EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS

[Timothy]

it is a European specialty

I think you'll find that it's speciality

[FREDAcheck]

I think you'll find that it's speciality

A pedant after my own heart!

We're a dying breed.

[Timothy]

...not a pedant, just highlighting another transatlantic difference.

[Fuji Abound]

BEagle

Timothy, thank you for your kind words! The main frustration at the moment is having to cope with unqualified comments from those who simply haven't bothered to understand what's on offer.....



Forgive me, but that is a little harsh. It is the job of the regulator and our representative bodies to inform, as much as the individual to be informed.

The law making process to be effective should be consultative and if if is not dont expect the law to be necessarily effective or supported.

I am not convinced that the rank and file have much idea what is going on even if they have made considerable effort to be informed. That is more the fault of the messengers than the recipients. Worse still the mesengers seem to be unclear themselves or as equally caught up in smoke screens, politics and subterfuge. Dont be entirely surprised if the great unwashed are reduced to speculation, gossip or willful mischief making. Even aopa for some while seemed uncertain which horse to back and why, lest we forget.

Clear and concise statements of what is on the table, why and who supports what is still in very short supply - a transparent process it is not.

[soay]

Originally Posted by FujiAbound

caught up in smoke screens, politics and subdifuse

More pedantry: I wonder if any spell checker can figure out that subdifuse probably means subterfuge?

[Timothy]

While (whilst?) using this site, I'm particularly amused by the spell checker correcting whatever UK spelling I might use into US spelling.

My guess is that the spellcheck will be coming from your browser, not PPRuNe, so the settings are at your control.

I use Chrome (the best of all browsers at the moment) and you right click an underlined word, choose spell-checker options, and you can select your language.

[proudprivate]

Guilty until proven innocent ???

can understand FAA/IR's getting upset to a degree

I assume you mean "up to a degree, I understand FAA/IR's getting upset".

The degree to which the FAA/IR's themselves are upset varies according to the following parameters :

- having been the recepient of disingenuous communications both orally and in writing by reasonably to extremely generously paid European civil servants and politicians

- having invested a non-negligeable amount of time and money in flight training and currency experience which threatens to be become invalid or very cumbersome to convert

- having witnessed first hand a regulatory process devoid of democratic control, transparency or proper statistical or scientific motivation

- having been the victim of discrimination

In motorsport we often use the term "The spirit of the regulations", and as soon as you try to use the letter of the regs to your advantage, knowing that it wasn't what was originally intended, it's always a short lived benefit. I know this doesn't 100% apply here, but it's close.

Being a PPL for less than 1 year, I don't think you grasp the situation here. I also think you are unaware of either the history, the spirit or the letter of the regulations. If you were, you would probably be more upset.

In transport, as opposed to motorsport, we don't often use the term "the spirit of the regulations", because regulations in the transport sector infer a direct cost. That is why it is imperative that any regulation has a properly balanced and motivated safety reason behind it.

Imagine the following regulation, not entirely dissimilar to the situation we experience now :
"UK drivers who wish to use their motor vehicle on the continent should sit an exam to assess their capabilities of driving on the right hand side of the road as well as their knowledge of traffic regulation differences between the UK and France, Germany and Italy".

[421C]

Clear and concise statements of what is on the table, why and who supports what is still in very short supply - a transparent process it is not

What exactly is the transparency you are looking for?
At this point David Robert's and Beagle's posts have summarised what is on the table (ie. NPA2011-16, including the proposed IMCR grandfathering) and the position of UK stakeholders that, additionally, the UK would like to see a continuation of the IMCR rather than just grandfathering.

Precisely how the UK authorities will pursue the latter is not something, I guess, they are going to detail for it to be published on PPRUNE, in the same way that most of the negotiation and horse-trading that goes on in the world isn't made transparent on internet forums.

The other obvious transparency on "why and who supports what" is through the CRT process - all the responses end up in the public domain, so you will be able to see exactly who supported what and why in hundreds of pages of minute detail. At present I think all the representative bodies are drafting their CRT comments. If you are a member of one of the GA representative organisations, then I imagine there are channels whereby you can input your views in the drafting process.

brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

421C - as you have said the process is not transparent, so you didnt really need to ask the question of me. Whether as much as any political process is transparent is another debate; we all know the reality is that it isnt.

Whether AOPA, the CAA, EASA and other commentators have manged to give the best possible, clear and concise advice on what is or isnt likely to happen is much more debatable. If you had been involved in the process since the start (and perhaps you have) the conflicting reports that have been published, the changes of stance and the political posturing have been a truly disappointing reflection on the whole process.

National qualifications have been with us for ever; how these were to be accomodated in the process could have been set out very much earlier on, and in this much the Regulators have failed us all.

