CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The problem is that this
17. As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically demonstrated by recent accidents, that commercial operations in the Community of third country operators shall be covered. This is the way the United States of America do currently with Federal Aviation Regulation called Part 129. This is less clear for other forms of operations. There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing
some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.
is dishonest bull!!!!!. There is no safety case supporting this. What "recent accidents" that are statistically significant against the demostic reg fleet? The accident rate of foreign regs is actually lower than domestic regs. Hardly suprising when you land at random airports and see most of the nice hardware being foreign reg whereas the stuff with grass growing around the (somtimes flat) tyres is some clapped out domestic reg.
This
is a standard way of getting something through. It's a malicious rumour, and confirms that the anti N reg proposals are the private project of some individuals. Hitler uses these methods to rally the German population against the Jews. Actually the rumour I heard is that it was Sivel himself who was the subject of some one-finger gesture. It is also bull!!!!! because every CAA has the right to inspect and ground an unsafe aircraft. The UK CAA has grounded some foreign airliners, with some Thai one a famous example.
What each CAA can't do, I gather, is inspect an aircraft to see if it complies with State of Registry maintenance requirements, in detail.
Sivel told me, personally, that the CAAs will get this power, and a power to impose fines if non-compliant, and that this would be the full extent of the anti N reg measures. This was in 2008.
The principle is, but the principle has always existed. Like I say above, the oversight has always existed, to a sufficient degree.
The BR is vague enough to be aligned with the existing system, which was previously not explicitly stated.
The BR got through because it is so vague it means more or less nothing that doesn't happen already, as a result of each EU country having a sovereignity within its own airspace. If you propose a law saying the foregoing, as the BR does, of course everybody is going to vote for it, because to do otherwise is to chuck away the sovereignity!
What EASA did was propose a law along the lines of Bob Geldof saying on stage "tonight we will abolish poverty".
17. As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically demonstrated by recent accidents, that commercial operations in the Community of third country operators shall be covered. This is the way the United States of America do currently with Federal Aviation Regulation called Part 129. This is less clear for other forms of operations. There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing
some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.
is dishonest bull!!!!!. There is no safety case supporting this. What "recent accidents" that are statistically significant against the demostic reg fleet? The accident rate of foreign regs is actually lower than domestic regs. Hardly suprising when you land at random airports and see most of the nice hardware being foreign reg whereas the stuff with grass growing around the (somtimes flat) tyres is some clapped out domestic reg.
This
Rumour has it that when an NAA official wanted to enforce ICAO standards on an EU-resident N-reg operator, the operator simply pointed to the N registration and made a slightly less than cordial gesture at the NAA official, knowing that they would get no assistance from the FAA. Article 4(c) was an overzealous payback for the gesture, a "last laugh". But I'm sure that's just rumour... Because if it were true, it would be verging on malicious wouldn't it?
What each CAA can't do, I gather, is inspect an aircraft to see if it complies with State of Registry maintenance requirements, in detail.
Sivel told me, personally, that the CAAs will get this power, and a power to impose fines if non-compliant, and that this would be the full extent of the anti N reg measures. This was in 2008.
But it's a done deal, as the BR became law years ago.
The BR is vague enough to be aligned with the existing system, which was previously not explicitly stated.
The BR got through because it is so vague it means more or less nothing that doesn't happen already, as a result of each EU country having a sovereignity within its own airspace. If you propose a law saying the foregoing, as the BR does, of course everybody is going to vote for it, because to do otherwise is to chuck away the sovereignity!
What EASA did was propose a law along the lines of Bob Geldof saying on stage "tonight we will abolish poverty".
Last edited by IO540; 19th June 2011 at 15:23.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Bookworm
I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?
The FAA are still ultimately responsable for the aircraft and licences, The EASA licences hold no relevance and are not legal to be used on the FAA aircraft.
EASA Licences would be an EASA requirement to hold to be able to fly N reg in Europe.
A far cheaper, fairer and easier way to give EASA that control would be by operating a system that is already in place.
EASA could issue ongoing annual excemptions from holding those licences.
Naturally those excemptions are not there by right so that any misbehaving EU resident flying N reg would not have that excemption renewed until the authorities agreed to do so or the misbehaving pilot complied.
Pace
I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?
The FAA are still ultimately responsable for the aircraft and licences, The EASA licences hold no relevance and are not legal to be used on the FAA aircraft.
