IAOPA sets out its stall on PPL licensing to the US and Europe

[proudprivate]

IAOPA-Europe and AOPA-US have made a joint presentation to an EASA-FAA conference on harmonisation of licences between America and Europe which it is hoped will lead to a simple, low-cost route to recognition of qualifications at the PPL level across the Atlantic. Craig Spence of AOPA US and Martin Robinson of AOPA UK outlined IAOPA's position on licensing to European and American delegates at a conference in Cleveland, Ohio, which is part of the process of establishing bilateral agreements on aviation between the continents. Both sides have agreed to make action on recognition of private pilots licences a priority.

IAOPA is asking that recognition processes be kept simple, and that unless there are serious safety issues to address, the regulations of one authority should hold good in the territory of the other once they have been validated. Validation is important because it allows a national authority in Europe to 'take ownership' of an individual's qualifications, and to amend or suspend them as necessary – something national authorities complain they cannot currently do.

In an ideal world, the holder of an American PPL would be able to take a European Air Law exam, have it certificated by a local examiner and pay a small fee to a national authority before it can be used in Europe. In the case of holders of FAA Instrument Ratings, they could be validated for use in Europe on the condition that the holder undergo an annual check ride with an instructor. European authorities look on the rolling renewal system used by the Americans as a game-stopper and an annual renewal may be the price that has to be paid for recognition.

From the American standpoint, there is a problem with validation because under their law, licences are only valid in the state in which they are issued. If, say, an FAA licence was validated in France, the holder would only be able to fly within the boundaries of France; America does not recognise Europe as a political entity. But the FAA representatives in Cleveland are willing to look at solutions to this problem and Craig Spence will be pursuing the issue. The presentation was positively received by both sides; IAOPA has been asked to write to the FAA and EASA setting out our proposals, and Craig Spence and Martin Robinson are working on that document, which will pertain solely to private licences and ratings – professional tickets will be dealt with separately.
IAOPA is also talking to the FAA about the position of holders of FAA 61.75 licences, issued on the basis of their European qualifications. These will lapse because they are issued on the basis of the number of your European licence, and this will change when you get an EASA licence. IAOPA is working on ways to get 61.75 licences reissued without the holder having to go through the security clearances and other hassles now involved.

In the ideal world, you would set licensing standards at ICAO level and you would recognise ICAO licenses and convert them at national level for a fee, commensurate with the administrative work involved (i.e. something like £ 10 -20 max). There would be no additional air law exam, there would be no "certification" by a local examiner.

I fail to see why an annual renewal of an instrument rating would be a necessary condition to ensure flight safety. There obviously is no safety statistic to support this. And despite the recent announcements by the EASA supervisory board to the contrary, the "authority" continues to use bogus safety arguments to perpetuate job schemes for flight examiners.

By contrast, I would have nothing against national authorities wanting to "take ownership" of individuals' qualifications. But is there a history of the FAA actually acting up when a European CAA comes along with a reasonable claim ? Is the processing time inordinately long ? Lets take the example of the Dutch CAA wanting to take action against an American licensed Dutch citizen flying an N-reg into class D airspace without establishing two-way radio communication (I'm taking a typical offence for which your run of the mill CAA would like to see a license suspended for 3 months or so). Is that now "not happening because Dutch CAA can't be bothered" or "not happening because the FAA FSDO in Brussels can't be bothered" ? Or is this "take ownership" complaint yet another example of Eckard Seebohm style dog**** ?

[Fuji Abound]

If you have flown in various parts of the world there is no doubt that some of the local practices can be quite alien. Whether this justifies an air law exam or a check ride with an instructor is perhaps debatable but given that not unreasonably national authorities want some evidence a pilot has proved their knowledge I can see the justification for this requirement. Unfortunately our air law exam for example is not a very good model for demonstrating that a pilot that has only flown in the US understand the differences here.

I agree with regards the annual instrument check flight - its a complete nonsense but realistically I suspect you would be paddling against a very strong tide to get that changed!

I am afraid Martin struggles to get to grips with these sort of issues after his debacle over the IMCr and EASA changes in general but I suspect he has been more expertly guided by AOPA US who really do know their business. We can only hope it produces some results.