[421C]

National qualifications have been with us for ever; how these were to be accomodated in the process could have been set out very much earlier on, and in this much the Regulators have failed us all

No, it was set out very clearly right at the start of the process. The same 2008 EU law that gave EASA power over FCL made it clear there would be NO accomodation for national qualifications that did not become EASA FCL qualifications.

Whether AOPA, the CAA, EASA and other commentators have manged to give the best possible, clear and concise advice on what is or isnt likely to happen is much more debatable.

I think broadly the position people have taken for a long while has been
- IMCR grandfathering: possible
- IMCR continues as a UK qualification: unlikely
- IMCR adopted as an EASA qualification: utterly unlikely
No-one has been able to give clearer answers because no one has had clearer answers.

as you have said the process is not transparent, so you didnt really need to ask the question of me. Whether as much as any political process is transparent is another debate; we all know the reality is that it isnt.

No process is totally transparent. Firstly, because some processes are unstructured and managed situationally. No-one can give you "transparency" on how the euro crisis is going to be solved, because no-one knows. Secondly, some elements of a process are going to be private. If you disagree, you are welcome to join Julian Assagne in a campaign to end privacy in anything. But some UK stakeholder is going to go to Brussels to negotiate stuff with EU peers without telling you on PPRUNE in advance what their negotiating position and strategy is.

As I said, I think there has been reasonable transparency to date and where commentators have conflicted it's because no-one knew the answers. The transparent EASA FCL-NPA-CRT-CRD-Comitology process has given it's answer - no IMCr, other than grandfathering. If you want to pursue the cause through a transparent process, then that process is the EU legislative one - getting the law changed. Otherwise, there is an opaque process of cutting a deal somewhere that no-one can tell you much about. Personally, I wouldn't give it better than a 20% of working, but then I am probably wrong because I know no more than you do.

brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

The same 2008 EU law that gave EASA power over FCL made it clear there would be NO accomodation for national qualifications that did not become EASA FCL qualifications.

Exactly. A complete absence of clarity on which national qualifications would and wouldn’t be embraced by EASA.

I think broadly the position people have taken for a long while has been
- IMCR grandfathering: possible
- IMCR continues as a UK qualification: unlikely
- IMCR adopted as an EASA qualification: utterly unlikely
No-one has been able to give clearer answers because no one has had clearer answers.

You only re-enforce my point because you confuse the debate with a very different process:

No-one can give you "transparency" on how the euro crisis is going to be solved, because no-one knows.

No one knows the out come of the Euro crisis because it is not a regulatory process. A regulatory process is artificial and controlled by its perpetrators. A regulatory process is born from a perceived need to pass legislation to address a problem (in this case the need for uniformity in aviation regulation throughout the Community). The process should comprise consultation, to establish how the legislation should be framed to address the problem, proposing legislation, further consultation to identify any deficiencies in the proposal, and enacting. Broadly this is precisely what has taken place. Unfortunately the consultation was poisoned by national interests, stakeholder self interest, international politics and an agenda which was known to be unpopular and therefore was covert.

None of these elements have any place in the safe conduct of aviation.

You and I have had similar debates before. I always enjoy our debates and you always put your arguments eloquently. In some respects however you and I live in very different worlds. I fully understand why some never wanted the process to be clear and I fully understand that is often the way of politics. Never the less that neither makes it right, nor does it ensure a desirable outcome.

In the case of aviation, and in particular General Aviation, the population is so transient and the representation so ineffective that there are few of us already that remember when this debate started let alone will be around at the end of it. Of those, few have the desire or energy to do anything about it. For those reasons the “Regulator” may get away with murder, but it says something when the Commission overseeing the whole process has had to take EASA aside on a number of occasions already and read them their fortune.

No, the process was poisoned from the start, bereft of clarity (albeit I would concede possibly by intention) and in consequence has become bogged down in one delay after another, statement, retraction and eventually silence, so in as much as you and I agree you are quite safe in your earlier comment that “no one has any clear answers”.

It is a farce, you know it, I know it, and this forum leaves us in very little doubt.

Will any good come of it? Well I am an optimist – I think we are getting there, but my goodness it is model if you repeated in industry would be a sure certain way of quickly ending up in the London Gazette listings.

In so far as it has any similarity with the Euro crisis it does in this much - a Europe which is bereft of the political will to face up to its United responsibilites because the politicians cant escape their national interests.

[thing]

Without having to plod through pages of I'm sure worthy text none of which I understand because I just fly for pleasure and have no interest in Euro stuff other than it would be a good idea to shoot a few of them at random now and again just to keep them on their toes, what is happening to the IMCR? There are three possible answers:-

1. No one knows.

2. It will be grandfathered/you can still use it in the UK as per normal.

3. It will be scrapped and the money I'm spending now will be wasted other than the extra flight training in precise flying it will give me.