EASA Licences would be an EASA requirement to hold to be able to fly N reg in Europe.
A far cheaper, fairer and easier way to give EASA that control would be by operating a system that is already in place.
EASA could issue ongoing annual excemptions from holding those licences.
Naturally those excemptions are not there by right so that any misbehaving EU resident flying N reg would not have that excemption renewed until the authorities agreed to do so or the misbehaving pilot complied.
Pace
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I don't understand why it is so hard for EASA to "control" foreign aircraft. If an EASA man ramp checked me somewhere and said "ok lets see evidence of your last annual, and as you were flying IFR evidence of your pitot static checks, as per the FAA FARs". Easy peasy. Even I could ramp check IO540 and find out if he was flying legally or not.
On a related note, on our G reg some years ago, we "forgot" an annual. It transpired it expired 7 months previously (on checking the logbooks because we thought it was sometime around *now*).....Of course this was pre ARC and all that wonderfully expensive stuff, but we even forgot a calendar 6 monthly once too....
...soooo my question is....how does being on the G or N make any difference to oversight?
One other question I have - how come our ARCs were completed year on year without the ARC man ever seeing our aeroplane, and how come when we decided to sell it, he wanted to see it to cover his arse and then managed to draw up a list of things requiring attention?
I just can't see this having ANY safety impact.
(and the EU residency thing is bull!!!! anyway, no one has managed to state what will happen to Norwegian's flying N reg's?).
On a related note, on our G reg some years ago, we "forgot" an annual. It transpired it expired 7 months previously (on checking the logbooks because we thought it was sometime around *now*).....Of course this was pre ARC and all that wonderfully expensive stuff, but we even forgot a calendar 6 monthly once too....
...soooo my question is....how does being on the G or N make any difference to oversight?
One other question I have - how come our ARCs were completed year on year without the ARC man ever seeing our aeroplane, and how come when we decided to sell it, he wanted to see it to cover his arse and then managed to draw up a list of things requiring attention?
I just can't see this having ANY safety impact.
(and the EU residency thing is bull!!!! anyway, no one has managed to state what will happen to Norwegian's flying N reg's?).
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?
It is just a finger up to America.
Anyway, the EASA-required license isn't "equivalent". EASA accepts your existing ICAO Type Rating so e.g. a Lear pilot "merely" needs to pass the 14 CPL/IR 95%-garbage exams and get a JAA CPL/IR (ME) in a beaten up Seminole. If it is his own Lear then he just need to get a JAA PPL/IR (ME).
Like I say, it is just a "we are Europe and we do our own thing here, so a finger up to you" to the USA.
in understanding their motivation we may have more chance of persuading them of the error of their ways
One could influence minor aspects of their rulemaking but the big stuff is the private project of a small number of top people there and they won't budge unless comprehensively defeated by the EU parliament, or forced down by some directive from above which will prob99 be under the table.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
It doesnt
Bookworm has a point that it could be perceived faa pilots and n reg aitcraft "hide" behind their papers. I am not suggesting their papers are any more or less gold plated but enforcement action when required is likely to be more challenging
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
It depends on whether you consider theory or practice.
Sure the FAA doesn't bust pilots over here. But no CAA can bust pilots outside its own country; they rely on ICAO provisions whereby the State where the pilot can be "found" is supposed to go after the pilot. I know from my own experience that this can happen
But no European CAA does any meaningful ramp checks anyway, and the UK CAA does virtually nothing (on GA).
What the CAAs tend to do is do nothing, until somebody really p*sses them off and then go and bust him. The UK CAA has busted pilots who flew on FAA papers and who p*ssed them off by doing something provocative; the CAA can refuse to recognise non-UK papers (including medicals) in UK airspace.
Whereas the FAA is very pro-active in going after transgressions in the USA... and I am sure that if an American pilot did something bad over here, and the UK CAA complained to the FAA about it, the FAA would go after him - assuming he is USA resident of course so they can get hold of him.
So all this stuff about "oversight" is all meaningless really because the domestic CAAs don't do any oversight on their own fleets, and if they really did and did it 100% diligently, much of European GA, not to mention a lot of flight training planes, would be grounded. A lot of maintenance companies, including EASA-145-approved ones, would also be shut down immediately. There is clear circumstantial evidence that nobody touches organisations which pay fat fees to the CAAs, and that includes maintenance companies, and anybody with an AOC.
