-around in weather which had the airlines flying autoland (RVR 300m), when common sense dictated that he should still have been in the crewroom at his point of origin.

As I write this I am starting to get angry at the amount of sh1t that is spouted by so called professional pilots on this forum, so I shall stop ...for now. :ugh:

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Ok Ok apologies for the last line. It does get heated on here on occasion, and just for the record I really hope that we end up with open skies for all I really really (Believe it or not) hope that the proposed new rules dont come into force.

The arguement that I seemed to have dragged you all into is whether or not you should be able to exercise the privileges of an IR without demonstrated ability, if somebody cant get a JAA license due to medical then it would be a crying shame not for that person to be able to fly wherever and whenever he wished AS LONG AS THEY ARE ABLE TO DO SO SAFELY AND NOT JUST BY THEIR OWN ASSESMENT.

However if somebody just cant be bothered studying for and obtaining the license because of the time and effort involved but can then go out and spend 200k on a brand new trinidad, then being able to operate on a FAA IR without regulation or checking is the exception and not the rule and regaqrdless of whatever I or anybody else might think that privilege is always going to be in the firing line due to perceived safety.

Scooter boy

If you want to associate yourself as somebody who is inept and lazy then that is your choice, that statement was qualified it wasn't a IMC VS FAA/IR comment it was a IMC vS Crap FAA/IR - read what I wrote.

As I have said before I have flown with a good number of PPL/IR both FAA & JAA and the standard in my humble eyes was very good, there was at least another half that elected not to bother training at all
I quote you quoting me

G-SPOT said "I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years"

If you are one of these people who operate on a FAA IR in congested european and UK airspace who never trains, who by all accounts gets airbourne and sticks in the autopilot, flys all the ILS's with your efis flight director coupled who seems to think that its not "rocket science". And you use the FAA IR to hide your ineptness and laziness then yes I mean you.

If you take the time and trouble to keep yourself current in actual IFR conditions, perhaps might take a safety pilot with you on occasion if you perhaps aren't as current as you could be as onother set of eyes. Perhaps go flying with an IRI who is familiar with your type of airplane every 12 months for a refresher, then you are the person who my deliberately barbed comment was NOT aimed at.

Every 12 months we have to demonstrate hand flown approaches, green needles on standby instruments whilst dealing with other simulated problems. I dont want to go into what other nasties my aircraft systems could give me other than to say anything is possible in the sim and the recurrent training is unregulated i.e multiple failures are "Game" whereas on an initial LST they are not.

I wonder how many people last simulated an avionics failure at altitude at night in IMC - just for practise and just ask yourself how you might honestly fair having not had the requirement or the inclination to practise it. I take the recurrent training very seriously as it might well save my life.
Getting back to the topic the rules will be made based on the lowest common denominator and must be hardy enough to face legal challenge, there are those that abuse the FAA privileges in the UK ( I have witnessed it with my own eyes on many occasions - sorry). I would suggest that you campaign for regulation and checking for every non JAA ICAO license holder here in Europe in an attempt to keep the privileges.

The abusers will boll0x it for everybody else.

IO540

One can always tell those who don't actually fly GA IFR, because they would know the airspace, they would know the airspace is largely empty, and they would also know the whole business is as far from rocket science as one can get.

But like I said, it comes down to whether one is in the "required competence" camp, or the "exclusive club, with arbitrary entrance requirements" camp.
Finally, FYI, there are "airliners full of people" in Class C,D,E, and in the UK in Class G too, quite often. Yes class G where you can fly non-radio in IMC.



I have been flying GA for many years started off on a FAA/IR in a mooney and now fly something substantially faster and bigger. Unless you have been doing this for 15 years plus most days of the week I would hope that I would be able to keep up with you regarding most aspects of GA IFR and I would like you to tell me how empty you think the airspace is and how do you know. As far as the rocket science comment is concerned I'll let your peers judge you on that one - mine is the best job in the world until something goes wrong :rolleyes:

I'm far from elitist please dont accuse me of it again, I didnt study/train for two ATP's, do six type rating tests just to brag about it and piss you off on pprune, I need it to do my job. Get over it.

And for the record I am from your "required competence" camp I just dont have a problem with demonstrating my ability every 12 months - do you?


edit
Rmac - Our posts crossed. If everybody did what you did each year who wanted to exercise the privileges on the FAA what could EASA complain about????? It sincerley annoys me that you could lose your privileges because others just want to be left alone. Apologies if you think I'm talking sh1te, its something I feel passionate about

[Fuji Abound]

And for the record I am from your "required competence" camp I just dont have a problem with demonstrating my ability every 12 months - do you?

There you go again.

Sure you don’t have a problem.

That is not the point.

Does 6 certified approaches in 6 months make you any more or less safe than demonstrating your competence and making your next approach nine months later? Both of course meet the requirements.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Fuji - sorry if I sound like an ass

No im fine thank you

Does 6 certified approaches in 6 months make you any more or less safe than demonstrating your competence and making your next approach nine months later? Both of course meet the requirements.

No especially when you assume that you could conduct 6 approaches in the last week of the six months twice a year and be just as bad.

If you are self assesing and you cock it up are you not going to count that one and go do it again? Be honest...... are you at 1.30 per liter??

May I ask what recurrent training you do Fuji Abound to keep your IFR skills honed? Or do you not need recurrent training? Genuine question. Do you meet a safe standard 5 years after passing your initial IR? if so who says. A BFR instructor??

For all I know you might visit Flightsafety 3 times a year - if so full marks, I am NOT questioning anybodys skill level on here, I am questioning why anybody who wishes to mix it in congested airspace would object to demonstrating that they meet a minimum "required competence" to keep an increasingly safety conscious EASA off their back

That is not the point

Thats exactly the point, its about standards - I'm not criticising yours I'm just pointing out to you that however good you are as an individual, this is the stick EASA are going to hit you with....

