IMC proposal

[TWR]

What do you define as quality ? Personally I find a broader background knowledge a better quality that I don't find in the FAA-system. I can't say it makes me a better/safer pilot because I don't know that. The EASA-ppl/IR and the FAA-ppl/IR are not the same / have different qualities. Pick the ones that suit you most. The outcome should be the same: we move in the same airspace and we all know what we are talking about.

I can't imagine studying the IR(A) in two weeks. But honestly I can't even imagine doing the basic PPL theory in that timeframe...

[dublinpilot]

I would love if the IMCR in the UK was extended around Europe. I'd be first in the queue to get it.

If an enroute IMC rating became available, but didn't include any instrument approaches, then I'd probably still get it, but I'm not so sure how often I'd use it.

At present, my licence allows me to fly VFR on top of an overcast (provided I can get up there and back down VFR). However it's a privlidge that I rarely use. It's something that I only do when I must, and always only when there are sufficient holes visible to get back down. I won't fly on top based on my destination being clear of cloud.

So all this additional rating would provide me would be the ability to climb on top and desend in IMC, (I wouldn't need to be VMC). The problem I see with this, is that I'd only NEED (not necessarily want, but only NEED) this privlidge when the cloud base was very low. Ie. I'm not happy below the cloud base, and want to find nicer weather above it. Now if I choose to use this rating to get above it, it might be difficult to get back down if the cloud base is so low enroute.

Of course as the rating is current proposed, it's pretty much irrelevant. VFR on departure, and VFR on arrival.......I can do that on my basic PPL, flying above an overcast. What I can't do is fly IMC enroute, but that's hardly much of an advantage.

I just can't see myself flying IMC enroute, or above an overcast with no way down, and now approach training or privilidges, while trusting that the weather won't change at my destination. It would only be a matter of time before I found myself in serious trouble.

dp

[englishal]

I'd be happy with a EIR which allowed me to take off, fly IFR in all classes of airspace and then shoot a precision approach at the other end. Piece of cake.

Maybe one could then add new approach "ratings" to the ticket, like get "GPS" or "VOR" rated?

There should be a minimum of a Precision approach capability as frankly anything else is a waste of space.

[BEagle]

So what is the alternative to the EIR? Well, actually it’s relatively simple in concept. EASA has already proposed that certain regulatory proposals should apply ‘where so permitted under national law’, so AOPA considers that the very same principle should apply to the IMCR. Within Europe, there are widespread differences both as regards categories of airspace and the flight rules which pertain within such airspace. For example, flight in IMC outside CAS is forbidden in certain Member States, whereas flight under IFR is mandatory at night in the UK. There is no uniformity, neither is there likely to be for many years. Even if airspace categories were simplified and unified across the EC, there is no guarantee that the flight rules applicable within such airspace would be. Hence AOPA’s position is that there should be a part-FCL Rating, with privileges no less than those of the UK IMCR, which could be used in Member States ‘where so permitted under national law’. In other words, if a non-UK EASA PPL holder wants to fly in the UK using such a Rating in Class G airspace, he/she would be quite welcome to do so subject to possessing adequate English language proficiency. But if a UK pilot wanted to visit a country which had decided not to accept the Rating in their airspace for whatever reason, then that would be entirely that nation’s right. No-one would be ‘forcing the UK IMCR on Europe’, instead they would be offering it as a model of a safe sub-ICAO instrument qualification which Member States might wish to consider accepting in appropriate areas of their national airspace.

[IO540]

You are right about the 7 exams; sorry...

But

It took me 4 months of daily study, combined with a full time job to be ready for the exams

is way way way over the top for the operational TK actually required for IFR flight - especially knowing how little present fresh JAA IR holders know about operational stuff.

4 months daily study is obscene.

EASA has already proposed that certain regulatory proposals should apply ‘where so permitted under national law’,

Well, there's your solution

That is quite a shift from their previous position, which was total uniformity across the EU.

[Pace]

Beagle

If that was the case then that would be to admit that EASA does not exist.
What you are saying and correct me if I am wrong.

