EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS
Thread Starter
There is no indication that this ridiculous fee will be an annual fee - neither is it clear whether existing RFs will be required to cough up £1000 to carry on with what they're doing as an ATO....
Others will be disappointed, no doubt, at the CAA's opposition to independent instruction outside an ATO.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what will change from the current procedure for that, bookworm.
I have had no trouble getting JAA IR training done in my TB20, N-reg too. AFAICT the FTO did not have any significant work to do with that.
The JAA IR flight test itself needs the aircrtaft to be specially approved but most reasonable IFR types should not have a problem - assuming they are legal to fly in the first place
Similarly, I would guess, for VFR too but IMHO very few people will be doing an ab initio PPL in their own plane (and those that do are probably ones who bought something quite nice and brand new).
If the current EASA proposals come to pass post-2014 and the IFR community really gets shafted as EASA plans to do, and the N European ATOs fail to grasp the business opportunity to do IR conversion courses in customer aircraft, all that will happen is that everybody involved will sod off to a certain ATO in Spain and knock the whole lot off in 1 week... The pilots will be losers because they won't have got training on the type they fly, but the ATOs up here will have cut off their nose to spite their face.
Continuation training will have to be done informally, for cash
God knows how the mandatory annual IR renewals will be done, if they can't be done in customer aircraft. That would be the most stupid thing of all, effectively screwing the CBM IR. But that creates yet another business opportunity: an "IR Renewal ATO" which processes the paperwork for a small fee say £50 and whose "affiliated" IREs are a load of freelancers working around the UK
I have had no trouble getting JAA IR training done in my TB20, N-reg too. AFAICT the FTO did not have any significant work to do with that.
The JAA IR flight test itself needs the aircrtaft to be specially approved but most reasonable IFR types should not have a problem - assuming they are legal to fly in the first place
Similarly, I would guess, for VFR too but IMHO very few people will be doing an ab initio PPL in their own plane (and those that do are probably ones who bought something quite nice and brand new).If the current EASA proposals come to pass post-2014 and the IFR community really gets shafted as EASA plans to do, and the N European ATOs fail to grasp the business opportunity to do IR conversion courses in customer aircraft, all that will happen is that everybody involved will sod off to a certain ATO in Spain and knock the whole lot off in 1 week... The pilots will be losers because they won't have got training on the type they fly, but the ATOs up here will have cut off their nose to spite their face.
Continuation training will have to be done informally, for cash
God knows how the mandatory annual IR renewals will be done, if they can't be done in customer aircraft. That would be the most stupid thing of all, effectively screwing the CBM IR. But that creates yet another business opportunity: an "IR Renewal ATO" which processes the paperwork for a small fee say £50 and whose "affiliated" IREs are a load of freelancers working around the UK
Last edited by peterh337; 19th Dec 2011 at 06:24. Reason: URL added, shpelling
Thread Starter
Yes, well fine - nice story but impossible in brave new €uroland.
The 'approval to be trained / tested in own aircraft' issue might be a useful bargaining tool to use when the CRD is issued in March. If all EIR/IR training has to be conducted under the auspices of an ATO (including those which are presently RFs), then it is only reasonable that straightforward evidence of 'suitability for training' is submitted for the aeroplane. That should be a simple no-cost, post-annual box-ticking exercise, but it would probably be necessary to fight off CAA revenue-generation attempts....
I don't know whether there will be a mandatory requirement for the owner's aircraft to be modified to include those wretched bits of tin / plastic the CAA insists on (which can cause problems... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_502021.pdf ), or whether a simple set of foggles will suffice for EIR / C-B IR training. Hopefully the latter!
The 'approval to be trained / tested in own aircraft' issue might be a useful bargaining tool to use when the CRD is issued in March. If all EIR/IR training has to be conducted under the auspices of an ATO (including those which are presently RFs), then it is only reasonable that straightforward evidence of 'suitability for training' is submitted for the aeroplane. That should be a simple no-cost, post-annual box-ticking exercise, but it would probably be necessary to fight off CAA revenue-generation attempts....
I don't know whether there will be a mandatory requirement for the owner's aircraft to be modified to include those wretched bits of tin / plastic the CAA insists on (which can cause problems... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_502021.pdf ), or whether a simple set of foggles will suffice for EIR / C-B IR training. Hopefully the latter!
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Dec 2011 at 19:11.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The window screens are supposed to disappear under EASA.
But I bet the UK CAA will find some way to continue them.
I made my own, out of Correx - took me a day and a half with a knife, tinsnips and a hot glue gun. No metal involved at all. Right horrid job though; I suspect most people would find it quite difficult to do. But they work well; a lot more comfy to fly with than foggles.
The problem is that all these things add up... a day and a half spent making the screens will alone push most people into just popping on Easyjet to the south.
But I bet the UK CAA will find some way to continue them.
