Pity we do not have the balls of the French more on IR and IMCR

[Pace]

EASA IR regulation expected ‘soon’

Moves towards a more attainable Instrument Rating in Europe are
running behind schedule by about two years, AOPA Germany’s Managing
Director Michael Erb reported to the Regional Meeting. Publication of
EASA’s ‘opinion’ – effectively its plans for rulemaking – are expected
shortly, however.
After pressure from the French, Dr Erb said, there was reason to hope
that third country Instrument Ratings might be transferable into
European IRs simply by having a check ride with an examiner. “Every
year, Instrument Rating holders have to have check ride, anyway, and
this would be an enormous advantage to the holders of third country
IRs. They must hold a European PPL, to which they can attach their
IR.”
Emmanuel Davidson of AOPA France said checks in the United States on
pilots with a current medical, an Instrument Rating and a European
address showed there were more than 11,000 on the FAA’s books.
Martin Robinson said the UK CAA was determined to retain the IMC
Rating in the UK, although EASA continued to stand out against it.
While IMC rating holders had grandfather rights, under EASA new pilots
could not be extended the protection of the rating, leading to a
strange situation where one pilot would be flying with the increased
safety provided by the rating, while the next was denied it. “The UK
is not saying it wishes to impose its IMC rating on the rest of
Europe,” he said. “It is saying, please read your own rules and allow
the IMC rating to continue in the UK.”

Now UK stand shoulder to shoulder with the French for an easy transferable and attainable IR and forget the red herring distraction of the IMCR

The UK
is not saying it wishes to impose its IMC rating on the rest of
Europe,” he said. “It is saying, please read your own rules and allow
the IMC rating to continue in the UK.”

How Gentlemanly of the UK? Pretty please nice Mr EASA, Tea and biscuits cozy chats and nothing achieved! whats new?


Pace

[172driver]

Now UK stand shoulder to shoulder with the French for an easy transferable and attainable IR and forget the red herring distraction of the IMCR

Well said, Pace, couldn't agree more.

[mad_jock]

But the UK is one of the countries trying to block a transferable IR. So why would the side with the French?

[Pace]

MJ

Because the UK are stupid maybe? There is no sensible reason why an FAA IR should not convert to a EASA IR without any more than a flight test and I will even add a differences exam
You give me a good reason why not which does not involve petty protectionism or terratorialism?
So safety grounds please which is supposed to be EASAs mandate!

Pace

[mad_jock]

There is none which is why it won`t happen.

And the N reg crowd have pissed to many people off telling them how crap the UK/EU system is. You might get something in 10-20 years when enough of the old crew have retired.

But like it or not there are a large number of people who want to punish FAA EU pilots for sticking there middle fingers up at their home countrys regulations.

Safety has nothing to do with it.

[peterh337]

The French IR is nothing like the IMCR, in the training process for starters.

Some details were posted here by a French pilot.

The UK IMCR is unique in its accessibility.

[Johnm]

What you have to understand is that EASA like all EU bureaucrats believes that uniform high level of safety is achieved through uniform complex paperwork the French understand that the paperwork and the activity are separate and largely unrelated.

[BEagle]

More nonsense, eh Pace?

1. Read the FCL.008 CRD to understand the latest proposals for conversion of FAA IRs to EASA IRs. This will involve experience and testing, but no theoretical knowledge examinations will be required; practical assessment of relevant knowledge will be included as part of the Skill Test.

2. Understand that the UK will continue to strive for the regulatory flexibility of JAR-FCL to be included in part-FCL. Should you wish to research this, you will need to consider JAR-FCL 1.175(b) and the IAOPA proposal for a new FCL.600(b). Which the CAA strongly supports in its own proposals.

3. The French national IR will face the same fate as the IR(R) after Apr 2014 unless EASA accepts FCL.600(b). Hence FCL.600(b) is not a UK-centric proposal.

Incidentally, mad_jock, far from 'blocking' such proposals, the UK fully supports the FCL.008 proposals with regard to the conversion of FAA IRs to EASA IRs.

[Pace]

more nonsense eh Pace

Expand ?

