EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS

[Timothy]

If you guys stepped back for a minute and looked at the effort and resources the CAA (and NATS and RAF) are throwing at keeping recreational aviation flying during the Olympics, you would be a little less rude and dismissive about their efforts to retain the IMCR, in the best available form within the law.

Equally, there are many people at EASA (not all of them, I concede) who are trying to find the best solution to satisfy as many people as possible.

By all means slag off the experiment to make Europe one superstate; by all means criticise the Commission and the European Parliament for being self-serving and politically motivated, but please remember that the CAA for certain, and many elements of EASA are working their socks off to make this change as low impact as possible.

So let us not just slag them off, especially if we, by our own admission, cannot be bothered to find out what's really going on.

[FREDAcheck]

By all means slag off the experiment to make Europe one superstate; by all means criticise the Commission and the European Parliament for being self-serving and politically motivated

Thanks, I probably will

but please remember that the CAA for certain, and many elements of EASA are working their socks off to make this change as low impact as possible

I dare say that's true, but we don't get to hear much about that. Lots of talk about things having to be done behind closed doors, can't tell you too much but trust us...

Yes, I do understand that, but in an open society we positively don't trust anything that goes on behind closed doors, and nor should we. However hard people are working for us, when things are not exposed to the harshest light of public scrutiny (even for good reasons) they must expect skepticism and at times criticism, even if unjustified. Goes with the territory.

[Fuji Abound]

Timothy - I think you got out of bed the wrong side this morning. I dont see anyone suggesting the CAA arent working hard on these issues (well not in any of the recent posts or my posts in particular), albeit it has to be said we only have your assurance and the assurance of a few others on which to base that conclusion. If I were a cynic they could well be feeding you what they want and you could be gullible enough to believe it - not that I am seriously suggesting that is the case.

Frankly I get fed up with comments along the lines "dont worry, we are working hard in your best interests"! Let it not be forgotten that the job of any Regulator is to be transparent, to inform and to respect their committment to those they serve. However hard these people are working it is quite clear to me that they have not been transparent and the process has been to date poorly managed. If you wanted any more convincing evidence I cant imagine the Commission would have read EASA their fortune unless there was a reasonably compelling reason for doing so.

As to your frequent comments about people being bothered (or not) with regards to finding out what is taking place thing in his earlier post was spot on so far as I am concerned - and so I need concise replies from those that understand these things. I see no good reason why the average pilot should be bothered any more than the average taxpayer shoudl read through 75,000 pages of tax legislation that is published every year.

With regards the IMCr and the CAA as I said earlier their reply is certianly concise after nearly three years of this process - the CAA doesnt know. Well if they dont know, I guess no one knows. Worringly one suspects they do know, or have a jolly good idea - but they are not saying. That would be reasonable at the start of this process, it would be reasonable after a year of consultation, it might be reasonable after two years of consultation but it is no longer reasonable.

By any test the process is not a model of open governance.

As I said earlier I am an optomist; I hope and believe a reasonable outcome will be reached. I also believe there are some good people working to protect the interests of GA. I hope I am right.

With respect I think your post is out of touch with everything I read and in almost every discussion I have with other pilots which is a worry. What you and I think about eveyone joining AOPA and pooring over every utterance of EASA and CAA may all be very well, but it is not going to happen. People will not join AOPA because they are told they should, and they are not going to read the legislation when they have barely got enought time to deal with everything else life throws at them. Life just aint like that, unless you are part of the ranks of us sad lot that get some weird satisfaction from a good debate!

[proudprivate]

especially if we, by our own admission, cannot be bothered to find out what's really going on

Excuse me ? Cannot be bothered to find out what is going on ?

Some of my friends and I have from way back worked our socks off, voluntarily, to find out what was going on, by placing phone calls, writing letters, requesting information and what not, usually either to be stonewalled by some overpaid legal pond scum or to be lied to in our face.

Equally, there are many people at EASA (not all of them, I concede) who are trying to find the best solution to satisfy as many people as possible...[and] to make this change as low impact as possible.

We can only hope for reason to prevail and as low an impact as possible.

Failing that and a failing a proper dialogue, the only other thing a citizen or an organisation can do is take a few institutions to court. As far as I can tell, the European Commission does not benefit from "Crown Immunity".

