EASA-FCL is coming! Get your comments in!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
EASA-FCL is coming! Get your comments in!
The EU will soon be taking over regulation of flight crew licensing from JAA. Take a look at the proposals. More details at:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=135199
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=135199
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just had a quick look through these proposals to see what EASA said with regards the much-longed for European IMC rating, if anything. They don't, of course, say anything concrete.
The proposals focus on the concept that the amount of theoretical knowledge and pilot proficiency would depend on the complexity of the aircraft and the nature of the flight operations (ie commercial or non-commercial). The idea being that there could be one stringent set of requirements for the commercial ops and a less stringent set for private ops in light aircraft, and even the requirements for private ops being set by organisations other than EASA, though not, it seems, national authorities.
On one level, I find that quite encouraging. If implemented in a benign manner, the proposals could quite easily accomodate a full-on IR for commercial ops plus the IMC for private ops. I could see that being used to justify continuing to allow IMC-style flying in the UK which would otherwise seem to be outlawed since CAA will no longer have the power to set FCL rules.
On the other hand, they also mention using the existing JAR FCL rules for "more complex" operations; if IFR, even private IFR, is classified as "more complex" we may all need a full IR even for IFR in the UK.
What do people think?
The proposals focus on the concept that the amount of theoretical knowledge and pilot proficiency would depend on the complexity of the aircraft and the nature of the flight operations (ie commercial or non-commercial). The idea being that there could be one stringent set of requirements for the commercial ops and a less stringent set for private ops in light aircraft, and even the requirements for private ops being set by organisations other than EASA, though not, it seems, national authorities.
On one level, I find that quite encouraging. If implemented in a benign manner, the proposals could quite easily accomodate a full-on IR for commercial ops plus the IMC for private ops. I could see that being used to justify continuing to allow IMC-style flying in the UK which would otherwise seem to be outlawed since CAA will no longer have the power to set FCL rules.
On the other hand, they also mention using the existing JAR FCL rules for "more complex" operations; if IFR, even private IFR, is classified as "more complex" we may all need a full IR even for IFR in the UK.
What do people think?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was alarmed to see that "A person undertaking training to fly an aircraft must be sufficiently mature educationally, physically and mentally to acquire, retain and demonstrate the relevant theoretical knowledge and practical skill training.", as that probably grounds me.
More seriously, I note the requirement for pilots to be trained in:-
"• flight at critically slow and high airspeeds, and associated “upset” manoeuvres"
Does this mean the return of compulsory spin training?
More seriously, I note the requirement for pilots to be trained in:-
"• flight at critically slow and high airspeeds, and associated “upset” manoeuvres"
Does this mean the return of compulsory spin training?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm always sceptical so I'm sure we'll all loose out somehow. It does, however, raise the possibility of non CPL exam qualified instructors again at last 
SS
PS. FNG ... Oh I do hope so
SS
PS. FNG ... Oh I do hope so
Awesome but Affordable
Have just finalised my own responses to the EASA NPA 2/2004. I had a total of 23 response forms to complete in the format supplied and required by EASA if my submission was to be taken into consideration. The form template takes around 500KB and my own text averaged around 6KB each time or just over 1% of the total amount to be transmitted by email. In my case over 12MB with my non-broadband snail internet/email modem. What an utter foulup in terms of encouraging a reasonable level of response from all of us so-called EASA "stakeholders". What do you think?
Trapper 69
PS - It really is vital for all of us in GA to get a response into EASA either direct or through your own representative body in your own country. Our views must be taken into account as GA represents by far the greatest number of people involved in civil aviation in the EU countries. The EASA website has all the details so if you want to influence policy and escape the usual GA level of apathy get stuck in with a plain Word document comment to your GA representative body such as PFA, BMAA, BGA, AOPA(UK) etc. No need to use the EASA format and a huge emailing phone bill if you send it to the above organisations.
