EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS

[BEagle]

EASA has now released the much-delayed NPA 2011-16 'Qualifications for flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions' - see http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_135

You have until 23 Dec 2011 to respond.

Critically:

There is a 'more achievable' IR.
There is nothing to indicate how EASA will deliver on the promises made by the EC to the European Parliament regarding taking the UK IMCR into European legislation.
The 'licence to kill' EIR has been included.

[soay]

Would one be naive to be reassured by this statement in section I.7?

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.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So EIR(SE): not below 1000ft above highest point within 1000nm, annual revalidation, minimum 100hrs ground training, 15+hrs training of which 10+ airborne, limited to day use only.

Obvious flaws: restriction to day use (what's wrong with night IFR/IMC if the holder also has an NQ?), lack of approaches - I see no argument in favour of permitting anybody to fly above 8/8 cloud if they can't fly an approach. Lots of the theoretical knowledge is in the CPL, and to some extent the PPL - why all the repetition, and why no consessions (as there is in UK for the IMCR) for CPL holders against TK? SIDS are in the TK but not the flying syllabus. Circling approach not in skill test.


Obvious advantages: Modular route to full IR, no restriction against flying in airways.

Obvious questions: Why can a TRI with IR teach for EIR but not a CRI with IR? What the heck is an "emergency IFR approach" - either it's an instrument approach, or it isn't. Why is the bridge from UK IMCR so hard to state explicitly.


Interesting quote:

Some of the group experts were in favour of developing a similar rating like the UK national IMC rating which allows the pilot only to fly in IMC in classes D, E, F and G airspace. But the groups could not agree on this issue of an additional rating to fly in IMC with lesser requirements than the current requirements for the Instrument Rating. Due to the time constraints for the development of the Implementing Rules for licensing, it was agreed to start a separate rulemaking task.

estimates are very rough and do not give a representative picture for the whole of Europe. However, they do give an indication that stakeholders’ concerns are well justified and explain the attractiveness of FAA licences in Europe. Making instrument ratings more accessible could thus significantly increase the number of Europeans with such a rating

Personal observations: (1) More on approaches is essential, even for an En-Route IFR qualification, (2) The massive history of the UK IMCR is apparently regarded as irrelevant, that is quite surreal, being able to go into airways with the EIR will be a benefit, a considerable benefit to a few individuals (3) The restricted IR for IMCR holders might be quite nice if it really happens.

G

[bookworm]

(2) The massive history of the UK IMCR is apparently regarded as irrelevant,

Far from it. I think without the "massive history of the UK IMCR" FCL.008 would never have got off the ground. The relatively safe operation of UK pilots under the IMCR regime is the safety justification by which the competence-based IR is justified.

What the heck is an "emergency IFR approach" - either it's an instrument approach, or it isn't.

In the same way that you would expect a PPL to get a few hours of instrument flying and to perform an "emergency 180 degree turn on instruments", without giving them privileges to fly intentionally in cloud, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give EIR holders some "emergency" instrument approach practice without giving them privileges to fly instrument approaches intentionally.

being able to go into airways with the EIR will be a benefit, a considerable benefit to a few individuals

That's a very UK-centric view of airspace. Only the UK has this peculiar reverence for "airways", in which the easiest instrument flying takes place (hold a level, fly a heading). Everywhere else, you just use the airspace that's there. The hard part of instrument flying is the approach, which is why the EIR holder has to go to some lengths to ensure that they don't end up flying an approach in IMC.

I've never really understood the concern expressed here. If I have an IR, I need my destination to be above minima, otherwise I divert to my alternate. If my alternate is also below minima, I'm left in some difficulty, and may have to use my "emergency skills" to get down safely. If I have a PPL, I need my destination to be VMC, otherwise I divert to my alternate. If my alternate is also below VMC, I'm left in some difficulty, and may have to use my "emergency skills" to get down safely. If I have an EIR, I need my destination to be VMC, otherwise I divert to my alternate. If my alternate is also below VMC, I'm left in some difficulty, and may have to use my "emergency skills" to get down safely. What's the difference?

[421C]

I see no argument in favour of permitting anybody to fly above 8/8 cloud if they can't fly an approach

Well then you are missing the fact that almost all the world's plain vanilla PPLs are permitted to do exactly that. The UK is an outlier in having its "in sight of the surface" restriction.

So what is your counter-argument that opposes the successful experience of practically all the world's PPLs?

brgds
421C

[Cough]

Originally Posted by Genghis

not below 1000ft above highest point within 1000nm

Yer what? The UK is within 1000nm of the alps, so the lowest usable level is about FL170...