[IO540]

Gspot, from now on I am not going to respond to this anti-FAA-IR diatribe. However I am concerned at your comment

However if somebody just cant be bothered studying for and obtaining the license because of the time and effort involved but can then go out and spend 200k on a brand new trinidad

This is highly presumptious, and I do wonder who (on here) has fed this to you (and some more to "DFC"). I have a pretty good idea.

As a matter of fact one cannot buy a "brand new trinidad"; they stopped making them in 2002.

[Fuji Abound]

No especially when you assume that you could conduct 6 approaches in the last week of the six months twice a year and be just as bad.
If you are self assesing and you cock it up are you not going to count that one and go do it again? Be honest...... are you at 1.30 per liter??

Sorry, I didnt mean to be imply you were.

Yes, you could conduct six approaches in the last week and be just as bad.

That was the point I sort to make.

Is there any evidence that one is a safer pilot than the other? Or does it just boil down to your or my perception or, more cynically, bull sh**.

A proper analytical analysis of the evidence might go some way to settling the debate.

Have a look at the incident reports and see how many level busts there are involving N reg aircraft compared with G reg aircraft. Have a look at how many accidents there have been involving N reg aircraft compared with G reg aircraft. Of course, you will need to adjust for the significanlty different population levels of each group. I have only been through the filed reports for the last three years so far. An interesting project though.

It just makes me wonder why we have such heated debates without any reference to the accumulated evidence. It also makes me wonder why so many legislative changes are made without reference to the evidence.

On my usual tangent, argue as you will, all the eivdence points towards the IMCr being totally safe with incidents and accidents involving pilots with an IMCr being almost .. .. .. nil. Fact, not hearsay.

Ignoring the evidence is an insult to the intelligence of us all.

There is another insult.

Unfortunately there are many who will argue one is "better" than the other. What they are more reluctant to disclose is their vested interest. I dont suppose you would readily be promoting the FAA IR if you taught examined the Euro version or vica versa. Fortunately, protectionism of this sort, is a dirty word - or it should be when it comes to safety.

Shame the yanks dont refuse to supply us Europeans with Continental or Lycoming parts - after all their technology. :)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

IO540

However if somebody just cant be bothered studying for and obtaining the license because of the time and effort involved but can then go out and spend 200k on a brand new trinidad


If that is the thing that gives you most "concern" about all the things said so far, then I sincerely wish I hadn't tried to put my point across so passionately - sorry.

This is not an anti FAA diatribe - I love the can-do attitude the feds have about flying and only wish EASA was as good in this regard, Flying in the US weather permitting is fantastic. I'll say again IM PRO FAA and OPEN SKIES for everyone, just a shame EASA doesn't feel the same way as me (and presumably you) but they make the rules and if the new rules make it safer and legislate the abusers of the airways then I'm all for it and I can only assume that so are you.

As a matter of fact one cannot buy a "brand new trinidad"; they stopped making them in 2002.

Whatever they call a retractable tobago nowadays :rolleyes: they are still crap with the park brake where you cant see it and dodgy switches. Smooth windows though :ooh:

PS dont say your going to ignore me and then follow it by a "however" and a dig :E

[dublinpilot]

PS dont say your going to ignore me and then follow it by a "however" and a dig

If you really meant that, then you wouldn't be purposely be trying to get a dig in
Whatever they call a retractable tobago nowadays they are still crap with the park brake where you cant see it and dodgy switches.

:rolleyes:
That comment shows you up to be very small minded indeed. :rolleyes:

[IO540]

It just makes me wonder why we have such heated debates without any reference to the accumulated evidence.

Fuji, I think the reason you and I post on here is not because we enjoy the discourse. If I met somebody with those views somewhere socially, I would just ignore him. It's just one person after all, and he is entitled to his views.

The reason we get stuck into these debates is because we feel they have the potential to (a) mislead people who are looking at which way to go on their private flying path and (b) feed bogus information to somebody reading it who might one day end up in a regulatory/influential position.

This is the big problem with pilot forums. Quite a lot of people read them and bogus info spreads widely as a result.

It also makes me wonder why so many legislative changes are made without reference to the evidence.


Well, thankfully no legislative changes at all have yet been made.

I can also tell you that a lot of people have looked for evidence that FAA training is less safe than JAA training, and no data was ever found.

The most prominent example was c. 2004 when the DfT asked the CAA for such data (supporting a case against N-reg), and the CAA told them there was none. Reportedly the DfT was not amused.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Fuji - Indeed I agree, I can only comment on my own experiences though.

You are correct - stats speak for themselves.

Would it not be easier to campaign for a EASA wide IMCR, enabling access to more rather than taking from less. Maybe with an upgrade path to an IR

WRT the six in six or yearly IR renewal, my point is more about self assesment rather than having to impress an IRE, whose job it is (in the examiners handbook) to maintain standards (in the EASA system)

With regards to the second insult - I would agree. FTR I have no allegiance to any agency I have flown Uk public transport, N reg aprt 91 and now operate on the Manx register. We went manx cos the boss wanted a groovy callsign!, Ive no axe to grind other than my own opinion on standards and how If I only had a FAA IR and wanted to fly and use it in Europe I would go about avoiding a ban!!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Dublin Pilot

Oh Come on.....

If you really meant that, then you wouldn't be purposely be trying to get a dig in

Quote:
Whatever they call a retractable tobago nowadays they are still crap with the park brake where you cant see it and dodgy switches.


That comment shows you up to be very small minded indeed.



I also dont like Ford Mondeo's does that make me small minded as well, I was actually trying to lighten the mood - Failed miserably didn't I :{

PS sorry to all Mondeo drivers :ok:

[dublinpilot]

G-Spots,

You took an intentional dig at IO540, and then challenged him to live up to his statement that he would ignore you. (Which actually he didn't say. He said he'd just ignore the anti FAA stuff). In the school yard such people are called bullies. In the adult world they tend to be called small minded men. It's nothing to do with Fords.

