EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS
 

EASA has now released the much-delayed NPA 2011-16 'Qualifications for flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions' - see http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_135

You have until 23 Dec 2011 to respond.

Critically:

There is a 'more achievable' IR.
There is nothing to indicate how EASA will deliver on the promises made by the EC to the European Parliament regarding taking the UK IMCR into European legislation.
The 'licence to kill' EIR has been included.

Would one be naive to be reassured by this statement in section I.7?

So EIR(SE): not below 1000ft above highest point within 1000nm, annual revalidation, minimum 100hrs ground training, 15+hrs training of which 10+ airborne, limited to day use only.

Obvious flaws: restriction to day use (what's wrong with night IFR/IMC if the holder also has an NQ?), lack of approaches - I see no argument in favour of permitting anybody to fly above 8/8 cloud if they can't fly an approach. Lots of the theoretical knowledge is in the CPL, and to some extent the PPL - why all the repetition, and why no consessions (as there is in UK for the IMCR) for CPL holders against TK? SIDS are in the TK but not the flying syllabus. Circling approach not in skill test.


Obvious advantages: Modular route to full IR, no restriction against flying in airways.

Obvious questions: Why can a TRI with IR teach for EIR but not a CRI with IR? What the heck is an "emergency IFR approach" - either it's an instrument approach, or it isn't. Why is the bridge from UK IMCR so hard to state explicitly.


Interesting quote:
Personal observations: (1) More on approaches is essential, even for an En-Route IFR qualification, (2) The massive history of the UK IMCR is apparently regarded as irrelevant, that is quite surreal, being able to go into airways with the EIR will be a benefit, a considerable benefit to a few individuals (3) The restricted IR for IMCR holders might be quite nice if it really happens.

G

Far from it. I think without the "massive history of the UK IMCR" FCL.008 would never have got off the ground. The relatively safe operation of UK pilots under the IMCR regime is the safety justification by which the competence-based IR is justified.

In the same way that you would expect a PPL to get a few hours of instrument flying and to perform an "emergency 180 degree turn on instruments", without giving them privileges to fly intentionally in cloud, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give EIR holders some "emergency" instrument approach practice without giving them privileges to fly instrument approaches intentionally.

That's a very UK-centric view of airspace. Only the UK has this peculiar reverence for "airways", in which the easiest instrument flying takes place (hold a level, fly a heading). Everywhere else, you just use the airspace that's there. The hard part of instrument flying is the approach, which is why the EIR holder has to go to some lengths to ensure that they don't end up flying an approach in IMC.

I've never really understood the concern expressed here. If I have an IR, I need my destination to be above minima, otherwise I divert to my alternate. If my alternate is also below minima, I'm left in some difficulty, and may have to use my "emergency skills" to get down safely. If I have a PPL, I need my destination to be VMC, otherwise I divert to my alternate. If my alternate is also below VMC, I'm left in some difficulty, and may have to use my "emergency skills" to get down safely. If I have an EIR, I need my destination to be VMC, otherwise I divert to my alternate. If my alternate is also below VMC, I'm left in some difficulty, and may have to use my "emergency skills" to get down safely. What's the difference?

Well then you are missing the fact that almost all the world's plain vanilla PPLs are permitted to do exactly that. The UK is an outlier in having its "in sight of the surface" restriction.

So what is your counter-argument that opposes the successful experience of practically all the world's PPLs?

brgds
421C

Yer what? The UK is within 1000nm of the alps, so the lowest usable level is about FL170...

Please tell me they meant not below 1000ft above the highest point within 1000m?

My typing error, actually it's 1000ft above the highest point within 5nm.


421c is there actually evidence that (a) most PPLs can/do fly VFR on top, and (b) they don't have accidents whilst doing so. Apart from anything else, my experience as a researcher is that outside of the UK, US, Germany and Australia, most countries safety statistics are so poorly compiled that you can prove just about anything, or nothing. And again, I'm aware that ICAO standard permits VFR on top, but how many countries actually permit that?