I have met some idiot pilots on the FAA scene here who told me straight that nobody can touch them, and this included some instructors, and we all know the stories of some UK-based FAA training ops where the wheels came right off (the Cessna twin fatal crash being one of the more famous ones) but this is no worse than what goes on on the domestic reg scene all the time, where a certain % of pilots are idiots too, and a certain % of instructors are cowboys (as I well know too).
Sure the FAA doesn't bust pilots over here. But no CAA can bust pilots outside its own country; they rely on ICAO provisions whereby the State where the pilot can be "found" is supposed to go after the pilot. I know from my own experience that this can happen
But no European CAA does any meaningful ramp checks anyway, and the UK CAA does virtually nothing (on GA).
What the CAAs tend to do is do nothing, until somebody really p*sses them off and then go and bust him. The UK CAA has busted pilots who flew on FAA papers and who p*ssed them off by doing something provocative; the CAA can refuse to recognise non-UK papers (including medicals) in UK airspace.
Whereas the FAA is very pro-active in going after transgressions in the USA... and I am sure that if an American pilot did something bad over here, and the UK CAA complained to the FAA about it, the FAA would go after him - assuming he is USA resident of course so they can get hold of him.
So all this stuff about "oversight" is all meaningless really because the domestic CAAs don't do any oversight on their own fleets, and if they really did and did it 100% diligently, much of European GA, not to mention a lot of flight training planes, would be grounded. A lot of maintenance companies, including EASA-145-approved ones, would also be shut down immediately. There is clear circumstantial evidence that nobody touches organisations which pay fat fees to the CAAs, and that includes maintenance companies, and anybody with an AOC.
I have met some idiot pilots on the FAA scene here who told me straight that nobody can touch them, and this included some instructors, and we all know the stories of some UK-based FAA training ops where the wheels came right off (the Cessna twin fatal crash being one of the more famous ones) but this is no worse than what goes on on the domestic reg scene all the time, where a certain % of pilots are idiots too, and a certain % of instructors are cowboys (as I well know too).
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
I have met some idiot pilots on the FAA scene here who told me straight that nobody can touch them, and this included some instructors, and we all know the stories of some UK-based FAA training ops where the wheels came right off (the Cessna twin fatal crash being one of the more famous ones) but this is no worse than what goes on on the domestic reg scene all the time, where a certain % of pilots are idiots too, and a certain % of instructors are cowboys (as I well know too).
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Which Cessna twin crash?
I would imagine he is talking about the Biggin Hill Citation crash?
Regardless there are stupid pilot error crashes on both regs.
The main point here is that having dual licences wont give EASA that control over incidents in FAA aircraft that they dont have at present.
All they could do is to threaten to suspend the EASA licence bit thus making future flights illegal but that would also work by letting European Residents fly on their existing licences on annual continuing excemptions.
So we have to beg the question WHY!!!
Is it because N reg is now so prolific in Europe that EASA just want to stop them? Or some sort of protectionism?
If thats the case why dont they just do what most people do in a free world and offer something equally attractive instead off beating the people they are supposed to represent into submission.
I am actually starting to smell a possible court case against EASA if they remove N reg IRs and the IMCR and put nothing comparable in its place.
The accident statistics for those pilots will without doubt increase and EASA will go to court for killing pilots through their legislation.
That with their mandate of a safety legislator makes the whole thing laughable if it wasnt so serious.
Somehow I dont think EASA have really thought all this out or realised the possible consequences or more likely have just tried to find a legal solution to N reg and dont want to think through the consequences.
Pace
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,402
Likes: 858
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
I do hope that all those expressing their concern on this forum about the €urocratic nonsense which is EASA will have expressed the same concern to their MEPs!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
It wasn't the Biggin one I was referring to. That one may have been an illegal charter but that would have been due to lack of an AOC, not because the plane itself was N-reg. Loads of illegal charter is done in G-regs.
I think EASA is acting on under the table pressure from the usual axe grinders (FTOs, assorted envy merchants, national CAAs after some revenue, etc) to curb the N-reg community.
They would have examined the obvious option which is a long term parking ban (tried by France and the UK in 2004/05, and still sporadically and of-necessity arbitrarily practiced in Denmark, and practiced similarly in much of the 3rd world) and found that it cannot be enforced without huge complications, so they looked at other ways, and creating a requirement for a second set of hard-to-get papers is an easy thing to draft and, once it is law, most pilots (who consider themselves affected) will self-enforce in order to maintain their insurance.
