EASA? What a joke!
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA? What a joke!
I've just read this in Pilot:
EASA have given in to pressure from France and going to allow them to continue with the brevet de base which allows a 20hrs student pilot to carry passengers and is thought to be partly responsible for France's poor GA safety record.
They reject the IMC rating and yet they allow this!
EASA have given in to pressure from France and going to allow them to continue with the brevet de base which allows a 20hrs student pilot to carry passengers and is thought to be partly responsible for France's poor GA safety record.
They reject the IMC rating and yet they allow this!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me started!
If you think that the flying side of EASA is bad just wait untill you get involved with the engineering regulation!
I hate to have to say this.......... come back CAA all is forgiven!
I hate to have to say this.......... come back CAA all is forgiven!
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, I can't believe that the UK is going ahead with further integration after a House of Commons Transport Committee described EASA as:
"an accident waiting to happen"
Why the hell are we doing this?
"an accident waiting to happen"
Why the hell are we doing this?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the proposal is that the 'brevet de base' will become some kind of 'LAPL-LITE' I assume that it will also be an option in the UK and elsewhere in EASA land.
I haven't seen any analysis of the French fatal accident record, so don't know if the brevet de base was unduly represented.
Ian
I haven't seen any analysis of the French fatal accident record, so don't know if the brevet de base was unduly represented.
Ian
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there you go then, the phrase "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" springs to mind, if the French can have an opt-out (that wonderful contribution to GA safety the Brevet de Base
) then by that standard we should be perfectly entitled to declare our IMCr valid, (as it is, UK only, no increase or decrease in privilige/training).
But why do I get this vague, annoying feeling that's not going to be so????
) then by that standard we should be perfectly entitled to declare our IMCr valid, (as it is, UK only, no increase or decrease in privilige/training).But why do I get this vague, annoying feeling that's not going to be so????
EASA have included in Part FCL a similar qualification to the Brevet de Base called the Basic LAPL, which will allow flight only within 50km of the departure airfield, with no landings permitted anywhere else (i.e. A to A only) and with no more than one passenger and will apply throughout the EU. Consequently, France do not have to 'opt out' of anything and so the 'sauce for the goose' ploy doesn't apply.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well BillieBob, that's just made my 
day, can't wait to be sharing airspace with those people when that comes in then. Jesus, talk about pandering to the lowest common denominator.
day, can't wait to be sharing airspace with those people when that comes in then. Jesus, talk about pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kent UK
Age: 42
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a student, the passenger thing sounds like it might be a nice touch if there was a stipulation that the sole passenger is a qualified PPL.
Time with my instructor is certainly at a premium (probably due to the shortage addressed elsewhere on this forum). I would think that, once a student reaches an appropriate stage in their training, it would be useful to have allowance for them to take a 'VFR safety pilot' and log some P1 time while their instructor is working with other students on a Pu/t basis. I wouldn't expect the other pilot to be actively teaching (as this is obviously an instructors job) but I am at a stage where it is a little too soon for solo out of the circuit, but I could be getting some good experience by just applying a small safety net.
However, just giving a student carte blanche to take up the non-qualified, general public sounds exceptionally dangerous and I am surprised it is allowed anywhere in the world.
Time with my instructor is certainly at a premium (probably due to the shortage addressed elsewhere on this forum). I would think that, once a student reaches an appropriate stage in their training, it would be useful to have allowance for them to take a 'VFR safety pilot' and log some P1 time while their instructor is working with other students on a Pu/t basis. I wouldn't expect the other pilot to be actively teaching (as this is obviously an instructors job) but I am at a stage where it is a little too soon for solo out of the circuit, but I could be getting some good experience by just applying a small safety net.
However, just giving a student carte blanche to take up the non-qualified, general public sounds exceptionally dangerous and I am surprised it is allowed anywhere in the world.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You already do share the UK airspace with lots of them......have a look at the minimum requirements for the restricted microlight licence and how few dual hours are required in microlight training.
With a grand total of 15 hours a person could obtain a restricted microlight licence bring that up to a total of 25 hours a microlight pilot could be unrestricted and fly round the world.
At least the French proposal limits pilots with little experience to A to A flights........something the UK does not even if they have as little as 15 hours when they get their licence.
