EASA publishes draft IMC flight 'Opinion'

[mad_jock]

at least in the short-to-near term

I can't see it changing unless the salary's go up to short haul Captain levels. So 50-60k a year.

And whats that going to make the course price up to?

[Pace]

BEagle

If you looked in your crystal ball and with all the knowledge you have with the various goings on In EASA what are your predictions for the eventual outcome and the time scales?

Pace

[BEagle]

I have no idea!

There will be a deal of lobbying going on shortly to reject the Draft Opinion in its current form for a number of reasons, not least its unacceptable inflexibility.

Some NAAs are fundmentally opposed to the EIR, so that's another reason why the Draft Opinion may well fail at comitology....

Goudou seems to consider the one-rule-for-all (unless you're French) vision of Brave New €uroland as more important than safety. Perhaps after he's left office (and I hope the door doesn't hit him too gently on his backside), the incomer (who is actually a pilot) will be more prepared to listen. Stonewalling tactics might be necessary to ensure this happens!

[Adrian N]

unless the Draft Opinion is amended to include the flexibility of JAR-FCL 1.175(b), it will NOT be possible for the UK to vote honestly for the Draft Opinion at comitology. For which Goudou and his gang of €urocrats can rightly be held to blame

Perhaps they'll be open minded enough to realise that a pan-European, accessible instrument rating trumps the need to continue offering a national qualification for flying under IFR in IMC without an instrument rating? Especially as everyone who currently has that national qualification would be able to carry on exercising its privileges.

The way I read it, the people who you slag off (quite inappropriately, given your role with AOPA, whatever your personal opinions might be) have produced a set of proposals that satisfies existing UK IMCr holders, gives a sensible path to a proper instrument rating that can be used by those not too xenophobic to venture abroad, and lets the thousands of FAA IR holders convert to EASA ratings.

Sure there are things that could be better, and problems that will need to be sorted. But this proposal is so much better than it might have been, and I am sure that the tone of any official AOPA response will be very different from the one you are giving on various Internet forums.

[Pace]

Some NAAs are fundmentally opposed to the EIR

BEagle

As a fairly experienced pilot I would have concerns over the EIR as proposed and feel there need to be arrival and departure safeguards built in as well as en route weather restrictions but all those points could be covered by some fine adjustments.
You mention certain countries will scupper the EIR do you know for what reasons?
Finally do you yourself think that 2014 will be the launch date or a further delay added to 2016? Which is the info I have received ?

Pace

[BEagle]

Adrian N, you have no idea about what's actually going on....

You chose to move to France and can no longer use an IMCR. OK - but don't criticise those fighting for its retention. We do not share the glazed-eyed view that €urocratic 'one state' administrative ambition is of greater importance than the safety of future generations of UK pilots. A vastly more expensive pan-EU IR most assuredly does not 'trump' a rating whose safety has a proven 40+ year track record in this country.

Pace, we made a lot of proposals for both the EIR and C-bM IR, most of which have been accepted (e.g. less onerous FAA IR conversion criteria for the C-bM IR, more specific definitions for the EIR which met the safety concerns of many, etc.). But there are some NAAs who will not accept the perceived 'threat' EIR holders will allegedly pose to them in terminal airspace (due to SID/STAR/IAP limitations), others who say that their ATSUs are not established for the additional workload - and others who have deep fundamental concerns about sub-ICAO instrument pilots sharing airspace with CAT traffic....

[jxk]

Have we any proposals for what the training syllabus might be for someone wanting to obtain an EIR in the future - or hasn't this been considered yet?

[englishal]

and lets the thousands of FAA IR holders convert to EASA ratings.

Why would I want to convert, I fly an N reg?!

[Bob Upanddown]

Why would I want to convert, I fly an N reg?!

+1

There are many reasons to fly N. If you think offering an IR will mean all N reg disappears, think again.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by englishal

Why would I want to convert, I fly an N reg?!

Because sadly we lost that part of the battle - you either need to not fly, come up with some dodgy 'not established in the EU' structure, or get an EASA licence (and IR rating to go with it) to keep flying in the EU.

[Adrian N]

Adrian N, you have no idea about what's actually going on....

You might find I'm not quite as uninformed as you imagine. I don't criticise arguing to retain the IMCr, but I do criticise obsessing about it in the face of an overwhelmingly positive proposal from EASA. If the response began "this is a good proposal, which if adopted would give European pilots what they have been asking for for years, but...." then I wouldn't mind so much. It's the immediate criticism of the whole thing that I object to. That and the inappropriate personal jibes at EASA staff.

And I have no problem with the IMCr when it is properly taught - in which case it is fairly indistinguishable from training for an IR other than that the end result has restrictions which make it of limited utility (no class A, UK only). Looking back, I have a big problem with it when it is taught as appallingly as it was when I did the rating in the 1990s - qualified in minimum hours, examined by the 28 year old who had instructed me, and who only had an IMCr himself. Complete waste of effort for me and for many others who used the same school.

By the way, why do you always replace the "e" in "euro.." with a € symbol?

[Ellemeet]

The French always have their own agenda.

The sole purpose of the French is that they have many people who fly under FAA including some very high placed officials in the DGAC

[S-Works]

That and the inappropriate personal jibes at EASA staff.

