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

[machel]

This is a very interesting thread. It would be a tragedy if the IMC rating was lost and I give my full support to any campaign to save it.

Fuji, for what it's worth, my interepretation of that quote is that regardless of the member state's right to issue licenses and certificates, they will only be regarded as valid if they meet the minimum standards of the Convention.

If the minimum standards are equivalent to the "IF" rating, then the IMC will not be recognised as valid.

Maybe I'm wrong

[Fuji Abound]

OK - some help needed please.

Someone has very kindly agreed to provide a dedicated server with very good band width. A web site is needed to publish the background and to define the reasons why the IMCR should be retained as a national difference.
Emails and letters need to be sent to as many FBOs as possible - they are going to suffer a significant loss of income.

Some campaigning of Euro MPs, and others who will be receptive to the arguments is essential.

Please, if you are willing to help send me a PM.

I really need your support please.

(Machel - you are correct, this was a slightly off topic discussion why EASA are unlikely to recognise the FAA IR despite their ICAO treaty obligations to do so - or so it might be argued - thank you very much for your support).

[rustle]

Originally Posted by bose-x

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.

bose-x, for what it is worth, I too am satisfied with what AOPA-UK are doing for me as a paid-up member.

Thanks for your hard work over the last few months.

Out.

[machel]

PM?

Fuji, please excuse my ignorance, but what's a "PM"?

[machel]

Rustle said:

bose-x, for what it is worth, I too am satisfied with what AOPA-UK are doing for me as a paid-up member.

I know I've come into this rather late on in the discussion, but I don't see why campaigns can't come from many different fronts. AOPA et al will do what they can, but individuals can also influence. If we don't try, then how can we complain when it does disappear?

[Fuji Abound]

Machel

Left click on Fuji, and selecting PM - a private message.

Brilliant to have your support.

On your other point I want to be clear as to my position.

Bose has done an excellent job with his work at AOPA - he seems to be a breath of fresh air. I have no persoanl issues with him at all. I have made my views with regards to AOPA known - with regret I think their lack of record on this issue in the past supports my view. Never the less I hope I am wrong this time.

It does concern me AOPA appears to have already settled for not second but third best, but perhaps that really is all that can be achieved.

Rustle enjoys a bit of banter on here. I always enjoy humouring him. It is a love hate relationship.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by machel

I know I've come into this rather late on in the discussion, but I don't see why campaigns can't come from many different fronts. AOPA et al will do what they can, but individuals can also influence. If we don't try, then how can we complain when it does disappear?

The biggest difference is that AOPA and those representing AOPA generally have some idea what they are talking about and won't make themselves and their GA colleagues look bloody stupid writing letters about things they clearly do not understand.

But if you think people writing whining letters about their alleged "breached rights" will get you somewhere I promise not to laugh.

Much.

[Justiciar]

So how do you interpret article 33?

The same way as you I think. This is not the issue. The issue may be one of limiting the abilty to base foreign registered aircraft not used for commercial operations in the EU. This is, as I understand it, what the US does. This will remove the utility of the FAA IR to private pilots. There is nothing here in breach of the ICAO Annex. States are free to determine whether to allow another country's aircraft to be based in that state. This is not a difficult problem: no different from deciding if an individual is domicile or ordinarily resident in a state. Such a step would of cours affect others beyond the owners of N reg aircraft; owners of russian and Lithuanian Yaks would also be in trouble!

[Fuji Abound]

Are you suggesting this might be next on the agenda Justicar.

[Justiciar]

I suspect it is quite likely. EASA scrutiny of third country aircraft is an active proposal in the amendment to the regulation which set up EASA and this issue was flagged with ICAO in 2004. They have to step carefully so as not to undermine the convention, but an extra level of checking seems to be certain. Although an outright ban on non commercial foreign registered aircraft does not appear to be a firm proposal yet I suspect it is only a matter of time. Once EASA "certificates" third country" operators in the EU then every aircraft not certificated could be judged to be private and therefore required to be re-registered. What with the recent DoT consultation on this issue and a similar issue being raised by the Frence a while ago I think it would be foolish to ignore this as a very real possibility.

