N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA

[IanSeager]

Originally Posted by DFC

The IR that you obtain with the PPL gives you full credit at CPL level for having passed the written exams and having passed the skill test.

For the ATPL, there are different written exams.

There is also a requirement to obtain a multi-pilot type rating and multi pilot IR which involves training and a skill test. Then to gain 500 hours multi-pilot experience before with a minimum of;

ATPL exams,
1500 hours total
100 Hours night
500 Hours multi-pilot

You sit an LST which includes an IR test in order to get the ATPL.

In general this is completed at the LPC when the required experience has been gained and simply requires some extra checks and a few more boxes ticked........plus of course money to the NAA who issue the licence.

Ther is also the MCC in there in the middle. Does that explain it?

It explains what you were trying to say, but as I am sure you know there is only one type of initial IR skills test (OK two if you want to split single and multi engine). That skills test is the same if you have a PPL, a (rare) BCPL, or a CPL with or without having passed the ATPL theory exams.

The skills being tested with a multi-crew type rating are different. That's why the holder of a multi crew IR cannot fly single pilot IFR without also maintaining that rating. It seems to me a little strange to belittle people who have an IR by comparing it with a licence or rating that exists for a different purpose.

Originally Posted by G-SPOTs Lost

The point I am making is that if that pilot/owner had had to demonstrate his ability every 12 months to a UK IRE he would not have bought that aircraft type. Because he had an opportunity to operate the aircraft on the FAA, he did and never needed to be looked at again.

Still not sure I follow this. There are plenty of Malibus on EASA registrations, or are you referring to an individual?

What a screwed up world we live in. Some ATPLs look down on CPLs some of whom look down on PPLs who in turn occasionally snigger at microlight pilots. SkyGods spend their time arguing pointlessly about the alleged value of EASA/JAA/CAA and FAA licences. Rarely if ever will any real evidence be used in the discussions, and rarely will anyone exhibit an open mind.

On that note I'll wish you all a Happy New Year and leave you to continue preaching the JAA/CAA* sermon.

Ian
"delete as appropriate

[englishal]

Again - if you had bothered to study for the exams you might feel differently and would be able to comment - can you tell me whats on the syllabus ???

Imagine me saying University degrees are a waste of time and lets qualify doctors to a lesser standard because we found a loophole that allows us to

What rubbish.

I have held and never let lapse an ICAO IR since 2002 and racked up a load of IFR/ IMC time since. I have "only" passed the ONE FAA written exam, (as well as the CFII written exam), but was subjected to a very rigorous oral examination which lasted 2 hours.

Since getting my IR I have learned far more than the JARboy exams teach you about: weather (try flying IFR across mountains with orthagraphic thunderstorms across your route), b) procedures, c) the rules and regs....etc.....

There is no mystical thing about flying IFR...it is EASY when you know how.....But then again I've probably racked up far more time ACTUAL (SE/ME SP) that many JAA IR holders who passed their IR this decade.

[S-Works]

Ther is also the MCC in there in the middle. Does that explain it?

Nope! Cos it has no relevance on IFR skills whether you fly a chav transporter or 172.

When you pass the IR skills test you have demonstrated in the words of the CAA that you have passed the single most difficult test in aviation, flying singe pilot IFR.

So my vote goes with Ian!

[Contacttower]

So my vote goes with Ian!

Mine too.

The JAA/EASA vs. FAA debate is back with a vengeance on this thread...to no avail at all as usual . Personally I doubt EASA will kill off the FAA PPL/IR on N reg in Europe...but we'll see.

I know at least my IMC instructor would have jumped down my throat for suggesting the JAA IR was harder than the FAA one...but then he's in love with the FAA anyway (with good reason too).

