EASA FCL Update 15 Oct

[Mike Cross]

Latest news on the AOPA UK website here.
EASA FCL Update 15 Oct 10

[Whopity]

The Light Aircraft Flight Instructor (LAFI) rating was deleted. However, 'normal' FIs intending to instruct only for the LAPL

I can just see the new Limitation. " Abnormal Instruction only" and for the FIC providers we will have a Normalisation Course.

[Slopey]

Slight off topic, but would someone mind explaining what the whole point of EASA is?

In this age of financial austerity - if it ain't broke - don't fix it, and don't spend money on bureaucrats in Brussels finding problems for solutions.

Are there any specific problems which actually DO need to be addressed, over and above leaving the us with the status quo? And what will it offer over the much maligned (but thankfully nowhere as crazy as EASA) CAA?

This whole LAPL thing - will that add anything to the licencing options already available to us? i.e. the NPPL, PPL (in it's various forms) etc?

Each time I read a thread about EASA it seems to be self serving bureaucracy rather than anything of any value, however, I may be missing something which it WOULD be useful for. Can anyone enlighten me?

[IO540]

Slight off topic, but would someone mind explaining what the whole point of EASA is?

Clearly you haven't been in a taxi anywhere near where the EU operates £50 for a ride which in the UK would be £20, and you are given a receipt with a smile and without even asking for one. Restaurants are £50/head as a baseline (but very nice). Hotels start at £300/night and go to £1000/night if the city is hosting some EU function. When you reach the establishment, the biggest concentration of people is the queue reclaiming expenses. Quite simple really. It works like a magnet, except that a magnet will occassionally pick up some useful objects, and that magnetism is still not really properly understood, and when they do finally work it out, you will need a PhD in maths and a PhD in physics to be able to understand it.

Are there any specific problems which actually DO need to be addressed, over and above leaving the us with the status quo?

There are many things they could have improved, like simply introducing a more accessible IR (like the FAA one), but without introducing all kinds of other garbage designed to force the USA to sign some silly treaty.

One genuinely good thing EASA has actually done is made certification grandfathered pan-EU. I can't off hand think of anything else useful they have actually delivered, without introducing a load of other bollox at the same time which made the original thing practically worthless (like Part M).

EASA/Eurocontrol is evidently just a huge ego trip for a load of highly paid people.

[Slopey]

Oh I'm well aware of the EU gravy train And if they moved towards an accessible IR that would actually be useful.

I was wondering if I was missing the point of EASA, but it appears I'm not as there doesn't actually appear to be one, aside from justifying some highly paid people's existence.

[IO540]

Their overt objective is European standardisation.

Of course it sounds wonderful, especially with the magic word ("safety") in there

And nothing arouses stronger emotions (among people who haven't got a clue what they are voting on, which is most of them) than aviation safety. You climb into a 737 and you hand your life over to the two blokes up front ... this is powerful stuff.

But the way they are going about it is stupid. One should always try to enhance an existing system, not enhance a few bits while degrading other bits.

And it is a fantastic gravy train.

[Miroku]

I'm not sure this has told me anything at all.

Will the NPPL still be valid or does the LAPL take over with its attendant class 2 medical?

Is everything still up in the air?

[peter272]

I'm not sure this has told me anything at all.

Will the NPPL still be valid or does the LAPL take over with its attendant class 2 medical?

Is everything still up in the air?

Hmm - up in the air is not on EASA's agenda

[topoverhaul]

Nothing is fixed yet but it is likely that flying EASA Annex 1 aircraft which includes C152s PA28s etc., will require an EASA licence, either a LAPL or a PPL. An LAPL will not require a Class 2 medical and holders should be able to continue with an assessment of fitness endorsed by their GP, albeit at more frequent intervals.
Those flying Annex 2 aircraft such as microlights or homebuilts may still find that a NPPL fits their needs.

[peter272]

Nope

If you want to fly on a EASA LAPL as currently planned the medical declaration will not suffice. You need close to a Class 2 medical.

It MIGHT be possible for the UK to keep the declaration but this is nowhere near proposed or decided.

If you have an NPPL and declaration this is where it will go post 2012. Limited to UK airspace and permit aircraft. Forget about C152s or PA28s and start looking at permit types.

However ths is likely to change, but there is nothing in print yet

[IO540]

If you want to fly on a EASA LAPL as currently planned the medical declaration will not suffice. You need close to a Class 2 medical

That's a bit of a c0ckup, because almost the whole point of the NPPL turned out to be the avoidance of the CAA Class 2 medical. Almost the whole point of the LAPL will be avoidance of the Class 2 medical, similarly. Yet the LAPL will be invalid outside the EU so e.g. no flying in Croatia (Europe's most notable "aviation heaven" IMHO).

If you are going to do a sub-ICAO license then there is little point in making the medical standards this tough.

Especially as pilot incapacitation barely features in the data...

[Whopity]

Unfortunately, EASA has relied on committees where most of the members either have a vested interest, or no relevant knowledge resulting in the garbage they have put forward.

[topoverhaul]

It MIGHT be possible for the UK to keep the declaration but this is nowhere near proposed or decided.

It has been proposed and decided but still has to make it through the Opinion and comitology.