Beagle

You know for over two years I have written in these forums my opinion on the IMCR being retained.
I value its benefits both from a safety angle as well as making flying more practical for the PPL but in the new EASA times it has past its sell by date and fighting to retain it rather than replace it with an FAA style full IR has purely diverted focus away from demanding a PPL IR (Full) which the ordinary working man with work and family obligations can achieve.
Without the influence of the french I very much doubt such an IR would be on the cards and I find it pathetic that the UK has not been equally vociferous in DEMANDING such an IR for GA pilots.
If the IMCR has such proven safety attributes then a full IR would have even better.
I say DEMAND because that is what we should have done.
So what victory retaining the IMCR? To me that would be winning a battle and losing the war

If you think that is nonsense so be it we disagree on this point

[englishal]

There is no sensible reason why an FAA IR should not convert to a EASA IR

ESPECIALLY seeing as most people who have or fly an N reg are currently using their FAA IR in their N reg plane, in Europe, quite legally and safely!!!!! Surely this speaks volumes, are there ANY incidents of an FAA IR holder getting into trouble while flying IFR which is directly related to the use of a foreign IR in Euroairspace?

Does an M or 2J's validation of an ICAO certificate and ratings now make that an EASA licence for all intents and purposes?

Who cares if the EASA require half scale deflection and the FAA 3/4 or the FAA is tougher on partial panel. That becomes largely irrelevant the minute you have used your rating in anger, and as time goes on, more irrelevant. There is no reason EASA couldn't directly convert an FAA IR for someone with 100hrs actual or simulated instrument time as I bet they are probably more competent than a brand new EASA IR holder.

[BEagle]

There is no reason EASA couldn't directly convert an FAA IR for someone with 100hrs actual or simulated instrument time as I bet they are probably more competent than a brand new EASA IR holder.

The requirement is expected to be 50hrs IFR flight time as PIC of aeroplanes, plus the Skill Test (which includes assessment of relevant practical knowledge).

Due to the fact that, unlike the IMCR, the FAA IR does not require any periodic retesting, meaning that in theory it could have been years since a pilot demonstrated adequate competency under IFR (or even the ability to fly safely in IMC...), it is virtually certain that a Skill Test with an IRE will be a mandatory requirement for conversion to a part-FCL C-b M IR(A).

[Fuji Abound]

There is no sensible reason why an FAA IR should not convert to a EASA IR

We need to stop using words like "sensible".

Sense is not the driving force and sense is very unlikely to win the day.

EASA have a wholly different agenda.

Beagle

Validation is an interesting point.

My problem is with a scientific background I like evidence to support legislative change - rather than it seeming a good idea.

You will recall there was no validation for the VFR rating, then there was validation by C of E, and then by a flight with an instructor maybe one day there will be a compulsory flight test. The point being I am not aware of any evidence this has made things safer. There may be evidence, but I am not aware of it.

With regards the IR the FAA have done things their way for as long as I can remember - is there any evidence that changing to an annual test will make things safer?

If there is any justification I suspect much of this is directed at the rare exceptions. I think most pilots do a pretty good job of policing themselves - there is the odd individual who think their skill levels are better than they are, or perhaps are self deceivers, and just maybe re-validation does prevent these individuals killing themselves.

Perhaps my "problem" is making an exception for instrument flight. Also it is an interesting dichotomy that the FAA require a compulsory VFR test every two years, but self validation for IR privileges, whereas we require no basic test of a pilot's flight skills but we test IR privileges.

As I said earlier - "sense" doesn't come into it.

[englishal]

If there is any justification I suspect much of this is directed at the rare exceptions. I think most pilots do a pretty good job of policing themselves

This is true. I normally do an FAA IPC (Instrument Proficiency Check) every two years, despite not needing to, as this is probably about the frequency that I travel to the USA these days. It also re validates my IMCr and also proves to the FAA flying school that I am competent to take their aeroplanes so kills a number of birds with one stone so to speak. Last time I combined this with learning to fly the Cessna C510 which was a lot of fun !!!

[flybymike]

You will recall there was no validation for the VFR rating, then there was validation by C of E, and then by a flight with an instructor maybe one day there will be a compulsory flight test. The point being I am not aware of any evidence this has made things safer. There may be evidence, but I am not aware of it.

