Campaign for a proper instrument rating
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluskis,
WRT CAA "...I hope they,(the CAA) are interested enough in aviation to be Pprune readers..."
All I can say is they are, and they do. But don't expect official comments from CAA (or any other regulatory body) here.
Especially if you're not sure what the question is
Now if I wanted to pursue this as much as others, I would be looking for far better ammunition...
The only comparison anyone has offered is the FAA route.
In reality-land, there isn't much interaction with other countries rules and regulations for an American IR pilot flying IFR in the US.
(You can fly for many hours and still be in the same state - let alone have crossed several international boundaries)
What do they do in other ICAO non FAA countries - like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa for example.
How much does an IR cost there? How many hours to do it? What are the currency requirements?
What about the rest of Europe? How do you get an IR in France, Sweden, The Netherlands? What are their currency requirements? (Are they the same as JAR?)
Germany hasn't adopted JAR, so what do you do to get an IR there and keep it current?
Do any other countries have an IMC rating? (I know some have similar) What does it allow?
What about VFR "on top" as a French vanilla PPL allows.
Airspace and airway classifications - are they the same outside UK? I don't believe they are, especially below FL245.
What about IFR in the open FIR - UK allows this on vanilla PPL, no-one else does AFAIK.
Should you be asking for the transition level to be uniform throughout Euroworld - that would cut about 5 hours study from the PPL/IR syllabus if it was raised to FL180
I think it's worth pursuing this, but you have to look at a slightly bigger picture than "it's too expensive and I don't like IR renewals every year"
FWIW
Russell
WRT CAA "...I hope they,(the CAA) are interested enough in aviation to be Pprune readers..."
All I can say is they are, and they do. But don't expect official comments from CAA (or any other regulatory body) here.
Especially if you're not sure what the question is
Now if I wanted to pursue this as much as others, I would be looking for far better ammunition...
The only comparison anyone has offered is the FAA route.
In reality-land, there isn't much interaction with other countries rules and regulations for an American IR pilot flying IFR in the US.
(You can fly for many hours and still be in the same state - let alone have crossed several international boundaries)
What do they do in other ICAO non FAA countries - like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa for example.
How much does an IR cost there? How many hours to do it? What are the currency requirements?
What about the rest of Europe? How do you get an IR in France, Sweden, The Netherlands? What are their currency requirements? (Are they the same as JAR?)
Germany hasn't adopted JAR, so what do you do to get an IR there and keep it current?
Do any other countries have an IMC rating? (I know some have similar) What does it allow?
What about VFR "on top" as a French vanilla PPL allows.
Airspace and airway classifications - are they the same outside UK? I don't believe they are, especially below FL245.
What about IFR in the open FIR - UK allows this on vanilla PPL, no-one else does AFAIK.
Should you be asking for the transition level to be uniform throughout Euroworld - that would cut about 5 hours study from the PPL/IR syllabus if it was raised to FL180
I think it's worth pursuing this, but you have to look at a slightly bigger picture than "it's too expensive and I don't like IR renewals every year"
FWIW
Russell
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of good points by lots of articulate people.
The UK is the only place in the world (that I know of) where you can fly IFR with no more than a basic PPL. Not that that gets you much further, but it is a sign of a positive attitude by the CAA.
I did an IMC rating, many years ago, and find it extremely useful in the UK. I've got a lot of stick over the years from various self-appointed experts and "one-man licencing authorities", who told me it was not valid for flying in real IMC, was a "get you out of trouble" rating, and all the rest. Since none of them have ever flown with me, I treat their "expert" opinions with the respect they deserve. Several CAA-approved examiners seem to think I am quite safe to use my IMC rating, and have signed the document to say so.
I've looked at the CAA and JAA IRs several times in the intervening years, and decided the amount of irrelevant academic brain-stuffing required is clearly meant to dissuade all but strong-minded and affluent PPLs with plenty of spare time to spend getting a qualification for their hobby.
While I was contemplating it, a friend of mine (co-owner with me of a Rockwell 112) spent every weekend for months doing the IR groundschool, took the many exams, and got a PPL/IR. He renewed it once, then gave it up on cost grounds.
So I went to the US and did an FAA IR (in less than two weeks). The FAA accepted all my UK IMC time, the written cost me not a lot and was relatively easy; the checkride was thorough but I managed it; the oral was tough but I managed to pass that too.
Flying IFR in the USA is SO simple - that really is, for me, the model of how flying should be. I'd love to see a properly reasoned comparison between FAA and JAA-land and a justification for all the differences. Wouldn't stand much intelligent scrutiny, I suspect.
