PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP SAVE GA IN THE UK - Save the IMCR

[dublinpilot]

It is only because you have the IMCR that is so easy to obtain that the IR looks so difficult

I know you're pointing out what the Eurocrats would say rather than what the case actually is, but that one's easy enough to knock down. The almost non existance of PPL/IR's in countries where no imc rating exists proves that it's not the availability of the IMC rating that's putting people off the IR.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

Justicar

I dont think so.

EASA states "it expects to take over FCL in 2008".

It is my guess the legislation is still in the early stages, and that if there is sufficient support national variations or opt-outs are possible, or that if there is sufficient support alternatives can be found.

Politics is the art of the possible, if enough private pilots are up in arms lobbying their MPs, EASA, the press etc it might just make the art of the possible a bit more difficult.

Politicians also tend to take note of commercial operators. Make no mistake the loss of the IMCR will result in a very significant loss of income to the FTOs. I suspect it will also hit the pockets of people like Diamond. Why would you want to spend another £40,000 on an aircraft to fly IFR if you are not permitted to do so?

Of course we could just roll over .. .. ..

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

I know, I know .. .. ..

but you will recall saying this seven months ago:

The most significant recommendations are
A. Redesigning the PPL IR Theory syllabus so that it excludes material relevant to CPL, ATPL privileges and Type Rated aircraft and focuses only on knowledge relevant to IFR privileges
B. Removing the mandatory classroom attendance for the theory course
C. Making the exams available "on-demand" at 3rd party testing centres
D. Making the flight training more "competency-based" rather than requiring 50hrs for all candidates. Pure competency based training would not have any minimum training hrs. The recommendation is a hybrid, with 25hrs minimum consisting of the 10 hr Basic IF module already in place and a further 15hr Applied IF module. This is a major step forward from the current 50hrs. IMC holders may be able to get credit towards the 10hr Basic module

The main subject we have not made progress on is relaxing the requirement for all training to be at JAA Approved FTOs. This principle is deeply embedded in EASA and JAA thinking and it was considered futile at this point to try and push it forward.

The next steps are that a formal report will be finished and submitted to the Head of PLD ( the Personnel Licensing Dept of the CAA). A significant number of the recommendations should be within the discretion of the CAA, the remainder will be submitted as the UK position to EASA and EU-FCL.

I would be cautiously optimistic that something may happen in the next 6 months to implement some of these recommendaitons, but the outlook will not be clear until the CAA's PLD have reviewed the recommendations and decided how to act.

.. .. .. and what changes have there been?

Are you convinced that an accessible IR is likely and how do you define accessible?

Like it or not, it is my perception that private pilots are not prepared to pursue a course of theoretical training based on any other model than the FAA IR (or for that matter the IMCR - note my use of the words model).

If EASA continue to pursue this line I can tell you that the up take of IRs by private pilots will remain at almost zero. The number of N reg aircraft operating in Europe will continue to rise as will those pursuing the FAA IR route - perhaps until EASA then try and tackle N reg aircraft parked in member states. You have been warned that is the logical conclusion.

Europe will then be a dessert for private instrument flying (much as it is now) and our own little oasis will just become part of the same dessert.

[Justiciar]

I think you are wrong - I wish you weren't but the evidence is against you. The Commission proposals to bring flight crew licensing was brought out in 2005. The DoT consultation ended in 2006. The loss of the IMCR is a fairly insignificant (in pan European terms) consequence of adopting common rules fixed at European level for the licensing of flight crews. The emphasis in terms of the benefit of common rules is in the commercial sphere. The up side is a less regulated sports licence - whether you wil be able to add an IR to that remains to be seen. As IO540 suggested, it may mean that you can only add the IR if you get the full professional licence.

[S-Works]

Fuji,

I have to agree with Justicair, I think you are wrong and equally don't wish you were.

As outlined in the post you have quoted the changes we have asked for are what I consider to be reasonable in terms of achieving an IR.