[peterh337]

I agree with your comments PP but I think the reality is in the politics and the emotions surrounding these issues in Europe.

Forget aviation and accident stats. Just look at the politics.

In the USA, the default position is to vest authority in an individual and let him get on with it. Hence the A&P/IA system, the DER system, the DAR system. Only at the top end (jets) does one have to get into FAR Part 145 Repair Stations. It's a system which works very well, although obviously it does require the govt authority to be able to bust individuals who play up (and the FAA certainly does do that, and they do it in Europe as well, often acting much faster than the CAA).

In Europe, the default position is to presume all individuals are crooks and fraudsters, and you vest authority in an organisation. You make the organisation go through various approvals whereby certain steps make it "difficult" for a crook to operate (you force the organisation to appoint separate individuals for separate functions which makes collusion necessary, and since collusion is regarded as antisocial, it is deemed unlikely to happen in Europe) and then you can let the system run with minimal top-level supervisory activity; you mainly set up an office to collect the approval fees. So, we have the European situation where maintenance companies can do what they like (including document forgery) and virtually never get busted. This extends to stuff like ISO9000 which is now a complete farce and a purely marketing tool (albeit one that impresses only complete mugs, and ISO 9000 quality managers employed by the company doing the purchasing).

So, we will never have Europe accepting the FAA IR 6/6 rolling currency. It's obvious that all FAA licensed pilots are forging their licenses, after all

US AOPA is excellent and superbly organised. If they can apply some of their resources to the European situation, they can achieve a great deal. I once watched an ageing Phil Boyer totally demolish a bunch of Eurocontrol officials at a presentation, and they slinked out as fast as they could before somebody could ask them questions.

An air law exam is a fairly standard thing for license conversions/validations, notwithstanding the fact that the present one in Europe is stuffed to the brim with complete bollox like this and addresses virtually nothing to do with actually flying over here.

[Whopity]

In the ideal world, you would set licensing standards at ICAO level and you would recognise ICAO licenses and convert them at national level for a fee, commensurate with the administrative work involved

The UK has recognised ICAO licences since the late 1940s, there is no fee and no work involved. Of course this doesn't suit the beaurocrats of Europe so it is about to end. AOPA are really only proposing that we go back to where we were pre JAA but lets not forget who dragged us into JAA in the first place, not the beaurocrats of Europe, it was not in their plan until AOPA put it there!.

Despite all the hype there is no such thing as a EASA PPL, only a series of National PPLs with an EASA sticker on them. Maybe the rest of the World should tell EASA that their licences will not be acceptable as EASA is not a member of ICAO; we could then forget them and continue with our National ICAO licences.

[proudprivate]

Whopity :

The UK has recognised ICAO licences since the late 1940s, there is no fee and no work involved.

Agreed. But I was referring to a conversion. That is, you have someone who has lived and flown all his life in Brazil and now wants to fly G-reg in Europe. It would be reasonable for the UK CAA to charge a small conversion fee for that (i.e. issuing a new UK CAA license).

Maybe the rest of the World should tell EASA that their licences will not be acceptable as EASA is not a member of ICAO; we could then forget them and continue with our National ICAO licences.

Yeah but even when you fight the Neazis, you still try to abide by (the Geneva and) the Chicago convention. Otherwise you become a bit like them.


Fuji :

If you have flown in various parts of the world there is no doubt that some of the local practices can be quite alien.

True. But that is even true inside Europe.

- I got b*llocked at an Italian regional airport when I was requesting taxi to the fuel pumps without having requested a startup clearance first.
- I've flown to airfields in Germany and France where the local language is required for A/A communication
- You can file IFR departures (not just Zulu) from VFR only airports in the Netherlands
- etc...etc...

Are you arguing that a G-reg PPL (IR) should go through differences training to fly in Italy / Germany / the Netherlands ??? No of course you're not. And what evidence do you have that that G-reg PPL knows f*ck all about Italian Air Law ? Makes the right circuit calls in German ?
But the N-reg flyer should sit an Air Law Exam ? Come off it, mate...