[172driver]

I have not read all the more than 100 posts in this thread but have been following it as interested party, as I intend to do my IR next year. Leaving the usual sandbox games of ‘mine is bigger/better/nicer’ willy waving exercises aside, methinks there’s a lot of energy here and in the various IMCr threads that could be put to much better use than pontificating on Pprune. Why not at least try to lobby EASA for a realistic PPL/IR along FAA criteria ? It would go a long way towards harmonization in European regs (something EASA likes) and would also promote the usefulness of GA in general, something they should (but might not) like. I say forget the IMCr, in the bigger scheme of things this is a lost cause. The only good use I can see in the fight for the IMCr is to have it as a bargaining chip along the lines, ‘ok, we give up the IMCr, IF we can get a realistic PPL IR’ or if EASA accepts the FAA ticket, at least on the PPL level.

Before running for cover now, I’d like to wish you all a great 2008, tailwinds, blue skies (even for the IMCr holders) and safe flying.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by 172driver

The only good use I can see in the fight for the IMCr is to have it as a bargaining chip along the lines, ‘ok, we give up the IMCr, IF we can get a realistic PPL IR’ or if EASA accepts the FAA ticket, at least on the PPL level.

I love the way people think IMC rating holders are in a position to "bargain with" EASA (or anyone else)...

What's in it for them? What will you do if EASA just laugh at your "bargain"?

To be able to bargain you need to be able to offer something in return - can't see what's on offer so can you explain please?

This argument, like the "human rights infringed" argument, is comical and I thought you guys were serious about the rating

Happy New Year

[172driver]

rustle, this could be something for the CAA - IF indeed they are interested. You should know that in political horsetrading - which is what we are talking about here - 'every little helps'

Btw, I am neutral on this, I don't have an IMCr.....

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I am not elitist, I'll say it again s l o w l y........

I just want to know the guy coming the other way is properly trained and current and when he's given a climb to 1000ft below my level thats exactly what he will do.

Doesn't matter PPL/JAA/FAA/CPL/ATPL/IR/NASA ASTRONAUT/CHUCK YEAGER

By definition, because I might do this five times a week and your average FAA/PPL/IR once a week at most MINE and my PASSENGERS EXPOSURE IF ANY IS HIGHER.

Right some howlers......

IO540 Said

Quote:
With access to class A comes responsibility

More elitist nonsense

What is elitist about this statement. Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE, who should not be exposed to people who might have a piece of paper that entitles them to be there technically but lack the skills to provide proper safety levels because they are not current or their original skills have eroded over time.

Your nonchalant attitude to flying in congested and controlled airspace is very worrying, if I had not already posted on this thread and had just seen it for the first time I would be just as worried - I'm not point scoring here.

Anyway best of luck with your FAA IR in the UK, personally I prefer the FAA system but I'm fortunate enough to have taken the time and trouble to study for both and am lucky enough to get asessed every year when I go for recurrent training.

Its ironic that the FAA PPL/IR holders that I have met in the US take the responsibilities much more seriously than people who are using their licenses conveniently over here.

I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years

[IO540]

Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE

and the ATC imposed separation is??

and the skill set needed for the pilot to comply with ATC instructions is??

One can always tell those who don't actually fly GA IFR, because they would know the airspace, they would know the airspace is largely empty, and they would also know the whole business is as far from rocket science as one can get.

But like I said, it comes down to whether one is in the "required competence" camp, or the "exclusive club, with arbitrary entrance requirements" camp.

Finally, FYI, there are "airliners full of people" in Class C,D,E, and in the UK in Class G too, quite often. Yes class G where you can fly non-radio in IMC.

[bookworm]

Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE, who should not be exposed to people who might have a piece of paper that entitles them to be there technically but lack the skills to provide proper safety levels because they are not current or their original skills have eroded over time.

Is this why the US is littered with the twisted metal resulting from the endless midair collisions caused by the people trained and current to the same standards?

[DFC]

Dublin Pilot,

Humans in common with most other primates and animals have two ears for very good reason.

-------------

Ian, etc

I was not belitteling in any way. I was explaining the training system to you after you asked. I was pointing out that the IR is a PPL level addition to a licence not a "route to an airline seat" or a "final stop of the unsuitable" or even "the most difficult flight test".