Regading class A - my reference was actually to the PPL/CPL(VFR)/IMCR not permitting flight in class A. An embuggerance on occasion and if the EIR gets rid of that, it will have benefits along the way. Part of that is the ability to fly along airways, but also just to ask permission to cross them or free-fly where there is class A airspace. But equally, some people will want to file IFR along airways, and no reason they shouldn't really.

G

All US PPLs can fly VFR on top, and it's perfectly normal practice in the US. I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the JAR-FCL PPL allows VFR on top, it's a UK restriction. I am not sure if any other JAA countries also implemented this restriction, I don't think many did, if any. I imagine plenty of French PPLs fly VFR on top on their long Class E airways.

Hence my point about the majority of the world's PPLs. You're the one who made the point that "I see no argument in favour of permitting" something that is a normal part of the PPL privileges outside the UK, so you show me the evidence supporting what I find an extraordinary claim. The FAA have hundreds of thousands of PPLs without IRs. They publish papers and educational material on all sorts of flight training and risk management topics. Show me one advising against VFR on top, or highlighting the risks thereof. The NTSB accident database is searchable and has a vast volume of data. Do your research thing and show me any evidence suggesting VFR on top is dangerous.

brgds
421C

I doubt there is any evidence that VMC above an overcast is risky in any particular way.

These days, everybody who flies for real uses a GPS 100% of the time. I know this will upset some of the usual pilot forum residents but that is the present day reality. WW1 is over, WW2 is over, the Germans were beaten, even a 747 no longer carries a navigator, it's time to move on, and navigation is not a relevant issue.

And if navigation is not an issue, why object to VMC on top?

It is permitted under ICAO VFR. Just a few countries in the world impose a "sight of surface" requirement for VFR. VMC on top is not a "permission" as such - it is the default international position.

AFAICT the reason the UK CAA objects to VMC on top is because they pretend that GPS doesn't exist, which is a completely proper position given that it is not in the PPL syllabus.

But the proper way to deal with that is to update the syllabus :)

It is probably true that the EIR will benefit only a small % of pilots, because only a few people have long distance capable aircraft, fly abroad, but do not have an IR. I am pretty familiar with this position because that is what I was 2002-2006. But to object to the EIR on that basis is a retrograde step. We should be thinking of how to improve GA capability, because the whole scene is gradually collapsing into a black hole. The EIR will improve it.

I don't have time to read the 230 page EASA proposal now in detail (flying back to the UK from Greece) but it looks like a move in the right direction. FAA IRs accepted without flight training but one has to sit ~ 5 exams (perhaps a 30% reduction off the present "90% garbage" JAA IR TK), plus the flight test with an IR examiner (which will itself mean something like 10-15hrs flying for most experienced IFR pilots, to suss out the expected flight exam procedures), plus the JAA Class 1 audiogram or a JAA Class 1 medical (no improvement on the medical front; a huge missed opportunity, sadly).

Bear in mind though that it is still only a proposal worked out by a committee behind closed doors, with just the basics leaking out over the past year or two, so nothing actually changes right now in terms of what insurance policy an FAA licensed pilot may want to secure in time for 2014, or whatever. And FCL008 does nothing for commercial pilots.

Okay, thanks to a little prodding from C421 I've done a little more homework.

"VFR on top" in FAAspeak, and I think most other countries, is an IFR clearance.

"VFR over the top", in FAA and Transport Canada speak is a VFR condition. FAR-135 permits VFR over the top in the following way:





G

Class 1 medical for IR, even if attached to a PPL?

That would kill it for a lot of people. So far to my knowledge you needed an audiogram and some additional requirements for the Class 2, but to get a class 1 medical would be the show stopper and also again make the IR impossible to achieve for a lot of folks.

Otherwise, I have to say I like what I am seeing. A lot actually. The EIR as a first step, fully acknowledged for the "full" IR if taken later, the IR theoretical stuff reduced to some new level e.t.c. sounds almost too good to be true.