I have to agree. Whilst I know Beagle personally and have the greatest respect for his work and experience I do think that the constant xenophobic jibes do him and AOPA no favours. I find quite a lot of the comments about EASA and its staff to border on being racist.

Sometimes the rabid dog attacks on EASA remind me of the poppy burners....

With regard to this vein of this thread the argument is actually running at a tangent. The IMCr discussion should be totally separate from the discussion around an achievable IR and conversion path.

The IMCr should be retained totally separate from any other discussion. Personally as I have said a number of times, I think that the decision was made a long time ago to do away with it and I would be most surprised if that were to change. A real shame as I love teaching it and the safety benefits and continuing education to pilots to keep them active and involved are without doubt.

[Ellemeet]

@beagle

rejecting the draft in Commitology would be the biggest disaster. As you say yourselve .. there are quit a few opposing countries as is. So I presume the draft to be the best possible compromise which was reachable.

In that case you win some you loose some.

Trying to score your one single point against a quantum leap forward in other aspects is a bad move for the large group. Having said that I would not mind having uk keeping the right to their Imcr within their own airspace.

What I fail to understand is what the big deal is with class A. More and more IFR is from gps point to gps point or you will be vectored.

The Ir rating requires 45 hrs minimum and also Icao and the Faa seem to agree on that. This includes approaches, flying in imc conditions, recoveries and interceptions.

In the Uk you have an IMCr where you do this in 15 hours, may do just about anything you please including approaches ... except that you may not enter class A (and mayb do a Sid? but that is easy).

So either the 45 hours is ridiculous ... or the IMCr is a stay out of trouble solution.. However it is used quit often as a normal planned feature.. I realise the system seems to work, I just try to understand why.

[englishal]

I still don't know how EASA can talk about "EU" and "EASA member states" and mix the two up like they are the same thing. They are not. Also "Operator" is not strictly defined anywhere. Very wishy washy the whole thing.

For example, if one flew an "out of EU" registered aeroplane (N or M say), for someone who lives in Switzerland (and owns the plane) but you live in the UK, what rules apply?

If you fly an N reg aeroplane, owned by a Trust in the US, what rules apply?

If you changed that around and registered your aeroplane with a US Citizen living in the USA, who is the operator now and what rules apply?

How would that work if you "sold" your aeroplane to say a US flight school, operating in the USA, but you flew it in the UK? I presume the operator would be the US flight school and not in the EU.

What about if I lived in Norway, but fly an N reg, owned by a US trust, hangared in the UK - That is not in the EU but is an EASA member state?

There is no wording anywhere that says "Pilot" or "Commander" but there is wording "based in the EU" (which of course there are many EASA member states NOT in the EU)....

[BEagle]

I am not racist, Francophobic or whatever else you may wish to call me. However, my personal opinion is that someone who signs a document which states:

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.

is utterly beneath contempt. Because it says "We know that it wouldn't hurt safety, but it wouldn't fit in with our €urocratic ideal of Brave New €uroland".

We should enjoy the unique nature of our diverse European nations and cultures and benefit from European economic co-operation and free travel. But it is becoming abundantly clear that many people in the UK do NOT want to be part of some single monolith regulated by the EP and are becoming increasingly frustrated with the behaviour of the EP, EC and EASA.

[soaringhigh650]

But it is becoming abundantly clear that many people in the UK do NOT want to be part of some single monolith regulated by the EP and are becoming increasingly frustrated with the behaviour of the EP, EC and EASA.

And other people like myself as a US and UK citizen DO want the UK to be part of the EU! The EU isn't perfect at all but your personal remarks at the "money grabbing" €€€uroland politicians is out of proportion.

I've mentioned to you numerous times on this forum before and I make no apology for saying it again: You're much better off seek a positive working relationship with your colleagues in EASA so you can actually find a solution to the IMC rating. Besides this point everything else looks incredibly positive and the work that IAOPA and other groups have done deserves recognition. Unfortunately having an unjustified UKIP-slanted poke on an anonymous forum ain't gonna get you very far.

[Adrian N]

my personal opinion is that someone who signs a document which states........ is utterly beneath contempt.

Don't you see that as you represent IAOPA in discussions with EASA it is wholly inappropriate for you to publicise your derogatory personal opinions on internet forums?

[Johnm]

I think there is genuine frustration at the behaviour of arrogant French bureaucrats brought up in the Napoleonic tradition who pervade the EU institutions, which themselves were thought up by Jaques Delors the archetypal French Bureaucrat.

In the UK we have a tradition of agreeing rules and sticking to them and this makes the situation with EU very difficult. In France the bureaucrats are tolerated in their inventing of daft rules as long as they don't interfere too much with everyday activities and when they do the French remind them of their place by blocking motorways, ports etc. until the bureaucrats retire to their desks.

[Ellemeet]

I think the French are far from perfect but so are the British judging from all your complaints about the CAA. All I read is the cost of examinations and the "must be CAA employed examiners" and the costs of a170 and ... and ...

The only positive seems to be the IMCr....

The FAA has certainly a much more pragmatic approach to things than EASA.

Alas ... we live in europe .. and allthough the EU and EASA brings us quiet a bit of limitations and extra burden ... it has also brought peace and prosperity to our region with far to many countries with each their own unique identity on a small area.

And frankly .. I rather enjoy the French wines.