[Slopey]

Not wanting to promote thread drift, but if the IMCR is a UK only rating - what's the story on the NPPL?
Is that, as a UK only licence, also under threat? Or is there an EASA proposed equivalent, or a current equivalent in other European countries?

[S-Works]

Slopey. The NPPL is being replaced by the LAPL, light Aircrafts Pilot Licence a Euro wide NPPL.

The regulators want to clearly branch private flying from recreational flying. If you are a fun flyer you do a LAPL if you want to be a pro you do an EASA licence.

LAPL is currently day/vfr but discussion is under way for night qualification. If you want MEP or Instrument privileges you do an EASA licence.

You can thank the permit evangelists for the LAPL.......

Now can you see the road map?

[Slopey]

Excellent Got it - thanks Bose

[Justiciar]

if you want to be a pro you do an EASA licence

Bose-x

What if you don't want to be a pro but want an ICAO licence to enable you to fly abroad, i.e outside the EU? Is the new EASA licence going to be more difficult than the current PPL? This would seem to be contrary to the spirit of ICAO Annex 1 if it is. The EU has already had one shot across the bows from ICAO over its idea for additional maintenance requirements for non EU registered aircraft and they were told by ICAO that this would be contrary to the Convention. Lets hope they are not going the same way with licensing.

[tmmorris]

I'm afraid I've seen this coming for some years now - the driving of a wedge between Sport Flying on the one hand, and 'proper' flying - CPL and above - on the other. The whole EASA approach seems to be tending to set in stone that distinction between people who fly for fun - and only need day VFR, naturally (have they ever actually visited the UK?!) and those who fly for work, and need a CPL.

Lost somewhere in between are those who fly themselves around for personal transport and actually need to get somewhere. Sadly they are a very small group, unlike in the US, and are being trampled on.

Tim

[radicalrabit]

But is it legal?

"(This) principle of risk management is an established principle of English law, known as ALARP. It is a requirement formulated by Lord Asquith in these terms: one has an obligation to reduce risks As Low As Reasonably Practicable. This formulation was emphasised by Lord Cullen in the Piper Alpha inquiry, as I understand it."
I borrowed this from a different thread but it speaks volumes not TO BE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS or TO USE THE TRAINING YOU HAVE to deal with the same, would constitute a breach of that duty of care. It would seem then that this change would go against what is already recognised in English Law...(do tell me if I am wrong)

[Fuji Abound]

But if you think people writing whining letters about their alleged "breached rights" will get you somewhere I promise not to laugh.

Oh, you are such a tease!

This formulation was emphasised by Lord Cullen in the Piper Alpha

Yes, I think form all the PMs I have received and other comments this summates very much how people feel. There is something uncomfortably worrying about denying people the ability to use skills they have already proven they have.

I think this is where AOPA have so fundamentally missed the point and sold GA in the UK down the river. What they have ended up asking for is something hardly anyone wants, so that even if they get it, it will not be a worhtless victory.

[englishal]

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.

I suspect that AOPA don't like to take on a battle they can't win, or else they will look like losers (their thoughts, not mine).

I think we'll see the ground school element *slightly* reduced, but that will be it with regards to a "more obtainable IR".

I say this as one of teh 400,000 pilots in AOPA who AOPA claim be be part of (see their website) and also a member of PPLIR. AOPA UK and AOPA US are chalk and cheese.

By the way, I can donate server bandwidth Fuji if you haven't found any yet.....

I expect Bose will get all upset with me for saying this (BTW I have no problem with Bose, he assures me he is a very nice chap and I'm sure he is right ) , but until this "perception" changes, I won't be paying them any money...

[S-Works]

I am posting this on both threads to save wasting any further breath......


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with your crusade.

[Fuji Abound]

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

Dont blame me.

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

Worth listening to what pilots say me thinks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and finallly

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

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

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

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