IAOPA sets out its stall on PPL licensing to the US and Europe
 

In the ideal world, you would set licensing standards at ICAO level and you would recognise ICAO licenses and convert them at national level for a fee, commensurate with the administrative work involved (i.e. something like £ 10 -20 max). There would be no additional air law exam, there would be no "certification" by a local examiner.

I fail to see why an annual renewal of an instrument rating would be a necessary condition to ensure flight safety. There obviously is no safety statistic to support this. And despite the recent announcements by the EASA supervisory board to the contrary, the "authority" continues to use bogus safety arguments to perpetuate job schemes for flight examiners.

By contrast, I would have nothing against national authorities wanting to "take ownership" of individuals' qualifications. But is there a history of the FAA actually acting up when a European CAA comes along with a reasonable claim ? Is the processing time inordinately long ? Lets take the example of the Dutch CAA wanting to take action against an American licensed Dutch citizen flying an N-reg into class D airspace without establishing two-way radio communication (I'm taking a typical offence for which your run of the mill CAA would like to see a license suspended for 3 months or so). Is that now "not happening because Dutch CAA can't be bothered" or "not happening because the FAA FSDO in Brussels can't be bothered" ? Or is this "take ownership" complaint yet another example of Eckard Seebohm style dog**** ?

If you have flown in various parts of the world there is no doubt that some of the local practices can be quite alien. Whether this justifies an air law exam or a check ride with an instructor is perhaps debatable but given that not unreasonably national authorities want some evidence a pilot has proved their knowledge I can see the justification for this requirement. Unfortunately our air law exam for example is not a very good model for demonstrating that a pilot that has only flown in the US understand the differences here.

I agree with regards the annual instrument check flight - its a complete nonsense but realistically I suspect you would be paddling against a very strong tide to get that changed!

I am afraid Martin struggles to get to grips with these sort of issues after his debacle over the IMCr and EASA changes in general but I suspect he has been more expertly guided by AOPA US who really do know their business. We can only hope it produces some results.

I agree with your comments PP but I think the reality is in the politics and the emotions surrounding these issues in Europe.

Forget aviation and accident stats. Just look at the politics.

In the USA, the default position is to vest authority in an individual and let him get on with it. Hence the A&P/IA system, the DER system, the DAR system. Only at the top end (jets) does one have to get into FAR Part 145 Repair Stations. It's a system which works very well, although obviously it does require the govt authority to be able to bust individuals who play up (and the FAA certainly does do that, and they do it in Europe as well, often acting much faster than the CAA).

In Europe, the default position is to presume all individuals are crooks and fraudsters, and you vest authority in an organisation. You make the organisation go through various approvals whereby certain steps make it "difficult" for a crook to operate (you force the organisation to appoint separate individuals for separate functions which makes collusion necessary, and since collusion is regarded as antisocial, it is deemed unlikely to happen in Europe) and then you can let the system run with minimal top-level supervisory activity; you mainly set up an office to collect the approval fees. So, we have the European situation where maintenance companies can do what they like (including document forgery) and virtually never get busted. This extends to stuff like ISO9000 which is now a complete farce and a purely marketing tool (albeit one that impresses only complete mugs, and ISO 9000 quality managers employed by the company doing the purchasing).

So, we will never have Europe accepting the FAA IR 6/6 rolling currency. It's obvious that all FAA licensed pilots are forging their licenses, after all :ugh:

US AOPA is excellent and superbly organised. If they can apply some of their resources to the European situation, they can achieve a great deal. I once watched an ageing Phil Boyer totally demolish a bunch of Eurocontrol officials at a presentation, and they slinked out as fast as they could before somebody could ask them questions.

An air law exam is a fairly standard thing for license conversions/validations, notwithstanding the fact that the present one in Europe is stuffed to the brim with complete bollox like this and addresses virtually nothing to do with actually flying over here.