If you were really trying to lighten the mood, then good on you, but I have to agree that you failed miserably. :O

dp

[Fuji Abound]

G-SPOTS

Thank you for recognition of my different point of view.

It is not that I am pleased you agree, but it is disappointing there are some entrenched in their views yet without any evidence on which to base them.

IO540

I agree. I remember only too well the heated debated over IMCr minima. (Please, that is not an invitation to anyone to start that one again). It still amazes me those who argued the contrary even when the CAA wrote in unequivical terms to set out the correct interpretation of the legislation. Unfortunately I suspect they still believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, but at least anyone who really wanted to know also wrote, asked the question, and got the same reply. (How do I know - three people PMed to say so)

[DFC]

Does 6 certified approaches in 6 months make you any more or less safe than demonstrating your competence and making your next approach nine months later? Both of course meet the requirements.

Fuji Abound

I think what he is getting at is that under the self certified system, a pilot can fly an instrument approach and a hold every month in VMC, make a total hash of it but delude themselves into logging it as a great approach suitable to be counted towards the requirements. They then continue to delude themselves for 10 years until they have to do it fro real and they either cause a total mayhem in the system and survive or win themselves the aviation version of the Darwin award.

Under the yearly renewal for the ICAO IR or 2 yearly for the UK IMC, there is an independent check of competence.

Remember that if you fly in the US, the FAA oversight system is very much in evidence. You can not put much of a foot wrong at an airfield without at best being given a good pointer from a local CFI/CFII at worst, the local FAA guy having a severe word in your ear.

That oversight is not provided in Europe.

The more European PPLs fly N reg aircraft and use FAA ratings to fly within Europe, the more the pressure will be politically and from the NAAs to sort things out.

So those that seek the demise of the European pilot flying N reg IFR on a US LICENCE are best served by encouraging more and more pilots to follow that route.

They are also best served by having few pilots using that system.

In terms of numbers it is a loose loose position for N reg operators / FAA licence holders based in Europe - too many holders puts more pressure on governments to crack down.......too few and they have too small a voice to prevent any change.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Now look 'ere!

Please can we stop the petty handbagging and bitchiness and concentrate on finding a sensible way forward through the cack of EASA's legislative intentions....

Assuming that the 'Class 2 IR' is ever sponsored, it would of course require holders of the Rating to have 'ICAO Level 4' English, to fly FM-immune equipped aircraft and to fly under a radar service in IMC. Presumably with mandatory Mode S before very long...

So it's not as though there'd be squadrons of mumbling incompetents flying poorly equipped aircraft threatening the flying people-tubes - which should provide some reassurance to the so-called 'professional' mafiosi who don't want you in 'their' airspace..... Although I doubt whether it will :hmm:

[englishal]

Please can we stop the petty handbagging and bitchiness and concentrate on finding a sensible way forward through the cack of EASA's legislative intentions....
I don't think we stand much chance if EASA / JAR / Whatever is populated by the same pompus asses who post on these forums. And I am reliably informed that some of the "authoritites" do indeed frequent these boards....

I think I may just apply for my green card now, my FAA quals are good enough to fly a jet in busier airspace than that of this magical,mystical, UK class a.....

[TelBoy]

humm - I think a US gallon is a bit smaller than a UK gallon actually.

As for the FAA taking over - well I do not want any foreign party running me thank you, and that includes the EASA.

In reality the FAA do a good job and considering they are the largest single aviation authority in the world, deserve recognition as such.

In Europe in everything including aviation we tend to be very "stuck up" an BS is the order of the day. In newer countries such as the US, Canada, Australia they tend to be a lot more practical and go by what works - seems the best way to me.

The Europeans will always "bash" the FAA and its ratings as being second class, but in reality they are not easy but they are fit for purpose, just as it should be.

I think the EASA will be in for a rough ride from individual nations (like the deviations in JAA) but this will be in Europen Law - not good.

[IO540]

We went manx cos the boss wanted a groovy callsign!,
What is needed at this point is an emoticon showing somebody falling over backwards laughing.

Yeah, right, that must have been the reason.

Pot & Kettle comes to mind. I hope The Boss doesn't find out his crew disapproves of his new EASA avoidance scheme, currently available to 5700kg+ only.

As a refresher on the topic of getting EASA to introduce a more accessible IR:

The current position is that EASA is taking over JAA FCL more or less whole, with no plans to change anything for maybe a few years. Even the reduced PPL/IR ground school (developed in JAA committee over the past 2 years and much advertised in pilot forums as "just around the corner") has been left unimplemented.

EASA wanted an instrument add-on for what is now called the LAPL (a sub ICAO European PPL, effectively a "Euro NPPL") but the EASA committee tasked with defining it has sunk any chance of an instrument add-on; it was cleverly overloaded with well organised "ultralight/sports/gliding" interests (EAS being one of them) and they wanted the barest possible VFR-only license and for a smooth passage they wanted to avoid the usual predictable opposition from the "professional IFR elite" (the sort we see on this thread). This is not the end for European IFR but it has scuppered what would have amounted to a "Euro IMCR". Such a license/rating would have dried up a large chunk of the low-end (piston) N-reg scene, even if it was sub-ICAO and thus no good for flying to say Africa.

Something in the way of an FAA-style "accessible IR" may still come but it is years away. EASA is not really the problem; they are well aware the present private IFR option is hopelessly over-regulated. But they still have to work the political process and this is so non-transparent that nobody IMHO has any idea where things will lead.

Everybody knows that if EASA accepted FAA certification (airframes/equipment) and FAA licenses/ratings/medicals (as a swap for EASA ones) then the N-reg scene would dry up very fast. But this kind of thing is politically unacceptable and anybody wondering why only needs to read some of the drivel above.

My take is that nothing will change (for N-reg) for a few years at least, and then (IF something does change) common sense and cool heads will prevail and there will be options for going forward which we cannot guess at present.

