EASA? What a joke!

[bookworm]

DFC

I think I see what you're driving at but I don't agree with your statements:

IFR flights are required to carry suficent fuel for destination and alternate (or 2 alternates if limited met reporting etc etc for first alternate) and having reached the furthest alternate be able to hold for 45 minutes in the case of propeller aircraft.

You're quoting JAR-OPS 1. The ANO does not distinguish between VFR and IFR flights, though it does single out public transport in a way that is likely to require JAR-OPS fuel planning.

Art 52(e) in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine
coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has
been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of
public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil
and engine coolant have been complied with;

Specifically, bookworm, there is no requirement for an IMC rating holder to apply higher minima at the alternate aerodrome when planning the flight (if they have even bothered to plan one) than at the destination i.e. the IMC rating holder can plan to a destination with an NDB approach and have an alternate with an ILS and use the 500ft DH and 1800m as minima where an IR holder will be obliged to apply non-precision minima at the alternate which could be higher than the IMC rating 500ft limit for a precision approach.

Again you're quoting JAR OPS 1. The law does not distinguish on the basis of rating held. For non-public transport flights, planning minima are simplistic:

49(6) If, according to the information available, an aircraft would as regards any flight be
required by the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996(a) to be flown in accordance with
the Instrument Flight Rules at the aerodrome of intended landing, the commander of
the aircraft shall select prior to take-off an alternate aerodrome unless no aerodrome
suitable for that purpose is available.
...
(6B) A flight shall not be continued towards the aerodrome of intended landing unless the
latest available information indicates that conditions at that aerodrome, or at least one
alternate aerodrome, will, at the estimated time of arrival, be at or above the specified
aerodrome operating minima.

If you were to say that, often, insufficient emphasis is placed on sensible fuel and alternate planning in IMC rating training, I might agree.

[S-Works]

It is though a pretty good step in the right direction.

And what is the right direction? As I have asked several times, I am interested to know exactly what the battle plan is?

[Contacttower]

I am interested to know exactly what the battle plan is?

bose why don't you tell us what the battle plan should be?

You're the expert after all.....

[S-Works]

I already gave my view on that and it was deemed as wrong, you obviously missed it in all the AOPA bashing.

I am genuinely interested in what your plan is. At the moment I see a lot of shouting and no clear direction.

What is so difficult about my question? As pilots we are being asked to sign up and support something. I am just not clear EXACTLY what we are supporting and why and so am asking a genuine question.

[Kirstey]

As pilots we are being asked to sign up and support something. I am just not clear EXACTLY what we are supporting

So you agree with my thoughts on AOPA then Bose

[soay]

Originally Posted by bose-x

I already gave my view on that and it was deemed as wrong, you obviously missed it in all the AOPA bashing.

Would this be what you are referring to?

[S-Works]

Yeah whatever.

So back to my question, is someone going to state EXACTLY what we are signing up to support?

[Fuji Abound]

Bosey

Come on, you of all people know it is a closely guarded secret, it couldnt possibly be revealed on a anonymous forum such as this. If it was then someone would have to shoot themselves - and we would not want that, would we.

[S-Works]

So what you are in fact full of hot air and not worth supporting.

Fair enough.

[Bus429]

Haven't read all the threads but some factions of EASA are only concerned with complying with the Implementing Rule etc (although AMCs are not mandatory), rather than operating or maintaining safely.

Part M Subpart I sums up the confusion that reigns; there are a variety opinions as to the "privilege".

[soay]

Are there we go again, nobody can resist the personal attacks can they.......

I wonder who said that. Could it be the same person who said:

So what you are in fact full of hot air and not worth supporting.

I wish the Internet didn't bring out the worst in people.

[Sleepybhudda]

The Future with EASA

A Little background on me. Previous PPL/IMC (let IMC lapse) then trained JAA CPL/IR now FO on Jetstream 32 (no autopilot) Still flying privately on SEP/IR PA28 for Pleasure.

When I trained for both IMC and later the IR I can say that the JAA IR was Hard and more comprehensive than the IMC (was on a twin but still was 50hrs versus 15hrs for my IMC) Big differences on Hours.

Plus theory for IMC versus IR theory. Also big difference and harder for IR.

My opinion is that an IMC holder could use the rating as a mini IR if he remained very current. I've had bad days in IMC to IR minima (with a valid IR rating) in a PA28 and I am very glad I had the extra training. It was not a fun place to be.