I am afraid Martin struggles to get to grips with these sort of issues after his debacle over the IMCr and EASA changes in general but I suspect he has been more expertly guided by AOPA US who really do know their business. We can only hope it produces some results.

That I hope too. What bugs me is that he writes the underlined as if it is "commonly accepted". To any logical logically thinking pilot without some sort of pecuniary conflict of interest, it is not.

I agree with regards the annual instrument check flight - its a complete nonsense but realistically I suspect you would be paddling against a very strong tide to get that changed!

I agree with all the lobbying and the artificial job creation it is a strong tide to row against. Nevertheless, if the EASA board claims that in any GA-relevant regulation safety has to be weighed against burden and cost and that safety arguments have to be supported by real statistics, one can only point that out to them. At the very least, they will look ridiculous in front of everyone if they persist.

[Fuji Abound]

You raise an interesting points with regards differences in europe. I suppose there is rightly a much greater common denominator between class a (and tmas) and "international" commercial airports throughout the world enabling much the same standards of air law to be applied. Differences are far more common at small non commercial airports, and ifr traffic very rarely has to worry about airspace and other local perculiarities. For that reason demonstrating familiarity is perhaps even more important for pilots of ga vfr traffic than cat pilots.

Never the less easa ga pilots are free to roam although as you rightly say the organisation of airspace and local procedures can be quite different throughout europe. In fact of couse this was true before easa. From europe's point of view like it or not i guess it would be impossible to impose the need to pass an air law exam for each member state and i also guess easa would say thats why they intend even greater harmonisation.

On the other hand i equally guess australia would say the way we do business is sufficiently different that we are going to impose an air law requirement on foreign pilots.

Whether they would be justified is more difficult. We all know you can just go fly in america under a 61.75 but you do need to pass a flight test and you will (or should) be closely questioned on many of the essentials of air law. There is undoubtedly plenty to catch many the private pilot out in terms of the differences between the way they and we do things. On the other hand we give faa pilots (at least at the moment) complete freedom without having to demonstrate any knowledge what so ever of our air law. You could argue we are more generous. Is there any evidence a pilot is better off for passing a local air law exam? I have no idea. I guess it forces everyone to at least review local procedures sufficiently to pass whereas without while the vast majority will have the common sense to do so its surprising how stupid a small minority can be.

[proudprivate]

From europe's point of view like it or not i guess it would be impossible to impose the need to pass an air law exam for each member state and i also guess easa would say thats why they intend even greater harmonisation.

Of course. My point is that EASA, when arguing the need to impose an air law exam on non-EASA ICAO rated pilots for safety reasons is a bit hypocritical, in the sense that air law in different member states is very different and most of these things you just learn on a need to know basis in your preparation and by experience.

The intention at harmonisation is nothing but lip service. Have a look at Italian semicircular regulation and you quickly get the message. And the EASA proposals on harmonisation of transition levels are downright farcical.

So unlike Australia, Europe doesn't have a unified air law and hence requiring knowledge of it through an air law exam is a bogus argument: the common denominator of air law in Europe is amply covered by what they teach you in an ICAO country, be that in Belize, Brazil or Bolivia

We all know you can just go fly in america under a 61.75 but you do need to pass a flight test

You don't : you need to have a BFR, which is quite different from (and a lot less expensive than) a flight test. All the questions you get on air law from an instructor are going to be relevant ones, unlike the air law exams in Europe. I must say the question Peter came up with made me smile. It is so typical for that twisted JAA attitude.

On the other hand we give faa pilots (at least at the moment) complete freedom without having to demonstrate any knowledge what so ever of our air law.

You're obviously only talking about the UK, I presume, which allows flying G-reg on an FAA PPL VFR only ? Because if you fly into the US with a JAA license on a G-reg, you have complete freedom too, without ever having demonstrated knowledge of "their" air law. That is the whole point of ICAO and the Chicago convention: establish a common standard with minimum requirements for safe operation worldwide. Thats why ICAO regularly audits countries, so that licenses can't be "bought" from some corrupt official in Ulan Baatar or Gatwick.

And the rest of Europe isn't that generous at all : To convert, even at PPL VFR level, requires a wrist of exams (you got to love those questions on inner ear anatomy or the number of rods in the eye !) and a flight test, even for competent pilots with 100 hours of PIC time.