Of course, there is also the solo student crosscountries.........how many hours do they have?
EASA bashing indeed.
Regards,
DFC
With a grand total of 15 hours a person could obtain a restricted microlight licence bring that up to a total of 25 hours a microlight pilot could be unrestricted and fly round the world.
At least the French proposal limits pilots with little experience to A to A flights........something the UK does not even if they have as little as 15 hours when they get their licence.
Of course, there is also the solo student crosscountries.........how many hours do they have?
EASA bashing indeed.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should the French recognise an IMC? It means nothing and is certainly no instrument rating, it just offers the holder a better chance should they miscalculate the wx
The word in the title is the give away. It is not the same as an IR, but never the less it is an instrument rating.
Whether it be an IR or IMCr each offer the pilot a better chance.
A current IMCr pilot probably has a better chance than a rusty IR holder.
Everyone should recognise the IMCr because it has stood the test of time - 40 years service with excellent safety record in an enviroment in which the CAA / JAA IR have proved practically unobtainable by most private pilots.
A rating which in unobtainable is a waste of time. A rating which is unsafe is a waste of time. So far as the first condition with respect to private pilots the CAA / JAA IR fails. So far as the first and second condition the FAA IR and the IMCr pass - is it surprising pilots therefore either have a FAA IR or IMCr depending on their needs?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stellair
Grumpy old men afraid of change and EASA bashing.
What f
g difference does it make whether an accident occurs 150nm from point of departure or 15km? The end result is exactly the same; a mass of twisted metal, broken body parts and ruined lives.Any woefully inadequate level of training for a LAPL or any other licence should be tossed straight into the bin.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2close, I agree.
Fuji, dear dear. I'll be sure to tell my chief pilot that all the company pilots who renew their IR's only do so to "better" their chances with his aeroplanes
Get real! An IMC course should be compulsory for Every PPL issue in my opinion as it may save someones life one day especially in the UK given the weather....but. Please don't confuse an IMC with being qualified or able to fly PROPERLY on instruments, you are NOT. THAT'S exactly how people KILL themselves!
The reason IR's are expensive are due to the complexity and depth of the course, quality costs! If you can't afford it then......
..FAA IR's are well and good albeit not as indepth as JAA but some of the procedues often used in the UK aren't even touched in the American IR and vice versa, I know I have both!
Why should EASA or the French recognise the IMC qualification?
Fuji, dear dear. I'll be sure to tell my chief pilot that all the company pilots who renew their IR's only do so to "better" their chances with his aeroplanes
Get real! An IMC course should be compulsory for Every PPL issue in my opinion as it may save someones life one day especially in the UK given the weather....but. Please don't confuse an IMC with being qualified or able to fly PROPERLY on instruments, you are NOT. THAT'S exactly how people KILL themselves!
The reason IR's are expensive are due to the complexity and depth of the course, quality costs! If you can't afford it then......
..FAA IR's are well and good albeit not as indepth as JAA but some of the procedues often used in the UK aren't even touched in the American IR and vice versa, I know I have both!Why should EASA or the French recognise the IMC qualification?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stellair
.. .. .. are you sure your other pseudoym is not Rustle?
That was a pointless comment. Why did you make it?
Have a word with the CAA old chap - they have thought otherwise for the last 40 years. Be in no doubt with an IMCr you are qualified to fly on instruments.
You raised the issue of cost, no one else.
If you really had both I doubt you would make that comment.
The evidence of 40 years experience tends to speak volumes that it does what it says on the box.
The CAA does not agree with anything you have said in your post. It doesnt mean they are right, but you will have to do a great deal more (in terms of solid evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinion) to persuade us they are wrong.
.. .. .. are you sure your other pseudoym is not Rustle?
I'll be sure to tell my chief pilot that all the company pilots who renew their IR's only do so to "better" their chances with his aeroplanes
Please don't confuse an IMC with being qualified or able to fly PROPERLY on instruments
The reason IR's are expensive are due to the complexity and depth of the course, quality costs!
FAA IR's are well and good albeit not as indepth as JAA
Why should EASA or the French recognise the IMC qualification?