[mm_flynn]

I hope you are right IO. Consider though answers to some of the questions people have posed.
What other areas can people avoid national law through offshoring? Banking, taxation, shipping, corporate ownership all come to mind. But really only the big players.
Would (doctors, engineers, anyone else) be acceptable trained to 'lower' standards than in the UK/Europe? - This is a valid issue with flags of convenience, BUT, The rules that manage a domestic aviation market bigger than any other in the world, the majority of airframe manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and aircrew is hardly the traditional tiny island nation with no real regulatory capability.
Closing down the N-reg for private aviation while leaving the ability to steep out of EASA regs open to large operators would be vindictive and therefore unlikelyOne only has to look at the UK approach to non-domiciles to see the small guy getting a pounding while the large guy gets an escape route. Hopefully the arcane details of pilot licencing wont appear on the national stage in a way that encourages cheep shots.
It is interesting that in a climate where the NAAs clearly want to crack down on offshore registrations the UK comes along and creates another true offshore registry to allow tax avoidance and a light regulatory touch for the big players but not the little ones. This does not inspire me with confidence in the 'non-vindictiveness' of the intended course of action.

----------------
As an aside, I do agree the FAA 6 and 6 system is lacking somewhat in Europe. In the US insurers place a great deal of pressure on people for recurring training and there are oodles of ways of achieving this. For instance for myself (A36 driver) I could go through AOPA wings programmes, Beach Pilot Proficiency Programme, and Flight Safety Bonanza specific training. As far as I can tell, I need to fly to the US to take advantage of any of these so am left to build my own programme with training organisations who seem stunned that someone wants to pay for something not legally mandated!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Quote:
We went manx cos the boss wanted a groovy callsign!,
What is needed at this point is an emoticon showing somebody falling over backwards laughing.
Yeah, right, that must have been the reason.
Pot & Kettle comes to mind. I hope The Boss doesn't find out his crew disapproves of his new EASA avoidance scheme, currently available to 5700kg+ only.


Now that you have run out of reasoned discussion - have go at the boss - Thats brave and constructive isn't it

When you are as wealthy as him things like this matter :rolleyes: (as well as the zero rate corporation tax, no IPT and the less political registration when operating in non freindly areas)

You have made another huge assumption that his crew don't like the Manx register, I LOVE IT! FAA/JAA crew validations the same day straightforward maintenance procedures that allow JAA Engineers & FAA A&P guys to perform line maintenance or how about RVSM/MNPS approval within 3 days as opposed to three months.

Why not set up a Manx trust company so that people who do not live there can register aircraft there in much the same way you do now with your American registered aircraft. You can register lighter aircraft there but its not a free for all. Why not pick up the phone and speak to the Director of Civil Aviation - I'm lucky enough to have his mobile number if you want I'll make the call

Has anybody asked the question, he might well be waiting for somebody to pick up the phone. He is regulated by the IOM ANO if its legal and the aircraft surveys properly how can he refuse. (Caveat to say he can wander down the corridor and get the ANO changed fairly easy)

The DCA is the ex Senior Flight Ops Inspector at Gatwick who is a smashing chap, I have heard from the horses mouth that they unashamedly want new equipment that is flown to professional standards - not necessarily professionally. The IOM government has one of the most successful shipping registers in the world and the aircraft register is to mirror that - they will be more conservative then EASA they are under the microscope.

If you pitch up with a N reg 30 year knacked old twin com with a non compliant Sony CD autochanger down the back and never train recurrently its probably not going to happen for you.

If you pitch up with a newish Twinstar/Seneca IV or V and maintain your FAA/IR to JAA standards and use the twinstar/seneca sim bi annually to have some freaky failures thrown at you - he's going to be hard pressed to say no isn't he. Maybe if the PPL/IR Europe Group approach him as an organisation with a common sense proposal alleviating EASA's safety concerns

There is a very nice TB21 on the register right now, I can only assume that the individual involved either lives in the IOM or has company there
mmflynn said:

As an aside, I do agree the FAA 6 and 6 system is lacking somewhat in Europe. In the US insurers place a great deal of presure on people for recurring training and there are oodles of ways of achieving this. For instance for myself (A36 driver) I could go through AOPA wings programmes, Beach Pilot Proficency Programme, and Flight Safety Bonanza specfic training. As far as I can tell, I need to fly to the US to take advantage of any of these so am left to build my own programme with training organisations who seem stunned that someone wants to pay for something not legally mandated!

IO 540 what comments do you have about the above quote, this is a responsible and common sense approach to maintaing currency. Your vision of direct swap FAA/JAA Licenses is a pipe dream as you say.

The fact that it is not legally mandated at the moment doesn't mean that its not good practise not to train regularly. EASA are probably not worried about people like mm_flynn.

There are many things in life that are legal, just because they are doesn't mean they are a good idea

English Al said

I don't think we stand much chance if EASA / JAR / Whatever is populated by the same pompus asses who post on these forums. And I am reliably informed that some of the "authoritites" do indeed frequent these boards....


If these people do frequent these boards, then no wonder they have concerns:

They have you saying how straightforward IFR flying is and how others think that its "not rocket science" and see such resistance to domestic training standards and levels of checking.

So imagine you are a non pilot EASA eurocrat tasked with maximising safety levels for boeingbuses and they read this BS, what would you think.

I come on here and in effect say leave it as it is at your peril chaps - sort it out yourselves or have the sorting done for you by EASA and then get flamed for promoting safety and regualr checking.

One mans pompousness is another mans reasoned debate.

Beagle - did you just virtually knock mine and IO540's head together? :O

[Contacttower]

The fact that it is not legally mandated at the moment doesn't mean that its not good practise not to train regularly. EASA are probably not worried about people like mm_flynn.



Instead of killing off the FAA IR and IFR N reg why not have a "semi official" check ride with an examiner from a European CAA for FAA IR holders who are based and wish to fly in Europe.