I made my own, out of Correx - took me a day and a half with a knife, tinsnips and a hot glue gun. No metal involved at all. Right horrid job though; I suspect most people would find it quite difficult to do. But they work well; a lot more comfy to fly with than foggles.
The problem is that all these things add up... a day and a half spent making the screens will alone push most people into just popping on Easyjet to the south.
Last edited by peterh337; 19th Dec 2011 at 06:27.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMC AND EASA
I have just received this from our wondeful Minister who seems to be under an illusion that all is well in EASA land!
Your comments for a suitable response would be appreciated if you think it of any use.
many thanks
Department for
Transport
From the Minister of State The Rt. Hon. Theresa Villiers MP
House of Commons London
SW1A OM
Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1 P 4DR
Tel: 02079443082 Fax: 020 79444492
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web site: Department for Transport - Department for Transport
Our Ref: MC/24578 Your ref: 4054
2 3 DEC 2011
Thank you for your letter of 24 November, on behalf of your constituent, Mr ***** about the Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) rating for private pilots.
As you may be aware, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) now has responsibility for developing pilot licensing standards for the EU. Over the last two years it has developed and consulted on implementing rules based on existing European requirements and the international standard adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). These implementing rules have now been adopted under a Commission Regulation and will come into force in April 2012.
The IMC rating is unique to the UK. EASA's rule making group, which included pilot representatives from across Europe, decided not to include a similar rating in the implementing rules. However, there is scope for existing holders of IMC rating to be given a restricted instrument rating which will give the same privileges as the IMC rating. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is currently reviewing the process for issuing a restricted instrument rating to the holder of an IMC rating but it does not believe that this will involve any additional training or examinations.
The consultation on the implementing rules highlighted the need to simplify the requirement for instrument ratings for private pilots. In consultation with general aviation organisations and the national aviation authorities, EASA has drafted new requirements for a competency based instrument rating and an en route instrument rating.
Consultation on the draft requirements will close on 23 December. These requirements are supported by the CAA and have been welcomed by general aviation organisations in the UK. I would hope that Mr *****( has responded to EASA's consultation to ensure that the Agency is aware of his views.
I hope this is helpful.
Regards
THE RT. HON. THERESA VILLIERS
Your comments for a suitable response would be appreciated if you think it of any use.
many thanks
Department for
Transport
From the Minister of State The Rt. Hon. Theresa Villiers MP
House of Commons London
SW1A OM
Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1 P 4DR
Tel: 02079443082 Fax: 020 79444492
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web site: Department for Transport - Department for Transport
Our Ref: MC/24578 Your ref: 4054
2 3 DEC 2011
Thank you for your letter of 24 November, on behalf of your constituent, Mr ***** about the Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) rating for private pilots.
As you may be aware, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) now has responsibility for developing pilot licensing standards for the EU. Over the last two years it has developed and consulted on implementing rules based on existing European requirements and the international standard adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). These implementing rules have now been adopted under a Commission Regulation and will come into force in April 2012.
The IMC rating is unique to the UK. EASA's rule making group, which included pilot representatives from across Europe, decided not to include a similar rating in the implementing rules. However, there is scope for existing holders of IMC rating to be given a restricted instrument rating which will give the same privileges as the IMC rating. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is currently reviewing the process for issuing a restricted instrument rating to the holder of an IMC rating but it does not believe that this will involve any additional training or examinations.
The consultation on the implementing rules highlighted the need to simplify the requirement for instrument ratings for private pilots. In consultation with general aviation organisations and the national aviation authorities, EASA has drafted new requirements for a competency based instrument rating and an en route instrument rating.
Consultation on the draft requirements will close on 23 December. These requirements are supported by the CAA and have been welcomed by general aviation organisations in the UK. I would hope that Mr *****( has responded to EASA's consultation to ensure that the Agency is aware of his views.
I hope this is helpful.
Regards
THE RT. HON. THERESA VILLIERS
However, there is scope for existing holders of IMC rating to be given a restricted instrument rating which will give the same privileges as the IMC rating. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is currently reviewing the process for issuing a restricted instrument rating to the holder of an IMC rating but it does not believe that this will involve any additional training or examinations.
Where do I get the forms to convert my IMC to an equally-privileged restricted instrument rating without any additional training or examinations, please?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My experience of dealing with Ms Villiers (about other matters) is that she is extremely cautious about what she says, like most sensible politicians. You won't get her to promise anything unless she is completely certain she can deliver.
The aircraft used are part of the certification of the ATO.
The requirement for aircraft used by an FTO for training to be approved is not carried forward to Part-ORA. The only requirement is for an ATO to provide to the Competent Authority "a list of aircraft to be used for training, including their group, class or type, registration, owners and category of the certificate of airworthiness, if applicable". It is, therefore, the ATO's responsibility to ensure that training aircraft meet the relevant requirements.