However, I can't see the EU bureaucracy EVER agreeing to rationalise the PPL/IR in the way folks on here would like, or towards the FAA approach - more's the pity. We aren't far enough up the priority list, and anyway we can't agree among ourselves what we want.
So the trusty group steed goes onto the N-reg at the next C of A renewal date, and I can fly around Europe using my IR when I need to (not all the time - VFR in VMC is so much nicer), just as I do in the USA.
Does anyone think there's any chance for the UK (or even European) PPL community to get anything changed on this? I wish I did...
The UK is the only place in the world (that I know of) where you can fly IFR with no more than a basic PPL. Not that that gets you much further, but it is a sign of a positive attitude by the CAA.
I did an IMC rating, many years ago, and find it extremely useful in the UK. I've got a lot of stick over the years from various self-appointed experts and "one-man licencing authorities", who told me it was not valid for flying in real IMC, was a "get you out of trouble" rating, and all the rest. Since none of them have ever flown with me, I treat their "expert" opinions with the respect they deserve. Several CAA-approved examiners seem to think I am quite safe to use my IMC rating, and have signed the document to say so.
I've looked at the CAA and JAA IRs several times in the intervening years, and decided the amount of irrelevant academic brain-stuffing required is clearly meant to dissuade all but strong-minded and affluent PPLs with plenty of spare time to spend getting a qualification for their hobby.
While I was contemplating it, a friend of mine (co-owner with me of a Rockwell 112) spent every weekend for months doing the IR groundschool, took the many exams, and got a PPL/IR. He renewed it once, then gave it up on cost grounds.
So I went to the US and did an FAA IR (in less than two weeks). The FAA accepted all my UK IMC time, the written cost me not a lot and was relatively easy; the checkride was thorough but I managed it; the oral was tough but I managed to pass that too.
Flying IFR in the USA is SO simple - that really is, for me, the model of how flying should be. I'd love to see a properly reasoned comparison between FAA and JAA-land and a justification for all the differences. Wouldn't stand much intelligent scrutiny, I suspect.
However, I can't see the EU bureaucracy EVER agreeing to rationalise the PPL/IR in the way folks on here would like, or towards the FAA approach - more's the pity. We aren't far enough up the priority list, and anyway we can't agree among ourselves what we want.
So the trusty group steed goes onto the N-reg at the next C of A renewal date, and I can fly around Europe using my IR when I need to (not all the time - VFR in VMC is so much nicer), just as I do in the USA.
Does anyone think there's any chance for the UK (or even European) PPL community to get anything changed on this? I wish I did...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys 'n Gals,
It aint gonna happen.
Those who think that the JAR folk are interested in making an easy and accessible PPL IR within reach of vanilla PPLs are not living in the real world.
SO the options are:
1. Get a JAR IR
2. Get an FAA IR and paint an N on the side of your mount.
3. Continue daydreaming (by far the least expensive option)
MHO of course
FD
It aint gonna happen.
Those who think that the JAR folk are interested in making an easy and accessible PPL IR within reach of vanilla PPLs are not living in the real world.
SO the options are:
1. Get a JAR IR
2. Get an FAA IR and paint an N on the side of your mount.
3. Continue daydreaming (by far the least expensive option)
MHO of course
FD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rustle
Now if I wanted to pursue this as much as others, I would be looking for far better ammunition...
And why would that be? To overcome some "stubbornly obstructive and unwilling to cooperate" behaviour perhaps Should not the regulators be proactive here and find out what the regulated think? Who works for who anyway?
You see it's all attitude.
I think it's obvious what the interested PPL wants, take the FAA IR and introduce it into the UK. And why would you want to look at other regimes when you have a model that obviously works extremely well in a far busier environment than Europe can offer? All this stuff about Australia is just muddying the water.
In reality-land, there isn't much interaction with other countries rules and regulations for an American IR pilot flying IFR in the US.
The reason (or one of them) the US works so much better is there is a federal system which sets the rules. Flying from California to New York is seamless. And while on the subject, so is flying from California to Mexico, or California to Alaska via Canada. As is flying from New York to London.
(Flying to the US from points south is a bit trickier as you have to cross the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), but if you are IFR it's seamless, and if VFR you just have to file a flight plan and call up FAA ATC for a squawk code before crossing the border. From both north and south you have to land and clear customs - not a aviation requirement. You see how what I think is 'tricky' is totally simple?)
This is how the federal JAA should have worked, but national protectionism won out. What a wasted opportunity, they should have just copied the FARS, but that would never do, as they come from 'over there'.