As an IMCR holder myself, I'd tend to agree. I've held off for the last year doing an IR (no desperate need to do it at the moment), I thought i'd hold off going down the FAA route and see what happens in EASA land - and I also like the idea of the modular route.

Not read the whole report yet but assume that currency / retesting of the EASA IR will be similar to JAR, rather than the (effective) self-renewing FAA route?

Edit : although I do agree that concept of the EIR is quite ridiculous - it effectively gives the EIR holder the same privileges as the PPL holder throughout most of the world! - I would imagine most EIR holders (assume former IMCR holders) will simply descend through IMC to do a VFR approach? Surely the muppets at EASA realise that!?

Part 135 is only for "commuter or on-demand [air taxi] operations".

The proposed EIR allows flight under IFR in IMC enroute (including the climb and descent above MSA). That's vastly more useful than the ability to fly VFR in VMC on top of a cloud layer, which is the privilege most PPLs have. The whole idea of the EIR is that the holder "will simply descend through IMC to do a VFR approach". So yes, the "muppets at EASA" do realise that!

As for "assume former IMCR holders", I would think an IMCR -> EIR conversion would be almost pointless. The IMCR holder is likely, according to the Introduction, is likely to get an IR limited to reflect the privileges of the current IMC rating (which include approaches). A sensible conversion route for such a pilot would likely be to the full (competence-based) IR, which would for many IMC rating holders require 10 hours of training in an ATO, plus the ground exams, assuming there is no simpler route proposed.

There's no requirement for a Class 1 being proposed. IO-540 is simply pointing out that the existing audiogram requirement for an IR is not being relaxed.

I'm not a supporter of the EIR, as I think it's dangerous. However in fairness to it, it does offer far greater privileges than a non-UK PPL holder; it allows flight in IMC under IFR above a certain MSA. No basic PPL holder has those privileges.

What's the cost/hassle factor in renewing a JAA IR annually?
It it required to be renewed annually under ICAO, or is that a Euro invention?

I think an EIR would be pretty useful..... UK airspace would "disappear" and so one could file from sunny Edinburgh to sunny L2k for lunch, and the flight wouldn't have to dogleg around airspace, or risk busting airspace. If it is cloudy en route, no problem, you are not banned from Class A airspace, you just keep going.

So you won't be able to fly the ILS at L2k...well, you can fly it down to 1000' cloud base I would imagine or find a hole, so it'd have to be pretty miserable and would suit most PPL's very well. It is a shame it doesn't include a precision approach capability though as I am sure many holes will be appearing in clouds which previously didn't have a hole ;)

1000ft above the nearest obstacle within 5nm, a lot of places, will be about 1200-1400 DH and sometimes 2000ft+ aal, compared to 600ft DH for an NPA with an IMC or 500ft on a PA, so it is rather more restrictive. Yet another argument to make sure you have an IMCR by Easter !

But apart from class A of-course, you can do that flight pretty much in a straight line if you don't mind doing a lot of radio calls to get through controlled airspace. I did Lydd to Prague pretty much in a straight line a week or so ago, with the only significant dogleg (out of Enstone) being around London. That was all through airspace, VFR with an IMCR (so VFR OTT), and that wouldn't be a lot different with an EIR - you still need to talk your way through everything. Okay, yes, in airways it will be easier because once in airways with an accepted flight plan you have no ongoing need to ask for permission - but it won't affect the route much.


To be honest, broadly I do favour the proposed EIR, but I'd still like to see approaches covered and permitted without having to declare an emergency - albeit certainly with a conservative DH like the IMCR. 600ft DH has worked for the IMCR with that level of training and is a lot less restrictive than MSA, which is what the EIR effectively proposes. And include a SID in the skill test, since it's clearly in the theory. That and can we use it at night please?, subject of-course to an NQ: I can't help suspect that the wording there is just unfortunate rather than deliberate.

Perhaps conservatism and privilege would be settled by allowing a 1000ft DH with the EIR - more conservative than the IMCR, but useable nonetheless.

G

For private flying, is there an equivalent document that I didn't find?

G

It would appear to be a very good result.