Remember that it is now possible to obtain an ATPL/IR without ever having obtained a single pilot IR.

-------

G-SPOTs Lost,

Why are you only interested in protecting passengers in the limited Class A airspace that can be found below FL195.

Are passengers above FL195 (Class C everywhere in Europe) not entitled to the same protection? What about those in the parts of the Paris TMA where it is class E?

----------

As I keep repeating, if the standard is wrong then have it changed (if you can). Don't expect to find the law makers happy with your "work round" solution.

Regards,

DFC

[scooter boy]

G-SPOT said "I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years"

And there was I thinking that you weren't bigoted and had no agenda!
Are you an angry bitter person by nature? Cause that's how you're coming across...

It's nice to know that you among others are wishing for the demise of the FAA/IR route so that we can all gain superior qualifications like yours.

Merry xmas and happy New Year to you lost G-Spot - I hope you find the G-Spot in 2008 along with some tolerance and a better attitude!


SB - (by your definition a lazy and inept FAA/IR holder).

[Contacttower]

Its ironic that the FAA PPL/IR holders that I have met in the US take the responsibilities much more seriously than people who are using their licenses conveniently over here.

I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years

I doubt you really meant that did you G-SPOT?

One has got to be so careful when posting in these fast paced arguments on the 'Private Flying' forum to make sure one's arguments are watertight and sweeping generalisations like that are bound to get a broadside a la PPRuNe.

Just out of interest, apart from the idiot in the Meridian how many other inept FAA IR holders have you met in Europe? (Genuine question not having a go...)

[dublinpilot]

Originally Posted by DFC

Dublin Pilot,
Humans in common with most other primates and animals have two ears for very good reason.

Yes they do. It's for directional hearing, which has absolutely no relevance to non stereo sound coming from a headset. For a headset, one ear is just as effective as two.

Within this airspace are AIRLINERS that are FULL OF PEOPLE, who should not be exposed to people who might have a piece of paper that entitles them to be there technically but lack the skills to provide proper safety levels because they are not current or their original skills have eroded over time.

How do you square that statement with airliners operating in class G airspace which they share with solo GA students who don't yet having anything other than an SPL, microlight pilots who may just have 25 hours training, gliders which don't paint very well on primiary radar, and deregulated single pilot aircraft which require no licence to fly at all? How come airliners choose to share airspace with these users, but aren't happy to share it with ICAO IR's in airspace where they need to be mode S equipped and under ATC control?

A phrase comes to mind....Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Maybe airlines should get their own house in order, before complaining about pilots with an international qualification to fly in class A airspace. (The most recognised and most widely used qualification to fly in class A airspace at that.)

dp

[rmac]

I fly N reg IR in Europe. Last year I was flying with a young man who had completed a modular JAA frozen ATPL course and had a JAA IR. We were initially VFR in the mountains but the weather closed in and I elected to pop up on top in uncontrolled airspace and get an IFR clearance. I asked young pilot to fly a heading to an altitude while I contacted radar and re-programmed the 430's. Without boring you all, I had to take control twice to put the aircraft upright again. Same young man was flying for a european low cost two months later.

The main thing I believe is actual experience. Psychologically its a lot different from the hood and even from full motion sims.

I might also add, for the benefit of previous posts on "avoiding effort" that I re-qual annually at sim com, and regularly train with a check pilot from a local charter company, and believe me, single pilot, light twin IR is not for the slow of thinking, or those who cannot make a decision without a second opinion. My primary motivator for N-reg is the nonsensical and overbearing regulation which has little basis in reality and a lot of additional costs when generated by EASA, and as a private operator I don't have a long suffering public to pass the additional costs to.

At my home airport, two weeks ago, a high hours European IR commercial pilot stalled a light twin and crashed killing all on board on a go-around in weather which had the airlines flying autoland (RVR 300m), when common sense dictated that he should still have been in the crewroom at his point of origin.