The CAA does not agree with anything you have said in your post. It doesnt mean they are right, but you will have to do a great deal more (in terms of solid evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinion) to persuade us they are wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FUJI.....
To highlight the stupidity of your comment.
It's no where near as comprehesive as an IR no matter how you look at it otherwise why do we have 2 seperate ratings ...period.
Wrong... You said:
If you refering to an average PPL's ability not budget to pass an IR then you have answered for me.
Don't insult me, it's certainly clear you don't have either!....Just two of many........Ask any American IR instructor how many times they fly a proc. NDB, then ask any UK IR instructor to fly an ILS backcourse. 
Look......... I hope you enjoy safe flying in the UK and VFR abroad but I don't need to present you with any proof! It is NOT a recognised qualification outside the UK, get over it.......GET AN IR if you want IR privilages! There is a huge difference between them, sorry old chap!
That was a pointless comment. Why did you make it?
Have a word with the CAA old chap - they have thought otherwise for the last 40 years. Be in no doubt with an IMCr you are qualified to fly on instruments
...period.
You raised the issue of cost, no one else
40 years service with excellent safety record in an enviroment in which the CAA / JAA IR have proved practically unobtainable by most private pilots
If you really had both I doubt you would make that comment
Look......... I hope you enjoy safe flying in the UK and VFR abroad but I don't need to present you with any proof! It is NOT a recognised qualification outside the UK, get over it.......GET AN IR if you want IR privilages! There is a huge difference between them, sorry old chap!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason IR's are expensive are due to the complexity and depth of the course, quality costs! If you can't afford it then........FAA IR's are well and good albeit not as indepth as JAA but some of the procedues often used in the UK aren't even touched in the American IR and vice versa, I know I have both!
That "quality" argument is utter elitish bo110cks. You are presumably a JAA IR instructor or better still a CAA IR examiner.
The trouble is that one reads so much of this crap on pilot forums there is a limit to how much effort one can put into posting corrections all the time. Which is why this trash propagates so easily. Most of it goes unchallenged because the people who actually fly for real can't be bothered to argue anymore, and those with all the bits of gold plated paper but who rarely fly anywhere have all the keyboard time.
The reality is that neither a fresh FAA IR nor a fresh JAA IR is capable of planning an IFR flight from A to B in European airways. There are loads of procedural issues that are not covered. The JAA IR is intended to prepare the person for an airliner RHS and the ops man hands him the whole plan when he step on, and the LHS keen an eye on him. The FAA IR prepares you to fly real IFR yourself, and the rest (how to work out Eurocontrol routings, which website you get the weather from in Europe, etc) you can pick up.
However the biggest b011ocks is the continual slagging off of the IMC Rating. Before the IR, I was flying European airways on the IMCR (with an IR in the RHS to make it legal) at oxygen altitudes and never had the slightest problem. It's FAR easier than hacking around under VFR, begging variously helpful (or not) ATCOs for a transit of "their" private airspace. The RHS was a graduate of the JAA school machine between Bournemouth and Cranfield etc so he knew nothing about IFR/airways flight planning or enroute strategy. I did all the planning and all the flying. On the skills from the IMCR. The only essential bits which didn't get covered by the IMCR training were SIDs and STARs and those are just like approach plates (you have to read dem and do wot it sez on dem).
The biggest enemy of the IMCR is poor pilot currency, not the training. It's been marketed as just another sausage to sell from the PPL sausage machine, and most holders don't use it. An expired IMCR holder will however be no worse a pilot than an expired IR holder and there are plenty of the latter. In fact most instructors who once held an IR have let it lapse.
The other enemy is poor access to suitable IFR aircraft and of course an IR holder has exactly the same problem. Most JAA IR holders are would-be ATPLs and most of them are skint and don't fly because they can't afford to but they have time, which is how they were able to do the frozen ATPL in the first place.
Both IRs are every bit as good as each other for the core skills of instrument flight.
None of this cuts any ice with the old guardians of purity who regard the European IR as the minimum gold standard for sharing airspace with the so-called professionals. The fact that airways flight is actually a piece of cake and a lot easier than hacking around the UK at 2400ft is conveniently forgotten. If somebody was tasked TODAY with developing a syllabus for the essential skills to fly Euro IFR, the result would make all the old puritans revolve in their graves at 2400rpm.