There will never be an FAA model I am afraid, so the only way that is going to happen is for you to up and move to the states (think of the exchange rate!). Plain and simple the Europeans will not adopt anything american (look at Galileo).

As for the n reg, that is a separate issue but current proposals will allow them to stay providing they have european oversight and licensing synergy, this means still having to get an EASA IR if you want instrument flight as well as an FAA one.

[Fuji Abound]

As outlined in the post you have quoted the changes we have asked for are what I consider to be reasonable in terms of achieving an IR.

Do you believe you will get those changes?

I assume you do, but do you believe that pilots already with an IMCR will pursue an IR, and even if these changes are adopted, do you think the FBO structure is in place or likely to be readily put in place to support IR training?

this means still having to get an EASA IR if you want instrument flight as well as an FAA one.

So what do you see the existing European private N reg operators having to do? Do you see this group also being under threat?

[Sir George Cayley]

Anyone asked the "Campaign..." what they think?

I understand Graham Forbes has been elevated from Head of FCL at the Big Grey Building to higher things, and that there's a new person in his old desk on the ground floor.

Would it not be worth asking the CAA what their stance on this is? I can't beleive they will just shrug shoulders.

As no NPA has been issued yet by Cologne, we (yes, us and them) will still have a chance to influence the shape of the legislation. MDM032 was highly modified by a number of amendments, many of which were supported by our regulator. Or so my man at the PFA .. sorry LAA told me.

Can't a similar situation be envisaged? EASA will only deal with National Aviation Authorities or representative Governing Bodies or Unions, hence the recent formation of the EFLEVA (www.efleva.eu )

I wholeheartedly support the retention of the IMCR and the NPPL for that matter, and I'll be having a word with my man about it pronto. But, just to reiterate, it's as much the approach to this and how it's put over to EASA that will get results as names on a petition.

Sir George Cayley

[radicalrabit]

Well it gets my tenner..

The European Convention on Human Rights, may prove an effective tool because if I am not mistaken the government has to foot the bill for the case as it is supporting current law. (you legal people know more than I do obviously) And that is one route which The Europeans tend to fight shy of because if they go against one case then it refelects on their own similar actions down the line. If it is an inalienable right to wear a headscarf because of relgious beliefs despite the risk of being dragged into machinery etc etc then it ought to be an inalienable right to receive training to stay alive in unforseen circumstances and to use the training you have without it being against the law to do so .

[S-Works]

You have the right to receive training, it is freely available to you in the form of the IR. Just because you want something easier does not make any infringement of your rights......

[Fuji Abound]

You have the right to receive training, it is freely available to you in the form of the IR. Just because you want something easier does not make any infringement of your rights......

Hmmm, please explain if you will then how it is that European States are ICAO signatories, have adopted the ICAO mandate, have filed a few differences in most cases exactly in the same way as has America, but they will not recognise the standard?

Fly an N reg aircraft on a FAA IR ticket - not an issue,

Fly an F reg aircraft on a FAA IR ticket as a non EU citizen - not an issue,

Be the same pilot, same qualification, same ticket, nothing else has changed, other than you just became an EU citizen - it is illegal.

[S-Works]

Because as I said on the other thread you just started. OVERSIGHT. European regulators want oversight of Europeans.

Just the same as if you move here you pay tax here.

Honest mate it's not rocket science.

[Fuji Abound]

Just the same as if you move here you pay tax here.

Actually we fully recognise our obligations under the international and bilateral tax treaties - if we didnt, the Revenue would be in the High Court quicker than you could say EASA.

[S-Works]

Whats that got to do with it?

If you live and work in Europe you pay European taxes. If you live and fly in Europe in European aircraft you follow European rules.

It's not hard!!

Anyway I am done debating with you now. Good luck with your plan.

[Pilot-H]

I am sure these are a naïve questions, but I am not very familiar with the NPPL, however:


1) Does this mean that we will also lose the NPPL?

2) If not, what obstacles are there in attaching an IMC rating to it?

3) Could the NPPL be extended to include more powerful aircraft so that anyone flying within the UK on a PPL IMC could side-step EASA?