As I write this I am starting to get angry at the amount of sh1t that is spouted by so called professional pilots on this forum, so I shall stop ...for now.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Ok Ok apologies for the last line. It does get heated on here on occasion, and just for the record I really hope that we end up with open skies for all I really really (Believe it or not) hope that the proposed new rules dont come into force.

The arguement that I seemed to have dragged you all into is whether or not you should be able to exercise the privileges of an IR without demonstrated ability, if somebody cant get a JAA license due to medical then it would be a crying shame not for that person to be able to fly wherever and whenever he wished AS LONG AS THEY ARE ABLE TO DO SO SAFELY AND NOT JUST BY THEIR OWN ASSESMENT.

However if somebody just cant be bothered studying for and obtaining the license because of the time and effort involved but can then go out and spend 200k on a brand new trinidad, then being able to operate on a FAA IR without regulation or checking is the exception and not the rule and regaqrdless of whatever I or anybody else might think that privilege is always going to be in the firing line due to perceived safety.

Scooter boy

If you want to associate yourself as somebody who is inept and lazy then that is your choice, that statement was qualified it wasn't a IMC VS FAA/IR comment it was a IMC vS Crap FAA/IR - read what I wrote.

As I have said before I have flown with a good number of PPL/IR both FAA & JAA and the standard in my humble eyes was very good, there was at least another half that elected not to bother training at all
I quote you quoting me

G-SPOT said "I personally have more respect for IMC holders than FAA IR holders who use it as a rating of convenience to hide ineptness and avoid effort. At least IMC holders have to demonstrate ability every two years"

If you are one of these people who operate on a FAA IR in congested european and UK airspace who never trains, who by all accounts gets airbourne and sticks in the autopilot, flys all the ILS's with your efis flight director coupled who seems to think that its not "rocket science". And you use the FAA IR to hide your ineptness and laziness then yes I mean you.

If you take the time and trouble to keep yourself current in actual IFR conditions, perhaps might take a safety pilot with you on occasion if you perhaps aren't as current as you could be as onother set of eyes. Perhaps go flying with an IRI who is familiar with your type of airplane every 12 months for a refresher, then you are the person who my deliberately barbed comment was NOT aimed at.

Every 12 months we have to demonstrate hand flown approaches, green needles on standby instruments whilst dealing with other simulated problems. I dont want to go into what other nasties my aircraft systems could give me other than to say anything is possible in the sim and the recurrent training is unregulated i.e multiple failures are "Game" whereas on an initial LST they are not.

I wonder how many people last simulated an avionics failure at altitude at night in IMC - just for practise and just ask yourself how you might honestly fair having not had the requirement or the inclination to practise it. I take the recurrent training very seriously as it might well save my life.
Getting back to the topic the rules will be made based on the lowest common denominator and must be hardy enough to face legal challenge, there are those that abuse the FAA privileges in the UK ( I have witnessed it with my own eyes on many occasions - sorry). I would suggest that you campaign for regulation and checking for every non JAA ICAO license holder here in Europe in an attempt to keep the privileges.

The abusers will boll0x it for everybody else.

IO540

One can always tell those who don't actually fly GA IFR, because they would know the airspace, they would know the airspace is largely empty, and they would also know the whole business is as far from rocket science as one can get.

But like I said, it comes down to whether one is in the "required competence" camp, or the "exclusive club, with arbitrary entrance requirements" camp.
Finally, FYI, there are "airliners full of people" in Class C,D,E, and in the UK in Class G too, quite often. Yes class G where you can fly non-radio in IMC.

I have been flying GA for many years started off on a FAA/IR in a mooney and now fly something substantially faster and bigger. Unless you have been doing this for 15 years plus most days of the week I would hope that I would be able to keep up with you regarding most aspects of GA IFR and I would like you to tell me how empty you think the airspace is and how do you know. As far as the rocket science comment is concerned I'll let your peers judge you on that one - mine is the best job in the world until something goes wrong

I'm far from elitist please dont accuse me of it again, I didnt study/train for two ATP's, do six type rating tests just to brag about it and piss you off on pprune, I need it to do my job. Get over it.