The UK has recognised ICAO licences since the late 1940s, there is no fee and no work involved. Of course this doesn't suit the beaurocrats of Europe so it is about to end. AOPA are really only proposing that we go back to where we were pre JAA but lets not forget who dragged us into JAA in the first place, not the beaurocrats of Europe, it was not in their plan until AOPA put it there!.

Despite all the hype there is no such thing as a EASA PPL, only a series of National PPLs with an EASA sticker on them. Maybe the rest of the World should tell EASA that their licences will not be acceptable as EASA is not a member of ICAO; we could then forget them and continue with our National ICAO licences.

Whopity :

Agreed. But I was referring to a conversion. That is, you have someone who has lived and flown all his life in Brazil and now wants to fly G-reg in Europe. It would be reasonable for the UK CAA to charge a small conversion fee for that (i.e. issuing a new UK CAA license).

Yeah but even when you fight the Neazis, you still try to abide by (the Geneva and) the Chicago convention. Otherwise you become a bit like them.


Fuji :

True. But that is even true inside Europe.

- I got b*llocked at an Italian regional airport when I was requesting taxi to the fuel pumps without having requested a startup clearance first.
- I've flown to airfields in Germany and France where the local language is required for A/A communication
- You can file IFR departures (not just Zulu) from VFR only airports in the Netherlands
- etc...etc...

Are you arguing that a G-reg PPL (IR) should go through differences training to fly in Italy / Germany / the Netherlands ??? No of course you're not. And what evidence do you have that that G-reg PPL knows f*ck all about Italian Air Law ? Makes the right circuit calls in German ?
But the N-reg flyer should sit an Air Law Exam ? Come off it, mate...

That I hope too. What bugs me is that he writes the underlined as if it is "commonly accepted". To any logical logically thinking pilot without some sort of pecuniary conflict of interest, it is not.

I agree with all the lobbying and the artificial job creation it is a strong tide to row against. Nevertheless, if the EASA board claims that in any GA-relevant regulation safety has to be weighed against burden and cost and that safety arguments have to be supported by real statistics, one can only point that out to them. At the very least, they will look ridiculous in front of everyone if they persist.

You raise an interesting points with regards differences in europe. I suppose there is rightly a much greater common denominator between class a (and tmas) and "international" commercial airports throughout the world enabling much the same standards of air law to be applied. Differences are far more common at small non commercial airports, and ifr traffic very rarely has to worry about airspace and other local perculiarities. For that reason demonstrating familiarity is perhaps even more important for pilots of ga vfr traffic than cat pilots.

Never the less easa ga pilots are free to roam although as you rightly say the organisation of airspace and local procedures can be quite different throughout europe. In fact of couse this was true before easa. From europe's point of view like it or not i guess it would be impossible to impose the need to pass an air law exam for each member state and i also guess easa would say thats why they intend even greater harmonisation.

On the other hand i equally guess australia would say the way we do business is sufficiently different that we are going to impose an air law requirement on foreign pilots.

Whether they would be justified is more difficult. We all know you can just go fly in america under a 61.75 but you do need to pass a flight test and you will (or should) be closely questioned on many of the essentials of air law. There is undoubtedly plenty to catch many the private pilot out in terms of the differences between the way they and we do things. On the other hand we give faa pilots (at least at the moment) complete freedom without having to demonstrate any knowledge what so ever of our air law. You could argue we are more generous. Is there any evidence a pilot is better off for passing a local air law exam? I have no idea. I guess it forces everyone to at least review local procedures sufficiently to pass whereas without while the vast majority will have the common sense to do so its surprising how stupid a small minority can be.

Of course. My point is that EASA, when arguing the need to impose an air law exam on non-EASA ICAO rated pilots for safety reasons is a bit hypocritical, in the sense that air law in different member states is very different and most of these things you just learn on a need to know basis in your preparation and by experience.

The intention at harmonisation is nothing but lip service. Have a look at Italian semicircular regulation and you quickly get the message. And the EASA proposals on harmonisation of transition levels are downright farcical.

