EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS

[Pace]

Bose

I know your response above was to BEagle BUT!

Change is good if its positive and for good reason not just for the sake of change.

Aviation knows no boundaries. Thousands of FAA reg aircraft trundle from the USA to Europe and Beyond every day and visa versa with European based aircraft heading to FAA land and worldwide.

The world is a very different place to what it used to be. We have far better communications we are all linked financially and dependant on each other.

Change has to be a common acceptance of licences and getting rid of old hat terratorialism, protectionism and all the other rubbish that motivates in a negative change way.

I very much hope EASA is now going forward with POSITIVE change! realises there are a lot of FAA licence holders based in Europe and appreciate why so many are based here and make positive change to put something in place which is equally as attractive as the FAA PPL IR.

I hope they realise that the IMCR is a safety addon to the PPL proved by statistics.

EASA sre supposed to be a SAFETY based organistation. That SHOULD be their one and only mandate.

What they are doing with this above cloud rating is a step in the right direction but IMO they should look at some sort of approach at SOME airports should the need be.

Above all especially with N reg pilots I hope they realise that they are dealing with real people some who will be severely financially damaged by changes they make through no fault of N reg pilots in Europe.
That is not even talking about older FAA ATPs working and based in Europe who will loose their work and livelyhood.
For them converting would not be time or financially viable with only a few years flying left to run.
I hope they look at annual excemptions for special case FAA ATPs in Europe?

FAA Licenced pilots have been legitimely flying in Europe for far longer than the EEC has been around so should have legal status based on established practice or at least a moral obligation to these people which there most certainly is.

A lot with EASA has been a NON SENSE so lets hope they are finally adding some sense to all this?

Pace

[BillieBob]

Originally Posted by BEagle
lunatic €urocrats start meddling
....and you are representing AOPA's position to EASA? Not a great start.

On the contrary, I think it is an excellent start. It is up to the the likes of AOPA to try to bring these self-seeking, devious liars in Cologne under control - there is clearly nobody else prepared to do it. Even the bulk of the EP Transport and Tourism Committee seems to have been successfully bought off, despite one of its members once famously saying, "Every time I come to this committee we seem to have to deal with the fallout from some decision by this wretched EASA organisation".

[bookworm]

What I find interesting is that the FCL people in that Tower of €urobabble are working to a different timetable than the SERA / SES people. So that the FCL people are trying to sort out the rules for a game, the shape of whose playing field is as yet uncertain.

What do you think are the uncertainties in SERA that cause issues for FCL?

[BEagle]

bookworm, the statement made by the European Commission's Director for Air Transport, concerning Member States' need for flexibility to take account of local conditions such as geography and typical weather, is good enough for me.

[bookworm]

bookworm, the statement made by the European Commission's Director for Air Transport, concerning Member States' need for flexibility to take account of local conditions such as geography and typical weather, is good enough for me.

In my experience of the SERA rulemaking process, I think you'll find that there's about as much flexibility as you can shove between the I and the C of ICAO. If you think EASA is behaving like a steamroller, you should see what Eurocontrol is up to.

However, my question stands. What do you think is unknown about it in a way that will impact the FCL.008 issues? It's a genuine question.

[Timothy]

On the contrary, I think it is an excellent start. It is up to the the likes of AOPA to try to bring these self-seeking, devious liars in Cologne under control - there is clearly nobody else prepared to do it. Even the bulk of the EP Transport and Tourism Committee seems to have been successfully bought off, despite one of its members once famously saying, "Every time I come to this committee we seem to have to deal with the fallout from some decision by this wretched EASA organisation".

EASA come out with the best proposal for GA in a generation and you think that AOPA's best response is to attack them as self-seeking devious liars?

I would have thought that "yes please" and "thank you" would be a good approach.

I do hope that Nick, through AOPA, doesn't blow this for everyone else.

If anyone is concerned about Nick's approach, I would recommend lobbying Martin Robinson, whose approach is much more embracing and wise than Nick's, and who should be giving Nick his direction in the discussion. This needs to be done soon before Nick goes to meet EASA next week.

[BillieBob]

you think that AOPA's best response is to attack them as self-seeking devious liars?