It wouldn't affect the actual validity of the FAA IR itself but it would be a way of simply satisfying EASA that the FAA pilots were keeping themselves up to standard. It wouldn't involve any written exams or the 15hrs conversion training to JAA IR or anything like that...it would just be a simple test to make sure that FAA IR holding and N reg flying pilots aren't abusing the FAA system away from the US regulatory structure.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Good idea - might go some way to alleviating EASA's concerns before the idea of a ban gathers momentum and reaches a critical mass

[youngskywalker]

I have to admit I don't like the FAA system of currency for the IR either, I have no objections to regular sim checks, my company and our insurance insist on flightsafety or simuflite even though no legal requirement to do so. I'd be surprised if any of the posters on here would object to being checked/tested for competency. It does irk me sometimes when people assume that you are unprofessional just because you operate with an FAA licence.
I too have chatted on the phone to the 'DCA' Isle of Man, he seems very helpful, enthusiastic and with a 'can do' attitude. My company is seriously considering placing our new aircraft on the M reg. I'm hoping that the IOM register will not need dual faa/jaa licences when EASA take over or else for me it's probably the end of the road.
Happy new year!

[englishal]

I'd have no problem converting my IR with a "check ride" and then maintaining JAA currency requirements...But of course being Europe we throw in a 170A, 15 hrs mandatory training (whatever that includes), etc....which brings the cost to £7-9000 or so when you take into account the ground exams. My friend who has in excess of 3000 hrs, converted last summer in minimums allowed. The flying / Sim cost him £7000 + exams, but for him it was worth it as he is now a paid captain of a turbo prop.

For the private flyer what do we get in converting? NOTHING! Or rather a bit of paper to say you can now do in a G reg what you could already do, but only if N was painted on the tail. This is what grinds me, it is "jobs for the boys" and nothing to do with safety whatsoever. Anyone who thinks it is to do with safety obviously comes from the same pompus ass place as some of the others on here.

The beauty of the conversion bein based on a check ride is that a) If you are not up to scratch, you fail, and b) If you are up to scratch, you pass! Funny that, an examiner determining whether you are fit to fly IFR or not!

Flying IFR is not rocket science and not tough either. A few months ago I flew the Twin Star sim for my FAA IPC (My choice - to renew my IMCr), and suffered numerous failures and "survived".

[scooter boy]

G-Spot,
What this question really boils down to is are we going to have to tolerate the imposition of extra European regulation of unproven safety benefit on a far larger more proven (FAA) system that already works perfectly well.

If our regulators take small-minded bigots like you (blurting out non-evidence-based diatribes about how some bloke once in an N-reg malibu once did something that you found offensive) seriously then this may come to pass.

Fortunately you and your extremely judgemental evidence-free opinions are polarised into a tiny minority. A minority who usually have a vested interest in FAA bashing and are heavily invested in the european flight training system. I think the regulatory authorities will take a rather more pragmatic and mature view than those that you have espoused above.

I hope you wake up on Jan 1st 2008 with a better attitude and greater tolerance for your fellow man.

Happy New Year,

SB

[DavidHayman]

I'm just about to start the FAA IR training course in Europe to upgrade my IMCr - just got an SR22 on the N Reg - after reading through the threads - I'm wondering whether I should save my energy for a while - any thoughts?? Incidentally - I've been trained in USA for my multi and have now done 6 BFR's over there and I reckon that the Americans have seriously high standards and if anything - are more regimented and procedural than we Brits. I can't help but agree that this looks like EASA could turn the whole business of GA IR's into a bureaucratic nightmare that will need qualifications just to read and understand what will be required....

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Scooter Boy

Wont rise to the bait but take each of your comments one by one.

What this question really boils down to is are we going to have to tolerate the imposition of extra European regulation of unproven safety benefit on a far larger more proven (FAA) system that already works perfectly well.


Tell you what lets have everybody have evergreen ratings, lets have the perennial IMC rating, The evergreen MEP, Lets have the BA pilots that take you on Holiday scrap their sim refreshers and have the day off instead.
Why not - you dont need to demonstrate abilty to anybody else other than yourself so why should I or anybody else. You still expect the privileges but cry like a spoilt child when EASA threaten to take them away

having to demonstrate you ability has been in the UK system for donkeys, people moan about the IR as it is now - imagine having to drive to Heathrow to vist CAAFU and do your test in a DH Dove that you might have never seen before never mind flown!

As people have said the FAA system works very well in the US that does not mean that it translates perfectly over here, you only subscribe to it because it suits you to do so. The sooner you accept that IN EUROPE which is WHERE YOU FLY (Facts by the way) you are the Exception not the rule and therefore by all intents and purposes vulnerable - dont shoot the messenger (or me) write to your MP.

If our regulators take small-minded bigots like you (blurting out non-evidence-based diatribes about how some bloke once in an N-reg malibu once did something that you found offensive) seriously then this may come to pass

Whats non evidence about seeing it with my own eyes - this is not a court of law, I don't need to prove it to you or anybody else. If you are on the side of the muppet Malibu driver then come out and say - it happened.

There are also many more occasions. Consider spending 6 days a week at an airfield from 8am till 6pm (as I used to) - you do see a lot of very dodgy stuff take place on all registers both N & G.

In my corner of the industry there is a big problem with N reg operators flying for hire and reward. DOnt even get me started on the 61.55 regs and how the CAA had to ground a G4 and a Boeing BBJ in Luton becasue they had A & P qualified PPL's sat in the RHS - perfectly legal over in the US just not in Europe.

Your worst fears will come to pass, this will be a shame. For all the FAA IR holders on here that take time to defend their privileges good on you. But you need to worry about the ones that don't come on here that never train, cause chaos with ATC, that are unaccountable. They are the ones that will bolox it for the good guys. EASA will legislate to the lowest common denominator. I dont make this stuff up - did somebody in EASA just wake up and decide were going to piss all over the Chicago convention today becasue I can? There must be some fire somewhere dont just think within the UK.....