If you ever fly to/from the US on United Airlines, tune into Channel 9 on the radio and you will hear the radio transmissions. A few weeks ago I flew from Chicago to Heathrow and the captain left it on all the way. Hand offs from Chicago Centre -> Toronto Centre -> New York (I think, could have been Boston) Centre were seamless. Handoffs from Gander -> Shanwick were also seamless, there was just a bit of a delay in between. And on to Heathrow we went, and it could have all been in the same country really (and fff, you should listen to Chicago Approach and then Heathrow Director and see who is busier ) Quite interesting being over the Atlantic and hearing all the bored pilots abusing each other, and the occasional light engine down below giving position reports. I'm flying from LA to London next week, I'll let you know if I pick up any regulatory problems in Instrument Rated personnel licensing
I am sure there is more to it than what you hear on the radio, but that's why the US and UK are in ICAO.
So I think you know what people want, but I know you will not be able to deliver. Isn't it a great shame that several people here have given up because they know they have lost before they have started?
Good luck Keef, smart move. It's still easy to fly a cropduster over a major US city, and I would be worried about the way the US might be planning to regulate GA on security grounds. I can see it getting a lot harder for even US citizens to fly N regs. I hope any new restrictions don't bite you.
Cheers
Edit for EnglishAl.
Why do you want airways to be Class D? While we are fixing the IR, why not fix the ridiculous classification of airspace. Airways should be class E so VFR traffic can use them. If you make them D, then you have to talk to a controller, and the extra load will cause meltdown of the whole UK ATC system .
What! Make airways class E!!! Too dangerous, it will never work, thats where the jets fly, don't let those PPLs in there, there will be carnage and collisions.
But it will, and there is model 'over there' which proves it - and you don't even need a transponder if you are below 10,000 MSL.
Hell, I even know of an aerobatics box in an airway under the class B of a major US airport, busier than LHR too. Against the regs, but the friendly FAA looked at the situation and came up with a waiver.
Now if I wanted to pursue this as much as others, I would be looking for far better ammunition...
And why would that be? To overcome some "stubbornly obstructive and unwilling to cooperate" behaviour perhaps
Should not the regulators be proactive here and find out what the regulated think? Who works for who anyway? You see it's all attitude.
I think it's obvious what the interested PPL wants, take the FAA IR and introduce it into the UK. And why would you want to look at other regimes when you have a model that obviously works extremely well in a far busier environment than Europe can offer? All this stuff about Australia is just muddying the water.
In reality-land, there isn't much interaction with other countries rules and regulations for an American IR pilot flying IFR in the US.
The reason (or one of them) the US works so much better is there is a federal system which sets the rules. Flying from California to New York is seamless. And while on the subject, so is flying from California to Mexico, or California to Alaska via Canada. As is flying from New York to London.
(Flying to the US from points south is a bit trickier as you have to cross the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), but if you are IFR it's seamless, and if VFR you just have to file a flight plan and call up FAA ATC for a squawk code before crossing the border. From both north and south you have to land and clear customs - not a aviation requirement. You see how what I think is 'tricky' is totally simple?)
This is how the federal JAA should have worked, but national protectionism won out. What a wasted opportunity, they should have just copied the FARS, but that would never do, as they come from 'over there'.
If you ever fly to/from the US on United Airlines, tune into Channel 9 on the radio and you will hear the radio transmissions. A few weeks ago I flew from Chicago to Heathrow and the captain left it on all the way. Hand offs from Chicago Centre -> Toronto Centre -> New York (I think, could have been Boston) Centre were seamless. Handoffs from Gander -> Shanwick were also seamless, there was just a bit of a delay in between
. And on to Heathrow we went, and it could have all been in the same country really (and fff, you should listen to Chicago Approach and then Heathrow Director and see who is busier ) Quite interesting being over the Atlantic and hearing all the bored pilots abusing each other, and the occasional light engine down below giving position reports. I'm flying from LA to London next week, I'll let you know if I pick up any regulatory problems in Instrument Rated personnel licensingI am sure there is more to it than what you hear on the radio, but that's why the US and UK are in ICAO.
So I think you know what people want, but I know you will not be able to deliver. Isn't it a great shame that several people here have given up because they know they have lost before they have started?
Good luck Keef, smart move. It's still easy to fly a cropduster over a major US city, and I would be worried about the way the US might be planning to regulate GA on security grounds. I can see it getting a lot harder for even US citizens to fly N regs. I hope any new restrictions don't bite you.
Cheers
Edit for EnglishAl.
Why do you want airways to be Class D? While we are fixing the IR
, why not fix the ridiculous classification of airspace. Airways should be class E so VFR traffic can use them. If you make them D, then you have to talk to a controller, and the extra load will cause meltdown of the whole UK ATC system . What! Make airways class E!!! Too dangerous, it will never work, thats where the jets fly, don't let those PPLs in there, there will be carnage and collisions.
But it will, and there is model 'over there' which proves it - and you don't even need a transponder if you are below 10,000 MSL.
