DGAC unveil achievable IR for France

[noblue]

DGAC unveils achievable IR for France

Remarkable news from France . If you read French you can click here.

Let's hope the CAA and other NAAs both recognize the qualification and introduce their own versions asap.
A glimmer of hope for us FAA IR pilots?

COLRE

[SkyCamMK]

EASA IR related to French announcement??

Google translates this as:



The DGAC announced the launch of the French private IFR


Security, published Friday, June 24, 2011 by Editor

In a press release dated June 24, 2011, entitled "Private IFR: instrument flight open to private pilots," DGCA announced the completion of its work on the establishment of an IFR suitable for private pilots.

As she explains in its press release, " the Directorate General of Civil Aviation has decided to facilitate the access of private pilots to flight rating (IFR: Instrument Flight Rules) aircraft on single or twin piston. The organization and the length of the theory test questions are lighter and will be refocused on the knowledge actually required to practice instrument flying on this aircraft type. The practical training will be organized under the responsibility of an approved flight school with the possibility of a part of the program in the flying clubs covered by a protocol. The drivers will be able to adapt the pace of their training to their availability . "

France expects the regulations on private IFRPhoto: © Gil Roy / Aerobuzz.fr
DGAC states that " the redefinition of the review responds to strong demand for pilots, who felt the current requirements ill-suited to their practice which encouraged them more to obtain the qualification American. The new training should begin by fall 2011 . "

The DGAC has been careful to emphasize that " the French evolution was made ​​in a transparent vis-à-vis the EASA and the primary concern that these changes will inspire thoughts in progress and the transition to the new rules Europe will easily ". The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is currently working on a development of this qualification at the community level.

[BEagle]

They have merely adopted the provisions of JAR-FCL 1.175(b):

JAR–FCL 1.175 Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required

(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.

It will be interesting to see whether this Rating will be able to be used outside French airspace - my understanding is that it won't be. As is the case with the UK IMCR.

At least it'll cause a few surprises at the tower of €urobabble in Köln!

[IO540]

How many drachmas would you pay to be a fly on the wall in Goudot's office?

[noblue]

The new French IR, which will require 45 hours training and a single written exam, is ICAO compliant and I can see no reason why it should not be recognized abroad.

Now, I wonder what arrangements they will make for FAA rated pilots.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I'd not be surprised to see my own national administration following suit very soon, that is to say, as quick as they are able, which has never been impressive... And as we seem to be lacking a government, it might be impossible to turn the basic decision into law right now.

But they might well introduce a similar ruling. Whether they'd also recognise the French original seems a bit more doubtful, but it would be a nice addition.

[echobeach]

I am puzzled as to why this is labelled as so easily achievable and the JAA IR considered to be so difficult. I have given up waiting and with worries re imc, FAA ir, limited ppl ir etc and decided to do jaa multi ir. It's only 10 hours more than the French 'achievable' ir.
The written exams I have just finished and passed and started in jan. All done in spare time and if one is remotely interested in aviation all reasonably straightforward. Maybe not all relevant as IO540 will rightly point out*
I am trying to get this all done in 9 months to prove it's possible for an average ppl such as myself. At the end of the day seems less stressful than worrying about what will happen to my IMC rating or waiting for an 'achievable' 45 hr limited ir.

[patowalker]

The new French IR, which will require 45 hours training and a single written exam, is ICAO compliant and I can see no reason why it should not be recognized abroad.

French and German Class 2 medicals are ICAO compliant, but they are not accepted in the UK.

[David Roberts]

Of course, this is a French wheeze of putting pressure on EASA, which has been dithering too long over FCL.008. I see the hand of a certain Hughes xxxx in this before he left DGAC for private pastures new.

Unless EASA comes up with the 'EU goods' for a more proportionate IR, thereby giving the French the ability to cancel their IR in favour of a new EU IR, the French will be left with an IR that cannot legally be used by pilots of aeroplanes within the scope of EU rules.

Bet there have been 'conversations' between senior guys at EASA and DGAC on this. The senior (French) guys are in the same 'club'.

[IO540]

Most of the work in the JAA IR is not the flight training. It is the stupid irrelevant theory with the 7 exams.

The 45 hrs is probably about what most ab initio pilots will need anyway, one way or the other. It would however be excessive to force it all to be dual time at an FTO, with no allowance for any previous IR etc. Such a requirement (which the present JAA IR basically has) is both bluntly disproportionate, and pointlessly expensive. I'd like to see the details of the French proposal.

Great news, anyway.

[englishal]

As usual, we in Great Britain form committies, groups, organisations to discuss this at great length (over Whisky at the boys club no doubt) then approach EASA and grovel with them, and when they tell us to run and jump, we do. Whereas the French just announce that this is what we are doing, get used to it.

No wonder France is listed as one of the top countries to live in these days. We roll over and take it from these Europlebs, they say Up Yours. Viva La France !

[patowalker]

Comment on the forum where the news was posted:

"Pas mal. Si je me souviens bien en 1980 on en parlait déjà.", which loosely translates as "Not bad. If I remember correctly, they were already talking about this in 1980"

[IO540]

the French will be left with an IR that cannot legally be used by pilots of aeroplanes within the scope of EU rules.