So unlike Australia, Europe doesn't have a unified air law and hence requiring knowledge of it through an air law exam is a bogus argument: the common denominator of air law in Europe is amply covered by what they teach you in an ICAO country, be that in Belize, Brazil or Bolivia

You don't : you need to have a BFR, which is quite different from (and a lot less expensive than) a flight test. All the questions you get on air law from an instructor are going to be relevant ones, unlike the air law exams in Europe. I must say the question Peter came up with made me smile. It is so typical for that twisted JAA attitude.

You're obviously only talking about the UK, I presume, which allows flying G-reg on an FAA PPL VFR only ? Because if you fly into the US with a JAA license on a G-reg, you have complete freedom too, without ever having demonstrated knowledge of "their" air law. That is the whole point of ICAO and the Chicago convention: establish a common standard with minimum requirements for safe operation worldwide. Thats why ICAO regularly audits countries, so that licenses can't be "bought" from some corrupt official in Ulan Baatar or Gatwick.

And the rest of Europe isn't that generous at all : To convert, even at PPL VFR level, requires a wrist of exams (you got to love those questions on inner ear anatomy or the number of rods in the eye !) and a flight test, even for competent pilots with 100 hours of PIC time.

Everyone, that is, except the UK EASA pilot flying in France, or the ICAO EP level 0 Air Bulgaria pilot flying to Amsterdam. But seriously, I don't buy that as an argument to need an air law exam.

You can reasonably assume that someone who has sat through an up to ICAO standard airman certification process will have been taught to prepare for a flight. The FAA certificate holders for instance are taught to familiarize themselves with all elements relevant for the flight.

And if you are a foreign pilot renting some local equipment, you can be sure that the operator will have the renter pilot checked out, not only in the aircraft but also in pertinent local procedures. That is actually the point of the BFR in the 61.75 conversion.

WHY? what on earth has that got to do with safe operation? If a Brazilian pilot goes to a UK club he will be checked out to their satisfaction. Having an unnecessary piece of papers serves no useful purpose. The UK has complied with ICAO Annex 1 in both spirit and practice unlike many other countries. It has not caused any safety issues in doing so.
As far as Airr Law exams are concerned. they ceased having any relevance to flying an aeroplane years ago.

Not that it's wholly relevant, but for the record, Ireland is just as generous a the UK, automatically rendering an ICAO licence valid on EI reg aircraft.

Proudprivate

Not nick picking but a BFR is a flight test. Yes, I was only talking about the UK and yes you could fly a G reg in the US but you will struggle to find one (I know, there are a few).

I don't disagree with anything you say, my post was to give both sides of the coin without necessarily drawing any conclusions. However as is so often the case there is what we all think or know makes sense and what is realistic or likely to happen.

Its debatable whether pilot medicals achieve anything, but they aren't going to disappear any time soon. Its debatable whether Europe needs control over everything that gets off the ground in its airspace but in reality the Euro mind set cannot contemplate anything else.

Of course it would be wonderful if any pilot could fly any where in the world on their ICAO license but its not going to happen any time soon and it definitely isn't going to happen in Europe -I wish it wasn't so but that is the only realistic conclusion unless you want to give the next five years of your life to a campaign which even then is unlikely to succeed. I spent six months campaigning to keep the IMCr, I think it was worthwhile and I would like to think it contributed to the present state of play but that was only one very small and possibly achievable element.

That is all I have to say really. ;)

Pilot medicals seem to do nothing that is statistically detectable :) but they make the pilot papers ICAO compliant...
Interesting; I didn't know that :ok:

What about the rumour that Ireland does not recognise FAA Class 3 medicals?

What are these mysterious 'pilot papers', peterh337? Why not use correct terminology?

Incidentally, the requirement for periodic demonstrations of competency is enshrined in the EASA Aircrew Regulation - and quite rightly so too!

To which 'struggle' and 'debacle' do you refer? Where is your evidence for this nasty little comment?

