EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS

[Pace]

I cannot see what the problem is in the CAA retaining the IMCR in the UK?
If the French at the swing of a pen create a French PPL IR why all this hassle over a PPL IMCR in the UK.
All the UK has to do is a lesser move than the French.
" We are creating an existing UK rating called the IMCR! As before it is only useable in the UK and follows what we have always had in place!"

End of story! No Hassle! No Sweat!

Someone is not being straight?

Mind you the way Europe is self disintegrating I dont know what sort of Europe or EASA we will have 2 years down the line if any?

Pace

[robin]

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!

I agree, but there is no sign that the Commission or the EU Parliament is actually challenging EASA in any meaningful way.

We heard a lot of good stuff during the latest FCL debate about how unacceptable EASA's proposals were. But when the crunch came, no-one actually challenged them and the proposals were voted through, even though they are still half-baked.

At one point I wrote complimenting the chairman of the Transport committee for the way they showed how badly EASA operate. I was appalled when he then rolled over and accepted the FCL proposals even thought they are nowhere near complete.

We are supposed to accept that our leaders are working in our best interests, but having gone through the Part M process I am cynical, to say the least.

Trust us, they say, and each time we get shafted, so forgive me for doubting any statement emenating from EASA or the EU

[IO540]

We heard a lot of good stuff during the latest FCL debate about how unacceptable EASA's proposals were. But when the crunch came, no-one actually challenged them and the proposals were voted through, even though they are still half-baked.

That's because EASA did an under the table deal with the MEPs, to get their votes.

Quite what the deal was I don't know but it would have contained various fairly standard (in politics) elements e.g. promises of measures to alleviate the fairly draconian measures being proposed.

Of course EASA can go back on those promises, because a few years down the road all of the elected members will be back home on the golf course and playing around with other projects.

I am sure the Romans had this to a fine art, 2000 years ago. The only difference was that

- there was no internet
- there was no TV recording Mr Goudot's "little test" garbage
- if enough people didn't like you, they actually stabbed you in the back

What I find disturbing is that the worst and most anally retarded gravy train riders from e.g. the UK CAA and certain UK organisations involved in certification have emigrated to Cologne...

[Pace]

The 'problem' is that the obvious end-game is disbanding the national CAAs.

What including the French ones?

That's because EASA did an under the table deal with the MEPs, to get their votes.

That is a reflection of the desperation of EASA and a confirmation of the mess they are in.
Look at the Carbon footprints taxes! The FAA have already told EASA to get stuffed and that lot will collapse like the rest. A total shambles like the rest of Europe at present run by a bunch of headless chickens.

The IMCR is the least of our worries in Europe and the picture we will have 2 years down the line will not be anything like we have now.


Pace

[IO540]

No, France is exempt.

Ask Greenpeace

[FREDAcheck]

Trust us, they say, and each time we get shafted

An American friend of mine used to say: "When anyone in a position of public responsibility says 'trust me' I instinctively reach for my gun".

[Timothy]

I think you are all missing the purpose of Mode S.

Last Sunday I was flying north towards MAY, on my way to KB, squawking 0012, listening out on LGW Director.

The controller says "Hello Timothy, would you like to go direct Biggin?"

What a narrow life you lot lead!

But actually my mentioning Mode S was only illustrative of a possible issue where one grouping may not see eye to eye with another.

[421C]

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.

OK, so let's see what you said:

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.

That reads to me like
a) you acknowledge the answer is concise, which is what you wanted
b) you don't like their answer.
That's all I wrote. How is it "as removed from what you said as is possible to get"? Did you like their answer? Did I misread that in the para above?

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.

No, that is the opposite of what I said. There was a structured process to review what the standardised EASA FCL qualifications should be. The IMCr was reviewed and rejected in that structured process.

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.

They did embark on a structured process. It didn't ignore the IMCr. It did realise that it needed to be addressed. It didn't seek to exlude it. However, in including and addressing it, they rejected it. Your problem is that you can't accept that a legitimate process could reach an outcome other than the one you want, therefore you keep pointing to conspiratorial/political/process flaws. The EASA FCL process was one of standardisation or integration or harmonisation, call it what you will. It's happened hundreds of times in the EU and it happens all the time in the private and public sector to organisations that are integrated or merged. In such a process a heterogenous set of things get harmonised into a homogoneous one. That means that some of the old individual things get rejected. There you go. It happens. You may not like the decisions the process arrived at - I don't either - it doesn't mean the process was illegitimate. The UK has accepted this kind of outcome as part of joining the EU.