I guess it forces everyone to at least review local procedures sufficiently to pass whereas without while the vast majority will have the common sense to do so its surprising how stupid a small minority can be.

Everyone, that is, except the UK EASA pilot flying in France, or the ICAO EP level 0 Air Bulgaria pilot flying to Amsterdam. But seriously, I don't buy that as an argument to need an air law exam.

You can reasonably assume that someone who has sat through an up to ICAO standard airman certification process will have been taught to prepare for a flight. The FAA certificate holders for instance are taught to familiarize themselves with all elements relevant for the flight.

And if you are a foreign pilot renting some local equipment, you can be sure that the operator will have the renter pilot checked out, not only in the aircraft but also in pertinent local procedures. That is actually the point of the BFR in the 61.75 conversion.

[Whopity]

It would be reasonable for the UK CAA to charge a small conversion fee for that (i.e. issuing a new UK CAA license).

WHY? what on earth has that got to do with safe operation? If a Brazilian pilot goes to a UK club he will be checked out to their satisfaction. Having an unnecessary piece of papers serves no useful purpose. The UK has complied with ICAO Annex 1 in both spirit and practice unlike many other countries. It has not caused any safety issues in doing so.

1.2.2.2 Recommendation.— A pilot licence issued by a
Contracting State should be rendered valid by other
Contracting States for use in private flights.

As far as Airr Law exams are concerned. they ceased having any relevance to flying an aeroplane years ago.

[dublinpilot]

You're obviously only talking about the UK, I presume, which allows flying G-reg on an FAA PPL VFR only ? Because if you fly into the US with a JAA license on a G-reg, you have complete freedom too, without ever having demonstrated knowledge of "their" air law. That is the whole point of ICAO and the Chicago convention: establish a common standard with minimum requirements for safe operation worldwide. Thats why ICAO regularly audits countries, so that licenses can't be "bought" from some corrupt official in Ulan Baatar or Gatwick.

And the rest of Europe isn't that generous at all : To convert, even at PPL VFR level, requires a wrist of exams (you got to love those questions on inner ear anatomy or the number of rods in the eye !) and a flight test, even for competent pilots with 100 hours of PIC time.

Not that it's wholly relevant, but for the record, Ireland is just as generous a the UK, automatically rendering an ICAO licence valid on EI reg aircraft.

[Fuji Abound]

Proudprivate

Not nick picking but a BFR is a flight test. Yes, I was only talking about the UK and yes you could fly a G reg in the US but you will struggle to find one (I know, there are a few).

I don't disagree with anything you say, my post was to give both sides of the coin without necessarily drawing any conclusions. However as is so often the case there is what we all think or know makes sense and what is realistic or likely to happen.

Its debatable whether pilot medicals achieve anything, but they aren't going to disappear any time soon. Its debatable whether Europe needs control over everything that gets off the ground in its airspace but in reality the Euro mind set cannot contemplate anything else.

Of course it would be wonderful if any pilot could fly any where in the world on their ICAO license but its not going to happen any time soon and it definitely isn't going to happen in Europe -I wish it wasn't so but that is the only realistic conclusion unless you want to give the next five years of your life to a campaign which even then is unlikely to succeed. I spent six months campaigning to keep the IMCr, I think it was worthwhile and I would like to think it contributed to the present state of play but that was only one very small and possibly achievable element.

That is all I have to say really.

[peterh337]

Pilot medicals seem to do nothing that is statistically detectable but they make the pilot papers ICAO compliant...

Ireland is just as generous a the UK, automatically rendering an ICAO licence valid on EI reg aircraft.

Interesting; I didn't know that

What about the rumour that Ireland does not recognise FAA Class 3 medicals?

[BEagle]

What are these mysterious 'pilot papers', peterh337? Why not use correct terminology?

Incidentally, the requirement for periodic demonstrations of competency is enshrined in the EASA Aircrew Regulation - and quite rightly so too!

I am afraid Martin struggles to get to grips with these sort of issues after his debacle over the IMCr and EASA changes in general but I suspect he has been more expertly guided by AOPA US who really do know their business. We can only hope it produces some results.