Please tell me they meant not below 1000ft above the highest point within 1000m?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Cough

Yer what? The UK is within 1000nm of the alps, so the lowest usable level is about FL170...

Please tell me they meant not below 1000ft above the highest point within 1000m?

My typing error, actually it's 1000ft above the highest point within 5nm.


421c is there actually evidence that (a) most PPLs can/do fly VFR on top, and (b) they don't have accidents whilst doing so. Apart from anything else, my experience as a researcher is that outside of the UK, US, Germany and Australia, most countries safety statistics are so poorly compiled that you can prove just about anything, or nothing. And again, I'm aware that ICAO standard permits VFR on top, but how many countries actually permit that?

Regading class A - my reference was actually to the PPL/CPL(VFR)/IMCR not permitting flight in class A. An embuggerance on occasion and if the EIR gets rid of that, it will have benefits along the way. Part of that is the ability to fly along airways, but also just to ask permission to cross them or free-fly where there is class A airspace. But equally, some people will want to file IFR along airways, and no reason they shouldn't really.

G

[421C]

is there actually evidence that (a) most PPLs can/do fly VFR on top, and (b) they don't have accidents whilst doing so. Apart from anything else, my experience as a researcher is that outside of the UK, US, Germany and Australia, most countries safety statistics are so poorly compiled that you can prove just about anything, or nothing. And again, I'm aware that ICAO standard permits VFR on top, but how many countries actually permit that?

All US PPLs can fly VFR on top, and it's perfectly normal practice in the US. I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the JAR-FCL PPL allows VFR on top, it's a UK restriction. I am not sure if any other JAA countries also implemented this restriction, I don't think many did, if any. I imagine plenty of French PPLs fly VFR on top on their long Class E airways.

Hence my point about the majority of the world's PPLs. You're the one who made the point that "I see no argument in favour of permitting" something that is a normal part of the PPL privileges outside the UK, so you show me the evidence supporting what I find an extraordinary claim. The FAA have hundreds of thousands of PPLs without IRs. They publish papers and educational material on all sorts of flight training and risk management topics. Show me one advising against VFR on top, or highlighting the risks thereof. The NTSB accident database is searchable and has a vast volume of data. Do your research thing and show me any evidence suggesting VFR on top is dangerous.

brgds
421C

[IO540]

I doubt there is any evidence that VMC above an overcast is risky in any particular way.

These days, everybody who flies for real uses a GPS 100% of the time. I know this will upset some of the usual pilot forum residents but that is the present day reality. WW1 is over, WW2 is over, the Germans were beaten, even a 747 no longer carries a navigator, it's time to move on, and navigation is not a relevant issue.

And if navigation is not an issue, why object to VMC on top?

It is permitted under ICAO VFR. Just a few countries in the world impose a "sight of surface" requirement for VFR. VMC on top is not a "permission" as such - it is the default international position.

AFAICT the reason the UK CAA objects to VMC on top is because they pretend that GPS doesn't exist, which is a completely proper position given that it is not in the PPL syllabus.

But the proper way to deal with that is to update the syllabus

It is probably true that the EIR will benefit only a small % of pilots, because only a few people have long distance capable aircraft, fly abroad, but do not have an IR. I am pretty familiar with this position because that is what I was 2002-2006. But to object to the EIR on that basis is a retrograde step. We should be thinking of how to improve GA capability, because the whole scene is gradually collapsing into a black hole. The EIR will improve it.

I don't have time to read the 230 page EASA proposal now in detail (flying back to the UK from Greece) but it looks like a move in the right direction. FAA IRs accepted without flight training but one has to sit ~ 5 exams (perhaps a 30% reduction off the present "90% garbage" JAA IR TK), plus the flight test with an IR examiner (which will itself mean something like 10-15hrs flying for most experienced IFR pilots, to suss out the expected flight exam procedures), plus the JAA Class 1 audiogram or a JAA Class 1 medical (no improvement on the medical front; a huge missed opportunity, sadly).

Bear in mind though that it is still only a proposal worked out by a committee behind closed doors, with just the basics leaking out over the past year or two, so nothing actually changes right now in terms of what insurance policy an FAA licensed pilot may want to secure in time for 2014, or whatever. And FCL008 does nothing for commercial pilots.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, thanks to a little prodding from C421 I've done a little more homework.

"VFR on top" in FAAspeak, and I think most other countries, is an IFR clearance.