You must know exactly what I mean

- license (licence)
- rating(s)
- medical

No use writing e.g. license when the medical is always required also.

That is correct. The IAA don't recognise FAA class 3 medicals, believing them to be sub ICAO. They are perfectly happy though with an FAA class 1 or class 2 medical.

They appear to be incorrect; they are sub-ICAO only if special conditions are imposed.

Still, as they say, possession is 9/10 of the law and the IAA owns the aircraft registry :)

The UK trumps that. It does not recognise French and German JAA Class 2 medicals.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/JAAMemb...uleJul2010.pdf

Do you mean it doesn't recognise them for the issue of a UK JAR-FCL PPL, or it doesn't recognise them for use in conjunction with a French or German JAR-FCL PPL to fly a G-reg?

The latter would be most suprising.

They don't recognise the French, German [and Belgian, for that matter] medical for the issuance of a UK JAR-FCL PPL.

I don't think anybody is debating a requirement for periodic demonstrations of competency. After all, a biannual flight review with an instructor is just that.

What we are arguing here is
- that it shouldn't have to be demonstrated to an examiner
- that recent flight experience should play a role in setting the requirements
- that EASAs unholy Aircrew Regulation contains a lot artificial job creation that is not supported by any safety statistics
- that IAOPA is apparently advocating some quite unnecessary restrictions which aim at perpetuating this job creation to the detriment of the flying community as a whole

@ whopity : you're quite right. In an ideal situation, the ICAO member state would simply recognise ICAO papers and allow its planes to be flown on those alone.

@ Fuji : I think it is an absolute disgrace that the IMCR rating is discontinued. Again an example of EAZIsm imposing themselves regulation wise without any safety statistic in support. A lead poisoning from their carnival masks is what those Cologne clowns deserve...

Is this for conversion, or to fly EI aircraft on an FAA certificate in Ireland ?

The IMC rating is not 'being discontinued'.

It will be available (under a new name - 'IR(Restricted)') for new issues until 8 Apr 2014 and possibly thereafter. Anyone obtaining one before then will be able to use it on both EASA and non-EASA aeroplanes into the future.

The IR(Restricted) was originally my idea, but the CAA has done the spade work to make it happen. Hopefully my other proposal (adoption of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) into FCL.600.IR - General) will be accepted; if not, the fight will go on!

Irish law automatically validates all ICAO licences for use on EI reg aircraft for private day VFR flight (without geographic restriction, though there is a confusing AIC which tries to limit it to Ireland).

Obviously any such licence needs to be accompanied by an ICAO level 2 medical or above (the standard required for private flight licences under ICAO).

The IAA have taken the view that an FAA class 3 medical is not an ICAO level 2 medical or above, and therefore cannot be used as the basis for flying an EI reg aircraft on an FAA PPL.

dp

OK; that business is going to get more complicated under EASA because the license issuance country will have to be the same one which keeps your medical records.

I've been trying to get my head around that one but presumably it is to cut down on people doing their initial medicals (especially CV tests) in certain well known locations ;)

OTOH can't the initial CV test be done in any ICAO country?

Also EASA is refusing to recognise pilot papers from e.g. Croatia which was formerly a JAA country.

For the issue of a UK JAR-FCL.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/SRG_Med...L_Mar-2010.pdf

Beagle

As you well know the proposed eir is not the same as the imcr and the irr may not be available throughtout easa.

As to my comments regarding martin he rufused to lend aopa uks support to the imcr or to the campaign to save it to which i quote he said it was as much use as a chocolate teapot. He then changed aopas stance when he realised the tide had turned, aopas stance was very unpopular and they had little choice but jump on the band wagon. Personal opinion it maybe but aopa uk has lost its way under martin resulting in an organisation very poorly supported (with less than 10 % of the pilot population being members) and with few friends amoung the other representative organisations. I have no idea why he has clung on for so long and a change is well overdue - its not a job for life, although it does seem otherwise.

I appreciate you will disagree, but you did ask. ;)

Fuji, virtually all of that rant is utter nonsense!