At the start of the process everyone knew national qualifications existed.

They did. But what you don't grasp is that, very obviously and directly, being part of the EU means being subject to harmonisation processes that can abolish national things that aren't accepted as part of the harmonised European model.

EASA saw fit to abolish national qualifications whilst retaining the option to encompass these qualifications within EASA qualifications in some shape or form.

Not quite, it's what the EU told EASA to do when the EU law was passed that extended EASA's scope to FCL.

At a very early stage it was therefore clear that the future of the IMCr would have to be addressed

"Addressed" is different from "preserved". It was addressed in FCL and rejected. That's my point about the difference between a process being "illegitimate" and your not liking the outcome.

and more especially thought would need to be given to those who already held national qualifications

Thought was given, just not urgent priority. Unfortunately, EASA's more urgent priority has been grinding through the regulatory process for Part FCL, Part OPS, Part ARO, etc that it has to produce to a tight deadline. Individual national conversion and grandfathering was a secondary point because it is not relevant to most countries in the EU, given they fully implemented JAR-FCL 10 years ago and they don't have anomolous non-JAR-FCL qualifications. The UK is one of 27 countries, and the IMCr is an issue which is confined to a segment of UK GA. It may be at the top of your priotity list, but isn't it parochial to think it had to be a big priority for EASA

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.

How can you say "they have failed to do so" when the following words appeared in Para 7 of the FCL008 NPA in September:

Although the conversion of existing IMC ratings is not within the scope of this task, the Agency is aware that this issue is closely linked to it. This NPA provides several options for pilots with prior instrument experience to be credited towards the new ratings. However, it should be mentioned at this stage that a conversion of existing IMC ratings is already covered by the draft Commission Regulation laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. This draft Regulation clearly defines that Member States should convert existing licences and ratings into Part-FCL licences and ratings. It is highlighted in this Regulation that Member States should aim at allowing pilots to, as far as possible, maintain their current scope of activities and privileges. The Agency already discussed this issue with the CAA UK and industry experts in order to identify possible options for UK IMC holders. The most favourable solution seems to be that a Part-FCL licence and an IR will be issued with certain conditions on the basis of a specific conversion report in order to reflect the current privileges held. This would allow the existing UK IMC holders to continue to exercise their IMC privileges.

The irony is that despite your endlessly portentous criticisim of just about everyone and everthing involved (AOPA, EASA, the CAA, the process, the clarity, the communication...) the outlook at present seems to be pretty much what has been communicated for the last couple of years
- an FCL008 improvement over FCL001, in offering a less onerous full IR and a sub-IR rating which is, however, not an IMCr
- a very likely grandfathering solution for the IMCr
- no prospect visible for preserving new IMCr issues in the future (other than for Annex II aircraft) but UK people still trying

[Fuji Abound]

421c

Why do you make something so simple so complicated?

Easa rejected the inclusion of the imcr at an early stage. Had they consulted and had their rejection been transparent it would have been clear (at any early stage) the void left was untenable. The eir and the grandfathering of the imcr was never on the table when the imcr was rejected, or certainly not publically. Both arose because easas rejection was untenable. Had the process been transparent it would have been clear much earlier that the proposals were untenable and we would not be in the mess we are now in.

Your attempt to rewrite history is therefore simply not supported by the facts.

As to your reference to easas statement that really is clutching at straws. The straw of a statement issued less than one month ago the clarrity of which at best leaves a great deal unanswered.

That reads to me like
a) you acknowledge the answer is concise, which is what you wanted
b) you don't like their answer.
That's all I wrote. How is it "as removed from what you said as is possible to get"? Did you like their answer? Did I misread that in the para above?

That reads to me ironry, but perhaps too subtle.

Clearly you have convinced yourself the process was not flawed and i am not going to change your mind. I suspect you are in a very small minority, but that is for others to say.

I guess on this one we couldnt be further apart so best left there.



As to portentous i do see elements of the process and of those involved as sinister. There are very well publicised threads on this forum were committee members of aopa are on record of promoting very different views from aopas rank and file members and from the views eventually adopted by aopa. There are numerous examples of aopa changing their stance on the imcr, and there are very well publicised examples of statements made by easa that are at best misleading.

Politics is a sinister business - i am surprised you could possibly believe otherwise.

Finally i am obsessed with the imcr because it is the subject of this thread. I have no illusions that easa are a great deal less obsessed and no doubt in terms of the political components of the process (i prefer that to portentous) that they have far more pressing issues. The imcr just so happens to be the point of discussion. Pace and io540 will doubtless be only too delighted to help you out on n reg issues.