Now that I have an IR im aware just how restrictive the IMC was because the IFR enviroment is geared towards IR rated pilots and I kept having to check what I was and was not allowed to be doing with just an IMC.

EASA is I believe a step forward for commercial aviation. I will admit its affect on GA at the moment are negative (Part M's yearly C of A and sign of by a different engineer an example).

Only hope for the EASA future?

Two IR's, one attached to the MPL another a Private IR. Easier to obtain than the JAA IR. More hours than the UK IMC (maybe 25-30 hrs).

With the exception of Single Pilot Multi engine Public transport the gap between the commercial world of IR (full EFIS, autopilot, Flight OPS department flight planning) and that of PPL/IR is seperating in my opinion.

[englishal]

The IR and IMC are both stepping stones...like degrees and HNDs.

10 years on, whatever bit of paper you have is irrelevant - it is you practical experience which counts.

[Fuji Abound]

Here are some observations to think about:

Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accounted for 30% of all fatalities between 1995 and 2004. There were 3,000 fatalities in consequence. (Source: CAA SRG 2006). In a similar length of time (1985 to 1994) CFIT and loss of control in IMC involving aircraft with a MTOW of 5,700 kg or less accounted for 28.5% of all accidents. (Source CAP 887 CAA Safety Regulation Group).

The SRG noted as follows:

“Typically, the CFIT accident involved the more mature and experienced pilot who, despite his experience, seemed to be oblivious to the dangers of continuing the flight into deteriorating weather conditions.”

The reports observes

“Usually, training for the Private Pilot’s Licence (PPL) takes place in good weather and with the advent of more candidates training for the PPL overseas, this trend is likely to increase”

and concludes

“It was considered that PPL training should be subjected to a greater level of CAA oversight to ensure that the best information is made available to candidates particularly in the areas of weather appreciation, calculation of safety altitude, flight planning and diversion techniques.”

The IMCr training syllabus incorporates all of the components of the SRG’s conclusion.

Loss of control in IMC was identified as the fourth most common accident type in the same report. The report states

"Three quarters of the pilots involved were attempting to fly in IMC when not qualified to do so."

IMCr training would have enabled the majoity of these pilots to avoid these accidents.

[DFC]

Bookworm,

No, I use ICAO annex 6 part 2 - the standard that the UK CAA says UK aircraft operate to with the exceptions noted. There is no exception for fuel planning requirements or to the fact that a VFR flight can not depart for anything other than a local flight unless the weather is VMC all the way to destination.

I also use the UK AIP.

I can't remember how long the debate on IMCr minima was..........but it certainly told the world that here was a rating that the holders were very confused about exactly what it entitled them to do.

If you lived in a European country where the IR was not as costly to obtain as in the UK would you want this hassle?

Don't forget that if EASA expands the IMC rating to all of Europe, France, Ireland etc are going to have UK IMCr holders flying IFR in their airspace while their own pilots do not have the option and if they wanted that they would have permitted the IMCr's use in their countries before now.

A and C tells us about all the extra paperwork that engineers are having to do and how he is going to have to charge more for maintenance. God help us, he must have picked that line from the training providers who claimed all this paperwork of JAR-FCL is going to push up costs...........Can any ATPL, CPL, PPL or Instructor point me to all the extra paperwork?

A and C should indeed help the rest of Europe maintenance providers and push up his prices. Perhaps UK pilots will see sense and take their business elsewhere in what is now at long last becomming a "common market" in aircraft maintenance.

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Don't forget that if EASA expands the IMC rating to all of Europe, France, Ireland etc are going to have UK IMCr holders flying IFR in their airspace while their own pilots do not have the option and if they wanted that they would have permitted the IMCr's use in their countries before now.

That depends on whether the IMCr can be permitted as a national exception or on whether it is adopted through out Europe. I dont think your proposal is viable.

I can't remember how long the debate on IMCr minima was..........but it certainly told the world that here was a rating that the holders were very confused about exactly what it entitled them to do.

I cant agee. I think it told the world that there were a very very few posters who did not understand the law and would not accept the "official" interpretation of the law which I might add has since become widly accepted.

I can see a similiar debate might well evolve between two IRed pilots, your goodself and Bookworm where you each disagree on the interpretation of the legilsation.

If that debate were to run to more than a few pages would we have told the world that here was a rating (the IRing) for which the holders were also confused about exactly what it entitled them to do? I dont think so.

Pot and kettle comes to mind.