Trapper 69
PS - It really is vital for all of us in GA to get a response into EASA either direct or through your own representative body in your own country. Our views must be taken into account as GA represents by far the greatest number of people involved in civil aviation in the EU countries. The EASA website has all the details so if you want to influence policy and escape the usual GA level of apathy get stuck in with a plain Word document comment to your GA representative body such as PFA, BMAA, BGA, AOPA(UK) etc. No need to use the EASA format and a huge emailing phone bill if you send it to the above organisations.
Awesome but Affordable
I am extremely disappointed at the relative lack of interest in this thread either by contributors or those who just look over it. In many cases in the past apathy has ruled with the result that we are saddled with such disasters as JAR-FCL and the PPL in particular.
Surely this thread would enable folk to pose queries where they can get some feedback?
Your representative organisations such as PFA, BGA, AOPA(UK) and BMAA are the ones that need YOUR input and opinions and they need them NOW since it does take time to collate and submit a collective view that might influence EASA opinion. If you go direct to EASA then hope you have broadband as it will be a looooong download. Input to the GA organisations can be in plain text without using the dreadfully extravagent (in KB terms) EASA response proforma.
Trapper 69
Surely this thread would enable folk to pose queries where they can get some feedback?
Your representative organisations such as PFA, BGA, AOPA(UK) and BMAA are the ones that need YOUR input and opinions and they need them NOW since it does take time to collate and submit a collective view that might influence EASA opinion. If you go direct to EASA then hope you have broadband as it will be a looooong download. Input to the GA organisations can be in plain text without using the dreadfully extravagent (in KB terms) EASA response proforma.
Trapper 69
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA Changes
Quite - I can't see much in there that I can understand, let alone comment on.
Can anyone provide headline points that would indicate areas of concern
Can anyone provide headline points that would indicate areas of concern
Awesome but Affordable
Sorry to promote another website however Todays Pilot's website home page has a lead in to their own version of a response which they intend to forward to EASA and, hopefully, the GA representative bodies. It aint perfect but it is an awful lot easier than going the EASA response route.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - To moderator do please let this through as it is of vital importance to GA.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - To moderator do please let this through as it is of vital importance to GA.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The form template takes around 500KB and my own text averaged around 6KB each time or just over 1% of the total amount to be transmitted by email. In my case over 12MB with my non-broadband snail internet/email modem. What an utter foulup in terms of encouraging a reasonable level of response from all of us so-called EASA "stakeholders". What do you think?
I agree though about the document. It certainly is unwieldy.
- Michael
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GKEST
I have to say I don't find this document particularly unclear. It says what it says clearly enough. Its just that, as is often the case with consultation papers, it doesn't say very much. Or at least not very much that is concrete.
As an example, they are asking for comments about whether to leave FCL as it is or make more of a distinction between commercial and non-commercial. That has so many possible implications, its difficult to know where to start and the paper gives no guide as to where EASA's thinking is going. Your stance would have to depend on how benign you thought the implementors of the policy would be. Eg it sounds like a great idea to free up private flying from restrictions so maybe I should support it. But it could mean that non-commercial flyers are even more excluded from decisions about airspace, avionics requirements, and general decision making than they are at the moment.
With something that vague, its difficult to make constructive comments because there is nothing to hang them on. If you are going to have consultation, you need something to consult on.
Which means that any response is effectively just a wish list, the same wish list we've always had.
Well OK, here's my wish list.
Let me convert my FAA IR into a JAA one without the full test and groundwork requirements.
Or let me fly round Europe under IMC-style rules, and change the airspace rules to make it feasible.
Give me a radar FIS everywhere, VFR or IFR.
Make it worth my while to get a mode S transponder by giving me traffic and weather info.
Develop GA as a viable transport alternative
Get a single set of rules for all european airspace which are not far off the British version.
Make all airports free to land.
Let the Heathrow airtraffic controllers go on strike so it becomes class G and lets have a pprune fly in there.
I have to say I don't find this document particularly unclear. It says what it says clearly enough. Its just that, as is often the case with consultation papers, it doesn't say very much. Or at least not very much that is concrete.