I do hope that certain well known commentators will hold their peace, not, mind you that i can imagine easa will be readly diverted from the course now set.

Having worked with a few on here to support the imcr let it also be said the effort appears to have been very worth while.

Inevitably the devil may yet be in the detail.

Part 91 is for non-commercial ops.

Part 135 and 121 are the rules for what you would call AOC operators.

I don't believe Europe offers an IFR clearance comparable to the FAA 'VFR-On Top' clearance. The description of this clearance sometimes confuses people. For the avoidance of doubt, the FAA allows PPLs to fly VFR over an undercast with no more formality than flying on a clear day.

AIUI these are recommended minima. Full IR minima may be used with an IMCR if wished, subject to 1800m vis for take off and landing.

although I do agree that concept of the EIR is quite ridiculous - it effectively gives the EIR holder the same privileges as the PPL holder throughout most of the world! -

You get mega new privileges: access to all airspace, and ability to fly in IMC.

I used to do long VFR trips across Europe, on a PPL/IMC, but one has to ask for each CAS transit. On the EIR, you just file a Z flight plan (VFR-IFR-VFR) and during the IFR portion you are treated as an IFR enroute flight, and you just go, with CAS being irrelevant.

What's the cost/hassle factor in renewing a JAA IR annually?

That's a very good question. My totally informal research around where I fly from is about £150. This is "not a lot" but is another £150 of pointless cost inflation. It is possible for a "mate" who can do it to do it for nothing, of course. N-reg owners will need the DfT permission for the test in their plane if they are paying the instructor and they are doing it in UK airspace; this permission is currently free.

(I cannot get the pprune quotation feature to work unless I access the internet via a VPN terminating in the UK - quite odd :) ).

Flybymike - negative, those are hard limits shown in the ANO, as is the 1800m viz. But yes, most of the other stuff in the IMC syllabus about higher limits is only advisory.

G

Denmark - VFR on top
 

VFR on top is permitted according to national Danish legislation on the following condititions:

VMC forecasted on the planned route/altitude; destination forecast with min vis 5 km and no cloud layer denser than 4/8 (ETA +/÷ 1 hr). Fuel reserve requirements similar to IFR: alternate + 45 min.
This minimises the risk of ending up flying in IMC.

The pilot is required to have logged at least 150 hrs, and the aircraft has to be IFR equipped.
This ensures some probability of succes should IMC be encountered accidentally. But there is no specific training or skill requirements for the pilot to exercise the right to fly VFR on top.

The 1800 m vis is a "hard limit" in the ANO. The 600 ft MDH and 500 ft DH are recommended by the AIP.

There are no corresponding restrictions in Part 91 about flying VFR over the top, if that's what you mean. For Part 91, VFR is VFR I think.

Thanks, consider us educated!

For anybody who wants to double check, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: but Bookwork seems to be correct.

G

How will you be able to do that when you may not accept an IFR clearance to fly an arrival or approach procedure?

The exact way the EIR would work in these situations remains unclear at the moment.

In the simplest scenario, the pilot will be unable to fly an IAP even under total VMC.

But one can also look at it from the Z flight plan POV where the VFR to IFR to VFR transitions are specified (as waypoints) in the flight plan, and during the VFR sections the behaviour expected of the pilot is very clear - VFR. I suspect this is the intended way of working it.

This seems like the curate's egg: good in parts.

I am not clear why they have so explicity excluded instrument approaches from the EIR. They recognise that there will be situations when such an approach is necessary, hence the emergency training requirement. Why not go the rest of the way and allow add on training to permit legal instrument approaches?

Arguably though this is not as significant as it appears as many wanting to use the EIR will not being going into an airfield which has an instrument approach, so the end phase of the flight becomes all the more critical in the planning, from a Wx perspective.

These proposals seem to indicate no grandfathering of IMCR privileges to the EIR but strangely up to 30 hous instrument time (from the IMCR training or otherwise) will count towards the Competency based IR! Interesting that classroom time may be combined with the practical flight training. I am not clear what that means. Does a briefing count?

