EASA publishes draft IMC flight 'Opinion'
Thread Starter
EASA publishes draft IMC flight 'Opinion'
The unloved €urocrats have now released draft Opinion 03/2013 concerning Qualifications for flying in IMC - see https://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-me...ory%20Note.pdf .
In particular, it is evident that Goudou has not been prepared to accept the need for flexibility:
In other words, while it might be safe to retain the UK IMCR, it doesn't fit in with their idea of a common Europe....
However, AOPA will continue efforts to find an acceptable solution.
In particular, it is evident that Goudou has not been prepared to accept the need for flexibility:
2.4.2.4 Request to maintain national ratings
Several stakeholders expressed their concern on the lack of flexibility of FCL.600 when compared to JAR-FCL 1.175. More specifically, stakeholders requested that national instrument ratings be maintained. This issue has been discussed during each phase of the drafting process. The Agency fully appreciates the stakeholder reasoning of allowing MS to maintain some of their national licences, ratings, and certificates. It is true that this may not have an adverse effect on safety, however, it would contradict the general concept of a uniform European harmonisation and the aim of creating a standardised European regulatory system allowing for mutual recognition of licences. In its current form, the Basic Regulation does not provide the scope for introducing or retaining such national licences, ratings, or certificates. It was, therefore, decided not to amend Subpart G of Part-FCL in this regard.
Several stakeholders expressed their concern on the lack of flexibility of FCL.600 when compared to JAR-FCL 1.175. More specifically, stakeholders requested that national instrument ratings be maintained. This issue has been discussed during each phase of the drafting process. The Agency fully appreciates the stakeholder reasoning of allowing MS to maintain some of their national licences, ratings, and certificates. It is true that this may not have an adverse effect on safety, however, it would contradict the general concept of a uniform European harmonisation and the aim of creating a standardised European regulatory system allowing for mutual recognition of licences. In its current form, the Basic Regulation does not provide the scope for introducing or retaining such national licences, ratings, or certificates. It was, therefore, decided not to amend Subpart G of Part-FCL in this regard.
However, AOPA will continue efforts to find an acceptable solution.
Last edited by BEagle; 26th Apr 2013 at 07:43.
Thread Starter
Indeed - Goudou is Nigel Farage's best recruiting sergeant as far as pilots are concerned...
This "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein EASA!" nonsense must be robustly challenged.
This "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein EASA!" nonsense must be robustly challenged.
Last edited by BEagle; 26th Apr 2013 at 08:19.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is certainly not what the UK wanted, but, having read the document in full, it does make some sense. I thought the manner in which the Opinion was drafted, from a Eurocrats point of view, was clever. IMO it is going to be difficult for anyone to argue that draft. Not saying we should'nt, but it will be difficult.
From my point of view, it will mean additional expense in training and conversion, but is that a bad thing? I was going for an IR anyway, be it FAA, or be it EASA, so wait and see and then decide.
From my point of view, it will mean additional expense in training and conversion, but is that a bad thing? I was going for an IR anyway, be it FAA, or be it EASA, so wait and see and then decide.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle. I appreciate that UK CAA are issuing IR(R) in place of the IMC rating on the EASA licence but is there a chance that the eurocrats could invalidate the use of the IR(R) in the future??
(As for UKIP, I have written to them dozens of times banging on about EASA. Not one reply from them. There is a UKIP MEP in my region and not even he bothers to reply if you write to him. I won't join them or vote for them. But I will vote against the EU if we ever get the chance)
(As for UKIP, I have written to them dozens of times banging on about EASA. Not one reply from them. There is a UKIP MEP in my region and not even he bothers to reply if you write to him. I won't join them or vote for them. But I will vote against the EU if we ever get the chance)
Last edited by Bob Upanddown; 26th Apr 2013 at 08:21.
Thread Starter
....is there a chance that the eurocrats could invalidate the use of the IR(R) in the future??
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true that this may not have an adverse effect on safety, however, it would contradict the general concept of a uniform European harmonisation and the aim of creating a standardised European regulatory system allowing for mutual recognition of licences.
We have ways......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my point of view, it will mean additional expense in training and conversion, but is that a bad thing? I was going for an IR anyway, be it FAA, or be it EASA, so wait and see and then decide.
If I was you I would hot shoe it and get an FAA IR as soon as you can!
The only way forward for retaining the IMCR would be for a challenge on safety grounds in the European courts.