The rules are that you can't give any answer other than the three options above. Don't be afraid to say no one knows, your standing will not shrink because of it.

[IO540]

In the case of aviation, and in particular General Aviation, the population is so transient and the representation so ineffective that there are few of us already that remember when this debate started let alone will be around at the end of it. Of those, few have the desire or energy to do anything about it. For those reasons the “Regulator” may get away with murder

That's a brilliant summary.

In any regulatory activity, the unelected incumbents will always run circles around elected politicians, and it's doubly bad in GA because the vast majority of the players are just passing through.

But on this occassion I think it is not worth worrying about it. I really do think the IMCR will survive in some form.

Anybody comtemplating the IMCR should just get on with it anyway because "VFR" capability is vastly enhanced by instrument skills Even taking the normal legal stuff, like flying in 3000m vis, requires radio nav. So do other things e.g. night flight, flying over the sea into the sun, etc. IMHO, every pilot should be able to make a seamless transition from visual flight to instrument flight, as necessary. Every flight should be planned and executed as IFR, with visual conditions being regarded as a bonus. Much safer.

[Fuji Abound]

Thing, I am not sure whether you are asking a question or making a statement?

For fun I am going to assume you are asking a question and give you an answer,

1. There are those that think they know, there are those that dont know but would like you and I to think they do, there are those that might know but arent going to tell you and I, and there are those that are still trying to change what they think they know will happen.

2. Who knows, but most people who think they know, think it will.

3. There are those that are happy to see you spend your money and would be even more happy for it to be wasted but no one knows or if they do they arent saying whether those that are happy to see you waste your money know or whether the current concensus is correct that those who arent saying but believe there will be grand father rights know.

Is that clear?

[Fuji Abound]

That's a brilliant summary.

Thank you.

and so are you further comments.

[thing]

Thing, I am not sure whether you are asking a question or making a statement?

For fun I am going to assume you are asking a question and give you an answer,

1. There are those that think they know, there are those that dont know but would like you and I to think they do, there are those that might know but arent going to tell you and I, and there are those that are still trying to change what they think they know will happen.

2. Who knows, but most people who think they know, think it will.

3. There are those that are happy to see you spend your money and would be even more happy for it to be wasted but no one knows or if they do they arent saying whether those that are happy to see you waste your money know or whether the current concensus is correct that those who arent saying but believe there will be grand father rights know.

Is that clear?

I like the cut of your jib sir!

It was a genuine question, but alas as I suspected option 1 applies.

Don't forget that many of us who fly well are partially stupid and don't understand the machinations of the greatest gravy train in history and so need concise replies from those who understand these things.

[Fuji Abound]

I like yours as well, Sir!

so need concise replies from those who understand these things

now that is were my friend 421C claims he is able to help us all.

Here is EASAs reply to your said same questions:

1. Maybe,
2. You will have to ask the French,
3. Dont worry you definitely havent wasted your money, we know in EASA how to put all money spent in the pursuit of aviating to a very good use - in that much we want to be absolutely clear, until you ask us to account for how we have spent your money, in which event you will have to ask someone else, but we want to assure you it has been well spent. Of that much we are certain. In fact come to think about it, it is the only thing we are certain about at the moment. Otherewise, we refer you to answer 1 above.

[thing]

Can't we just bomb them? Make it look like an accident? We have plenty of combat qualified guys in the RAF. I reckon we would get away with it. There may be repercussions, questions asked in the house, some senior heads roll etc. But I reckon it might be game on if we could get some support.

[Fuji Abound]

PS I was just thinking about the CAAs response to the question - what is going to happen to the IMCr.

Apparently, they say this is still to be decided - is that the same as saying no one knows? Certainly it would seem they dont know, or if they do, they arent saying.

So the trouble with bombing the lot of them is that it would seem none of us know whether we will be blowing up something that is "good" or something that is "bad".

I am calling it a night, left only with the thought that you couldnt make it up if you tried - reality is a whole lot scarier than make believe.

[proudprivate]

Can't we just bomb them?

We have given this ample thought already. My own idea was to buy a second hand SU-27 and fly the missed approach at Cologne-Bonn, which should put us close enough to the river to finish the job.

Others have suggested to put the British aviation heritage to good use by deploying xh558, but then using better droppings than they had at Stanley.

Make it look like an accident?

It's possible, but it would be tricky for an RAF pilot to explain. The Luftwaffe also does most of their training in the US. USAF action is hairy too, as it might be misinterpreted in the context of the Bilateral Safety Agreement negotiations. Best is probably to engage some friends at Kleine Brogel. They've done it before.

So the trouble with bombing the lot of them is that it would seem none of us know whether we will be blowing up something that is "good" or something that is "bad".

To quote David Roberts, "I wouldn't worry too much about that"