Hell, I even know of an aerobatics box in an airway under the class B of a major US airport, busier than LHR too. Against the regs, but the friendly FAA looked at the situation and came up with a waiver.
Last edited by slim_slag; 22nd Nov 2002 at 06:36.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the "IFR on a vanilla PPL" is a complete red herring... the UK is also the only place I know of where you can't fly VFR at night, so allowing a vanilla PPL to fly IFR is necessary to allow night-flying!
Comparing airspace classifications across countries is dangerous. The ICAO may believe that Class E is the same across the world, but in practice we know that's not true. I wouldn't fly through Class E airspace in the UK without talking to a controller if possible. People fly through class E without talking to anyone all the time in the US. That's because Class E means something different. I don't think a Class E airway in the UK would work. Class F, maybe - we have them already, but not very many of them - but not class E.
Another example - way back at the start of this thread, someone (slim_slag?) mentioned that Gatwick was "only" Class D. Yes, Gatwick is Class D, but Class D is the highest level of control any airport in the UK has except Heathrow (and Northolt, but that's only because Northolt is in Heathrow's zone). In the US, Class D is used for the smallest of controlled fields, the equivalent of, say Cranfield (which is actually Class G). So, no matter what ICAO would like us to think, comparing airspace classifications across countries is not valid.
If you want to compare different countries, you have to compare what pilots can do in practical terms. American pilots can fly in IMC just about anywhere they want. UK pilots can't without jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops first. That's what it boils down to.
FFF
------------
Comparing airspace classifications across countries is dangerous. The ICAO may believe that Class E is the same across the world, but in practice we know that's not true. I wouldn't fly through Class E airspace in the UK without talking to a controller if possible. People fly through class E without talking to anyone all the time in the US. That's because Class E means something different. I don't think a Class E airway in the UK would work. Class F, maybe - we have them already, but not very many of them - but not class E.
Another example - way back at the start of this thread, someone (slim_slag?) mentioned that Gatwick was "only" Class D. Yes, Gatwick is Class D, but Class D is the highest level of control any airport in the UK has except Heathrow (and Northolt, but that's only because Northolt is in Heathrow's zone). In the US, Class D is used for the smallest of controlled fields, the equivalent of, say Cranfield (which is actually Class G). So, no matter what ICAO would like us to think, comparing airspace classifications across countries is not valid.
If you want to compare different countries, you have to compare what pilots can do in practical terms. American pilots can fly in IMC just about anywhere they want. UK pilots can't without jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops first. That's what it boils down to.
FFF
------------
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why do you want airways to be Class D"
I don't, its just my compromise suggestion for the ones who reckon its all to dangerous to un-regulate airways I am well aware of the ease and joy of flying in the US, I was over in LA a few weeks back. Its just no hassle, you file your flight plan, pick up your clearance and go. In some area's, for example the LA Basin and New York, you are not even required to file a flight plan with a FSS if you are going to one of many 'popular' destinations. You can request a 'tower en-route' clearance to the destination via RT to Ground or Clearance, pick up your clearance which is a prefered IFR route [eg. LGB to Santa Barbara] and away you go...no hassle. Normally the controllers will try and expedite your routing once airborne if able. If flying further afield, the hand off is seamless. Flew to Phoenix from LGB, Socal approach -> LA Centre -> Alberquerqy (spelling?) centre -> phoenix approach...piece of cake.
"What about IFR in the open FIR - UK allows this on vanilla PPL, no-one else does AFAIK"
But don't forget you still have to remain in sight of the surface blah blah.....Pretty useless really isn't it?
Cheers
EA
PS United Ch9 provides excellent entertainment.
I don't, its just my compromise suggestion for the ones who reckon its all to dangerous to un-regulate airways
I am well aware of the ease and joy of flying in the US, I was over in LA a few weeks back. Its just no hassle, you file your flight plan, pick up your clearance and go. In some area's, for example the LA Basin and New York, you are not even required to file a flight plan with a FSS if you are going to one of many 'popular' destinations. You can request a 'tower en-route' clearance to the destination via RT to Ground or Clearance, pick up your clearance which is a prefered IFR route [eg. LGB to Santa Barbara] and away you go...no hassle. Normally the controllers will try and expedite your routing once airborne if able. If flying further afield, the hand off is seamless. Flew to Phoenix from LGB, Socal approach -> LA Centre -> Alberquerqy (spelling?) centre -> phoenix approach...piece of cake."What about IFR in the open FIR - UK allows this on vanilla PPL, no-one else does AFAIK"
But don't forget you still have to remain in sight of the surface blah blah.....Pretty useless really isn't it?