I know that it suits your prejudice but that is not what I said - the word 'attack' is wholly yours. What I said was that it has been left to the likes of AOPA to try to keep the 'wretched' EASA eurocrats under control and to mitigate their worst excesses since the EC and EP seem to have walked away from their responsibilities in this respect. That a good proportion of the movers and shakers at Cologne are self seeking, devious and have lied is a simple statement of fact.

As for "the best proposal for GA in a generation", words, for once, fail me.

[stuartforrest]

I am confused. This looks like a pretty positive proposal to me. Are we sure we are not just looking for the worst here. It seems very good for an IMCr pilot like me who would like to fly to France in airways rather than as recently happened where I had to descend to 3000 ft to cross the channel because of a danger area notam for one day while going up would have busted an airway!

I would be happy to have the EIR while I train for the IR.

I hope this becomes law and the sooner the better, unless I am missing something. It sounds like the law makers have been listening and have come up with proposals that offer more than we currently have while still fitting in with ICAO.

It must be pretty demoralising to read this message board ( if they did) when they have tried to put together a proposal to move forward considerably from where we are right now.

Sorry i don't mean to upset anyone but it does seem there is a lot of negative comments so I thought I would add my positive ones!

[BEagle]

BillieBob, AOPA (UK) has already stated its position regarding the assessment which against which it will judge the NPA.

Whilst the IR looks reasonable, we still do not know how EASA intends to support the promises which have been made regarding the future of the UK IMCR. It is obvious that this will be of considerable concern to AOPA(UK) members, whereas other national AOPAs might have more interest in other aspects.

One aspect of the IR which needs clarification is how it would be credited towards a future CPL/IR. I haven't yet had sufficient time to establish that.

Martin and I have spoken at length on the topic of this NPA over recent days and have agreed a suitable strategy for the meeting.

[Pace]

who would like to fly to France in airways

Stuart

It had long been the case that you could fly French airways VFR at quadrantle levels.
As was the case with S Ireland

Pace

[Timothy]

It had long been the case that you could fly French airways VFR at quadrantle levels.

Pace,

I don't want to start another fruitless argument, but that is not right in a number of ways.

Firstly the quadrantal rule does not apply in France. What you mean is VFR levels, which is the appropriate IFR level plus 500'. If you flew NE at at Odd level, as you would under quadrantal, you would be in big trouble.

But much, much more important is that you do not fly the airways at VFR levels. Airways do not exist at VFR levels. You are flying the route of airways in Class E airspace, in the hope that they will keep you out of restricted airspace.

This hope is entirely misplaced. I cannot put that strongly enough.

It is not uncommon for the French IFR controller to reroute you off an airway because of military exercises. Flying VFR you do not get that service (unless you are lucky enough for FIS to tell you, but that is not obligatory on either part.)

Furthermore, airways at low levels can pass through Class A, C or D airspace, for which you need a clearance.

Flying IFR on airways you are cosseted and protected by ATC.

Flying an airways route through Class E under VFR you are not, and, frankly, and speaking as someone who does this all the time, you are much better off flying in a straight line through Class E and D, partly because it's quicker, and partly because it makes quite clear to you your obligation to make your own arrangements to stay away from restricted airspace.

You get the same (now excellent) radar assisted FIS service as you would get on an airways route.

[Pace]

Firstly the quadrantal rule does not apply in France. What you mean is VFR levels, which is the appropriate IFR level plus 500'. If you flew NE at at Odd level, as you would under quadrantal, you would be in big trouble.

Timothy my loose use of terms! IFR level plus 500

Pace

[stuartforrest]

It had long been the case that you could fly French airways VFR at quadrantle levels.
As was the case with S Ireland

Thanks for the reply but why would I want to fly vfr in French airways when this proposal allows me to fly IFR. Unless you have never been on an IFR flight, we all know is easier and safer than airspace dodging etc.

Surely being able to do something similar is not a reason to object to this proposal?

[Timothy]

...and my point is that it isn't really similar. That is a dangerous illusion.

[Pace]

Unless you have never been on an IFR flight, we all know is easier and safer than airspace dodging etc.

Stuart

First I have been on tons of IFR flights and as to easier the answer is yes and no!

