IMC rating - press briefing
I've re-sent it to [email protected]
......and just had it spat back:
- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
[email protected]; Failed; 5.4.3 (routing server failure)
So I've tried again with the correct address....hopefully!
......and just had it spat back:
- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
[email protected]; Failed; 5.4.3 (routing server failure)
So I've tried again with the correct address....hopefully!
Soon!
I've just got home and am having a bite to eat. But, suffice to say, it was a good meeting and things aren't as gloomy as you might think.
More when I've finished my Golden Palace Special Chow Mein!
I've just got home and am having a bite to eat. But, suffice to say, it was a good meeting and things aren't as gloomy as you might think.
More when I've finished my Golden Palace Special Chow Mein!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, edit to point out that this is a cut and paste from Pat Malone editor of GA Magazine who was happy for it to be distributed. I did not realise that there were some too retarded to actually read the text and realise it was cut and paste and therefore expend pages of drivel across the internet sidetracking from the issue as usual.
Most of the talking was done by Eric Sivel, EASA’s head of rulemaking. Ben Alcott, head of PLD at the CAA, was the other speaker. I’m writing it all up for the magazine, but in brief, Ben Alcott stressed how much the CAA supports the IMC rating and has argued for it at EASA (he’s right, too). But the UK is in a minority of one. Nobody else in Europe wants it. The national authorities, often in response to lobbying from airlines and professional pilots’ groups like the European Cockpit Association, are adamant that only an IR can be used for flight in IMC.
Having created this mess, EASA says it’s up to us to resolve it. Charitably, they say they’ll give us as much help as they can. They will arrange for a four-year transition in which the IMC will remain valid while attempts are made to bring the national authorities round to our viewpoint. If they do not come round in sufficient numbers, there is a device, Article 10(5) of EASA’s regulations, which allows a nation to claim an “equivalent safety case” and effectively gain a dispensation to go its own way on the IMC. This, Eric Sivel says, should be a last resort.
EASA’s attitude on this is unedifying; we are having to spend an enormous amount of time, effort and money to make sure nothing happens. There is no guarantee that we can pull it off, even under regulation 10(5). If we ‘file a difference’ the European Commission committee that oversees EASA must give its approval, and it is totally dominated by those who oppose the continuation of the IMC.
Most of the talking was done by Eric Sivel, EASA’s head of rulemaking. Ben Alcott, head of PLD at the CAA, was the other speaker. I’m writing it all up for the magazine, but in brief, Ben Alcott stressed how much the CAA supports the IMC rating and has argued for it at EASA (he’s right, too). But the UK is in a minority of one. Nobody else in Europe wants it. The national authorities, often in response to lobbying from airlines and professional pilots’ groups like the European Cockpit Association, are adamant that only an IR can be used for flight in IMC.
Having created this mess, EASA says it’s up to us to resolve it. Charitably, they say they’ll give us as much help as they can. They will arrange for a four-year transition in which the IMC will remain valid while attempts are made to bring the national authorities round to our viewpoint. If they do not come round in sufficient numbers, there is a device, Article 10(5) of EASA’s regulations, which allows a nation to claim an “equivalent safety case” and effectively gain a dispensation to go its own way on the IMC. This, Eric Sivel says, should be a last resort.
EASA’s attitude on this is unedifying; we are having to spend an enormous amount of time, effort and money to make sure nothing happens. There is no guarantee that we can pull it off, even under regulation 10(5). If we ‘file a difference’ the European Commission committee that oversees EASA must give its approval, and it is totally dominated by those who oppose the continuation of the IMC.
Last edited by S-Works; 23rd Jan 2008 at 12:19.
bose-x, that's not quite as I saw it!
After a quick brief from Ben and Eric to set the baseline, the most useful part of the meeting was the Q&A session.
Regrettably, there were some rather emotional comments made at the beginning of the session. But it is understandable and not unreasonable that people should feel free to speak their minds.
Eric, in particular, was a very tolerant speaker - who faced some harsh questioners. He went to great pains to stress that EASA's objective is to Find a European solution before the end of the (JAA to EASA) transition period. Which means that, at least until 2012 (at the earliest) the UK IMCR is safe - and thanks to clarification sought by the CAA, that includes initial issues!
The UK IMCR is most assuredly not dead. EASA and the CAA have stated quite categorically that they will work together to sort this out.