[Timothy]

A group of us were asked the other day whether we thought that people who made outrageous threats on internet fora were a real threat that needed to be considered a risk (this was in the context of Olympic security planning.)

The general consensus was that those who made the most online threats were probably the ones least to worry about.

Any of you who really wants to know what's going on can join the effort of the representative organisations. I personally can speak only for PPL/IR and AOPA, but both organisations suffer from too little member involvement, not too much.

You can attend AOPA Members Working Groups and you can observe the PPL/IR Executive Committee. You can then volunteer to attend meetings with EASA, CAA and NATS and ask all the questions you like.

Or you can sit at home on a forum and threaten to sue.

Your call.

[Fuji Abound]

Timothy - I thought we were in for a little debate, but then you spin the usual party line.

By all means go on encouraging people to join AOPA, PPL/IR etc and remind everyone what a good job they are doing. I have no doubt they contribute to the process with varying degrees of success.

The fact remains that less than 10% of the GA population sees fit to join - if I were selling something, it would rather make me look at how I was going about it, than having a go at the punters.

Still, I have no doubt AOPA et al think they know best.

History on the other hand would suggest it is actually their call to make.

Thee is an old saying about waking up and smelling the coffee but it is difficult when you head is beneath ten feet of sand.

[proudprivate]

Any of you who really wants to know what's going on can join the effort of the representative organisations. I personally can speak only for PPL/IR and AOPA, but both organisations suffer from too little member involvement, not too much.

I happen to have personal issues with PPL/IR and with IAOPA, in particular with respect to their stance towards FAA PPL/IR's at some occasions in the past, which is why I don't join them. That is a purely personal choice and is off-topic here. I'm a contributing member of several other organisations, though.

Or you can sit at home on a forum and threaten to sue.

That is what several people I have spoken to are contemplating at the moment. I don't think they sit at home and I don't think the threat is in vain. That being said, going to court is something you only do as a last resort, because it is costly (around the price of an ab initio PPL-training) and results aren't due for about 12-18 months, more if the Commission or EASA are dragging it (a likely event in a serious court case).

Of course one should comment on NPA 2011-16. As as organisation, preferably, but also as an individual. I would urge everyone that can read or write to register for EASA's CRT application and produce meaningful, productive comments. This includes skimming through a 200+ pages legalese document with a yellow marker and thinking through possible solutions over a cuppa in bed at night. Not my favourite activity, but hey, we have only a few passions in life, and flying is one of them.

That being said, if my experience is anything to go by, my well thought through comments will be studiously ignored, as will those of many even more experienced pilots, flight instructors and examiners, no matter how reasonable and how astutely formulated.

All in all, I think your "black and white" representation of facts and categorizing of people is misplaced at best and I would urge you to introspect on this.

[Timothy]

The fact of the matter is that the representative organisations are invited to EASA and the Belgrano, our opinions canvassed and our representations taken into account. That is a process taking place all the time. The upshot is better regulation based on rational discussion.

At the beginning of the Olympics process, when the Spooks were telling us that whatever we said they would do what they wanted, I started a process towards Judicial Review. DfT (particularly in the form of Theresa Villiers) and CAA jumped in, pushed back against the HO and won the day. Now the discussion is rational.

So we can all make up our own minds. If you think that legal action or the threat of legal action will have a beneficial effect, have a go. When the HO thought that they could get away with draconian force, we had to look to the judiciary. But my view is that while the other side are willing to talk, and CAA and EASA are very open to talk about IR, EIR and IMCR, the best thing to do is to talk.

[421C]

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

I don't understand your strange pursuit of an impossible "clarity". Aren't the normal process steps involved obvious? I will try and spell it out.
First step: the EU passed a law (Basic Regulation) saying EASA would have scope over FCL and all pilot quals in Europe would have to be EASA ones, ie. nothing national.
At this point, no-one had decided what those EASA quals would be. But there was a process to decide:
Second Step: AFTER the Basic Regulation empowered them to do so, EASA set up FCL001, wrote an NPA, got CRT responses, published a CRD, got responses to that, published a Final Opinion, it went through the Comitology Process and became EU Law.
This second process determined, as you say, "which national qualifications would and wouldn’t be embraced by EASA". Your problem is that you want an impossible combination of "clarity" and "transparency". Clarity emerges from a process. If you want transparency, you will see the process workings before answers have emerged - therefore no "clarity" on the answers. If you don't want answers unless they final and definitive, you won't get them until the very end of a process and then will claim no transparency.