Each country can have its own regulations and its up to the other member states to decide whether or not to accept those individual regulations? a free for all and no EASA? Oh well sounds brilliant

Thats great as back to the good old days I can trundle over to Ireland and get my FAA ATP converted to an Irish ATP as before a free for all around Europe.

Pace

[IO540]

I think the status quo should remain.

That would please everybody who is actually FLYING

I still cannot get my head around the (as proposed by EASA FCL) precedent of stripping currently licensed and active pilots of their privileges. This has AFAIK never been done, anywhere, in the past.

I am not sure whether the proposal was drafted by a bunch of "out of touch with reality" non-flying axe grinders in a closed room, or whether they got legal advice (which would be pretty complex, given the ICAO / international aviation issues) and found they can pull this off. My money would be on the former, because the relevant parts of the proposal are clearly poorly drafted (e.g. "residency" is not defined) and if they really did the full legal/political due diligence they would have done a better job of drafting it afterwards.

[Fuji Abound]

Chaps

This is a very important debate and even more important it is aired regularly so the changing population of private pilots is well aware of what is at risk and why.

However, it is also important that we are conscious very little will happen until EASA finally release their proposals on FCL generally and on the future of the IMCr specifically.

At that point in time it is even more important that if we do not like the lie of the ground we are prepared to "do something about it".

[BEagle]

It seems that NPA17 comments to EASA have now passed the 30000 mark - each of which must receive an individual response.....

Can anyone really see all this being settled by 2012?

Time to rethink the Basic Regulation and to devolve competency for sub-ICAO matters to national authorities under €uropean subsidiarity principles.

[Fuji Abound]

They will have a job but anything is possible with unelected and almost unaccountable quangos which operate behind closed doors with every member sworn to secrecy so unless one breaks cover none of us have any real idea what forces drove the legislation in the first place.

Democracy - I dont think so.

[dublinpilot]

It seems that NPA17 comments to EASA have now passed the 30000 mark - each of which must receive an individual response.....

Last time they didn't get individual responses. EASA broke them down into some basis questions and responses, and simply said that these group of people were included in this answer etc.

[David Roberts]

EASA has already proposed that certain regulatory proposals should apply ‘where so permitted under national law’,

Let's get things right. EASA has not proposed this. The Basic Regulation (216/2008) used this phrase in the context of the GP medical. The Basic Regulation is a Commission-drafted proposal that was passed by the Council and the Parliament. It is primary EU law, which is why it is called a Regulation. And the reason that phrase got into the Regulation, as distinct from the Implementing Rules - the next level down of lawmaking -for FCL, which rules are being drafted by EASA for Commission review / approval, was because the UK DfT negotiated it on our (particularly UK) behalf in 2007. I know, because.......

So for the AOPA solution for the IMCR to work may be the Basic Regulation would have to be changed. That's not to say it would have to be; there are other ways of adapting the legal framework, so maybe it - retaining the right to use IMCR in the UK but on an EU licence - will be one solution.

Now as regards FCL.008, that task group's work is quite separate from the main FCL proposals which are currently being reviewed in the light of the comments received from the recent NPA consultation. The review groups include 'industry' experts, including some from the GA community. The planned publication date of the CRD for FCL is March 2010 (medical part 2 months later) when all will have another opportunity to comment further on the revised proposals. EASA is still planning, under recent strict direction from the Commission, to deliver the FCL Opinion to the Commisson by mid 2011 for the start of implementation by April 2012. However, there is a strong possibility that the GA elements will be spread over the following three year period. This is particularly necessary to allow time for member states / NAAs to provide grandfathering transitions from some national licences, as well as get their heads around the final rules once they are published in the OJ in late 2011 or early 2012.

The FCL.008 NPA is expected in the first half of 2010, and then you can comment. Until then much of this speculation is misplaced. The EASA rules of engagement prevent me from correcting mis-placed speculation but one of the FCL.008 group members is planning to publish some real information soon, with the agreement of EASA. At the latest count I think there may be a pleasant surprise, and not a 'chocolate teapot', even if the UK centric views of a few are not fully realised as regards a pan-EU IMCR.