[stickandrudderman]

I'm sure if I read every single post on here I'd learn something, but it's difficult to seperate the worthwhile content from all the mud-slinging and handbag swinging.
Could someone please PM me when it's stopped?

(Legal holder of an IMC but definately not current).

[Fuji Abound]

Stickandrudderman

I posted this on the other thread and I think it is worthwhile repeating because it may explain why the mud slinging has occurred and was perhaps always difficult to avoid.

Unfortunately if you feel as many you have to read past that and form your own view based on the evidence. That might not be supportive but for some of the reasons below I hope it is.

"Sunday Driver

It is indeed a shame and I regret the way this thread has deteriorated. I am sorry. However you should not under estimate the strenght of support.

Firsly, in case you did not follow the thread you should visit the petition and note the number of pilots already signed up. This has occured with no publicity other than that which has taken place on PPRuNe.

Secondly, there are people who have a different agenda, or one that is less than clear. It is in the nature of debates of this sort that they will vent their views. This forms an important part of the debate. By definition they are likely to be as vociferous as those in favour. However, I can assure you by the number of emails and posts I have had that there are many, who although they have not posted, have closely followed and support this campaign.

Thirdly, there are already a few of us who are working together to increase the profile of this issue. There will very shortly be a dedicated web site. There is already a petition. There will be far wider representation.

Forthly, consider this as a starter for ten posted else where.

"Here are some observations to think about:

Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accounted for 30% of all fatalities between 1995 and 2004. There were 3,000 fatalities in consequence. (Source: CAA SRG 2006). In a similar length of time (1985 to 1994) CFIT and loss of control in IMC involving aircraft with a MTOW of 5,700 kg or less accounted for 28.5% of all accidents. (Source CAP 887 CAA Safety Regulation Group).

The SRG noted as follows:

“Typically, the CFIT accident involved the more mature and experienced pilot who, despite his experience, seemed to be oblivious to the dangers of continuing the flight into deteriorating weather conditions.”

The reports observes

“Usually, training for the Private Pilot’s Licence (PPL) takes place in good weather and with the advent of more candidates training for the PPL overseas, this trend is likely to increase”

and concludes

“It was considered that PPL training should be subjected to a greater level of CAA oversight to ensure that the best information is made available to candidates particularly in the areas of weather appreciation, calculation of safety altitude, flight planning and diversion techniques.”

The IMCr training syllabus incorporates all of the components of the SRG’s conclusion.

Loss of control in IMC was identified as the fourth most common accident type in the same report. The report states

"Three quarters of the pilots involved were attempting to fly in IMC when not qualified to do so."

IMCr training would have enabled the majoity of these pilots to avoid these accidents."

This is just part of the reason why preserving the IMCr is so important.

As has been pointed out on here on numerous occasions the JAA IR is not a viable alternative for most private pilots. The FAA IR is an attractive alternative but the concerns about its use in Europe continue unabated.

Moreover an IR extends the priviliges of an IMCr beyond that which many private pilots require.

If you believe in flight safety and take on board the statistics and findings above I think we have a duty to support this initiative.

I commend it to you.

Please let us know your views?"

[David Roberts]

Have just been watching the (live) broadcast this evening from Strasbourg of the European Parliament reading / debate on the extension of EASA’s scope to Licensing, Operations and Third Country (i.e. non EU) Aircraft.
Several MEPs made reference to the importance of light aviation and the SME sector, the impact of EASA of costs particularly on maintenance (with a UK example quoted of a 60% increase). But most significant was UK MEP Philip Bradbourne’s speech which criticised EASA for its inefficiencies and failings, and the burden of red tape. “Not yet fit for purpose” he said, opposing the extension of EASA’s scope.
UK MEP Timothy Kirkhope (he is a private pilot) said EASA is incompetent, with delays in procedures and other difficulties and not yet fit for purpose. He said the UK costs were already high because of the CAA’s requirement to recover full cost. He referred particularly to the impact of EASA on private pilots and in particular the threat to UK pilots of possible withdrawal of the IMCR. He quoted Flyer Magazine, then referred to the UK weather which required the use of the IMCR . “Scrapping the ICR would be disastrous.” He asked the Commissioner (Jaques Barrot) to take a close look at this.
Barrot responded that he would be “at Mr Kirkhope’s disposal” to look at this.
The full Parliament vote on the 2nd reading is tomorrow.
I think the session was recorded and should be available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/wps-eu...net/faces/vod/

[Fuji Abound]

David

It was a very interesting debate. The thread is well worth following. I have taken the libery of adding it to the sticky thread.