I haven't had a chance to read the entire thing in detail but from the brief skim read of it I can't see anywhere an explanation how many written exams there will be and how exactly they are administered? I got the bit about 100hrs of theoretical study though and some more 'high performance' stuff being deleted from the written syllabus.

I guess someone must know at what point this will be addressed...?

I think overall the sentiment expressed in this NPA is broadly in the right direction.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think there's a clear analogy with the instrument training given to PPLs. We make them do a few hours under the hood, even though there is no intention to permit instrument flight as a privilege of the basic PPL. It's for emergencies, not for regular use.

That is the danger that being precluded from making safe instrument approaches pilots will be making home made cloud breaks into hilly or mountainous regions to try and go VFR below.
Not a clever or safe scenario. People are People and the accident stats will go up with what EASA are suggesting which is contrary to what the safety aspect of the IMCR was all about.

Pace

Maybe they are making an analogy, but there is still no rational argument as to why. I have only skimmed the EASA document, but they have advanced no rational explanation for this and I can only assume that it is to placate the airline mob who do not want anyone flying full IFR without the full IR.

It seems to make no sense to me to allow a pilot to legally fly IFR for hundreds of miles and then for him to have to rely on limited emergency training to get down when he finds unexpected IMC at his destination. This seems a bit like training a pilot to fly but not to land!

Of course if you add approaches to the EIR you have a full IR. I suspect that EASA could not bring themselves to accept the IMCR and have ended up with something which though undoubtedly useful to many is also possibly fatally deficient in the key area of approaches.

Why? What's the hardest aspect of flying IFR? Is it sitting on an airway staying within 5 miles of the centreline for hours at a fixed altitude? Surely not. Rather, it's flying the approaches. So if you're going to permit pilots to have privileges before they've done the full training to fly IFR in the form of the IR, doesn't it make sense to allow them to do the easy part (enroute) but not the hard part (approaches)?

Once again, I just don't understand why you'd pick on the EIR as "possibly fatally deficient". A PPL without any instrument qualification can find "unexpected IMC" at the destination, and an instrument rated pilot can find conditions below Cat I minima. They survive by going to their alternate where conditions are better.

.

Justiclar

You have hit it right on the nail. EASA are not motivated by their mandate as a safety organisation but have their own mandate of regulating, protectionism and control.
They will only budge from that if up against a brick wall.
What they are offering is fatally flawed and I dont use the word lightly!

Pace

Right sentiment, wrong target. EASA has been told by the European Commission that they have to do things the ICAO way. The ICAO way is to require 40 hours of instrument time before you get an IR. So do the FAA for that matter.

Bookworm

But allowing a pilot to fly on top is instrument flying. The tops can an do rise I can well remember getting into such a situation many moons back in a single Saratoga. The clouds rose and before I knew it I was not just IMC but icing up.
It was a front moving west to east and I was flying north to south.
I ended up just on top at 12K with the cloud in the hills below.
This on top thing is fine if the pilots are ENCOURAGED to declare and take an assisted instrument approach if their is any doubt about their descent at the other end.
The IMCR is a safety rating as proved in the stats! Some use it with anger others use it as a just incase but pilots do get into a mess of their own making and thou shall not do this is not enough.
I dont agree on EASAs safety priority in their rule making
I am one who doesnt agree with holding onto the IMCR. I have always pushed for the easely achievable PPL IR based on the FAA system.
Statistically as safe as the JAA IR and equally as good but achievable by all and a proper instrument rating.
If EASA are so safety mandated why dont they offer the same albeit with European study material instead of USA.


Pace

Oh dear. I had hoped to come on here and get the lowdown on the NPA without having to read the whole thing. Sadly despite reading many posts I don't know if it's a good or bad thing!

Time to stop being so lazy. Will read tonight.

One thing does strike me, though. 239 pages seems an awful lot to cover "Qualifications for flying in IMC", and especially so since the NPA does not specify in any meaningful detail the transition route from one such existing European qualification (namely the UK IMCR) to the proposed new regime!

Only in Europe?!