There is indeed evidence, but the evidence is that the introduction of BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests etc made NO difference at all to the accident statistics. The CAA's own safety review indicated no detectable improvements following the introduction of all this eurocrap at the turn of the century. We had all been flying just as safely for decades before this whole new layer of bureaucracy and cost was brought in.
The CAA safety review is here;
CAA Paper 2007/05: The Effect of JAR-FCL on General Aviation Safety | Publications | About the CAA
and one of the the rather telling conclusion states:

"The introduction in 1999 of new revalidation requirements contained within JAR-FCL had no significant effect on the number of serious incidents and accidents involving fixed-wing GA (Single Engine Piston) aircraft for both private pilots and instructors."

[Pace]

Englishall

I have not done a BFR for years basically because I keep a current type rating going which requires recurrent validation on a yearly basis.
Beagle I never suggested that EASA take the FAA IR as is without tailoring the package to suit their own requirements.
An annual IR flight test or recurrent type rating should suffice.
I also have nothing against a differences exam be that oral or written.

Pace

[flybymike]

Due to the fact that, unlike the IMCR, the FAA IR does not require any periodic retesting, meaning that in theory it could have been years since a pilot demonstrated adequate competency under IFR (or even the ability to fly safely in IMC...), it is virtually certain that a Skill Test with an IRE will be a mandatory requirement for conversion to a part-FCL C-b M IR(A).

However;

1. There is an ongoing currency requirement.

2. The absence of any data to suggest that lack of recurrent testing has resulted in poorer accident statistics seems to indicate that currency rather than testing is equally, or perhaps even more effective, even for pilots "who have not demonstrated adequate competency" (except of course by failing to have an accident.)

[dublinpilot]

maybe one day there will be a compulsory flight test.

EASA's first draft at FCL rules had a compulsory flight test every 3 (or was it 6?) years. But that got quickly removed.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

Again, I suspect part of the dichotomy stems from the IR being considered a "professional" rating in Euro land whereas in FAA IR land it is a rating for everyone.

This means the powerful professional lobby has a significant part to play in the dialogue.

It is bizarre really because light GA mixes no more or less with CAT whatever the flight conditions. It is equally bizarre given that most CP were once in charge of rubber bands. Perhaps as soon as they have an ATPL they forget their roots.

[OpenCirrus619]

In my humble opinion one reason that there is so much disagreement, in the UK, is the way the PPL IR advocates tried to torpedo the IMCR to further their own aims.

Personally I value the IMCR - it provides precisely the training the privileges I want/need.

At the moment I do not have the time, or money, to get any new ratings - in particular something which will involve a lot of training. Should the IMCR be replaced with some sort of IR (unless I get the new rating on "grandfather rights") it will impose a reduction in safety for me, and those in my position.

I agree that I would probably be better equipped IF I had a full IR but, in my case, it is not an option: If the IMCR is removed then I will be worse off / LESS safe.

In light of this I, along with many others, will oppose anything that will remove the IMCR without replacing it with something the provides similar privileges at a similar cost - perhaps the PPL IR folks would like to consider this.

OC619

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by OpenCirrus619

In my humble opinion one reason that there is so much disagreement, in the UK, is the way the PPL IR advocates tried to torpedo the IMCR to further their own aims.

Personally I value the IMCR - it provides precisely the training the privileges I want/need.

At the moment I do not have the time, or money, to get any new ratings - in particular something which will involve a lot of training. Should the IMCR be replaced with some sort of IR (unless I get the new rating on "grandfather rights") it will impose a reduction in safety for me, and those in my position.

I agree that I would probably be better equipped IF I had a full IR but, in my case, it is not an option: If the IMCR is removed then I will be worse off / LESS safe.

In light of this I, along with many others, will oppose anything that will remove the IMCR without replacing it with something the provides similar privileges at a similar cost - perhaps the PPL IR folks would like to consider this.

OC619

You are rehashing a dead issue. You do have exactly what you personally want (the protection of your IMCr into the future) so you can retain the rating with the training/skills tailored to what you want (in the form of the already being issued IR(R) - which you get with your new blue licence)

The issues now are
1 - Conversion of other IRs (which has a programme of work)
2 - Bending the Euro rules to try and keep the ability to issue new IMCrs (which BEagle and Co. are working on)
3 - Getting the competency based IR, sensible ATO requirements, and maybe the EIR - which would provide for not a lot of extra training the ability to operate IFR all over Europe, a massive safety benefit to non-UK pilots, and the chance for IMCr pilots to upgrade to being able to legally operate IFR into and out of France, Ireland, etc.

It's possible some IMCr pilots might even find it a useful privilege to get above the weather rather than slog through ;-).