They will either stop flying overt IFR (basically, fly VFR in both VMC and IMC, and ask for a popup IFR clearance when absolutely necessary; not exactly a safe procedure), or they will do the exams etc, or they will give up flying long distances.
The FTO pressure would have come from the elitist N European FTOs but they are not the ones who will be making money out of this; most IR conversions will be done in Spain and Greece. The only revenue will be from the instructor payment for the annual IR renewal.
A charitable view might be that EASA genuinely think that requiring the second set of papers will improve safety but everybody with a brain who has been anywhere the process knows this is bogus, because the JAA IR ground school is a load of bollox with almost no relevance to aviation, and the flight training teaches you nothing of relevance that you don't know already as an FAA IR pilot who actually flies to places.
Is it because N reg is now so prolific in Europe that EASA just want to stop them?
They would have examined the obvious option which is a long term parking ban (tried by France and the UK in 2004/05, and still sporadically and of-necessity arbitrarily practiced in Denmark, and practiced similarly in much of the 3rd world) and found that it cannot be enforced without huge complications, so they looked at other ways, and creating a requirement for a second set of hard-to-get papers is an easy thing to draft and, once it is law, most pilots (who consider themselves affected) will self-enforce in order to maintain their insurance.
They will either stop flying overt IFR (basically, fly VFR in both VMC and IMC, and ask for a popup IFR clearance when absolutely necessary; not exactly a safe procedure), or they will do the exams etc, or they will give up flying long distances.
The FTO pressure would have come from the elitist N European FTOs but they are not the ones who will be making money out of this; most IR conversions will be done in Spain and Greece. The only revenue will be from the instructor payment for the annual IR renewal.
A charitable view might be that EASA genuinely think that requiring the second set of papers will improve safety but everybody with a brain who has been anywhere the process knows this is bogus, because the JAA IR ground school is a load of bollox with almost no relevance to aviation, and the flight training teaches you nothing of relevance that you don't know already as an FAA IR pilot who actually flies to places.
Last edited by IO540; 20th June 2011 at 10:18. Reason: grammar
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Beagle
Is the odd letter from posters in this forum going to make a lot of difference?
AOPA seem to have gone very quiet on the subject of late and it will only be something which scares EASA or them hitting a legal block which will make for a change.
Maybe ideas to AOPA or a comparable body would be better placed than to an MEP who will only be fobbed off?
EASA would be more scared as a safety body of the threat of being legally challenged on the grounds of their LACK of safety legislation than anything else.
IMO its the lack of safety angle which we should use against them! Frankly that can easely be demonstrated should they eliminate the IMCR and FAA IR without sidestepping existing European N reg pilots smoothly and cost free into an equal European alternative.
Pace
Is the odd letter from posters in this forum going to make a lot of difference?
AOPA seem to have gone very quiet on the subject of late and it will only be something which scares EASA or them hitting a legal block which will make for a change.
Maybe ideas to AOPA or a comparable body would be better placed than to an MEP who will only be fobbed off?
EASA would be more scared as a safety body of the threat of being legally challenged on the grounds of their LACK of safety legislation than anything else.
IMO its the lack of safety angle which we should use against them! Frankly that can easely be demonstrated should they eliminate the IMCR and FAA IR without sidestepping existing European N reg pilots smoothly and cost free into an equal European alternative.
Pace
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
It wasn't the Biggin one I was referring to. That one may have been an illegal charter but that would have been due to lack of an AOC, not because the plane itself was N-reg. Loads of illegal charter is done in G-regs.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Pace
What is the safety argument?
EASA may well say, FAA pilots you can have your IR, go sit the exams and the check ride. It just so happens our IR exams and check ride are different from the US exams and check ride, and we are entitled to not accept an FAA IR unless the conditions for its use are met. In short you have an equivalent safety alternative and nothing is being withdrawn that was granted to you in the first place by an EASA member state.
In point of fact I think they have a more difficult safety argument with the IMCr if they remove the entitlement from existing holders. In this event the existing holders have a legal case that a right is being withdrawn which was granted to them by a full standing member of EASA and for which the pilot has paid. Moreover in the absence of any grandfather rights or entitlement to an IR they are being denied a safty tool which they have porperly acquired within the Community. If for no other reason I think this is why EASA recognise "dealing" with the IMCr is legally much more difficult and why they will have to address the position of existing rating holders either by a lifetime grandfather or a transition into an equivalent or "better" rating.