"VFR over the top", in FAA and Transport Canada speak is a VFR condition. FAR-135 permits VFR over the top in the following way:

Sec. 135.181

Performance requirements: Aircraft operated over-the-top or in IFR conditions.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, no person may--

(1) Operate a single-engine aircraft carrying passengers over-the-top; or

(2) Operate a multiengine aircraft carrying passengers over-the-top or in IFR conditions at a weight that will not allow it to climb, with the critical engine inoperative, at least 50 feet a minute when operating at the MEAs of the route to be flown or 5,000 feet MSL, whichever is higher.

(b) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, multiengine helicopters carrying passengers offshore may conduct such operations in over-the-top or in IFR conditions at a weight that will allow the helicopter to climb at least 50 feet per minute with the critical engine inoperative when operating at the MEA of the route to be flown or 1,500 feet MSL, whichever is higher.

(c) Without regard to paragraph (a) of this section, if the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that the weather along the planned route (including takeoff and landing) allows flight under VFR under the ceiling (if a ceiling exists) and that the weather is forecast to remain so until at least 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination, a person may operate an aircraft over-the-top.

(d) Without regard to paragraph (a) of this section, a person may operate an aircraft over-the-top under conditions allowing--

(1) For multiengine aircraft, descent or continuance of the flight under VFR if its critical engine fails; or

(2) For single-engine aircraft, descent under VFR if its engine fails.

Sec. 135.211

VFR: Over-the-top carrying passengers: Operating limitations.

Subject to any additional limitations in Sec. 135.181, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR over-the-top carrying passengers, unless--

(a) Weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that the weather at the intended point of termination of over-the-top flight--
-(1) Allows descent to beneath the ceiling under VFR and is forecast to remain so until at least 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at that point; or
-(2) Allows an IFR approach and landing with flight clear of the clouds until reaching the prescribed initial approach altitude over the final approach facility, unless the approach is made with the use of radar under Sec. 91.175(f) of this chapter; or

(b) It is operated under conditions allowing--
-(1) For multiengine aircraft, descent or continuation of the flight under VFR if its critical engine fails; or
-(2) For single-engine aircraft, descent under VFR if its engine fails.

G

[AN2 Driver]

Class 1 medical for IR, even if attached to a PPL?

That would kill it for a lot of people. So far to my knowledge you needed an audiogram and some additional requirements for the Class 2, but to get a class 1 medical would be the show stopper and also again make the IR impossible to achieve for a lot of folks.

Otherwise, I have to say I like what I am seeing. A lot actually. The EIR as a first step, fully acknowledged for the "full" IR if taken later, the IR theoretical stuff reduced to some new level e.t.c. sounds almost too good to be true.

[VMC-on-top]

Otherwise, I have to say I like what I am seeing. A lot actually. The EIR as a first step, fully acknowledged for the "full" IR if taken later, the IR theoretical stuff reduced to some new level e.t.c. sounds almost too good to be true.

As an IMCR holder myself, I'd tend to agree. I've held off for the last year doing an IR (no desperate need to do it at the moment), I thought i'd hold off going down the FAA route and see what happens in EASA land - and I also like the idea of the modular route.

Not read the whole report yet but assume that currency / retesting of the EASA IR will be similar to JAR, rather than the (effective) self-renewing FAA route?

Edit : although I do agree that concept of the EIR is quite ridiculous - it effectively gives the EIR holder the same privileges as the PPL holder throughout most of the world! - I would imagine most EIR holders (assume former IMCR holders) will simply descend through IMC to do a VFR approach? Surely the muppets at EASA realise that!?

[bookworm]

FAR-135 permits VFR over the top in the following way:

Part 135 is only for "commuter or on-demand [air taxi] operations".

[bookworm]

although I do agree that concept of the EIR is quite ridiculous - it effectively gives the EIR holder the same privileges as the PPL holder throughout most of the world! - I would imagine most EIR holders (assume former IMCR holders) will simply descend through IMC to do a VFR approach? Surely the muppets at EASA realise that!?

The proposed EIR allows flight under IFR in IMC enroute (including the climb and descent above MSA). That's vastly more useful than the ability to fly VFR in VMC on top of a cloud layer, which is the privilege most PPLs have. The whole idea of the EIR is that the holder "will simply descend through IMC to do a VFR approach". So yes, the "muppets at EASA" do realise that!