Yes in the sense that you fly waypoint to way point and dont worry about other blocks of airspace no in the sense that you have to be more precise and fly to IR tolerances (broken autopilot)
No in the sense that you dont have the freedom of movement up down left or right that you do VFR.
Then with this system you need to be sure that you can get down not just at your destination but anywhere enroute in the event of a problem.
It will make things easier for long distance pilots who want to get high and stay there till their destination without doubt but with a caveat that long distance weather rarely stays as you want it above and below so to the single piston PPL more reason to only go when the weather is right because your sitting on top in the blue often isnt the case.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I dont think that is entirely correct.

Level and heading changes for weather are not usually a problem and if it suites dropping out of the airway is another option so even the SEP pilot has similiar options to being outside the airway albeit it does require some fore thought.

It really is up to you whether you plough on through a front with tops higher than forecast that you could see from 30k away.

Bose

It would seem things have turned out much better than you forecast which makes a change given all the talk about much worse than forecast weather.

PS Why is it the weather is always worse than forecast and never better.

[Timothy]

PS Why is it the weather is always worse than forecast and never better.

I note the smiley, but my experience is that weather is almost always less bad than forecast.

[Pace]

Level and heading changes for weather are not usually a problem

Agreed but level changes will usually be in 2K increments which might not be where you want to be and are not always given without due cause.
A 2K climb can put you straight into icing.
Heading changes are usually given for weather ie "request left or right 15 degrees for weather"! But often you are given radar headings to hold.
All I am making clear hear is a miconception that you can climb to 10K and merrily sit on top in the blue sunshine till you drop down the other end.
Of course that can be the case but you have to look at the worst scenario especially with New pilots or rated pilots.

It is different with experienced pilots in capable aircraft. Many IMCR pilots do fly all weather around the UK on home made cloud breaks to very low heights and have been doing so for years and I am sure they would be constructive enough leaving an intersection on a long IFR flight to get themselves VMC to land. Is that as safe as getting radar vectors onto an ILS? NO

I note the smiley, but my experience is that weather is almost always less bad than forecast.

Tim you obviously dont fly when I do

Pace

[IO540]

I am confused about this "airways" business.

"Airways" are just lines on the map.

What matters to whether a pilot with particular papers can fly somewhere is the airspace classification e.g. Class A,D,G etc.

France has a lot of Class E between FL065 (generally) and FL115. FL120-FL195 is Class D, in which enroute VFR is banned (a breach of ICAO but hey they are French) and FL200+ is Class A, generally.

It so happens that that airspace has routes drawn in it, which UK PPLs call "airways", but really they are just suggested routes. These routes are common to the Class E (say FL065-115) and to the Class D above that (say FL120-195).

So a plain PPL can fly there VFR FL065-115, and an IR holder can fly the same routes FL065-FL195.

The IR holder has had to file a Eurocontrol IFR flight plan, and his routing makes use of those routes.

Class E is uncontrolled airspace for VFR, and this is how a plain PPL can fly VFR in that airspace. UK PPLs call this "flying in French airways" but that is meaningless. It is just a VFR pilot flying in uncontrolled airspace.

Those suggested routes generally avoid the extensive French military airspace, which makes them extra handy. In fact I have never seen any military activity impinge upon them. The French military have all the rest of France to themselves

As regards EASA officials being dishonest and disingenuous, that is a fact. Just watch Goudot's "little test" TV performance. Quite what can be done about it is another matter. I think we are stuck with it.

since EIR/IMCr/whatever you call it will/is mostly used by pilots who don't fly that much and use it only as an exit strategy

That is simply not true, but there is a limit on the time one can spend writing here.

[oldspool]

BEagle, you said...

''One aspect of the IR which needs clarification is how it would be credited towards a future CPL/IR. I haven't yet had sufficient time to establish that.''

I may well have mis-understood the proposals, and forgive me for stating the obvious but, the CPL is a licence and the IR is a rating. I thought this NPA was describing the future rating(s) associated with flight in Instrument Meteorological Conditions, in which case the rating is the rating regardless of what licence it is attached to?

Therefore, I would have thought the proposals for the IR would be the same whether someone holds a PPL or a CPL.

The only difference between a CPL holder a PPL holder doing the IR is that the CPL holder would most likely complete the High Performance Aeroplanes (HPA) section of the theoretical knowledge exam(s).

Isn't that correct? I'm sure one of the introductory paragraphs said words to the effect that whilst the motivation for this work was to make the IR more accessible to private pilots that commercial pilots would also benefit.