Latest EASA PPL IR looking good especially for FAA IR Holders ???
 

EASA opinion on new rules for the Instrument Rating

EASA has published its final opinion on 'Qualifications for flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC)' - the new rules intended to make the instrument rating more accessible for private pilots. The opinion does not solve the UK concerns over the IMC rating, but it does contain a number of significant proposals that will make it more realistic for a private pilot to obtain an IFR rating.

This includes significant reductions in the theoretical knowledge requirements, a competency-based approach which will accommodate pilots holding an instrument rating issued outside Europe and an enroute instrument rating (EIR) with limited privileges, but which can serve as a stepping stone towards the full IR.

The theoretical knowledge requirements today involves a whole range of subjects not relevant for a PPL pilot who wants to fly IFR in Europe in a light piston-engine aircraft and have been an unnecessarily big obstacle. The proposal is now to remove the advanced and high-performance subjects from the curriculum and cut down the required ground-school hours from 200 to 80 hours, most of which can be done as distance learning, so that the number of classroom hours requiring physical presence is limited to eight hours. Remaining subjects can be taken later if the pilot wants to transition to a high-performance aircraft. This makes the theoretical knowledge much more accessible for the typical PPL who has a full-time job.

For holders of an instrument rating issued outside Europe there is also good news. Both the theoretical knowledge requirements and the practical skills will be assessed during the skill test, so for a pilot with 50 hours of IFR experience as PIC and for instance holding an FAA IR, the EASA IR requires only skill test.

This is particularly important considering the new FCL requirements that a pilot based in Europe and flying for instance an N-registered aircraft must in the future have a full EASA FCL certificate and IR rating to fly IFR in Europe.
The last major new proposal is for en enroute instrument rating (EIR) which will be a sub-ICAO rating limited to the en-route phase of the flight, with no approach privileges. Jacob Pedersen of AOPA Denmark says: "The EIR will serve as a stepping stone towards the full IR and can also prove useful where airspace is not allowing VFR operations and in some weather conditions. The EIR will hopefully inspire more pilots to receive instrument training, but with the lack of approach privileges it should not be considered as anything close to a full instrument rating - something that is also reflected in the requirement for just 15 hours of IFR flight training."

Finally the EASA opinion proposes to remove the English language proficency requirement for the IR in general and also introduces a daylight-only variant so pilots not holding a night-qualification can still get an IR for day-only operations.

The full EASA opinion can be found at EASA - Opinions The proposal now lies with the European Commission and must go through the comitology process before it becomes law.

While the proposals represent an improvement for much of Europe, they are seen as a catastrophe in Britain, where the loss of the FAA IR for what are considered to be chauvinistic reasons, not related to safety, and the killing of the UK IMC rating, have made flying more difficult, more expensive and more dangerous.


Pace

I also saw this and have written to my MP and the Transport Secretary. I suggest everyone else does the same.

UK GA does need a consistent position to project. In my opinion, the best answer is to retain the IMC in the UK indefinitely and introduce the accessible full Euro IR asap. As far as the en-route (EIR) is concerned, I simply can't see how anyone could possibly think this is a good idea. Are we all expected to have divine powers that will cause the clouds to disappear when we want to land (and if so, where is that mandated in Part-FCL and will we also require classroom training for it and another exam)?

Time to act.

Err no, I think we are meant to use a "TAF" and plan accordingly.

I'm a UK-issued PPL holder but not based in the UK, nor the holder of an IMC rating, so I consider this an enormous improvement over the current situation.

Is there any timeframe available when this will be implemented and available?

Apart from the proposal for the CBM IR to be available without a colour vision test pass (presumably), and that is good news, though presumably it will still not be available to anybody with one bad ear, is there actually anything new in this?

The CBM IR has still to go via Comitology, which has been the situation for many months now...

Peter

What I have and so far it appears accurate is that the PPL side of things will be complete by October. Then they will move to working out commercial licences.
Looking at it the best route is to get an PPL FAA IR now and when the time comes convert it with a simple flight test and oral exam.
As for commercial licences ???

Pace

An EASA full IR doesn't require a colour safe pass.

They have moved the colour safe to the CPL requirements.

Good luck mate. I hope the weather doesn't change on you in flight. I've got an IMCr in case that happens to me.

Mad Jock

Are we talking about knickers here? I presume it more important to have color safe for commercial pilots rather than PPLs?
Maybe color safe for first solo?

Pace

I know its bollocks.

They are admitting now that you can be a bit colour blind and still not crash.

To be honest I do know commercial pilots that are completely colour blind which developed with age (which is not meant to happen) who don't crash either. And one that knows all the ishra plates and the order, who he got off his mates going before him and got through outside Europe but flys in regularly. He can see the difference though in the PAPI's

So the new word in the regs is colour safe. And it used to be a requirement for the IR and now they have deemed it a requirement to fly commercially. It seems they don't want any day only commercial pilots which is going to screw up some instructors as you have to hold the license you are teaching for.