The proposed En-route IFR Rating is totally different and is not a substitute, I agree. But the IR(R) will have the same privileges as the UK IMC rating and will not be valid outside UK airspace.

AOPA has always supported the IMC rating very strongly and neither Martin Robinson nor any other AOPA representative has ever wavered from that position.

The 'chocolate teapot' term was my description of the original EIR which hadn't been properly defined and was very vague and imprecise.

Again, complete nonsense. Although AOPA's position on the retention of the UK IMC rating most certainly did NOT change, the position on the EIR changed once the NPA 2011-16 proposals made it clear that most of the originally unacceptable vagueness and safety issues had been addressed. If you want to see the full details of both the IAOPA(EU) and AOPA(UK) actual position with regard to the EIR, you will have to wait until the CRD is released.

Nonsense though it is, you are of course entitled to your own opinion. However, you might care to know that AOPA has been working closely with the 'other representative organisations' on a number of issues without any friction or other difficulties. It also has a good standing with the senior levels of the CAA.

Before writing such bile-ridden garbage, it might have been better if you'd done rather more research.

Instructors are trained to instruct. Examiners are trained to examine competency.

How exactly would that work? A shorter test if you've logged instrument currency?

Fuji - You are not, perhaps, confusing Martin Robinson with Jim Thorpe, are you?

Beagle

I am not going to pursue this particular discussion as I know well of your involvement with AOPA and your opinions. I guess I would expect nothing less than for you to support them. That is fine with me and I have no intention of making it personal. Martin has a job to do and I just happen to think he doesn't do the job very well which means that an important organisation like AOPA UK doesn't have the support it enjoys or deserves.

I have been careful to confine my comments to the facts, facts of which you are clearly unaware because you have jumped to the wrong conclusions or made references which are not relevant. That is understandable because I am guessing you were not aware of some of the correspondence between us at the time and correspondence with other parties.

FWIW (and I guess not a lot) I have the emails and since not surprisingly they are in writing I am quite satisfied as to the position taken at the time and the views expressed with which it should be obvious I was very upset and felt it sold GA short. I make no apology for feeling strongly about this matter because I do and I know so do many others.

What utter claptrap to suit your monetary self interest!

Instructors are of course also trained to assess competency. They are certainly capable of assessing competency. And they are required to assess competency, when they have to sign student pilots' off for written tests and checkrides. And they assess competency during the flight reviews.

Using an instructor for recurrent assessment as opposed to an examiner just saves a lot of money ($45 /hour vs $200 / hour).

Re the statement "that recent flight experience should play a role in setting the requirements" your asking the question is answering it:
If you've logged instrument currency (where the approaches and holds during normal flight time can be verified - they are on ATC tape and on record at the airports) you shouldn't be re-tested at all, it's as simple as that. And it saves time and money for the pilot community.

But that is obviously something you don't give a monkey's about...

And if the BFR came up for an instrument rated private pilot, even if current, I would throw in an approach or a hold just to see how things are going, but that is fun and at minimal cost.

Any relevant safety statistic you want to throw into this Bookworm ? I didn't think so.

Proudpilot

Instructors are trained to instruct and are a pretty mixed bag going from very good to very poor.
Examiners are there to examine and should be detached from the person they examine.
You should not have an instructor who teaches you builds a relationship with you and then examines you.
Cost is another thing.
Nothing we do get from EASA will be what we want as there is little common sense in how they operate.
Anything which we do get which is less than that which is on the table at present will be a bonus.
If you can continue your FAA IR in Europe but are required to sit an airlaw exam and take a flight test with a designated Examiner that has to be a lot better than what is there at present.

Pace

I've come across very few other people on PPrune who not only personalise the debate but also make fallacious assertions about the motivation of other contributors to the discussion. If I don't agree with you, proudprivate, the only conceivable explanation is that I'm corrput and self-serving, right?