Cheers
EA
PS United Ch9 provides excellent entertainment.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still have to remain in sight of the surface blah blah.....Pretty useless really isn't it?
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E airways seem to work OK in France.....
Whoever made the point earlier about protection of national interests stifling the good things that could have come out of the JAA had it right, though.
If you take a 200nm radius around Brussels, how many different sets of rules are there?
Maybe the collision between two airliners in class A airways over Germany will provoke a rethink. Whether it will be favourable to those of us who fly lower and slower is debatable.
Whoever made the point earlier about protection of national interests stifling the good things that could have come out of the JAA had it right, though.
If you take a 200nm radius around Brussels, how many different sets of rules are there?
Maybe the collision between two airliners in class A airways over Germany will provoke a rethink. Whether it will be favourable to those of us who fly lower and slower is debatable.
Resident Brewer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few councils of despair on here. If you think you're beaten before you start, you are.
My vote is for a simplified JAA IR as similar as possible to the FAA IR. I believe it could be achieved through a concerted campaign from GA groups. The practical difficulties are
1. We'd have to convince them to campaign for it.
2. GA would have to speak with a common voice.
For 1. They are members organisations - so if you are a member, write in and tell them what you want. They can't know if you don't. If you are not a member - join!
For 2. See 1. We have to convince our disperate GA groups to work together. Best achieved by joining one, and then campaigning for a co-ordinated approach.
I can't help thinking that the reason GA is ignored is that we are divided and therefore lack representation. That leads us into a cycle of not believing that it is worth joining these organisation because they appear to do nothing. In point of fact the fault is with us for not making the organisations what we want them to be.
I recall an interview in one of the mags a years or so ago. The head honcho of JAA pretty much said that if we want to have an influence we must get organised and speak with one voice. That doesn't seem an unreasonable position. Look at it from his point of view. If there are a multitude of organisations asking for different and potentially conflicting things, who does he listen to? Any of them?
Perhaps the AOPA person on here could respond?
PS I'm an AOPA member!
My vote is for a simplified JAA IR as similar as possible to the FAA IR. I believe it could be achieved through a concerted campaign from GA groups. The practical difficulties are
1. We'd have to convince them to campaign for it.
2. GA would have to speak with a common voice.
For 1. They are members organisations - so if you are a member, write in and tell them what you want. They can't know if you don't. If you are not a member - join!
For 2. See 1. We have to convince our disperate GA groups to work together. Best achieved by joining one, and then campaigning for a co-ordinated approach.
I can't help thinking that the reason GA is ignored is that we are divided and therefore lack representation. That leads us into a cycle of not believing that it is worth joining these organisation because they appear to do nothing. In point of fact the fault is with us for not making the organisations what we want them to be.
I recall an interview in one of the mags a years or so ago. The head honcho of JAA pretty much said that if we want to have an influence we must get organised and speak with one voice. That doesn't seem an unreasonable position. Look at it from his point of view. If there are a multitude of organisations asking for different and potentially conflicting things, who does he listen to? Any of them?
Perhaps the AOPA person on here could respond?
PS I'm an AOPA member!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a new organisation, called the "PPRUNE GA Association" or something. One thing we all have in common is that we are 'members' of pprune, and it seems to be that we're starting to form a pretty strong movement
Cheers
EA
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA is probably the most relevant body to lobby for us in the UK. It has a good track record in championing GA matters & all serious Ppruners should become, members if thay are not already.
PS I am a member of AOPA
PS I am a member of AOPA
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d_b
Disagree.
There is a another body, working for PPL/IR persons and wannabes in Europe.
They have a voice in Europe, specifically in the realm of IFR ops.
And yes, I'm a member
Disagree.
There is a another body, working for PPL/IR persons and wannabes in Europe.
They have a voice in Europe, specifically in the realm of IFR ops.
And yes, I'm a member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal - what a good idea!
I now I am going to stick my neck out again.
The fact is (or it seems to me) that AOPA (of which I was a member), PPLIR (of which I am a member), and doubtless other organisations who might have campaigned on our behalf, have made no head way on this issue despite it having been around for some time, and despite all the adverse changes that came with JAR. For example, what happened to the old IR grandfather rights before JAR for pilots with more than 600 hours, and which of these organisations played hell about the lack of a regulatory impact assessment. It was firghtening that I think two years past before any training organisations were able to offer the PPL IR theory course, but who was concenred about this when the legislation hit the statute book? By all means tell me I am wrong. The fact is when the federals started closing down airspace to GA following 9/11, AOPA and GA in the States were in the forefront putting forward their view and we all new it because their web site told us, their newsletters told us, the press even told us.
That said maybe PPrune could make its voice heard initially through one of these organisations and mabe together with PPLIR for example a constructive and persuasive campaign could be got underway???????