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

No, you are confusing two different processes. Yes, there is a structured regulatory process as you described. It's the one I described involving the BR-FCL NPA-CRT-CRD-Final Opinion-Comitology. The problem is that process worked as it is meant to, but gave an answer you didn't like - no Euro-IMCr. There is no such structured process to resolve secondary issues like grandfathering and national opt-outs/exceptions/flexibility. It is an unstructured negotiation. Hence my analogy with the euro crisis. No-one can give you more "clarity" on either of those two unstructured processes. Let me illustrate. If the UK government reps offered nothing except a thank-you letter in order for the EU to exempt the UK and allow the IMCr to continue, I believe they would be unsuccessful. If they offer $10bn of aid to Greece in return, I believe they would be successful. What exactly the negotiation/discussion will be, what its paramaters and trade-offs and constraints will be I have no idea and I think it's silly to expect "clarity" on this.

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.

I think it's simpler than that. The other EU countries didn't want the IMCr as a Euro rating.

I fully understand why some never wanted the process to be clear and I fully understand that is often the way of politics..............Worringly one suspects they do know, or have a jolly good idea - but they are not saying..............By any test the process is not a model of open governance

What exactly do you think is being kept hidden?

"and so I need concise replies from those that understand these things. ....With regards the IMCr and the CAA as I said earlier their reply is certianly concise after nearly three years of this process"

So what you are saying is you want a concise reply, but you don't like the reply you got? What are they expected to reply? Until the actual instrument by which the IMCr is grandfathered is enacted, there can be no certainty. Anything can happen at the last minute. So if you want an answer you can depend upon, you have to wait until it is certain. And until it's certain, people will tell you they don't know if they are accountable for answers they give.

I still don't understand what you think, specifically, you are being kept in the dark about?

brgds
421C

[proudprivate]

and CAA and EASA are very open to talk about IR, EIR and IMCR, the best thing to do is to talk.

Agreed. And it is not because some of these people deserve to be shot, that one shouldn't grasp every opportunity to talk, to opine and to negotiate. Or in this case, participate in an NPA.

It is indeed my impression that certain unaccountable government elements can be coerced into a rational discussion when legal action is a real possibility, if only because it can negatively influence their (political) career. I wouldn't put all my cards on it, but I would advise any person affected to gather and maintain a proper documentation trail in case of necessity.

The fact of the matter is that the representative organisations are invited to EASA and the Belgrano, our opinions canvassed and our representations taken into account. That is a process taking place all the time. The upshot is better regulation based on rational discussion.

In theory yes. In practice thus far as regards for example Part-FCL001 Comitology no. I hope you're not representing that FCL001 and NPA 2008-17b was an exponent of better regulation based on rational discussion.

That doesn't mean things can't improve though.

[Fuji Abound]

So what you are saying is you want a concise reply, but you don't like the reply you got?

No, that is as removed from what I said as it is possible to get.

To suggest that my views stem from whether I like the reply or not does you little justice. From the point of view of my own self interest I couldnt careless what happens to the IMCr. I have fought hard for its retention and have set out on many occasions my reasons.

If, as you suggest, the Euro IMCr was never part of the process, then you have demonstrated even more convincingly that the process was flawed. You cant embark on a structured process that ignores elements that must be resolved, and if you didnt realise in the first palce that those elments would need to be addressed or sought to exclude them for political purposes then the process was flawed from the outset.

If you want transparency, you will see the process workings before answers have emerged - therefore no "clarity" on the answers. If you don't want answers unless they final and definitive, you won't get them until the very end of a process and then will claim no transparency.

You are intent on making a very simple process complicated. At the start of the process everyone knew national qualifications existed. EASA saw fit to abolish national qualifications whilst retaining the option to encompass these qualifications within EASA qualifications in some shape or form. At a very early stage it was therefore clear that the future of the IMCr would have to be addressed and more especially thought would need to be given to those who already held national qualifications. EASA had ample opportunity to set out their proposals for addressing this issue - so far as I am aware they failed to do so, and have still failed to do so. Of far greater concern EASA and the CAA have failed to give any indication as to how they propose to address the issue.The debate, whatever the debate, has been shrouded in a cloud of mystery.