To which 'struggle' and 'debacle' do you refer? Where is your evidence for this nasty little comment?

[peterh337]

You must know exactly what I mean

- license (licence)
- rating(s)
- medical

No use writing e.g. license when the medical is always required also.

[dublinpilot]

What about the rumour that Ireland does not recognise FAA Class 3 medicals?

That is correct. The IAA don't recognise FAA class 3 medicals, believing them to be sub ICAO. They are perfectly happy though with an FAA class 1 or class 2 medical.

[peterh337]

They appear to be incorrect; they are sub-ICAO only if special conditions are imposed.

Still, as they say, possession is 9/10 of the law and the IAA owns the aircraft registry

[patowalker]

What about the rumour that Ireland does not recognise FAA Class 3 medicals?

The UK trumps that. It does not recognise French and German JAA Class 2 medicals.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/JAAMemb...uleJul2010.pdf

[peterh337]

Do you mean it doesn't recognise them for the issue of a UK JAR-FCL PPL, or it doesn't recognise them for use in conjunction with a French or German JAR-FCL PPL to fly a G-reg?

The latter would be most suprising.

[proudprivate]

Do you mean it doesn't recognise them for the issue of a UK JAR-FCL PPL, or it doesn't recognise them for use in conjunction with a French or German JAR-FCL PPL to fly a G-reg?

They don't recognise the French, German [and Belgian, for that matter] medical for the issuance of a UK JAR-FCL PPL.

Incidentally, the requirement for periodic demonstrations of competency is enshrined in the EASA Aircrew Regulation - and quite rightly so too!

I don't think anybody is debating a requirement for periodic demonstrations of competency. After all, a biannual flight review with an instructor is just that.

What we are arguing here is
- that it shouldn't have to be demonstrated to an examiner
- that recent flight experience should play a role in setting the requirements
- that EASAs unholy Aircrew Regulation contains a lot artificial job creation that is not supported by any safety statistics
- that IAOPA is apparently advocating some quite unnecessary restrictions which aim at perpetuating this job creation to the detriment of the flying community as a whole

@ whopity : you're quite right. In an ideal situation, the ICAO member state would simply recognise ICAO papers and allow its planes to be flown on those alone.

@ Fuji : I think it is an absolute disgrace that the IMCR rating is discontinued. Again an example of EAZIsm imposing themselves regulation wise without any safety statistic in support. A lead poisoning from their carnival masks is what those Cologne clowns deserve...

The IAA don't recognise FAA class 3 medicals, believing them to be sub ICAO. They are perfectly happy though with an FAA class 1 or class 2 medical.

Is this for conversion, or to fly EI aircraft on an FAA certificate in Ireland ?

[BEagle]

@ Fuji : I think it is an absolute disgrace that the IMCR rating is discontinued. Again an example of EAZIsm imposing themselves regulation wise without any safety statistic in support. A lead poisoning from their carnival masks is what those Cologne clowns deserve...

The IMC rating is not 'being discontinued'.

It will be available (under a new name - 'IR(Restricted)') for new issues until 8 Apr 2014 and possibly thereafter. Anyone obtaining one before then will be able to use it on both EASA and non-EASA aeroplanes into the future.

The IR(Restricted) was originally my idea, but the CAA has done the spade work to make it happen. Hopefully my other proposal (adoption of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) into FCL.600.IR - General) will be accepted; if not, the fight will go on!

[dublinpilot]

The IAA don't recognise FAA class 3 medicals, believing them to be sub ICAO. They are perfectly happy though with an FAA class 1 or class 2 medical.

Is this for conversion, or to fly EI aircraft on an FAA certificate in Ireland ?

Irish law automatically validates all ICAO licences for use on EI reg aircraft for private day VFR flight (without geographic restriction, though there is a confusing AIC which tries to limit it to Ireland).

Obviously any such licence needs to be accompanied by an ICAO level 2 medical or above (the standard required for private flight licences under ICAO).

The IAA have taken the view that an FAA class 3 medical is not an ICAO level 2 medical or above, and therefore cannot be used as the basis for flying an EI reg aircraft on an FAA PPL.

dp