I now I am going to stick my neck out again.
The fact is (or it seems to me) that AOPA (of which I was a member), PPLIR (of which I am a member), and doubtless other organisations who might have campaigned on our behalf, have made no head way on this issue despite it having been around for some time, and despite all the adverse changes that came with JAR. For example, what happened to the old IR grandfather rights before JAR for pilots with more than 600 hours, and which of these organisations played hell about the lack of a regulatory impact assessment. It was firghtening that I think two years past before any training organisations were able to offer the PPL IR theory course, but who was concenred about this when the legislation hit the statute book? By all means tell me I am wrong. The fact is when the federals started closing down airspace to GA following 9/11, AOPA and GA in the States were in the forefront putting forward their view and we all new it because their web site told us, their newsletters told us, the press even told us.
That said maybe PPrune could make its voice heard initially through one of these organisations and mabe together with PPLIR for example a constructive and persuasive campaign could be got underway???????
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye carumba, I went offline to compose my answer to slim_slag and sneak it into my last post , and there's loads more here!
bluskis, you got it, and yes they do. Criteria is "interested in flight under IFR in Europe" - no rating requirement.
Slim_slag (your comments in quote marks else it gets too disjointed)
"Should not the regulators be proactive here and find out what the regulated think? Who works for who anyway?"
That's not the way things work. Never has been. Individuals/groups lobby the policy-makers to change things they don't like - which is what I thought this was leading to Funnily enough, lobbying is an "artform" in the US as well
The regulator/policy-maker has to be autonomous to the user. Ultimately the CAA are responsible to Government.
"You see it's all attitude."
Isn't everything in aviation
"I think it's obvious what the interested PPL wants, take the FAA IR and introduce it into the UK."
Expedient, but not a realistic or pragmatic solution. It isn't going to happen, so energy wasted trying to achieve this could have been better spent moving towards a more realistic solution. One word: "Galileo".
"All this stuff about Australia is just muddying the water."
Disagree, I mentioned Australia (and others) because, for sake of this discussion, the only alternate model anyone ever mentions is the FAA one. Fortunately we don't live in a world where there's only one way to do things, and a little bit of research into this may actually unearth something better. (God forbid the FAA may not have thought of everything)
My point about interaction between differing countries rules/regs wasn't very well put - bear with me, I'll try again
I don't know the numbers, but let's be generous and 'guess' that 85% of American-based FAA PPL/IR holders don't cross international borders in the majority of their IFR flights.
Now PPL/IR's from the UK must cross international boundaries in the majority of their IFR flights* so this is an additional requirement to be covered in the syallabus. (* were this not the case an IMC rating would suffice)
It's a moot point, but I thought I'd clarify my intent anyhow
"This is how the federal JAA should have worked, but national protectionism won out."
I think that's a little harsh. There are several initiatives underway to harmonise European aviation:
OpenSkies policy
Airspace Classification from 7 classes down to 3 classes down to 2 classes (eventually)
Euro-AIS
&tc
They're not going to happen instantly, but there's a lot going on...
"Isn't it a great shame that several people here have given up because they know they have lost before they have started?"
Made the same comment myself yesterday
FTR, I think if someone was motivated sufficiently to organise what's required something would be done. But, as I may have said (in relation to NOTAMs), bleating about it and doing something about it are two very different activities
, and there's loads more here!bluskis, you got it, and yes they do. Criteria is "interested in flight under IFR in Europe" - no rating requirement.
Slim_slag (your comments in quote marks else it gets too disjointed)
"Should not the regulators be proactive here and find out what the regulated think? Who works for who anyway?"
That's not the way things work. Never has been. Individuals/groups lobby the policy-makers to change things they don't like - which is what I thought this was leading to
Funnily enough, lobbying is an "artform" in the US as well The regulator/policy-maker has to be autonomous to the user. Ultimately the CAA are responsible to Government.
"You see it's all attitude."
Isn't everything in aviation
"I think it's obvious what the interested PPL wants, take the FAA IR and introduce it into the UK."
Expedient, but not a realistic or pragmatic solution. It isn't going to happen, so energy wasted trying to achieve this could have been better spent moving towards a more realistic solution. One word: "Galileo".
"All this stuff about Australia is just muddying the water."
Disagree, I mentioned Australia (and others) because, for sake of this discussion, the only alternate model anyone ever mentions is the FAA one. Fortunately we don't live in a world where there's only one way to do things, and a little bit of research into this may actually unearth something better. (God forbid the FAA may not have thought of everything
)My point about interaction between differing countries rules/regs wasn't very well put - bear with me, I'll try again
I don't know the numbers, but let's be generous and 'guess' that 85% of American-based FAA PPL/IR holders don't cross international borders in the majority of their IFR flights.