So why does the system bother with examiners at all then? Why not just get the hour-building kid who just qualified to teach students to assess your competence to do something that you've been doing for the last 20 years, and take that privilege away from you on a whim?

Why do examiners cost more than instructors?

Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community. Come to think of it, if I make it up the stairs to my AME's office without having a heart attack, why bother with the medical examination? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community.

Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community. Come to think of it, if I make it up the stairs to my AME's office without having a heart attack, why bother with the medical examination? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community.

Bookie

Tongue in cheek I am sure but I guess there is a serious point. As societies / communities develop they tend to accumulate ever more legislation and regulatory requirements; the danger is that either while they were justified at the time, they no longer are, or, on any proper examination of the evidence they were not justified in the first place.

The FAA monitor instrument proficiency in a different way to us we all know, but is there any evidence our system reduces the number of accidents / incidents? Conversely the BFR in FAA land is a test whereas in theory our nearest equivalent isn't and is works quite differently if you can demonstrate currency. Is one system better than another? Some aircraft in the UK require the pilot has a full CAA medical but other aircraft just as fast and perhaps more difficult to fly do not require the pilot to have a medical to the same standard. Moreover arguably they attract pilots who wouldn't get a CAA medical for one reason or another. Is there any evidence to suggest they have more incidents / accidents as a result of medical issues which would have been screened during a CAA medical? I don't know the answers but they are all valid questions me thinks.

Fuji



Have you just realised the reason Europe is going down the drain is that it is a victim of its own burocracy?
A vast Army of government jobs, gold plated pensions big expense accounts all to be paid for. Regulators every way you turn with their research departments all heavily paid and all looking for new ways to regulate to justify their own jobs? A monster of a machine out of control and costing Billions all in the name of big brother Europe!
We cannot afford it anymore!

Just one tiny example of why we are going down the drain. They could have taken the FAA well tried and tested system adjusted for European issues and saved a fortune.
EASA common sense??? They regulate for their own benefit not the community

Pace

I notice that your assertions trivialise the debate. Some of your previous interventions do not mark you as particularly stupid. It's therefore only logical to question your motives.

Now tell me, are you or are you not making money from Aviation Regulation in Europe, be it as a consultant to the UK CAA on regulatory matters, a temporary agent at EASA, or a similar occupation ?

Again, you trivialise the debate.

First, notice the absence of any safety statistic in your argument.
A system with examiners for initial check rides and instructors on a biannual basis has been tried and tested. The safety record of such a system per flown hour certain beats yours. Furthermore, it is cheaper on the pilot community. Therefore, it is superior.

Next, you propose to do away with examination altogether, and in the same sentence you question the competence of an instructor of your choice.

Finally, you describe the threat of an hour building kid to take away your flying privileges. This threat doesn't exist. You cannot "fail" a biannual flight review. The kid might refuse to sign you off, but if it is the kid of your choice, I would assume the dialogue and debrief would give you a clue as to why he would refuse this. But that is not "taking away flying priveleges". After some proper review, you would probably get the sign off. If the original examination was anything to go by, remedies are likely to be light.

Quote:

---

Why do examiners cost more than instructors?

---

I don't have a definite answer to that one. Some possibilities could be:
a) because the examiner is usually a more senior pilot
b) because sometimes the local CAA charges add-on fees
c) because they have an oligopoly which they exploit

Again, you are purposely trivialising the debate. An intial check ride ensures that you have performed up to test standards. Just ignoring your drivel on the PPL and the medical, let me try to enlighten you on the Instrument Currency :

You've been thoroughly tested on various procedures, which at that time you knew how to fly within private or commercial standards. By regularly flying approaches and holds, you retain a sufficient level of competence. Sufficient studies in comparable educational domains prove that. The advantage is that the basic instrument skill set can be logged and verified by a competent authority (on its own behalf or on behalf of an insurance company for example).

The whole point of the debate lies in a cost/benefit balance, where the benefit is safety. It is certainly worthwile doing an impact study (a real one, not an EASA one where you twist assumptions to suit your needs) about the need of a medical for private flight, but that is not the issue here.