..FAA IR's are well and good albeit not as indepth as JAA but some of the procedues often used in the UK aren't even touched in the American IR and vice versa, I know I have both!That "quality" argument is utter elitish bo110cks. You are presumably a JAA IR instructor or better still a CAA IR examiner.
The trouble is that one reads so much of this crap on pilot forums there is a limit to how much effort one can put into posting corrections all the time. Which is why this trash propagates so easily. Most of it goes unchallenged because the people who actually fly for real can't be bothered to argue anymore, and those with all the bits of gold plated paper but who rarely fly anywhere have all the keyboard time.
The reality is that neither a fresh FAA IR nor a fresh JAA IR is capable of planning an IFR flight from A to B in European airways. There are loads of procedural issues that are not covered. The JAA IR is intended to prepare the person for an airliner RHS and the ops man hands him the whole plan when he step on, and the LHS keen an eye on him. The FAA IR prepares you to fly real IFR yourself, and the rest (how to work out Eurocontrol routings, which website you get the weather from in Europe, etc) you can pick up.
However the biggest b011ocks is the continual slagging off of the IMC Rating. Before the IR, I was flying European airways on the IMCR (with an IR in the RHS to make it legal) at oxygen altitudes and never had the slightest problem. It's FAR easier than hacking around under VFR, begging variously helpful (or not) ATCOs for a transit of "their" private airspace. The RHS was a graduate of the JAA school machine between Bournemouth and Cranfield etc so he knew nothing about IFR/airways flight planning or enroute strategy. I did all the planning and all the flying. On the skills from the IMCR. The only essential bits which didn't get covered by the IMCR training were SIDs and STARs and those are just like approach plates (you have to read dem and do wot it sez on dem).
The biggest enemy of the IMCR is poor pilot currency, not the training. It's been marketed as just another sausage to sell from the PPL sausage machine, and most holders don't use it. An expired IMCR holder will however be no worse a pilot than an expired IR holder and there are plenty of the latter. In fact most instructors who once held an IR have let it lapse.
The other enemy is poor access to suitable IFR aircraft and of course an IR holder has exactly the same problem. Most JAA IR holders are would-be ATPLs and most of them are skint and don't fly because they can't afford to but they have time, which is how they were able to do the frozen ATPL in the first place.
Both IRs are every bit as good as each other for the core skills of instrument flight.
None of this cuts any ice with the old guardians of purity who regard the European IR as the minimum gold standard for sharing airspace with the so-called professionals. The fact that airways flight is actually a piece of cake and a lot easier than hacking around the UK at 2400ft is conveniently forgotten. If somebody was tasked TODAY with developing a syllabus for the essential skills to fly Euro IFR, the result would make all the old puritans revolve in their graves at 2400rpm.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA IR's are well and good albeit not as indepth as JAA
And by the way there has never been a fatal accident in the UK attributed to an IMC rating holder exercising his legal priviledges.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask any American IR instructor how many times they fly a proc. NDB
Ian
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
And by the way there has never been a fatal accident in the UK attributed to an IMC rating holder exercising his legal priviledges.
As a new PPL many years ago I had a few 'dodgy moments' that encouraged me to do the IMCR. I think it taught me far more about avoiding unsuitable SEP weather than encouraging me to fly by sole reference to instruments in bad weather. I think that this is the beauty of the course and perhaps why IMCR holders have such an excellent safety record.
Personally I'd far rather cross the Pennines or cruise up the Western Isles at FL65 even if conditions are VMC rather than try and grub about under the cloudbase; depends upon what you want from the flight. Incidentally, the Isles look just as beautiful from that level, maybe even more so, as you get the breath of vision from up there. It's just that with the IMCR, it really doesn't matter to you if you DO encounter cloud. I probably wouldn't go, though, if I thought it was going to be cloud all the way.
I can appreciate that there are those who feel the need for an IR to give them access to the airways system and other Class 'A' airspace but I do agree that largely the IR is all about getting a RHS airline job, not taking a PA28 to Geneva or Nice.
TheOddOne