As an example, they are asking for comments about whether to leave FCL as it is or make more of a distinction between commercial and non-commercial. That has so many possible implications, its difficult to know where to start and the paper gives no guide as to where EASA's thinking is going. Your stance would have to depend on how benign you thought the implementors of the policy would be. Eg it sounds like a great idea to free up private flying from restrictions so maybe I should support it. But it could mean that non-commercial flyers are even more excluded from decisions about airspace, avionics requirements, and general decision making than they are at the moment.
With something that vague, its difficult to make constructive comments because there is nothing to hang them on. If you are going to have consultation, you need something to consult on.
Which means that any response is effectively just a wish list, the same wish list we've always had.
Well OK, here's my wish list.
Let me convert my FAA IR into a JAA one without the full test and groundwork requirements.
Or let me fly round Europe under IMC-style rules, and change the airspace rules to make it feasible.
Give me a radar FIS everywhere, VFR or IFR.
Make it worth my while to get a mode S transponder by giving me traffic and weather info.
Develop GA as a viable transport alternative
Get a single set of rules for all european airspace which are not far off the British version.
Make all airports free to land.
Let the Heathrow airtraffic controllers go on strike so it becomes class G and lets have a pprune fly in there.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aim Far
Fair enough.
Kind of makes me think that you might need to do a bit of groundwork.
Let me convert my FAA IR into a JAA one without the full test and groundwork requirements.
Give me a radar FIS everywhere, VFR or IFR.
Awesome but Affordable
Thanks for the advice on reducing the number of KB on the response form template. That will reduce the size of my personal submission to EASA by around 9MB - well worth while.
Trapper 69
Trapper 69
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wrote in telling them to make an IR which (like the FAA IR) is appropriate to PPL type private flying.
Not that I think anybody will take any notice. Their questions are too vague to be usefully answerable.
Not that I think anybody will take any notice. Their questions are too vague to be usefully answerable.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are being very negative about all this. How often in the past have the aviation communities been given the opportunity to have a say. Allowance has to be made for the fact that this is a europe wide consultation and so the document will almost certainly be translated into several different languages.
There are revealed some very interesting ideas in there, such as the possibility that not only will recreational licences be devolved to (or remain with) national organisations but that the requirements may actually be relaxed. Not only that, but differing levels of qualification may exist for different catagories of commercial licence. This could, for example, make it easier for instructors to train and instruct for remuneration.
There are already some benefits beginning to come through in the field of C of As issued by EASA which have Europe wide validity, whic may please the owners of Yak 18Ts in due course!
There are revealed some very interesting ideas in there, such as the possibility that not only will recreational licences be devolved to (or remain with) national organisations but that the requirements may actually be relaxed. Not only that, but differing levels of qualification may exist for different catagories of commercial licence. This could, for example, make it easier for instructors to train and instruct for remuneration.
There are already some benefits beginning to come through in the field of C of As issued by EASA which have Europe wide validity, whic may please the owners of Yak 18Ts in due course!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: essex
Age: 68
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
I like the wish list idea.
But what we as sports pilots really need is one unified european wide standard and that all countries have to accept.
Allowing free access to all pilots and aircraft.
The rules need to cover not only GA , but Microligthing, ballooning and Gliding.
To which...
NPPL to be the European standard for a pilot. with seperate condition for Microlighters, balloonist and glider pilots.
Additional rating can be added like the IMC and Night rating, wobbly prop and retractable undercart.
Night VFR to be the night classification.
The currency rules to changed back to 5 hours every 13 months
with 2 yearly BFR. (who the hell came up with 12 hours in the second year).
Also because somebody missed getting a signature or did,nt do the required hours by the given date should,nt mean having to do a Skills test.
3 landing in 90 day should also allow for a check pilot.
Cross creditation of hours across all licenses.
Medicals as per the NPPL you own Doctors sign off.
aircraft certification as per FAA.
Permit aircraft one set of standards across europe.
Instructors.
Should not need to have a commercial license to instruct.
Instrution from unlicensed airfields as per microlights with a few restrictions.
Insurance requirments set at a sensible level.
o well
there probably more.