Please believe that EASA is not the enemy! The task of everyone involved in the issue is to work together to address the concerns of those, such as the European Cockpit Association, who have not been properly briefed about the UK IMCR.
I did manage to achieve a very useful point as a 'pack shot'*. I asked Eric whether the opinion of the Vice-President of the European Commission, Jacques Barrot, had any influence on the issue.....
"Well, if Jacques Barrot was against it, we would find it difficult to convince those nations who aren't supportive..."
I then realised that Eric didn't know something I did. Which was only released to www.ukimc.org and others yesterday...
"In which case, I think that the meeting should be aware of the following", I said, then read out significant extracts from this e-mail:
Eric was very pleased to learn of this - it will help greatly towards his efforts to make the nay-sayers understand the level of support which exists towards the UK IMCR.
So, all-in-all, a most useful meeting. The CAA is really on-side at all levels and its perspective is as follows:
After a quick brief from Ben and Eric to set the baseline, the most useful part of the meeting was the Q&A session.
Regrettably, there were some rather emotional comments made at the beginning of the session. But it is understandable and not unreasonable that people should feel free to speak their minds.
Eric, in particular, was a very tolerant speaker - who faced some harsh questioners. He went to great pains to stress that EASA's objective is to Find a European solution before the end of the (JAA to EASA) transition period. Which means that, at least until 2012 (at the earliest) the UK IMCR is safe - and thanks to clarification sought by the CAA, that includes initial issues!
The UK IMCR is most assuredly not dead. EASA and the CAA have stated quite categorically that they will work together to sort this out.
Please believe that EASA is not the enemy! The task of everyone involved in the issue is to work together to address the concerns of those, such as the European Cockpit Association, who have not been properly briefed about the UK IMCR.
I did manage to achieve a very useful point as a 'pack shot'*. I asked Eric whether the opinion of the Vice-President of the European Commission, Jacques Barrot, had any influence on the issue.....
"Well, if Jacques Barrot was against it, we would find it difficult to convince those nations who aren't supportive..."
I then realised that Eric didn't know something I did. Which was only released to www.ukimc.org and others yesterday...
"In which case, I think that the meeting should be aware of the following", I said, then read out significant extracts from this e-mail:
Dear (BEagle),
I'm writing to update you on the latest in our fight to save the IMC Rating.
We had a very productive meeting with Commissioner Barrot. It clarified a number of issues.
Firstly Mr Barrot says that he was committed to retaining a flexible license for light aviation pilots above the minimum safety standards. He was keen to stress his support for the IMC rating. Secondly he committed to a long transition period between the current regime and the reformed EASA-supervised one. Thirdly he agreed that he would consider our recommendation that pilots should be checked by specialised doctors with experience on complaints specific to pilots. The Commissioner agreed that he would ensure that this requirement was left up to each Member State.
The Commissioner agreed to he would keep our office informed on the progress of these and other issues relating to EASA. A public consultation on the issue is planned soon. For updates on this please see the Commission's own Aviation portal at http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/index_en.htm
If you need more, let me know.
Henri Colens
Office of Timothy Kirkhope MEP
Representing Yorkshire & the Humber
in the European Parliament
ASP 14E 264
Rue Wiertz
B-1047 Brussels
BELGIUM
in the European Parliament
ASP 14E 264
Rue Wiertz
B-1047 Brussels
BELGIUM
Eric was very pleased to learn of this - it will help greatly towards his efforts to make the nay-sayers understand the level of support which exists towards the UK IMCR.
So, all-in-all, a most useful meeting. The CAA is really on-side at all levels and its perspective is as follows:
- EASA-FCL consultation is assumed to start in March 2008.
- CAA will explore with EASA avenues to protect the privileges of current IMC rating holders.
- CAA will support EASA rulemaking group to review potential for a European solution.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a brief note from us at the IMCR campaign to say we were at the meeting. We have just been discussing at length the briefing.
Thank you BEagle for a solid summary.
We will update the web site at
www.ukimc.org
over the next few days, and will post further on here and else where.
However, the news is very positive.
Many, many thanks to EASA and to the CAA for taking the intitiative on such an important issue.
Thank you BEagle for a solid summary.
We will update the web site at
www.ukimc.org
over the next few days, and will post further on here and else where.
However, the news is very positive.