[flybymike]

The fact remains that less than 10% of the GA population sees fit to join

I find that figure surprisingly low. How many members does AOPA have, and how many active GA pilots are there?

[flybymike]

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

I think therein are words of considerable wisdom.

but mathematical impossibility.

[421C]

Why do you make something so simple so complicated?

Easa rejected the inclusion of the imcr at an early stage. Had they consulted and had their rejection been transparent it would have been clear (at any early stage) the void left was untenable. The eir and the grandfathering of the imcr was never on the table when the imcr was rejected, or certainly not publically. Both arose because easas rejection was untenable. Had the process been transparent it would have been clear much earlier that the proposals were untenable and we would not be in the mess we are now in.

Your attempt to rewrite history is therefore simply not supported by the facts.

It is simple, but you aren't reading or grasping my replies. Let me try line by line, with your text in italics

Easa rejected the inclusion of the imcr at an early stage
The FCL001 working group, responsible for the first draft of EASA Part FCL rejected the IMCr as an FCL qualification. I am glad we agree on this simple point.
Had they consulted and had their rejection been transparent
This is you rewriting or not grasping history. The FCL NPA was published. It transparently DID NOT include the IMCr. They DID consult. The FCL NPA went through the whole CRT-CRD process leading to a Final Opinion that then went through the EU Comitology process.
it would have been clear (at any early stage) the void left was untenable.
It clearly was tenable to the European Union since Part FCL became EU law. You mean it was "untenable" and "unnacceptable" to the IMCr minority interests. I agree. There is no law of the political universe that nothing can happen which some minority consider "untenable".

The eir and the grandfathering of the imcr was never on the table when the imcr was rejected, or certainly not publically.
That's right. We agree. So what? The first step in the process was to produce a draft Part FCL. They did that. It was a subsequent matter to deal with problems arising from that.
Both arose because easas rejection was untenable.
So EASA conducted the FCL process which produced the result it did. They got feedback that IFR qualifications needed to be made more accessible and feedback that UK stakeholders were unhappy giving up the IMCr. So the FCL008 process produced the EIR and CBM IR and the parallel process of negotiating transitions has suggested the IMCr grandfathering mechanism.

Had the process been transparent it would have been clear much earlier that the proposals were untenable and we would not be in the mess we are now in.
Where exactly was the missing transparency? The outcome has been perfectly clear that EASA Part FCL doesn't include an IMCr. You keep using this word "untenable". "Untenable" to you, "untenable" to IMCr holders fine. But clearly the Part FCL outcome was tenable because
a) the European Parliament passed it
b) the UK didn't threaten to leave the EU over it
and we would not be in the mess we are now in.
Relative to the Basic Regulation which imposed a standardised European FCL system and requirements for FRA operators to comply, and relative to Part FCL which was essentially a cut&paste of JAR FCL with a few bits of gold plating and some improvements like the LAPL, we have made some useful progress. We have the EIR and CBM IR, we have the outlook for IMCr grandfathering described in the NPA. So the next step is to secure those outcomes. Sure, relative to a parallel universe in which the Basic Regulation hadn't been enacted, or a parallel universe in which EASA had copied Part 61, or a parallel universe in which the UK government chose to expend the political capital it would have taken to ringfence and assure the IMCr, we are in a mess. But given the universe we are actually in, the present outlook since the NPA was published seems encouraging relative to the outlook before it was published.

As to your reference to easas statement that really is clutching at straws.
It's harder to have a useful discussion with you when you don't even accept the basic meaning of the English language in what you have written. You said "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." I pointed out Para 7 of the NPA. Their proposal is a restricted EASA IR giving IMCR holders grandfather privileges. How can my pointing that out be "clutching at straws". Isn't it a factual and obvious counterpoint to your writing "so far as I am aware they failed to do so"? I would have thought it a useful improvement in your awareness?

The straw of a statement issued less than one month ago the clarrity of which at best leaves a great deal unanswered
It's your old problem of clarity vs. transparency. They have published an unfinalised proposal. Not every detail is clear, although I find the essence pretty important and useful. So, as I said previously, the choice you have is between transparency (publishing interim things where not everything is clear and finalised) and clarity (publishing nothing until the final instrument is enacted and everything is clear and certain). They did the former and you say it's "not clear". If they'd done the latter, you'd have said they weren't being transparent. What's the point of your endless pursuit of an incompatible combination of clarity and transparency - ie. knowing, at the same time, what the end result is and knowing the steps of the process that is deriving the end result? Really the only substance is one of timing. EASA could have tackled it earlier. Well, launch a campaign to complain about that. I think you are missing the fact is there is a vast amount of incomplete regulatory work - on the implementation of FCL, on the FCL008 NPA, on Part MED, on Part OPS, on Part ORA. We are in a process were few end outcomes are certain and clear. The issues that affect all of Europe are probably a greater priority than the issues that affect just the UK. Are you surprised?