But what we as sports pilots really need is one unified european wide standard and that all countries have to accept.
Allowing free access to all pilots and aircraft.
The rules need to cover not only GA , but Microligthing, ballooning and Gliding.
To which...
NPPL to be the European standard for a pilot. with seperate condition for Microlighters, balloonist and glider pilots.
Additional rating can be added like the IMC and Night rating, wobbly prop and retractable undercart.
Night VFR to be the night classification.
The currency rules to changed back to 5 hours every 13 months
with 2 yearly BFR. (who the hell came up with 12 hours in the second year).
Also because somebody missed getting a signature or did,nt do the required hours by the given date should,nt mean having to do a Skills test.
3 landing in 90 day should also allow for a check pilot.
Cross creditation of hours across all licenses.
Medicals as per the NPPL you own Doctors sign off.
aircraft certification as per FAA.
Permit aircraft one set of standards across europe.
Instructors.
Should not need to have a commercial license to instruct.
Instrution from unlicensed airfields as per microlights with a few restrictions.
Insurance requirments set at a sensible level.
o well
there probably more.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA Regs
There seem to be 2 schools of thought
1) that for GA we can get a relaxation of onerous restrictions such as JAR
2) EASA want to take on board all regulation for all flight groups
How do we reflect that in the consultation document when we have little idea of the reasons behind it
In gliding the EASA regs are becoming much less friendly than before, yet there is little sign of them relaxing their powers, and who would trust a governmental organisation to give up powers??
1) that for GA we can get a relaxation of onerous restrictions such as JAR
2) EASA want to take on board all regulation for all flight groups
How do we reflect that in the consultation document when we have little idea of the reasons behind it
In gliding the EASA regs are becoming much less friendly than before, yet there is little sign of them relaxing their powers, and who would trust a governmental organisation to give up powers??
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should bear in mind that many government backed papers out "for consultation" have been rubber stamped somewhere before the "consultation" phase. Either that, or someone has a hidden agenda.
Call me a sceptic
Why does everything have to be changed - call me old fashioned, but what is so terribly wrong with what we have and understand?
I still think cloud cover should be broadcast in Oktas
Oh well, maybe have to vote for UKIP one day and that will mean change!
Call me a sceptic
Why does everything have to be changed - call me old fashioned, but what is so terribly wrong with what we have and understand?
I still think cloud cover should be broadcast in Oktas
Oh well, maybe have to vote for UKIP one day and that will mean change!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Popham
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin:
That hits the nail on the head! It needs the questions separated and discussion of each point so that people can feed off others and suddenly (maybe) realise how it could hit them (or improve their lives!)
I've separated out all 15 questions and been given discussion space for each one separately in a corner of the Flyer server, so people can feed off each others' comments.
There's a whole range of things from the 'how do we define GA' to do we need to licence 'sport/recreational flying' to should we regulate cabin crew and flight dispatchers. Also they seem
to be angling towards having 'corporate aviation' as a group.
See EASA Questions. If the link upsets the powers, apologies, I'll remove it, but as Robin says, 'separation' and discussion is needed to see
what is going on.
Quite - I can't see much in there that I can understand, let alone comment on.
Can anyone provide headline points that would indicate areas of concern
Can anyone provide headline points that would indicate areas of concern
I've separated out all 15 questions and been given discussion space for each one separately in a corner of the Flyer server, so people can feed off each others' comments.
There's a whole range of things from the 'how do we define GA' to do we need to licence 'sport/recreational flying' to should we regulate cabin crew and flight dispatchers. Also they seem
to be angling towards having 'corporate aviation' as a group.
See EASA Questions. If the link upsets the powers, apologies, I'll remove it, but as Robin says, 'separation' and discussion is needed to see
what is going on.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irv, thanks for breaking them out but I am still unclear to what a lot of the questions refer. For example the 3rd country question, I am assuming refers to FAA and equivalent type aircraft?
If EASA have authority of these then we could see the end of N-reg aircraft and the use of the FAA IR?
If EASA have authority of these then we could see the end of N-reg aircraft and the use of the FAA IR?