Now PPL/IR's from the UK must cross international boundaries in the majority of their IFR flights* so this is an additional requirement to be covered in the syallabus. (* were this not the case an IMC rating would suffice)
It's a moot point, but I thought I'd clarify my intent anyhow
"This is how the federal JAA should have worked, but national protectionism won out."
I think that's a little harsh. There are several initiatives underway to harmonise European aviation:
OpenSkies policy
Airspace Classification from 7 classes down to 3 classes down to 2 classes (eventually)
Euro-AIS
&tc
They're not going to happen instantly, but there's a lot going on...
"Isn't it a great shame that several people here have given up because they know they have lost before they have started?"
Made the same comment myself yesterday
FTR, I think if someone was motivated sufficiently to organise what's required something would be done. But, as I may have said (in relation to NOTAMs), bleating about it and doing something about it are two very different activities
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to get down to basics
- If there was a campaign, lobbying group, whatever, what would we change?
1. A simplified exam which covers only material necessary for the private pilot instrument rating, administered by flying schools and for which the study can be undertaken at home,
2. Flight training and test. Probably not too many changes here, but recognition of hours spent achieving an FAA IR or other recognized IR including an IMC and a wider range of instructors qualified to train and test,
3. Biannual renewals,
4. Class 2 medical.
That does not amount to a great deal really but DOES make an IR accessible for the European private pilot.
The assumption is often made than an IR will result in huge numbers of private pilots operating hard IFR in class A – it wont, and the assumption even that it is about flying in IMC is wrong.
On how many occasions have we wanted to get up to a reasonable altitude on a blue sky day to cross the Channel to France or the Channel Islands – VMC in the airways? Heaven forbid, stay at a level were a ditching can be safely assured in the briny please!
- If there was a campaign, lobbying group, whatever, what would we change?
1. A simplified exam which covers only material necessary for the private pilot instrument rating, administered by flying schools and for which the study can be undertaken at home,
2. Flight training and test. Probably not too many changes here, but recognition of hours spent achieving an FAA IR or other recognized IR including an IMC and a wider range of instructors qualified to train and test,
3. Biannual renewals,
4. Class 2 medical.
That does not amount to a great deal really but DOES make an IR accessible for the European private pilot.
The assumption is often made than an IR will result in huge numbers of private pilots operating hard IFR in class A – it wont, and the assumption even that it is about flying in IMC is wrong.
On how many occasions have we wanted to get up to a reasonable altitude on a blue sky day to cross the Channel to France or the Channel Islands – VMC in the airways? Heaven forbid, stay at a level were a ditching can be safely assured in the briny please!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Fuji Abound,
That sounds remarkably like the proposed Instrument Weather Rating
Proposed IWR:
One exam, like the IMC
Twenty hours instrument flight training
25 month renewals (possibly 13)
No additional medical requirements than vanilla
Europe-wide (well, JAA-land wide)
Lower Airways use.
I read this, this morning:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP702.pdf
(1999 progress report)
AAIB RECOMMENDATION 92–32
The CAA consider ways of enhancing the training content of the IMC Rating, to bring it closer to the ICAO minimum standard for IFR operations. This should include the incorporation of a full navigation flight test, with increased emphasis on the use of radio
aids for en route navigation, and including a descent to minimum safe altitude and diversion due to (simulated) adverse weather conditions.
Status – Fully Accepted – Open
CAA Response
The Authority accepts this Recommendation which will be covered in a review of the future of the IMC Rating conducted in the context of the introduction from 1993 of European harmonised flight crew licensing requirements.
CAA Action
External consultation did not generate support for the CAA’s proposals for the introduction of an Instrument Weather Rating to replace the present IMC rating. CAA has withdrawn them to consider alternative proposals.
Sounds promising, I'd start revisiting this idea first
======================
You may also be interested in this: (from the AIP)
Annex 1 Personnel Licensing (8th Edition)
Reference Difference
GEN 1.7 — DIFFERENCES FROM ICAO STANDARDS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
2.6.1.5.2 UK private pilot licence holders with Instrument Rating are not required to meet the full ICAO class 1 medical
assessment requirements. A hearing test to class 1 standards is required.