By contrast, FAA studies show deteriorating pilot skills with inexperienced PPLs, which is their main motivator for a BFR. I would guess that, based on the skills affected (some are affected more than others, and some are more safety related than others), an impact study would reveal a statistically significant accident increase in the absence of a BFR. This should then be weighed against the alternative of having pilots log particular exercises in lieu of a BFR. The conclusion would probably be that, systematically logging a bunch of unverifiable items would not outweigh a one off cost of a BFR.

@ Pace :

Why not ? I happen to have a long standing relationship with my instructor. He would not sign me off if he felt I were deficient, and the BFR would certainly be a good learning experience.

I find that completely unacceptable. A friggin publicly funded €100 million+ budget a year organisation should show common sense and should operate to serve the community.

BW
You are doing something that I wouldn't expect of you - repositioning a sensible alternative view into an absurdity.

The position I think we should be debating is the EASA/JAA vs FAA/ICAO one of the role of instructors vs examiners and the requirements for currency. I am qualified under both, although I have only a little ad-hoc instructing experience.

My characterisation of the two models is as follows:

Under the FAA, there are effectively only 2 "ranks" - Designated Pilot Examiners and Instructors. A DPE is needed for only one type of event - the initial issuance of a Certificate or Class Rating. Absolutely every other requirement for a pilot's revalidation or renewal or differences training can be met by a plain vanilla CFI (with CFII and MEI privileges as required). A CPL/IR ME could have stopped flying 10 years ago, and a plain CFI-II-MEI could sign off his complete and full set of privileges without any reference to an examiner or the FAA or any paperwork other than logbook endorsements.

The instructor has a vital role in assessing competence. The FAA I think would say a greater role (albeit less formal) than a DPE. The endorsement an instructor gives a candidate is taken as a formal assessment that the candidate meets the skills, experience and knowledge standards for the privileges he seeks. The DPE's role is to perform a "check" that this is the case, but it is emphasised that a single check ride can only test so much, and that the instructor is exercising a significant responsibility in endorsing a candidate and giving this message to the DPE and the FAA. In the award of new qualifications, there are thus two independent "gates" (the instructor and the DPE). In the revalidation/renewal, it is entirely down to the instructor's assessment.

I happen to think the system works well, its virtue is an obvious simplicity and practicality and, most importantly, a safety outcome as good or better than the best European countries. Of course, there is some small risk that a "bad egg" gets through, but the safety record suggests this is more than mitigated by avoiding the vast unproductive bureaucracy associated with flight training and testing in Europe, and consequently making flight training more accessible and less expensive. By less expensive, interestingly, that does not apply to instruction. The typical US rate is $50/hr flight and ground time. A much fairer rate than the pittance many European instructors work for. But, the avoidance of the huge regulatory cost makes flight training cheaper overall. Basically every penny you spend goes on training and practically none on the overheads and approvals needed in Europe.

Conversely, a "flight instructor" in Europe sits at the bottom of a multi-layered hierarchial pyramid, with NAA inspectors and examiners at the top, senior examiners and examiner examiners below them, then normal examiners, then heads of training and CFIs and then finally the "plain" instructor (with the "restricted" instructors below that), who are basically empowered to execute some training roles in an FTO and that's it. There is no comparison between that role and an FAA CFI, who has all of the privileges of European examiners in the realm of revalidation and renewal.

The hierarchy and multiple layers of paperwork checking may appeal to a certain kind of mentality, but I think it achieves nothing relative to the US model for flight training and safety.

brgds
421C

No.

The JAA annual IR test does nothing to improve safety.

Unfortunately Fuji, you are the one who posted what Beagle described as a "nonsense rant" and it needs pursuing in order to refute it.