Quote:
I don't know whether there will be a mandatory requirement for the owner's aircraft to be modified to include those wretched bits of tin / plastic the CAA insists on (which can cause problems... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_502021.pdf )
I just read this report and cannot see where it puts any blame on the screens. I would genuinely like to know - did I misread it?
I don't know whether there will be a mandatory requirement for the owner's aircraft to be modified to include those wretched bits of tin / plastic the CAA insists on (which can cause problems... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_502021.pdf )
--------------------------------
I just read this report and cannot see where it puts any blame on the screens. I would genuinely like to know - did I misread it?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't, but the screens cannot help in the lookout. If you have ever sat inside an aircraft equipped with them (particularly the standard FTO ones which cover the entire windscreen including the upper portion) you can see that lookout has to be compromised.
Quote:
I don't know whether there will be a mandatory requirement for the owner's aircraft to be modified to include those wretched bits of tin / plastic the CAA insists on (which can cause problems... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_502021.pdf )
I just read this report and cannot see where it puts any blame on the screens. I would genuinely like to know - did I misread it?
I don't know whether there will be a mandatory requirement for the owner's aircraft to be modified to include those wretched bits of tin / plastic the CAA insists on (which can cause problems... http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_502021.pdf )
--------------------------------
I just read this report and cannot see where it puts any blame on the screens. I would genuinely like to know - did I misread it?
For me screens at-least permit me to look around the cockpit unrestrictedly, and don't give me a headache with a headset on. Not true of foggles or a hood.
G
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by peterh337
It doesn't, but the screens cannot help in the lookout. If you have ever sat inside an aircraft equipped with them (particularly the standard FTO ones which cover the entire windscreen including the upper portion) you can see that lookout has to be compromised.
I have a long lapsed (7 years) IMC rating. When do I have to get it revalidated by to get one of the new, shiny IMC equivalent ratings into my CAA PPL so that I can take advantage of the CAA/EASA/LAA allowing IMC flight in LAA aircraft at some time in the dim and distant future?
Is there any way I can renew my IMC in Oz or do I have to get back to Blighty to get the job done?
Is there any way I can renew my IMC in Oz or do I have to get back to Blighty to get the job done?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't the CAA IR exam screens going to disappear under EASA?
Maybe not till 2014 or whatever.
I agree with that, too. For the student, they are much better than foggles. I have had no problem flying with them.
However IMHO one should not take off with them, and one should not land with them, particularly at an airport which is in Class G and which could therefore easily have incursions. I've had one airprox already (while I had foggles on; spotted by the instructor) and this is sure to become more common now that the CAA have moved away from fixed test centres and doing IR tests out of smaller "GA" airports. Places like Shoreham and Lydd are constantly getting people flying straight through their approach paths.
In an IR test, there is no reason to do either because you are not being tested on your takeoff technique and you are not being tested on your landing technique
And if departing a Class G airport, you are not going to be flying a SID.
AIUI the current CAA practice, from instructors I have flown with recently, the decision whether you pass or partial pass or fail is taken, and given to the candidate, during the flight (after the various bits have been completed) and then the screens can be removed for a normal landing. So, all approaches with screens in place could be planned and executed as missed approaches i.e. not below the MDA.
Maybe not till 2014 or whatever.
For me screens at-least permit me to look around the cockpit unrestrictedly
However IMHO one should not take off with them, and one should not land with them, particularly at an airport which is in Class G and which could therefore easily have incursions. I've had one airprox already (while I had foggles on; spotted by the instructor) and this is sure to become more common now that the CAA have moved away from fixed test centres and doing IR tests out of smaller "GA" airports. Places like Shoreham and Lydd are constantly getting people flying straight through their approach paths.
In an IR test, there is no reason to do either because you are not being tested on your takeoff technique and you are not being tested on your landing technique
And if departing a Class G airport, you are not going to be flying a SID.
AIUI the current CAA practice, from instructors I have flown with recently, the decision whether you pass or partial pass or fail is taken, and given to the candidate, during the flight (after the various bits have been completed) and then the screens can be removed for a normal landing. So, all approaches with screens in place could be planned and executed as missed approaches i.e. not below the MDA.
Doing both my CPL and IMC, I used screens, and the drill was straightforward - have them off, take-off, climb to appropriate altitude, then instructor/examiner took control whilst I put the screens up.
G
G
Thread Starter
I have a long lapsed (7 years) IMC rating. When do I have to get it revalidated by to get one of the new, shiny IMC equivalent ratings into my CAA PPL so that I can take advantage of the CAA/EASA/LAA allowing IMC flight in LAA aircraft at some time in the dim and distant future?
2. The situation regarding 'LAA' aircraft being permitted to fly in IMC is at an early stage of consideration.
Is there any way I can renew my IMC in Oz or do I have to get back to Blighty to get the job done?