Fortunately you and your extremely judgemental evidence-free opinions are polarised into a tiny minority. A minority who usually have a vested interest in FAA bashing and are heavily invested in the european flight training system.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I've no interest in FAA bashing I'll say it again I LOVE THE FAA and the US SYSTEM find me a rooftop and I'll shout it there, I haven't instructed in two and a bit years. I've no axe to grind - EASA have - if you look up unfortunately you'll see it clearly.

I think the regulatory authorities will take a rather more pragmatic and mature view than those that you have espoused above

http://bp3.blogger.com/_BP8RFYsl-9k/RpQGh31OLcI/AAAAAAAABNY/5fJgreaPjXg/s400/ostrich.jpg

I think I have forecasted the way it will go - I hope I'm wrong.
I hope you wake up on Jan 1st 2008 with a better attitude and greater tolerance for your fellow man.

Now to quote me
I'll say again IM PRO FAA and OPEN SKIES for everyone

Im sorry we don't agree - If I was in your position, I would have an FAA/IR as well. I sincerely hope you get to keep it in 2008/9

Happy New Year to you too.

[IO540]

I'm just about to start the FAA IR training course in Europe to upgrade my IMCr - just got an SR22 on the N Reg - after reading through the threads - I'm wondering whether I should save my energy for a while - any thoughts??

David, don't worry about the stuff you read on pprune from a few choice axe grinders and scarers. Get your FAA IR and enjoy the IFR privileges!
Nothing is for ever. Your airfield could close and be turned into a housing estate, etc, etc. Or you could die of cancer next year - that is actually quite likely.

The FAA route is under threat but it has been "under threat" for decades. Perhaps this time the threat is stronger, simply because action by a pan European agency would be more effective than action by a single country (like the UK DfT proposal, abandoned in 2006, or the French proposal, abandoned a bit earlier, and both these were abandoned in the most enormous haste possible). But nothing is a done deal - much as some people on here like to make out it is.

According to a chap I spoke to the other day, a figure well connected (not on a committee but at a relevant political level) reports that even the outcome of the EASA MDM032 committee which set the LAPL, or any other EASA committee, is not a done deal, and this is in fact absolutely correct because the real power at EASA is in the executive. An EASA committee could demand that every pilot flying in Europe wears pink underpants, but somebody else then has to do the implementation.

And if you have the FAA IR and then the option were to be killed off, look at what you have actually lost:

If you didn't do the FAA IR you would have been limited to VFR (in Europe, and you aren't getting a rocket like an SR22 to fly to the pub in Bembridge are you!) which is no good for going anywhere. So you gained a valuable privilege.

The earliest possible time the FAA option could be killed off is a few years from now, taking into account the legislative process and any transitional period - the whole thing would be massive controversial as well as a practical nightmare with re-certification (or export or scrapping) of thousands of FAA STCd but non EASA compliant aircraft and equipment.

Currently you can convert an ICAO IR to a JAA IR with anywhere from zero to 15hrs (depending on where in Europe you do it, JAA itself requires zero) flight training, and sitting the appropriate PPL or CPL ground exams.

Having an ICAO IR exempts you from physically attending the ground school too (I have a reference for this - it's in LASORS).

Therefore, the FAA IR is in itself a valuable stepping stone to a JAA IR. The FAA flight training is very hard and will set you up for what is required of you later. If you had the IMC Rating and spent 100 hours under the hood training for that, that instrument time counts for zilch zero nowt nothing towards a JAA IR! But it counts fully towards the FAA IR.

And I believe it is an objectively correct statement that should the FAA route be killed off (and thus stripping a few thousand European pilots of their IFR privileges) it would not be in EASA's interest to shaft them further by denying them an ugrade to whatever IR EASA offers at that point. Only European IR schools would lobby against that (for obvious revenue reasons) incidentally placing the European AOPAs of which they are members in a rather delicate position....

So, just looking at the political scenery and looking at how aviation regulation has run over the past decades, it is a reasonable expectation that grandfather options would appear; for example the holder of an FAA IR would get an EASA IR by sitting some exams, doing an IR checkride, and then doing a checkride every year like they do presently.

There is IMHO zero chance of EASA adopting the FAA rolling currency option. While this evidently works perfectly over a few tens of thousands of pilots, it runs counter to the European way of doing things which is to assume the default position is that the pilot is a crook, is forging his logbook, and he must be verified regularly. The FAA system is good for regular pilots; I did 184 hours in 2007 and met the rolling currency requirements several times over at all times, and never had the slightest issue with any IFR flight anyway.

Slightly more hypothetical scenarios are downgraded grandfather routes e.g. an FAA CPL/IR gets you extra credit towards an EASA PPL/IR. I would recommend the FAA CPL - it's a very good aircraft handling training block, with just one written exam which is mostly on aircraft technical issues and is not a problem for any technically savvy pilot. A CPL gets you cheaper insurance too.

So by getting on with your plan doesn't really lose you anything of significance.

Incidentally I would say the same to anybody wishing to do the IMC Rating right now.

The sensible thing I would do, and I do this myself, is avoid modifications to the aircraft which would make a transfer to a Euro reg uneconomical or even impossible. Mine used to be on G-reg and I have kept it unmodified while on the N-reg, with the exception of fitting a certain FAA STCd backup instrument which is damn useful but whose EASA L2 certification would cost 4 digits but which I could remove in an hour. And make sure you obtain and keep EASA acceptable paperwork with anything installed (i.e. an FAA 8130-3 "yellow tag" form - this is good enough for a Euro reg unless operated under an AOC) otherwise you would have to recertify/rip out the said item.

So, cover your a**e and enjoy life! If in 5 years' time you are asking the same question on here, you will be sick that you didn't get off your bum and got on with it :) I've sent you a PM also with extra info.