I am a member of AOPA and nothing more. I don't want to start an argument, but I can't think of how to counter the personal attacks you have made on Martin and AOPA's role in the IMCr in any other way. I think you both have some sort of grudge and elevated self-importance. In my opinion, Martin and AOPA (and Beagle!) have done absolutely sterling work from day 1 in support of the IMCr, and any positive outcomes are due to their efforts, as well as the supportive role of the CAA/DfT and other pilot organisations. I would guess your contribution, on balance has been zero, because anything positive that your long-forgotten petition achieved has probably been negated by your endless criticism of AOPA on pilot forums for years since. I agree that AOPA doesn't have the support it deserves. I would attribute that to several factors on the whole
- useless apathy amongst many GA pilots
- unrealistic expectations of what a small voluntary organisation can achieve
- the egocentric view of "if it doesn't conform to my exact preferences in instance X, Y or Z" then I will stroppily refuse to join

In addition, I would add that a certain kind of anti-AOPA grudge-holder can be particulary vociferous on pilot fora, and I suspect this has some minor effect on negativity entering the collective pilot psyche. You are such a grudge-holder.

I value many of your interesting contributions on fora, but not your anti-AOPA campaign. If you have your doubts, the more constructive way would be to engage directly with the AOPA Member's working group etc, and stop rubbishing AOPA whenever the opportunity pops up. Of course, we are all entitled to an opionion, but when the number of times I have read an opinion of this sort from you approaches the 100 mark, as it probably does, I start to think it is vindictive, egocentric and unfair.

Thread focus...
 

I don't think it is particularly helpful to to discuss actions of Martin Robinson or IAOPA in the past nor the advantages and disadvantages of joining IAOPA. I'm an AOPA member myself, and I see clear benefits to me.

I started this debate because Mr Robinson / IAOPA communicated to me on the current negotiations. I think it is not unreasonable to ask for a cost & effort conscious simplification of private aviation regulation in Europe. Some of the points mentioned in his communication seemingly contradict this rather straightforward view.

Replacing examinations with currency requirements for the instrument rating is an obvious one. Honouring ICAO papers another one.

.

Proudpilot

We agree on many things ;) You may have a great instructor who is more than capable That to me is what an instructor should be.
Instructor conjures up an image of a grey haired guy with that knowing twinkle in his eye who passes down years of hard earned experience to lesser mortals ;) Sadly an instructor can be the hour building kid with limited ability, hours and experience.
That does not mean that there should not be an instructor plus rating which qualifies more experienced instructors to examine? A sort of halfway house between an instructor and examiner.
Regarding the relationship between an instructor and carrying out examinations as well it is often good to have a second eye or opinion of your flying and an unbiased one at that.
Your instructor knows you well, knows your flying good and bad habits and is more likely to turn a blind eye. You dont go for a driving test and do it with the guy who taught you to drive you need an unbiased outside view of your abilities!
If we are expecting IR privalages in Europe rather than actually attaining and holding equiavalent licences is it not better to satisfy a European examiner representing EASA that we are up to the standards expected and save a fortune in the process.
I cannot see EASA letting an 18 year old with 200 hrs total give that approval!

Pace

421C

I have read an opinion of this sort from you approaches the 100 mark, as it probably does, I start to think it is vindictive, egocentric and unfair.

Fair comment.

I don't wish to pursue this is a vindictive manner. You will have gathered I feel strongly, but perhaps that is academic if it crosses the line.

For the record AOPA and Martin have done sterling work in many areas. In some I may think otherwise but for now and the future from my point of view it is best left there, you are right.

Well, yes (although an FAA CFII won't be 18 with 200hrs; that is a European speciality ;) ) but that is just the reality of European politics.

One can debate the fundamentals but they will never change.

The US system, demonstrably "at least as good and mostly safer" will never be adopted here, partly for job protection reasons and partly because it is American.

So, instead of flying 6 approaches within the last 6 months, I have to fly with a CRE/IRR and spend £150, once a year. (In fact I have to do both because I have both IRs to maintain). That's about the cheapest way to do it. Plus the cost of actually flying, so a renter will be paying lots more than that. For nothing.