And for the record I am from your "required competence" camp I just dont have a problem with demonstrating my ability every 12 months - do you?


edit
Rmac - Our posts crossed. If everybody did what you did each year who wanted to exercise the privileges on the FAA what could EASA complain about????? It sincerley annoys me that you could lose your privileges because others just want to be left alone. Apologies if you think I'm talking sh1te, its something I feel passionate about

[Fuji Abound]

And for the record I am from your "required competence" camp I just dont have a problem with demonstrating my ability every 12 months - do you?

There you go again.

Sure you don’t have a problem.

That is not the point.

Does 6 certified approaches in 6 months make you any more or less safe than demonstrating your competence and making your next approach nine months later? Both of course meet the requirements.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Fuji - sorry if I sound like an ass

No im fine thank you

Does 6 certified approaches in 6 months make you any more or less safe than demonstrating your competence and making your next approach nine months later? Both of course meet the requirements.

No especially when you assume that you could conduct 6 approaches in the last week of the six months twice a year and be just as bad.

If you are self assesing and you cock it up are you not going to count that one and go do it again? Be honest...... are you at 1.30 per liter??

May I ask what recurrent training you do Fuji Abound to keep your IFR skills honed? Or do you not need recurrent training? Genuine question. Do you meet a safe standard 5 years after passing your initial IR? if so who says. A BFR instructor??

For all I know you might visit Flightsafety 3 times a year - if so full marks, I am NOT questioning anybodys skill level on here, I am questioning why anybody who wishes to mix it in congested airspace would object to demonstrating that they meet a minimum "required competence" to keep an increasingly safety conscious EASA off their back

That is not the point

Thats exactly the point, its about standards - I'm not criticising yours I'm just pointing out to you that however good you are as an individual, this is the stick EASA are going to hit you with....

[IO540]

Gspot, from now on I am not going to respond to this anti-FAA-IR diatribe. However I am concerned at your comment

However if somebody just cant be bothered studying for and obtaining the license because of the time and effort involved but can then go out and spend 200k on a brand new trinidad

This is highly presumptious, and I do wonder who (on here) has fed this to you (and some more to "DFC"). I have a pretty good idea.

As a matter of fact one cannot buy a "brand new trinidad"; they stopped making them in 2002.

[Fuji Abound]

No especially when you assume that you could conduct 6 approaches in the last week of the six months twice a year and be just as bad.
If you are self assesing and you cock it up are you not going to count that one and go do it again? Be honest...... are you at 1.30 per liter??

Sorry, I didnt mean to be imply you were.

Yes, you could conduct six approaches in the last week and be just as bad.

That was the point I sort to make.

Is there any evidence that one is a safer pilot than the other? Or does it just boil down to your or my perception or, more cynically, bull sh**.

A proper analytical analysis of the evidence might go some way to settling the debate.

Have a look at the incident reports and see how many level busts there are involving N reg aircraft compared with G reg aircraft. Have a look at how many accidents there have been involving N reg aircraft compared with G reg aircraft. Of course, you will need to adjust for the significanlty different population levels of each group. I have only been through the filed reports for the last three years so far. An interesting project though.

It just makes me wonder why we have such heated debates without any reference to the accumulated evidence. It also makes me wonder why so many legislative changes are made without reference to the evidence.

On my usual tangent, argue as you will, all the eivdence points towards the IMCr being totally safe with incidents and accidents involving pilots with an IMCr being almost .. .. .. nil. Fact, not hearsay.

Ignoring the evidence is an insult to the intelligence of us all.

There is another insult.

Unfortunately there are many who will argue one is "better" than the other. What they are more reluctant to disclose is their vested interest. I dont suppose you would readily be promoting the FAA IR if you taught examined the Euro version or vica versa. Fortunately, protectionism of this sort, is a dirty word - or it should be when it comes to safety.

Shame the yanks dont refuse to supply us Europeans with Continental or Lycoming parts - after all their technology.