The average PPL/IMC wants to fly his/her PA28 etc safely, in IMC, outside of class A airspace. An extended NPPL/IMC would serve the vast majority, leaving the remainder (as now) who want to fly internationally or in airways to follow the route to an IR.

Until (or unless) the more accessible IR arrives, this would be a neat solution.

As I say, I am sure I am just being naïve in thinking this could be possible, but when JAR-FCL was introduced I would never have guessed we could have an NPPL, so why not extend it?

[Roffa]

I don't know if the NPPL will disappear but I suspect the biggest obstacle might be the lack of a formal medical.

Though as one can fly on a NPPL using a JAR-FCL medical one could argue that, if such a situation arose, anyone who wanted to utilise an IMCR on a
NPPL would have to be able to pass the JAR-FCL Class 2 medical.

In this hypothetical world it would probably also require an increase in hours required for the issue of the IMC rating to cover gaps in the NPPL syllabus.

Whatever, the remit of what the NPPL does and does not allow is currently home based so anything is possible at the moment, but it is worth bearing in mind what the thinking behind the NPPL was. I'm not convinced it was ever envisaged that it would or should include IFR/IMC privileges.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

What cr*P you sometimes come up with.

I am sure they want oversight but that is neither a reason nor excuse for ignoring their treaty obligations. If they (and in fact it is we) cant honour our obligations be it in spirit or in law they should they be called to task.

AOPA UK have a history of failing to confront the issues I suspect becasue they no longer represent private pilots - how very very different it is in the States.

Your call that you are done debating with me, shame really as I suspect there are many who share my views about how ineffective AOPA has been to date.

I hope I am also proved wrong, but history is very much not on their side.

[S-Works]

You have your view of AOPA, I have mine. I know what they are doing on this and what can be done. As a paying member I am satisfied with what they are doing for me.

I think you are wrong and so do others. Argue when you have a real understanding of the issue.

In the meantime we are done.

[Fuji Abound]

I can only base my judgement on the evidence. Give me the evidence and I am happy to reconsider.

On the whole IR issue, the IMCR was introduced nearly 50 years ago. At that time IR students could entirely self study, a class 2 medical with the requirements concerning eye sight and hearing was good enough, and importantly a "self improver" route was available to all.

AOPA has presided over that all going in the last ten years or so until today when the next step will be the loss of the IMCR. Their efforts to tinker with the IR is nothing more than window dressing a rating that is of no interest to private pilots what so ever.

What has AOPA done over the last 10 years?

Point out a single achievement in the tide of making instrument flying less and less accessable to the private pilot?

Do let us know how many IRs were issued to private pilots last year in the UK?

Do let us know the percentage of IRs here compared with the States?

Why does AOPA not point out what a farce this is? Why doesnt AOPA publish the stats?

Sad to say at least it would be very very difficult to achieve any less, so at least I can be certain I will not do any worse.

I know you think because you are now on the block that will change - but it worries me that you are so concerned with achieving somethng, that the odd crumb EASA might hand you will be heralded as a major achievement.

You people just dont seem to understand what the pilot community is telling you - anything short of an FAA style private IR is of as much value as doing nothing.

Losing the IMCR in the process will move this from a disaster to an unmitigated disaster.

[Justiciar]

I am sure they want oversight but that is neither a reason nor excuse for ignoring their treaty obligations.

Which obligation are they ignoring? There seems to be the impression that the ICAO Annexes are vastly prescriptive. They are not and accord a fair measure of discretion to individual sovereign states. Whilst under ICAO there is a requirement for countries to recognise and facilitate international commercial flights, there is no obligation to allow permanent stationing of another country's aircraft in its territory, nor the privilieges which go with it. In the US, for example, you cannot keep a foreign registered aircraft permanantly - it has to be put on the N register. So in fact, the UK and indeed Europe are more generous than the US!

[Fuji Abound]

Justicair

So how do you interpret article 33?

Recognition of certificates and licenses

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