UK AIP (18 Apr 02) GEN 1-7-1
Civil Aviation Authority AMDT 4/02
--------------------------------------------
and this: (from an AIC)
UNITED KINGDOM
AIC 110/1999 - dated 9 September
JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS - FLIGHT CREW LICENSING (AEROPLANES) ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSTRUMENT, CLASS
AND SINGLE PILOT TYPE RATING INSTRUCTION
3 Qualification for the Grant of an Instrument Rating Instructor Rating (IRI)
3.1 With effect from 1 January 2000, pilots not holding a Flying or Flight Instructor Rating wishing to give instruction for the grant of
an Instrument Rating will be able to qualify for the grant of an Instrument Rating Instructor (IRI) Rating; holders of the IRI Rating will not be entitled to conduct instruction for any purpose other than for the grant of the Instrument Rating. However, within the UK only, holders of an IRI will be able to give instruction for the grant of an IMC Rating. Requirements for rating issue will be as follows:
(a) Hold at least the licence, rating and qualification for which instruction is being given; and
(b) have flown at least 800 hours flight time in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Where pilots have recorded flight
by sole reference to instruments and not under IFR then 1 hour by sole reference to instruments may be counted as 4 hours
flight by IFR; and
(c) complete the relevant training which comprises 10 hours of flight instruction in an aeroplane, flight simulator or FNPT II and
70 hours of ground instruction. This training must be conducted by an approved Flying or Flight Instructor Course (FIC)
Instructor qualified to conduct training for the Instrument Rating Instructor (IRI) Rating at a suitably approved flying training
organisation; and
(d) pass the relevant skill test with a Flight Instructor Examiner (Aeroplanes) as set out in JAR-FCL 1.345.
---------------------------
Which opened the way for a lot more IR instructors, and if we believe the rules of supply and demand...
That sounds remarkably like the proposed Instrument Weather Rating
Proposed IWR:
One exam, like the IMC
Twenty hours instrument flight training
25 month renewals (possibly 13)
No additional medical requirements than vanilla
Europe-wide (well, JAA-land wide)
Lower Airways use.
I read this, this morning:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP702.pdf
(1999 progress report)
AAIB RECOMMENDATION 92–32
The CAA consider ways of enhancing the training content of the IMC Rating, to bring it closer to the ICAO minimum standard for IFR operations. This should include the incorporation of a full navigation flight test, with increased emphasis on the use of radio
aids for en route navigation, and including a descent to minimum safe altitude and diversion due to (simulated) adverse weather conditions.
Status – Fully Accepted – Open
CAA Response
The Authority accepts this Recommendation which will be covered in a review of the future of the IMC Rating conducted in the context of the introduction from 1993 of European harmonised flight crew licensing requirements.
CAA Action
External consultation did not generate support for the CAA’s proposals for the introduction of an Instrument Weather Rating to replace the present IMC rating. CAA has withdrawn them to consider alternative proposals.
Sounds promising, I'd start revisiting this idea first
======================
You may also be interested in this: (from the AIP)
Annex 1 Personnel Licensing (8th Edition)
Reference Difference
GEN 1.7 — DIFFERENCES FROM ICAO STANDARDS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
2.6.1.5.2 UK private pilot licence holders with Instrument Rating are not required to meet the full ICAO class 1 medical
assessment requirements. A hearing test to class 1 standards is required.
UK AIP (18 Apr 02) GEN 1-7-1
Civil Aviation Authority AMDT 4/02
--------------------------------------------
and this: (from an AIC)
UNITED KINGDOM
AIC 110/1999 - dated 9 September
JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS - FLIGHT CREW LICENSING (AEROPLANES) ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSTRUMENT, CLASS
AND SINGLE PILOT TYPE RATING INSTRUCTION
3 Qualification for the Grant of an Instrument Rating Instructor Rating (IRI)
3.1 With effect from 1 January 2000, pilots not holding a Flying or Flight Instructor Rating wishing to give instruction for the grant of
an Instrument Rating will be able to qualify for the grant of an Instrument Rating Instructor (IRI) Rating; holders of the IRI Rating will not be entitled to conduct instruction for any purpose other than for the grant of the Instrument Rating. However, within the UK only, holders of an IRI will be able to give instruction for the grant of an IMC Rating. Requirements for rating issue will be as follows:
(a) Hold at least the licence, rating and qualification for which instruction is being given; and
(b) have flown at least 800 hours flight time in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Where pilots have recorded flight
by sole reference to instruments and not under IFR then 1 hour by sole reference to instruments may be counted as 4 hours
flight by IFR; and
(c) complete the relevant training which comprises 10 hours of flight instruction in an aeroplane, flight simulator or FNPT II and
70 hours of ground instruction. This training must be conducted by an approved Flying or Flight Instructor Course (FIC)
Instructor qualified to conduct training for the Instrument Rating Instructor (IRI) Rating at a suitably approved flying training
organisation; and
(d) pass the relevant skill test with a Flight Instructor Examiner (Aeroplanes) as set out in JAR-FCL 1.345.
---------------------------
Which opened the way for a lot more IR instructors, and if we believe the rules of supply and demand...