Many, many thanks to EASA and to the CAA for taking the intitiative on such an important issue.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: london
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x, that's not quite as I saw it!
http://http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40436
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle's summary is by far the more accurate of the two above.
I know this as I have just got back from the meeting and a subsequent lengthy discussion with Eric Sivel.
It was most interesting and illuminating.
It was also quite different from any previous presentation I have been to with the likes of CAA or EASA or NATS, most of which I left feeling utterly depressed regarding the future.
There is a very significant change under way and I would describe it mostly positively.
There is substantial work to do, to secure the future of the IMCR (or some equivalent privilege allowing IMC flight without the full IR) after the 4 year extension. But the process for this is reasonably clearly visible and could in fact lead to a Euro-wide privilege.
The greatest danger to GA and specific privileges are some of the GA representatives at the committees, representing narrow vested interests of their own organisation. EASA is very supportive of the matter.
I know this as I have just got back from the meeting and a subsequent lengthy discussion with Eric Sivel.
It was most interesting and illuminating.
It was also quite different from any previous presentation I have been to with the likes of CAA or EASA or NATS, most of which I left feeling utterly depressed regarding the future.
There is a very significant change under way and I would describe it mostly positively.
There is substantial work to do, to secure the future of the IMCR (or some equivalent privilege allowing IMC flight without the full IR) after the 4 year extension. But the process for this is reasonably clearly visible and could in fact lead to a Euro-wide privilege.
The greatest danger to GA and specific privileges are some of the GA representatives at the committees, representing narrow vested interests of their own organisation. EASA is very supportive of the matter.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that your battle isn't won yet. Despite what these people are 'predicting' it's still the final descission that will be the winner, not all the small victories. I hope you guys make it, but with the feeling i have in Euroland IMCR will never be approved for all of Europe, there are just too many people in Europe scared of GA pilots hopping around in their airspace.
Good to meet fellow PPRuNers at the meeting. And the value of the www.ukimc.org group cannot be understated!!
But - and it's a BIG but - please, please accept that the UK CAA and EASA regulators are very determined to make the sceptical folk in non-UK €uroland understand the value of the UK IMCR.
It isn't just the non-UK 'GA' groups - in particular it's the Commercial Pilot unions and bodies who must be convinced. We can only do this by:
I hope my fellow attendees will drop a quick e-mail to the CAA tomorrow to thank them for arranging today's session. As IO540 says, one of the most positive meetings regarding the future that I have had of recent times - and highly encouraging!!
But - and it's a BIG but - please, please accept that the UK CAA and EASA regulators are very determined to make the sceptical folk in non-UK €uroland understand the value of the UK IMCR.
It isn't just the non-UK 'GA' groups - in particular it's the Commercial Pilot unions and bodies who must be convinced. We can only do this by:
- Getting them to spell out their precise concerns
- Addressing each concern sympathetically - but firmly
- NOT stating "We Brits know best". That'll get us nowhere!
I hope my fellow attendees will drop a quick e-mail to the CAA tomorrow to thank them for arranging today's session. As IO540 says, one of the most positive meetings regarding the future that I have had of recent times - and highly encouraging!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Very, very well put.
Thank you for your support of the UKIMC.ORG but even more importantly thank you to everyone who has supported the camaign AND, even more importantly, for your continued support.
As BEagle says there is still much to be done.
On the contrary, I believe EASA is more than demonstrating their support for addressing the needs of GA.
[Edited to add that thanks thus far should also be extended to PPRuNe and BRL for enabling this issue to be so well aired over the last few months and for the sticky]
Very, very well put.
Thank you for your support of the UKIMC.ORG but even more importantly thank you to everyone who has supported the camaign AND, even more importantly, for your continued support.
As BEagle says there is still much to be done.
EASA’s attitude on this is unedifying;
[Edited to add that thanks thus far should also be extended to PPRuNe and BRL for enabling this issue to be so well aired over the last few months and for the sticky]
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A message of support and thanks for all those individuals and organisations that are battling for a pragmatic and sensible outcome on this issue. It's difficult to overstate its importance to the future of UK GA.
Slight link-glitch in friendly flyer's post - it should be:
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40436
Oh - and please let's not stoop to any internecine wrangling - let's work instead on our corporate synergy!
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40436
Oh - and please let's not stoop to any internecine wrangling - let's work instead on our corporate synergy!