There is a huge thread in the medical forum about it all.

MJ

I will tell you my story ;) 7 years ago went for my medical and the AME stated that i needed glasses for short work.
he refused to issue my medical and I trundled off the 50 miles back to my hometown and an urgent appointment with the local Specsav+rs.
Now being a funny individual I requested the glasses look more like sunglasses and had them tinted.
£300 worse off I trundled the 50 miles back to be told I had to do the whole vision thing sporting my new glasses.
All fine with the vision thing but he wanted the color tests doing again!
I could not read a thing or see any correct numerals :{
What had happened to my color vision.
Then it dawned on me while he was saying I needed other tests! For instance put on yellow glasses and the best color vision guy in the world looking at blue will see green. Ok my glasses were brown!
I explained this and argued that every pilot wearing sunglasses which most do are color blind! I argued that in which case the wearing of sunglasses by pilots should be banned!!!
I was banished yet again to buy a set of clear glasses.
Last medical 1 month ago the new AME removed the "must wear corrective glasses"! completely as I passed the vision test with flying colors without glasses :ugh:

Pace

.

So the IMCr stops the weather ever changing below minima?
What's the difference between depending on a TAF for a VFR flight, depending on a TAF for a EIR flight, depending on a TAF for a IFR flight by an IMCr holder or an IR holder or a CAT II/III transport aircraft for that matter.

Aren't the issues the same
- the TAF is a forecast
- you use your judgement based on the forecasts, minima, available alternates, fuel, currency etc etc to plan a reasonable and legal course of action

Why is it a more dire risk for an EIR holder to be surprised by Dest and Alternate forecast ceilings above 1000' to be below, than for an IMCr holder to risk ceilings forecast above minima to be below? If anything, I'd rather be an EIR holder needing (gasp) an SRA (or other approach I have trained for in an EIR course for emergency use) because my 1500' ceiling ended up being 800' than and IMCr holder having to do an approach that would be below mins for a 2 crew CAT operation in an emergency?

the two old boys that are completely colour blind it makes not one bit of difference to them even though they can't tell the difference in the PAPI's.

Some AME's are proper gits when it comes to some stuff and your stuffed if they get there teeth in.

Mine is dead against glasses until you really really need them as it apparently makes matters worse very quickly. to be honest though he could do with changing his testing board as I know the bottom line is ECONMPHFZLJ

Mind you he has had a few pilots die a couple of weeks after seeing him over the years so he is rather sceptical about the whole medical business.

Thanks for flagging this Pace, which is really clear and helpful - and well done all who have been pushing EASA to bring some common sense into this.

For anybody who wants the original EASA docs, they're here...

PRESS RELEASE - EASA publishes new rules for pilots flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions

G

Sounds like great news to me! Makes the IR much more accessible, which can only be a good thing.

Having now read the full official document, I see as an IMC holder planning on an IR that the critical number is my "PiC IFR" time - thank goodness my logbook is in Excel, as that thankfully was quite an easy new column that I just had it generate for me.

G

That is if it gets through the schools will be lobbying hard, it will mean the death of IR ATO's around Europe if it works out cheaper to go through FAA then convert than going through EASA commercial training from the start.

Its the fact that the IR is a rating and not linked to a license type.

There will need to be a method of blocking commercial students looping back and converting the IR onto there PPL then just doing the commercial course.

You can say safety safety all you like but its a multi million pound industry you are killing off.

I can't see it happening to be honest unless you can get a block.

Does it? The way I read it is that you have to have 50 hours of PIC under IFR, after the issue of your FAA IR, in order to qualify for the conversion route.

I know flying in the US is cheaper, but I don't think 40 hours FAA IR training plus 50 hours hour building under IFR in the US will be cheaper than 40 hours EASA IR training.

What I am missing here, though, is a requirement that training for the IR needs to be done in European airspace, and/or on an EASA Annex I aircraft. That would mean that the US schools that currently already offer training for various EASA licenses and ratings, can now also offer training for the IR. Am I right?

It would be because you need to build up to 150 hours anyway before you can start your CPL course. So you have missed out a block anyway by hour building IFR if you would have any sense you would do it at night as well to get night hours. About a 5k plus saving already. IR course is in the 15-18k range.

How much to do a FAA IR and 50 hours spam can time currently in the US? You would also need the MEP and muti engine IR I would have thought.

By doing it the FAA way you will reach 150 hours convert your IR which then gives you 10 hours off the CPL course dropping it to 15 hours. You need 200 hours before you can apply for your CPL.

From the prices of the FL sausage factorys for PPL/MEP/IR and mutli IR I reckon it will undercut the Western European FTO's by 10-15k.

Okay, I see. You're looking at the all-inclusive price for a modular ATPL. I was just looking at the IR as a PPL-addon.