I suspect they can do what they like with FAA IRs and a legal challenge would be a complete waste of time.
Doesnt mean I agree with their position however.
What is the safety argument?
EASA may well say, FAA pilots you can have your IR, go sit the exams and the check ride. It just so happens our IR exams and check ride are different from the US exams and check ride, and we are entitled to not accept an FAA IR unless the conditions for its use are met. In short you have an equivalent safety alternative and nothing is being withdrawn that was granted to you in the first place by an EASA member state.
In point of fact I think they have a more difficult safety argument with the IMCr if they remove the entitlement from existing holders. In this event the existing holders have a legal case that a right is being withdrawn which was granted to them by a full standing member of EASA and for which the pilot has paid. Moreover in the absence of any grandfather rights or entitlement to an IR they are being denied a safty tool which they have porperly acquired within the Community. If for no other reason I think this is why EASA recognise "dealing" with the IMCr is legally much more difficult and why they will have to address the position of existing rating holders either by a lifetime grandfather or a transition into an equivalent or "better" rating.
I suspect they can do what they like with FAA IRs and a legal challenge would be a complete waste of time.
Doesnt mean I agree with their position however.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Fuji
I have no problem with EASA requiring FAA pilots in Europe to sit a differences exam (prob Airlaw) but on safety why only European resident FAA Pilots? Do we have different grey matter between our ears ?
There are roughly 67000 European FAA pilot in Europe! remove their ability to safely fly in the airway system and force them OCAS and I guarantee the death rate will increase dramatically, no doubt about it.
That will be a direct result of EASA regulation a supposed safety body.
You talk of FAA IR pilots as if its something new and just discovered by EASA which has to stop it in its tracks!
FAA in Europe has been an accepted practice for over 30 years. EASA have a moral obligation to offer an equivalent At minimal cost and time.
Regarding the IMCR grandfathering an ability to carry on the practice but not the rating means that new pilots will not have that safety rating and will stoop to the bad accident statistics of the French.
EASA have a responsibility to 67000 pilots who will be left up a creek with no paddle.
Pace
I have no problem with EASA requiring FAA pilots in Europe to sit a differences exam (prob Airlaw) but on safety why only European resident FAA Pilots? Do we have different grey matter between our ears ?
There are roughly 67000 European FAA pilot in Europe! remove their ability to safely fly in the airway system and force them OCAS and I guarantee the death rate will increase dramatically, no doubt about it.
That will be a direct result of EASA regulation a supposed safety body.
You talk of FAA IR pilots as if its something new and just discovered by EASA which has to stop it in its tracks!
FAA in Europe has been an accepted practice for over 30 years. EASA have a moral obligation to offer an equivalent At minimal cost and time.
Regarding the IMCR grandfathering an ability to carry on the practice but not the rating means that new pilots will not have that safety rating and will stoop to the bad accident statistics of the French.
EASA have a responsibility to 67000 pilots who will be left up a creek with no paddle.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th June 2011 at 20:30.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Bristol
EASA - a terrorist organisation
It would be not unreasonable to say that given the chance, various terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda would like to bring down a plane or two in Europe and kill some pilots and passengers.
Thousands of people are working hard to ensure that this does not happen, and (to me) it seems unlikely that it will.
If MEPs were to sit idly by, and actually allow a law to be passed [with even some MEPs agreeing with it] that would permit Al-Qaeda to - in all likelihood - kill perhaps dozens of pilots and passengers over the next 5 years, and wipe hundreds of millions of Euros out of European aviation - you can imagine the outcry.
~~~~~~
Now substitute 'EASA' for 'A-Qaeda'.
EASA, if they are allowed to continue in the way they are doing now, will be by far the most 'successful' terrorist organisation in Europe.
Thousands of people are working hard to ensure that this does not happen, and (to me) it seems unlikely that it will.
If MEPs were to sit idly by, and actually allow a law to be passed [with even some MEPs agreeing with it] that would permit Al-Qaeda to - in all likelihood - kill perhaps dozens of pilots and passengers over the next 5 years, and wipe hundreds of millions of Euros out of European aviation - you can imagine the outcry.
~~~~~~
Now substitute 'EASA' for 'A-Qaeda'.
EASA, if they are allowed to continue in the way they are doing now, will be by far the most 'successful' terrorist organisation in Europe.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Oh my god..... Melodrama to the ultimate extent.