The UK CAA is, I am led to understand, fully behind trying to preserve the IMCR. How they achieve that remains to be seen, but the influence it has is not to be underestimated.

I say once again, the work of the officials at EASA, work which is at the bidding of the EU and within the constraints of EU law as delivered so far by the political classes, is not all bad. Some of it is, but not all. The recent change of EASA's direction at the behest of the Commission might just bring some light at the end of the tunnel. But until it does we do not give up our work in representing the interests of GA, particularly the non-commercial sectors.

In my view, the hope that sub-ICAO licences will be 'returned' to member states is but wishful thinking, because if for no other reason the aircraft within the scope of EASA airworthiness rules, already in place, and flown by pilots with sub-ICAO licences, would also have to be removed from EASA control. I can't see that happening. The other reason is the Basic Regulation would have to be amended, and that would be a significant stepback from the broader and political EU agenda, nothing to do with EASA.

[wsmempson]

Thanks for the response, David - most helpful. I watch and wait with interest.

I was aware that this topic had been 'done to death' on this forum, but one of the 'other places' suggested that there was a concrete proposal on the table. I now understand that this is not yet the case.

Best regards, Saul

[Pace]

David

In your opinion concerning foreign reg aircraft flown by foreign licenced pilots in Europe, could these pilots be discriminated against by as it was put "residency" rules?

ie at the top end of GA there are many foreign reg corporate aircraft and jets flown by foreign licenced pilots in Europe. The European Pilots earn a living from flying these aircraft but could be discriminated against and loose their income because they happen to be European rather than American.

On the lower end of GA many aircraft are owned and flown on N reg! could those private pilots/owners suffer hardship and financial damage through regulations which inhibit their operations and with no redress?

Maybe not so much to do with the IMCR but especially with Private N reg small GA a lot to do with it.

May I add getting rid of N reg has been tried many times before and failed. Surely the best way to get rid of N reg in the so called "freedom of choice and free world" is to put something more attractive in place?

Pace

[BEagle]

David,

The €urocrats can dress it up however they please, but if

where so permitted under national law

has been used for one element, they would have a difficult task opposing the idea that the same clause could equally be applied to other elements.

Anyway, 30000 comments and counting would indicate that the whole of NPA17 is a total and utter crock and that EASA should be sent back to the drawing board as regards part-FCL.

[Pace]

where so permitted under national law

has been used for one element, they would have a difficult task opposing the idea that the same clause could equally be applied to other elements.

Yes hopefully use that clause to eliminate the whole European thing lock stock and barrel and all go our seperate ways as its done nothing to further the expansion of aviation in Europe top to bottom.
Then just incorporate the tried and tested FAA system which would have saved the industry Billions of Euros over the years and I am not just talking about FCL.

Pace

[Rightbase]

Sadly ...

Then just incorporate the tried and tested FAA system which would have saved the industry Billions of Euros over the years

No committee ever wants the obvious solution. Far too boringly sensible to further the members' careers.

But if they can find a formula that will work but is so complicated in its structure that nobody realises it boils down to very nearly - but not quite - the obvious solution, that might be a safe career builder. Especially if they use lots of long sentences.

But hey, they only affect the bits of paper I carry, and the journeys I can set out on. They can't stop me getting and keeping current in skills that might save my life one day.

[englishal]

I think that they should go back to the 1500hr check ride for ATPL issue.
It is nuts to expect someone from a pilot factory with 200 hrs in an aeroplane (and 50 in the sim) to be at a standard "capable of commanding" a 747 with 400 souls onboard .....

By all means make the candidate sit ATP exams then and learn everything there is to know about the 737 FMS and nat tracks when they have built up some real world experiece.

....which is what many people realised years ago, pre-JAR....

Then there wouldn't be all this nonsense with the gold plated JAA IR which for the average PPL is far to gold plated.