I don't see why.

There is no "international police" - except NATO and similar and they won't get involved in enforcing EU directives.

Maybe China would do it for a 10% kickback, when they get their new aircraft carrier sorted?

Every country has sovereignity within its own airspace and can tell EASA to sod off. The EU cannot do anything about it - especially now that the EU has almost disintegrated (anybody read a newspaper anytime in the last few weeks?).

And France will always get its way. Goudot is French and his career prospects upon his return to French political life post-EASA would be nil, zero, zilch, nonexistent if EASA screwed up French aviation.

I have spoken to some top French aviation execs about the EASA proposals, ages ago, and their reaction is "hmmm, this is serious, hmmm" and they go back to their bottle of wine, despite maybe 50% of their European sales being N-reg and it being patently obvious that there is no way most of their (middle aged plus) single pilot customers are never going to grind through a JAA IR. They just "know" that on the last day the DGAC will stick a finger up to the EU.

The FCL008 IR has a very long way to go through the EU sausage machine. A great idea but relying on it to magically arrive intact on a particular date in April 2012 is just silly. The Germans haven't got their hands on it yet, for starters. And AFAIK nobody worked out a FAA IR to FCL008 IR conversion route, and without that it is all basically a waste of time.

[David Roberts]

IO

A correction. The EU FCL rules will not be a Directive but primary EU law. As in 'Regulation' and 'Implementing Rules'. i.e.statute law. Each member state is responsible for compliance and the EU police in this case is the standardisation division of EASA. It is not a question of national sovereignty over airspace, it is the fact that all aircraft within the scope of EU airworthiness rules will have to be flown by pilots with an EU licence (or 'third country acceptance' criteria), including the various ratings etc. A Directive is a different thing and has to be adopted specifically by each member state in national legislation. EU Regulations do not - they over-ride national law automatically.

Now I would expect any problems over French compliance to be discussed over a good lunch and bottles of wine, but....

Remember, at the political level, if France (and Germany) put up the proverbial finger to the EU then it is all over. Very unlikely, despite current difficulties over the euro and Greece etc.

As for FCL.008 output, we have to wait and see (I know, it's been a long time...). Let's assess the NPA when it is published, rather than pre-judge it. I know the EASA officials are very conscious of the importance of the ('simplified') IR, conversions etc etc. As for the date of implementation, it cannot possibly be April 2012 and that's why I have lobbied for some time to have sensible continuity and transition provisions which I am sure will be put in place.

Anyway, I would guess the French IR plot has the connivance of EASA.

[IO540]

Remember, at the political level, if France (and Germany) put up the proverbial finger to the EU then it is all over. Very unlikely, despite current difficulties over the euro and Greece etc.

I don't think it is so clear cut.

The only EASA output so far to make law is the Basic Regulation. This is so vague it is worthless. For example is says the EU has authority over foreign regs. Well, what else could it say? That the EU has no authority over foreign regs? Nobody would have voted for such an abdication of sovereignity, so everybody voted for the BR. It's an old political trick.

And nobody has a real issue with the BR. It merely states (vaguely or otherwise) the infinitely long established present position which is that if the CAA rep at LHR sees a Thai 747 whose engine is about to come off, they can ground it and it will stay grounded until somebody comes along and tightens up the engine bolts

It is all the stuff in the EASA pipeline that is the problem. None of it is EU law yet, and all of it is subject to " a good lunch and bottles of wine, " etc.

It is the anti foreign reg provisions in the later stuff, not law yet, which have been dishonestly justified by EASA as being required by the BR (which is already law) which are subject to change if somebody makes a really strong stand.

It's like Bob Geldof going on stage and saying "tonight we will abolish poverty" and after everybody cheers (and everybody with more than 2 braincells knowing it is just plain daft) BG then sends the military to take over Africa, etc That's essentially what EASA has done - a fairly basic political trick.

If say France sticks a finger up to the EU at this stage on the IR, the EU will have to modify the stuff in the pipeline, otherwise (as you say) the EU game is over. It's quite a gamble, but France will always win that one because it is not worth fighting over in Brussels. Not when Greece is about to bring the whole edifice down anyway.

[Pace]

makes you wonder why our own CAA doesnt back france up and state they will do the same?

pace

[IO540]

I think there are 3 issues:

1) The UK CAA has never had a top level connection to EASA; the EASA top brass is mostly French

2) Most people with a brain left the UK CAA within the past two years

3) France has a very high level of integration across its political/industrial elite. This is frowned upon in the civilised world because it blocks transparency of Govt and corporate behaviour (it is basically corruption) but this is the only way to deal with EASA, which has been carefully set up to be relatively unaffected by straightforward commercial lobbying. If EASA was run by Germany, we would all be stuffed years ago.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I can not see the relevant press release on teh DGAC site; has someone found it on there?

FD

[patowalker]

No. But then they have all been at Le Bourget this week, where the announcement was made.

[vfr-uk]

This has appeared on the French AOPA site

Point sur l'avancement de l'IR privé et des sujets associés -French

And google translated: Google Translated AOPA Page