[DFC]

And I believe it is an objectively correct statement that should the FAA route be killed off (and thus stripping a few thousand European pilots of their IFR privileges) it would not be in EASA's interest to shaft them further by denying them an ugrade to whatever IR EASA offers at that point

While a "few thousand" European pilots hold FAA IR's - (once you get one it is like a bit of gum on the sole of your shoe i.e. you can't get rid of it), the number who are based in Europe and who rely solely on an FAA IR to fly IFR would be quite small.

Thus leaving the UK out (because it is anti-everything that is European) there would be very few disadvantaged pilots and as you also quite correctly point out, some countries follow the JAR guidelines for converting a non-JAA PPL/IR to a JAA PPL/IR which makes it very easy.

Thus politically, from a European point of view it is rather easy to bring
in and the UK cries will be just dismissed as yet another bit of anti-Europe heckling from the back.

Regards,

DFC

[englishal]

Norway is a good place to convert.....About 3 grand to convert an ICAO IR to JAA IR.....including "exam"......Maybe I'll do it in 2008.....

Happy New Year....

[FullyFlapped]

While a "few thousand" European pilots hold FAA IR's - (once you get one it is like a bit of gum on the sole of your shoe i.e. you can't get rid of it)
Jeez ..... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Well done, DFC ... :=

FF -(:sad:

[IO540]

Let's be nice to DFC as a New Year gesture. From my last post, he did have to work awfully hard to find the 2 lines that he tried to hang his old coat on. And his coat must be pretty heavy, with all that gold braid.

It isn't hard to get an estimate of N-reg fixed and rotary aircraft in Europe (there is a reasonably accurate plane spotter website for the UK) and nearly all of these will be flying under FAA licenses/ratings. One would rarely bother to be on N-reg otherwise - exceptional cases excepted there is no cost saving over private CofA G-reg for example.

[FullyFlapped]

Let's be nice to DFC as a New Year gesture
OK, but he'll have to play nicely too ... :p :)

FF :ok:

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Let's be nice to DFC as a New Year gesture. From my last post, he did have to work awfully hard to find the 2 lines that he tried to hang his old coat on. And his coat must be pretty heavy, with all that gold braid.


IO540 is it just me or have you got just a leeeetle chip on your shoulder about professional pilots, having read this thread all the way through before posting, it would appear that in reality you are a frustrated professional pilot and demonstrating certain tell tale signs of jealousy. :p tell me (cue best bedside manner voice) did you ever aspire to doing this for a living? :E

Ironic as most professional pilots who are on their third or fourth log book would kill for a "proper" job whilst affording to be able to fly 200 odd hours to destinations of their choosing when they want.

[IO540]

tell me (cue best bedside manner voice) did you ever aspire to doing this for a living?

No, never had the slightest interest. I have a business a girlfriend 2 kids & an ex wife and that keeps me busy enough :)

I like flying with professional pilots because I usually learn something from them when it comes to cockpit or IFR procedures.

[englishal]

IO540 is it just me or have you got just a leeeetle chip on your shoulder about professional pilots, having read this thread all the way through before posting, it would appear that in reality you are a frustrated professional pilot and demonstrating certain tell tale signs of jealousy. tell me (cue best bedside manner voice) did you ever aspire to doing this for a living?
The problem is that some "Professional" Pilots are so far up their own bottoms, that their head is in danger of popping out of their mouth - if that is possible. I don't include true professional pilots in that by the way. You can tell the true professional pilots, I have many friends who are professional pilots, and enjoy flying with and learning from them. Mind you you never see them here on Pprune spouting such extreme views as some "professional" pilots do.

And some self professed "professional" pilots on Pprune are not even professional pilots, but pretend to be, sitting in their darkened lounge with a rule book trying to stir up rubbish.

Myself, I fly for fun, despite having professional qualifications and being offered work as a pilot . I have no interest in operating the gear or flaps of a boeing - it couldn't pay me enough either;)

[FullyFlapped]

And some self professed "professional" pilots on Pprune are not even professional pilots, but pretend to be, sitting in their darkened lounge with a rule book trying to stir up rubbish.


:D:D:D

FF :ok:

[G-SPOTs Lost]

The problem is that some "Professional" Pilots are so far up their own bottoms, that their head is in danger of popping out of their mouth - if that is possible. I don't include true professional pilots in that by the way. You can tell the true professional pilots, I have many friends who are professional pilots, and enjoy flying with and learning from them. Mind you you never see them here on Pprune spouting such extreme views as some "professional" pilots do.
And some self professed "professional" pilots on Pprune are not even professional pilots, but pretend to be, sitting in their darkened lounge with a rule book trying to stir up rubbish.
Myself, I fly for fun, despite having professional qualifications and being offered work as a pilot .

You missed that light hearted attempt at humour and humility didnt you English Al :ugh:

And as for operating the gear and flaps of a boeing, you'd probably end up having a row with the captain about the order and the Flight Attendant about there only being meat or fish to choose from.

Judging by your attitude its probably better from a CRM point for you to stay in your current profession, I will unashamedly stick with mine despite a very undisguised stab at my professionalism -Which I take great exception at. Your opinion might worry me if you had ever been past 200 knots whilst in control :rolleyes: as you are clearly not qualified to comment.

I only wished to express an opinion on a subject that directly affects me - The amount of Sh1te you get for disagreeing speaks much more about you than me. May I graciously apologise for daring to not share your opinion.

In the meantime enjoy your IFR flying whilst it lasts, whenever I here Air Traffic categoricaly state "remain clear of controlled airspace" I shall think of you.

