JAR Ops

[Few Cloudy]

Guv,

I have to take issue with you about your post about JAR Ops on another thread. In my experience it hasn't been a waste of time at all - the licensing allows free transfer of pilots and engineers from one JAA country to another without time wasting Air Law exams, validations and even requalification - now that WAS a waste of time.

It's the same theme as international ATC - and the CE mark. Standards are a GOOD thing. They simpifly life. Of course it's a pain having to adapt from your cosy old national procedures but you only have to do it once.
I would go further and say that FAA and JAA procedures ought to be harmonised too - we fly in the world's airspace - let's use the same procedures.

Now, about those bloody French plugs....

[Wanula Dreaming]

Simply ´copy and paste´ the FAR-AIM and call it JAR-AIM.

Too simple for the Eurocrats, too good for the pilots. :(

[The Guvnor]

Few Cloudy - you're describing what it's supposed to be all about - and I'm 110% in support of that theoretical position.

Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different.

You have the French banning anyone over 55 from their airspace; you have the UK CAA refusing to accept aircraft from other JAA nations until expensive (and extensive) modifications have been carried out; and you have the Germans insisting on LBA validations.

Then there were those exams last year or the year before devised by the French where there was a 100% fail rate.

Flying is largely practical - why make it more complex than it really is? Let's adopt some of the US' approach and go with a much more practical approach - as Wanula Dreaming suggests.

[machone]

As has been mentioned before JAR OPS is the ideal, but things are never ideal. The playing field is meant to be level no exceptions but some countries slope the playing field to suit there industries needs.It would be great if you could just walk in set up and operate but this does not happen and if you start in the Uk there seems to be even more hoops and costs to cross. Fact not fiction.

[LeadSled]

All,
I am flabergasted, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that JAR/OPS are the ideal.

Certainly not for pilots, or those who hire them, and have no fear, there is no shortage of control freaks on power trips in FAA, who would love to "harmonise" with JAA.

And not for the aviation industrie's benefit.

The true bureaucrat admires the JAA setup, with little of the irksum "industry input" or interference, that so often sees the more silly FAA proposals buried.

A little matter of not being able to tell the difference between "world's best practice" and "world's most restrictive practice". JAR's are shot full of restrictions that make no Risk Management
(nee:Safety) or Cost:Benefit sense.

Aviation bureaucrat pet wheelbarrows abound.

Why would anybody support shooting themselves in the career prospects foot, by supporting unnecessary and very very expensive restrictions.

Tootle Pip,

[Send Clowns]

I agree with the idea behind JAA, of integrating what should be a completely international industry. However the implementation has, typically for an EU-based bureaucracy been terrible. It is characterised by meaningless demands, irrational decisions and protection of small special interests. Particularily in my current industry (pilot training) it has been apalling. For 4 months no-one in 4 countries passed all the ATPL exams. That suggests something was desperately wrong. Yet the CAA was not allowed to do anything about it, even though they were being uncharacteristically helpful.

Against the will of every other member of his committee the chairman (a German) blocked some proposals (EU committees on which these are based are apparently not democratic, the chairman decides). The French blocked a British proposal that native English speakers should be responsible for the final draft of the questions in the question bank, even after they had grudgingly accepted that this would be in English. This led to some questions that the examiners still cannot understand!

JAA implementation was a farce. For gods sake they didn't realise that licenced flight engineers were still needed, and when I studied Air Law one part (the extra freedoms of the air) was still only written in Spanish (8 months after it became UK law!).

There needed to be stronger leadership, more input from pilots, from the industry, from the flying schools and no bl**dy Eurocrats. Oh, and no Frogs, as they ruin every international agreement by throwing out the teddy if they don't get exactly their way.