Finally i am obsessed with the imcr because it is the subject of this thread. I have no illusions that easa are a great deal less obsessed
I did not use the word obsessed, so I don't know why you bring it up. I merely thought it helpful to point out that what you interpret as a conspiracy of opaqueness, in not having the clarity you want with the transparency you want at the time you want it, is probably more the result of a regulatory agenda in Europe in which the long list of things that need to be completed and clarified doesn't rank the IMCr (unsurprisingly) as far up as you would like.

I am not writing all this to defend EASA. I have a myriad of things I would like to see changed in how European GA is run and regulated. Probably much the same as any of us. I am writing to suggest that what you percieve as a conspirancy to deny you clarity and transparency is simply a very large and complex process in which the IMCr issue is a minor one that is not addressed with the priority and vigour you would like. Given that, I think AOPA and the UK CAA are doing a pretty good job trying to push the IMCr forward against 26 other countries for whom, unsurprisingly, it is a distraction and nusiance relative to the huge task of implementing EASA regulation.


brgds
421C

[BEagle]

.....Part FCL which was essentially a cut&paste of JAR FCL.....

If only it had been, as DG TREN told the EASA Management Board it should be, we wouldn't have had this IMCR problem!

Having just left another largely fruitless meeting with the €urocrats in Köln, all I can say is that anyone with a well-maintained CofA Annex II aeroplane should count themselves lucky to be free of the utter nonsense of EASA!

[IO540]

The controller says "Hello Timothy, would you like to go direct Biggin?"

How do you configure your name in the Mode S transponder?

I think it's far more likely that the controller knew you personally and recognised your tail number which is plastered all over the internet. I've had the same sort of "hello" from a Scottish controller earlier this year, and there is another controller in a certain country not far from the UK who send me a funny email every time I fly through his airspace. It's only because they know the tail number from my trip writeups. There is nothing in the Mode S data.

[soaringhigh650]

should count themselves lucky to be free of the utter nonsense of EASA!

But hey if it wasn't for EASA the more accessible instrument rating qualification wouldn't have been proposed?

I think people do need to owe them a whopping thumbs up in this respect.

[thing]

Dons tin hat and retires to bunker.

[IO540]

But hey if it wasn't for EASA the more accessible instrument rating qualification wouldn't have been proposed?

Nobody would disagree with that - if it wasn't for EASA first screwing many thousands of FAA licensed pilots around Europe.

EASA didn't have to do it that way round. It's an inexplicable and totally arrogant c0ckup.

Same with the IMC Rating. They abolish that first and then "talk about" concessions to replace it. It's a totally stupid way to go about things.

[flybymike]

Peter, "Tail number" is such a frightfully American expression old boy.

[mad_jock]

The perm hex code in the mode S transponder is linked to the registered owner and Reg.

So even if you are not talking and are on 7000 they know what the reg is.

Thats not to say the controller didn't then link the reg to the name and offer the direct routing.

[IO540]

The perm hex code in the mode S transponder is linked to the registered owner and Reg.

Technically that is true but I gather that UK ATC do not have access to the database which does the Mode S code to the aircraft operator conversion.

It would be funny if they replied to V. pilots with "Good Morning Mr Branson, where would you like to go today"

Of course, how else would their computer know where to send the bills? (which is their motivation for Mode S)

That is AFAIK not the way it works in Europe. A good number (IIRC) of European countries have no interest in Mode S and don't require it in their airspace. The Eurocontrol IFR enroute billing (> 1999kg) is done by a unit which runs a database of aircraft regs (tail numbers ) and maintains a correspondence/billing address for each one. For foreign reg planes, that process will be very haphazard because the tail number does not lead to the aircraft owner; the bill instead goes to the US trustee who then sends it onto the operator with a stroppy letter, and this encourages the operator to contact Eurocontrol and update his details.

I dare say Eurocontrol have a lot of fun chasing after the more elusive planes... I wonder if they refuse to accept a flight plan for somebody who has not paid the bill? Could be quite a problem if you bought a used plane which is over 2T.