It is a truly dreadful state of affairs and reflection of a failed process.

It is time to face the facts or bury your head in the sand.

[thing]

Until the actual instrument by which the IMCr is grandfathered is enacted, there can be no certainty.

I take it that means 'no one knows'.

Timothy, it's not that people aren't interested in AOPA etc, it's just a matter of time as someone has already said. I have a busy life, I'm sure most people here do. There are only 24 hours in a day. You have chosen in your spare trime to become involved in aviation organisations, I do other things in other fields that are worthy pursuits. I don't see anything wrong in asking people who are in these organisations for a concise reply to a question when with the best will in the world I wouldn't have the time to wade through a mountain of legislation.

I certainly don't denigrate the efforts of the CAA either. Our CFI is a 'wheel' there and I know the amount of stuff he has to wade through.

[Timothy]

thing,

All we really ask is for your membership, subs and support.

I was just talking to the armchair warriors when I said that they could become involved if they wish.

[BEagle]

Sitting here in a cheap and rather tacky hotel in the back streets of Köln after a day of listening to €urocracy, I can assure you that things would be considerably worse if organisations such as EAS and IAOPA didn't participate in EASA discussions!

However, EASA needs to understand that it isn't the Commissions special favourite by any means - so when I hear that anyone in EASA isn't taking heed of the Commission's statements, my alarm bells start to ring.

There is an element of 'Befehl ist Befehl' rife amongst some people at EASA which needs to be robustly challenged!

[soaringhigh650]

I personally can speak only for PPL/IR and AOPA, but both organisations suffer from too little member involvement, not too much.

Why not merge these two, Gasco and GA Buyer Europe magazine, who also runs AeroExpo?

The four groups would form a much larger, more influential organization.

Quick! Before one of them die.

[Timothy]

It might work, but there are some minor differences of emphasis between the bodies which could transfer into internal wrangling. It is already difficult enough to ensure consensus.

For example, PPL/IR would probably like universal Mode S, whereas some AOPA members would find that untenable.

We work together - for example AOPA and PPL/IR are sharing much information in the IR NPA, and PPL/IR organise the seminars for Aero Expo.

I see no sign of imminent death for any of them; certainly the ones I am involved in are in rude health and fighting fit.

[Fuji Abound]

Aopa sadly has a history of being unable to work with other organisation so the current arrangements are the best we can hope for.

[BEagle]

I see no sign of imminent death for any of them; certainly the ones I am involved in are in rude health and fighting fit.

There is a clear synergy in working together! Each organisation has its core strengths, but the whole is greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

[IO540]

PPL/IR would probably like universal Mode S

I don't think that is at all true. Mode S has exactly zero value to anybody in light GA, over Mode C.

Even transport jet TCAS gets no benefit from GA targets having S, over C.

Some ATC units in the "white christian" Europe use Mode S to help jet traffic management, and e.g. NATS have some fancy software for holding stack display and management, but light GA doesn't go anywhere near that airspace. Even a PA46 or a Jetprop doesn't go into the same airspace.

Mode S would be worthwhile if one got TIS uplinked over it but that won't happen because nobody is going to pay for it.

What would make sense is mandatory Mode C - on all aircraft technically capable of carrying it. But there are so few midairs that nobody is going to do that one either.

[Fuji Abound]

but the whole is greater than the sum of the constituent parts.

I think therein are words of considerable wisdom.

I don't think that is at all true.

More words of wisdom. I was surprised to see this pedalled and more surprised that the membership of the PPLIR would think any such thing - but who knows.

I have to say that some of the views expressed on this thread by some recently are so far removed from what I am told, understand and believe that I simply cannot recognise them as anything to do with the world I know. It worries me that some people involved with these processes are unable to distinguish between the world the rest of us know and the world in which they clearly exist.

certainly the ones I am involved in are in rude health and fighting fit.

I would hardly call a £30K loss and a similiar fall in membership income rude health, but equally, it is not a bad performance in these difficult times.