Mechanics of Arrivals with EIR

[421C]

I dont fully grasp your aversion to joining at our near the IAF.

There are a number of reasons.

1. As you point out, it's not going to work for many IFR airports from ATC's point of view.
2. Obviously it's not going to work at VFR airports
3. Let's imagine an airport with IAFs and with no problem for ATC. Well, in this case, as a pilot, why do I want to be overhead at 3000' when I can plan a VFR arrival that allows me to be on the ground at the IAF? If the IAF isn't at the overhead, then it's likely to be miles and miles away from the routing of a sensible VFR arrival.

I am not saying there's never going to be a scenario of the IAF being the transition point to VFR. I just doubt it will be systematically so, and that in practice what could happen is pretty much as it is today for VFR arrivals to IFR airports (note: VFR arrivals, and not IFR arrivals accepting visual approaches) where I think IAP arrivals are less common (perhaps Soton is an exception).

making up your own descent perhaps many miles away from the airport while leaving the protection of CAS and having less assurance of the actual cloudbase where you expect to pop through

I am afraid this is the essence of the EIR. A pilot who doesn't like it will need a full IR or to stick to VFR. But let's not escalate the enroute descent into something scary and abnormal. It's what private IFR pilots already do when they operate to VFR airports. This is not a special case. It is the norm, day-in day-out for many IR and IMCr holders.

brgds
421C

[IO540]

EASA will never put in those magical 3 words because if they did they would throw away the hammer with which they are trying to beat the FAA on the head, and which represents more or less the entire piece of meat which they have thrown to the dog representing all those interests (FTOs etc) which wanted the N-reg community shut down.

[421C]

You're probably right, but at least it would focus and force the discussion into those terms, rather than all the waffle and dilution about not being able to help FAA IR holders without a bilateral treaty.

It's also important (IMHO) to differentiate CRT comments between the full ICAO IR to EASA IR conversion, and the requirement for FRA pilots to have a conversion.

Clearly some pilots may want a conversion - eg. to fly EASA registered aircraft. My point is that the conversion proposed in FCL008 is vastly better than the present one. It, in effect, takes the proposed 1 year validation (see Annex III of FCL para A4) and makes it a full conversion. A great result. The full conversion is never going to be easier than this - it's no more onerous than the PPL conversion (ie. a written test and a flight test, but no training) and vastly easier than the basically non-existent conversion for CPLs and ATPLs.

The problem for FAA IR operators is the requirement for a full conversion. Therefore the right pushback on the NPA, I believe, concerns the case of pilots with 3rd country IRs who only want privileges to fly 3rd country registered aircraft. For me, that distinction and the precedent of how Type Ratings are treated in this case is useful.

[Pace]

421C

The interesting point is what they will do with current employed FAA ATPs to keep them employed should they be EC citizens without EASA equivalent licences ?
My understanding is they have legal problems in carrying out their requirements as planned

Pace

[Contacttower]

Is there any chat over on the Biz Jet forum about that?