PS
despite having professional qualifications and being offered work as a pilot . I have no interest in operating the gear or flaps of a boeing

Funny that - didn't know that American Airlines/Delta/United were recruiting

Happy New Year

[IO540]

In the meantime enjoy your IFR flying whilst it lasts, whenever I here Air Traffic categoricaly state "remain clear of controlled airspace" I shall think of you
That's a particularly spiteful thing to say, gspot, given that the vast majority a CAS transit is refused (in the VFR long distance touring context) is not because there is any conflicting traffic, but simply because the ATCO didn't feel like it. Like Zurich keeping VFR traffic below FL130 across the Alps, ~ 1000ft above the peaks. But then I don't think you have any meaningful experience of GA "going places" flight and if you had you would understand the issues better.

Fortunately you are a rare personality type and cooler heads usually prevail when anything actually gets near to implementation.

[englishal]

I didn't have a stab at your professionalism G spot, you did that yourself ;)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Errrrrrrrrrr. no I didnt - you did, scroll up its right there to see or had you forgotten already. :rolleyes:

Judge people at your peril on these forums, not once have I had a go at anybody's abilitys on here. In fact quite the opposite, leave peoples professionalism out of it - you are not qualified to comment, its the issue that should be being discussed here, when it does get discussed people with (shock horror) an alternative view get flamed and personally insulted.

Spiteful - yes, deserved - yes, sorry it got said -yes

Look chaps you have got to start to see this from other peoples perspectives, and as for personality types, well I'll follow my own advice and not go there.

I'll not post on this thread again, theres nothing more to be said about FAA/IR's and privileges in EASAland than has been said already, if it continues we'll all be tempted to sound like kids.

Best of luck keeping the privileges, maybe when the ruling does come we can resurrect it from page 9 and keep the debate going

[englishal]

Ok, I'll agree a truce. Sometimes on Internet forums posts don't come across how one intends, and I like to vigorously defend as you may have gathered....no offence intended...... . I've been snowboarding all day and the air is a bit thin at 10.5K for hard physical activity. Not to mention the red wine.:} so I can't be bothered to have silly online arguements;)

Still I am looking forward to flying the Citation into Tahoe for some more snowboarding in March....I'll start a thread on Pprune detailing how exciting it is travelling at over 200 kts if you like ;)

Happy New Year......to all......

[411A]

Is this why the US is littered with the twisted metal resulting from the endless midair collisions caused by the people trained and current to the same standards?

An interesting idea.

Endless midair collisions?
Huge litters of twisted metal?

Really?

Could it be that the accident rate in the USA is about the same, generally, as in Europe...but that there are far more aeroplanes in America?

Naw, that couldn't be right.:rolleyes:

Enjoy EASA-land folks, and appreciate paying the price.
PT Barnum was right with his quote...'There is a sucker born every minute'.

[IO540]

Gspot, it is best to let this "EASA will screw all you cheapskates and there is nothing you can do about it, hahahaha" stuff rest. It just p155es people off because there is nothing cheap or easy about the FAA route.

Let me refer you to my last (lengthy) post here. I am sure you will agree there is nothing the individual can do about the process, and I am sure most would agree that taking pre-emptive action NOW is not wise either.

Instead, discussion should be directed towards constructive things, but obviously avoiding any informed discussion of what EASA might do and how each such measure might be avoided - we (and that includes your Boss on the M reg, and therefore your JOB) may need to develop countermeasures as different proposals are published and even pass into actual measures.

EASA has authority over FCL (including foreign reg) commencing c. 2010 but they still have to square everything with ICAO. Nothing is a done deal until the fat lady sings as they say.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Instead, discussion should be directed towards constructive things

IO540

M Reg is ringfenced AFAIK. I Hence my previous (constructive?)suggestion that somebody call them and ask the question about a Manx Trust company.

Manx is outside EASA so (and that includes your Boss on the M reg, and therefore your JOB)

doesn't affect me or my job, besides We'd just go JAA.

EnglishAL

Enjoy the ride into Tahoe in the slowtation - send it to Pilot Magazine:ok:

[IO540]

Nothing is ring fenced. It all depends on how the regs are drafted and who they want to hit (or more likely who they want to avoid hitting). But I am not going to get into a discussion on the options - not because I wouldn't like to but because of who else is reading this forum. You can work out most of it yourself (and the difficulty of legislating) by examining various cases.

[Fuji Abound]

I'll not post on this thread again,

followed by

Quote:
Instead, discussion should be directed towards constructive things

IO540

M Reg is ringfenced AFAIK. I Hence my previous (constructive?)suggestion that somebody call them and ask the question about a Manx Trust company.

Manx is outside EASA so
Quote:
(and that includes your Boss on the M reg, and therefore your JOB)

doesn't affect me or my job, besides We'd just go JAA.

EnglishAL

Enjoy the ride into Tahoe in the slowtation - send it to Pilot Magazi


:confused:

[S-Works]

Methinks thats the kettle calling the pot black fuji........ :p

[Fuji Abound]

True, so very true .. .. ..

Probably why I spotted it - always such a dangerous thing to say, unless you really mean it.

Think you have been there as well if memory serves me.

:)

[S-Works]

I have indeed, which was I thought it a bad idea for you to throw stones..... ;)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Fuji

Me and EnglishAl have declared a temporary truce, He doesnt call me names or post when he's had red wine and I dont talk out of my arse. Thought I would post to celebrate (bit less energy required than having a game of football in no mans land!)

I shall withdraw battered and bruised to the GA & Bizjets forum where less maulings take place but watch this post with interest and perhaps post in the North America Forum with a slightly less contentious post such as "Bin Laden for US president - Discuss" :p :p

All the best for the the new year and mucho happy landings


ps you know I was just kidding about me talking out of my arse right? :E

[Fuji Abound]

G-SPOTS

Well, you will be welcome back.

All that concerns me is that we debate these issues for the right reasons - it is to be regreted when vested interests or point scoring cloud the issues.

[englishal]

Me and EnglishAl have declared a temporary truce, He doesnt call me names or post when he's had red wine and I dont talk out of my arse.
Better watch out, I'm off to the shop (or store as they call them here) to get a couple of bottles :E;)