Why on gods earth do you think that EASA requiring dual Licencing is going to cause aircraftt to plummet from the sky? Get real. It's a major inconvenience and will curtail the activities of those unprepared or unable to comply but it is hardly going to be the cause of mass deaths.
To achieve the goal of getting the regulation changed you need to work on the economical issues not the meo,dramatic ones.
Why on gods earth do you think that EASA requiring dual Licencing is going to cause aircraftt to plummet from the sky? Get real. It's a major inconvenience and will curtail the activities of those unprepared or unable to comply but it is hardly going to be the cause of mass deaths.
To achieve the goal of getting the regulation changed you need to work on the economical issues not the meo,dramatic ones.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
Bose
It is not melodramatic! We know the bad accident rate of the french compared to us with instrument training.
The IMCR is a proven safety rating.
In the same way what do you think the thousands of FAA IR pilots will do? All convert to EASA IRs ? Sorry but that has not happened to date.
Why do you think 67000 migrated to N reg? Have EASA done something to attract them back? I wish they had!
What do you think those 67000 pilots will do? a small minority will convert the majority will work with what they have got which will be a much higher risk invironment.
They will be forced to Fly OCAS in minimal weather with all those inherant risks and pilots will without doubt be killed due to EASAs unwarrented meddling.
Is there a practical or safety reason for all this? Sadly NO!
Pace
It is not melodramatic! We know the bad accident rate of the french compared to us with instrument training.
The IMCR is a proven safety rating.
In the same way what do you think the thousands of FAA IR pilots will do? All convert to EASA IRs ? Sorry but that has not happened to date.
Why do you think 67000 migrated to N reg? Have EASA done something to attract them back? I wish they had!
What do you think those 67000 pilots will do? a small minority will convert the majority will work with what they have got which will be a much higher risk invironment.
They will be forced to Fly OCAS in minimal weather with all those inherant risks and pilots will without doubt be killed due to EASAs unwarrented meddling.
Is there a practical or safety reason for all this? Sadly NO!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th June 2011 at 20:58.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Bristol
Bose-X,
Glad you appreciated my post.
Look at the cause and effect; what will in all likelihood happen if EASA continue, not the la-la land you would like to happen where all N-reg pilots just say "yes I'd love to do the JAA IR and I'm happy to spend the time and money" and everyone flies on the same but just with a totally unnecessary additional qualification.
As Pace says, without doubt, many current pilots with FAA IRs will not get JAA IRs, a small number will get into trouble in IMC when their skills are rusty and some will die: these, who would not otherwise die, but for the deliberate and carefully planned actions of EASA, who know in advance that this will almost certainly be the result of their actions.
Interestingly, a Danish MEP suggested a while ago that "EASA [is] the biggest threat to aviation safety in Europe", so it shows that at least one MEP appreciates the effects EASA is having (and will have in the future).
Glad you appreciated my post.
Look at the cause and effect; what will in all likelihood happen if EASA continue, not the la-la land you would like to happen where all N-reg pilots just say "yes I'd love to do the JAA IR and I'm happy to spend the time and money" and everyone flies on the same but just with a totally unnecessary additional qualification.
As Pace says, without doubt, many current pilots with FAA IRs will not get JAA IRs, a small number will get into trouble in IMC when their skills are rusty and some will die: these, who would not otherwise die, but for the deliberate and carefully planned actions of EASA, who know in advance that this will almost certainly be the result of their actions.
Interestingly, a Danish MEP suggested a while ago that "EASA [is] the biggest threat to aviation safety in Europe", so it shows that at least one MEP appreciates the effects EASA is having (and will have in the future).
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Playing devils advocate here.
If I was looking at the comments here I would be reading that FAA pilots won't or can't be bothered to convert and will just carry on regardless. As a result there will be more accidents?
What am I to think about that?
Let's make it clear, there will not be more accidents because the rules have gold plated requirements but because pilots will choose to act illegally.
Now who has the screaming argument about illegal actions?
Come on guys, you will only win by presenting a logical case.....
If I was looking at the comments here I would be reading that FAA pilots won't or can't be bothered to convert and will just carry on regardless. As a result there will be more accidents?
What am I to think about that?
Let's make it clear, there will not be more accidents because the rules have gold plated requirements but because pilots will choose to act illegally.
Now who has the screaming argument about illegal actions?
Come on guys, you will only win by presenting a logical case.....