As for the easy conversion from FAA IR to EASA IR? Lets hope EASA are as good as their word and this is not another smoke screen for more caustic intentions?
I hope very talented people like BEagle put their hard efforts in making sure EASA come good on offering a sensible EASA IR which does not take a lot more effort to achieve than the IMCR.
FAA style would be a good goal as one with sense.
As for the UK saying no that sadly is not our style as we seem to bend to every whim of European demands! well almost
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 26th Apr 2013 at 12:53.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true that this may not have an adverse effect on safety, however, it would contradict the general concept of a uniform European harmonisation and the aim of creating a standardised European regulatory system allowing for mutual recognition of licences.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The beautiful words of the cynical French bureaucrat:
So allowing us to to retain the IMCR may not have an adverse effect on safety, but of course NOT allowing us to retain the IMCR WILL have an adverse effect on safety.
The Agency fully appreciates the stakeholder reasoning of allowing MS to maintain some of their national licences, ratings, and certificates. It is true that this may not have an adverse effect on safety,
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true that this may not have an adverse effect on safety, however, it would contradict the general concept of a uniform European harmonisation and the aim of creating a standardised European regulatory system allowing for mutual recognition of licences.
Without doubt the french have very bad safety statistics for VFR flight, the UK have a pretty good one partially because of the backup of the IMCR in case the weather goes bad.
Take that away with nothing equivalent in place and our safety stats will drop to meet a political end.
Disgusting if that happens buts lets see if all the other positive promises are kicked into court for one false reason or other
Pace
the Basic Regulation does not provide the scope for introducing or retaining such national licences, ratings, or certificates.
7. A Member State may authorise a student pilot to exercise limited privileges without supervision before he/she meets all the requirements necessary for the issuance of an LAPL under the following conditions:
(a) the privileges shall be limited to its national territory or a part of it;
(b) the privileges shall be restricted to a limited geographical area and to single-engine piston aeroplanes with a maximum take-off mass not exceeding 2 000 kg, and shall not include the carriage of passengers;
(a) the privileges shall be limited to its national territory or a part of it;
(b) the privileges shall be restricted to a limited geographical area and to single-engine piston aeroplanes with a maximum take-off mass not exceeding 2 000 kg, and shall not include the carriage of passengers;
Last edited by Whopity; 26th Apr 2013 at 13:48.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and shall not include the carriage of passengers;
and in a single piston not a twin even one like the Seneca at 1999 kg!!!The IMCR always was for twins too
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 26th Apr 2013 at 13:56.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bureaucrats have a clear mandate for their idiocy in the mindlessly phrased EASA mission statement which is "promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation". To the bureaucrat that's easy, everybody meets the standards set for heavy CAT.
So now you know why they operate the way they do, it's not their fault, they're just following the orders of the even more barking mad European Commission
Our problem is we try and implement this nonsense to the letter instead of trying to avoid doing anything at all which is the well practiced French approach to bureaucracy
So now you know why they operate the way they do, it's not their fault, they're just following the orders of the even more barking mad European Commission
Our problem is we try and implement this nonsense to the letter instead of trying to avoid doing anything at all which is the well practiced French approach to bureaucracy
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@englishal
what is your problem? You get what you want? An oral and checkride in your own Commander.
Do a bit of prepwork, you do not even need an ATO.
...
As far as uk imc I understand that it is the clear intention .. and even maybe rightly so .. to go for 1 set of rules.
Still why can t the uk caa accept an additional national license for eithin their own border.
...
ps I am not sure that at a national level it is much better. On another forum I am reading horror stories about the UK Caa wanting 500 gbp per year for every trainingcourse an ATO wants to provide.. This is clearly a local interpretation.. because this is UK only uptill now.
what is your problem? You get what you want? An oral and checkride in your own Commander.
Do a bit of prepwork, you do not even need an ATO.
...
As far as uk imc I understand that it is the clear intention .. and even maybe rightly so .. to go for 1 set of rules.
Still why can t the uk caa accept an additional national license for eithin their own border.
...
ps I am not sure that at a national level it is much better. On another forum I am reading horror stories about the UK Caa wanting 500 gbp per year for every trainingcourse an ATO wants to provide.. This is clearly a local interpretation.. because this is UK only uptill now.
Last edited by Ellemeet; 26th Apr 2013 at 22:51.