As for "assume former IMCR holders", I would think an IMCR -> EIR conversion would be almost pointless. The IMCR holder is likely, according to the Introduction, is likely to get an IR limited to reflect the privileges of the current IMC rating (which include approaches). A sensible conversion route for such a pilot would likely be to the full (competence-based) IR, which would for many IMC rating holders require 10 hours of training in an ATO, plus the ground exams, assuming there is no simpler route proposed.

[bookworm]

Class 1 medical for IR, even if attached to a PPL?

That would kill it for a lot of people. So far to my knowledge you needed an audiogram and some additional requirements for the Class 2, but to get a class 1 medical would be the show stopper and also again make the IR impossible to achieve for a lot of folks.

There's no requirement for a Class 1 being proposed. IO-540 is simply pointing out that the existing audiogram requirement for an IR is not being relaxed.

[dublinpilot]

Edit : although I do agree that concept of the EIR is quite ridiculous - it effectively gives the EIR holder the same privileges as the PPL holder throughout most of the world! - I would imagine most EIR holders (assume former IMCR holders) will simply descend through IMC to do a VFR approach? Surely the muppets at EASA realise that!?

I'm not a supporter of the EIR, as I think it's dangerous. However in fairness to it, it does offer far greater privileges than a non-UK PPL holder; it allows flight in IMC under IFR above a certain MSA. No basic PPL holder has those privileges.

What's the cost/hassle factor in renewing a JAA IR annually?
It it required to be renewed annually under ICAO, or is that a Euro invention?

[englishal]

I think an EIR would be pretty useful..... UK airspace would "disappear" and so one could file from sunny Edinburgh to sunny L2k for lunch, and the flight wouldn't have to dogleg around airspace, or risk busting airspace. If it is cloudy en route, no problem, you are not banned from Class A airspace, you just keep going.

So you won't be able to fly the ILS at L2k...well, you can fly it down to 1000' cloud base I would imagine or find a hole, so it'd have to be pretty miserable and would suit most PPL's very well. It is a shame it doesn't include a precision approach capability though as I am sure many holes will be appearing in clouds which previously didn't have a hole

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by englishal

I think an EIR would be pretty useful..... UK airspace would "disappear" and so one could file from sunny Edinburgh to sunny L2k for lunch, and the flight wouldn't have to dogleg around airspace, or risk busting airspace. If it is cloudy en route, no problem, you are not banned from Class A airspace, you just keep going.

So you won't be able to fly the ILS at L2k...well, you can fly it down to 1000' cloud base I would imagine or find a hole, so it'd have to be pretty miserable and would suit most PPL's very well. It is a shame it doesn't include a precision approach capability though as I am sure many holes will be appearing in clouds which previously didn't have a hole

1000ft above the nearest obstacle within 5nm, a lot of places, will be about 1200-1400 DH and sometimes 2000ft+ aal, compared to 600ft DH for an NPA with an IMC or 500ft on a PA, so it is rather more restrictive. Yet another argument to make sure you have an IMCR by Easter !

But apart from class A of-course, you can do that flight pretty much in a straight line if you don't mind doing a lot of radio calls to get through controlled airspace. I did Lydd to Prague pretty much in a straight line a week or so ago, with the only significant dogleg (out of Enstone) being around London. That was all through airspace, VFR with an IMCR (so VFR OTT), and that wouldn't be a lot different with an EIR - you still need to talk your way through everything. Okay, yes, in airways it will be easier because once in airways with an accepted flight plan you have no ongoing need to ask for permission - but it won't affect the route much.


To be honest, broadly I do favour the proposed EIR, but I'd still like to see approaches covered and permitted without having to declare an emergency - albeit certainly with a conservative DH like the IMCR. 600ft DH has worked for the IMCR with that level of training and is a lot less restrictive than MSA, which is what the EIR effectively proposes. And include a SID in the skill test, since it's clearly in the theory. That and can we use it at night please?, subject of-course to an NQ: I can't help suspect that the wording there is just unfortunate rather than deliberate.

Perhaps conservatism and privilege would be settled by allowing a 1000ft DH with the EIR - more conservative than the IMCR, but useable nonetheless.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Part 135 is only for "commuter or on-demand [air taxi] operations".

For private flying, is there an equivalent document that I didn't find?

G

[Fuji Abound]

It would appear to be a very good result.

I do hope that certain well known commentators will hold their peace, not, mind you that i can imagine easa will be readly diverted from the course now set.

Having worked with a few on here to support the imcr let it also be said the effort appears to have been very worth while.

Inevitably the devil may yet be in the detail.