[denopa]

We should hear more about this soon, no ?

[tripacer]

We should hear more about this soon, no ?

I hear EASA is proposing not only to let pigs fly, but to allow them IMC ratings.

[SteveC]

We should hear more about this soon, no ?

No, they are going to meet again later in the year.

[fuzzy6988]

This task seems to be running very much overdue. According to their Terms of Reference:

NPA: 2010.01
CRD: 2010.03
Opinion: 2011.01
Decision: 2011.03



There is nothing on their website to indicate where they're at. Will EASA charge us more fees to cover their time and cost overruns? Let's hope not.

[David Roberts]

Next FCL.008 meeting in a couple of weeks I recall.

[nickwilcock]

The next meeting of FCL.008 is on 5 Oct 2010. After this an NPA is anticipated to be released in Q2 of 2011, with an Opinion due in Q2 of 2012 - rather close to the intended date of introduction of EASA part-FCL, in my view.

To remind you all of AOPA's formal position on this:

AOPA UK supports the concept of an EASA part FCL/ICAO level IR with proportionate theoretical knowledge requirements.
AOPA UK is totally opposed to any future instrument qualification which does not include approach privileges.
AOPA UK insists upon the retention of UK IMCR privileges within UK airspace.
AOPA UK recommends that the benefits of the UK IMCR be clearly explained to the rest of the EC.

[fuzzy6988]

Thanks for the update.

AOPA UK is totally opposed to any future instrument qualification which does not include approach privileges.

Is AOPA suggesting that the IMCr (to be used within the UK), plus the future IR and EIR cannot co-exist peacefully?

EIR is an en-route instrument qualification which may or may not have its place for use around Europe.

[wsmempson]

Thanks for the update.

AOPA UK is totally opposed to any future instrument qualification which does not include approach privileges.

Is AOPA suggesting that the IMCr (to be used within the UK), plus the future IR and EIR cannot co-exist peacefully?

EIR is an en-route instrument qualification which may or may not have its place for use around Europe.

I think what AOPA is saying is that the EIR combines the worst elements of the IR and the IMCR; The necessity to take the full theoretical knowledge exams (which is what prevents most people from pursuing the full JAA IR) with none of the approach privilages which are currently part of the IMCR and the IR. This would more or less restrict pilots to flying VFR on top, with the hope of a 'hole in the cloud' at the other end or worse, a 'home-brewed' approach or cloud break.

As for it's place within Europe, It's quite difficult to see how in practical terms that the EIR is an improvement of the current "VFR-on-top" rights that a French PPL holder has as part of his normal PPL? In reality, no one really wants to fly in solid IMC without some means of getting down on the ground again.

The argument this will be used as a "stepping-stone to the full IR" is specious, and will do nothing to improve the take up rate of the IR within europe.

[Irv Lee]

If they are so anti "national ratings", I hope someone is politically savvy enough to be pushing the opposite but with the same result: a euro-wide IMC but 'opt outs' like they seem to have in everything else 'EU' that you hear about when new rules come in. Then you start with an IMC rating with 26 opt outs (all but the UK), with any country opting in the moment they wanted to, which could be anytime from day one to "sometime-never" - a result maintaining the principle of 'no national ratings' yet meeting all the concerns of the other countries about 'safety' or 'their airspace structure' etc.

[flybymike]

But Irv that would be far too pragmatic and obvious a solution, and would smack of victory for The Englishers.

[johnm]

Having gained an IR (and used it in anger) I feel even more strongly about this. Jim Thorpe is wrong on all but one count, that count is the qualification of instructors, who I think should need a current CPL/IR.

I'm now convinced, from practical experience, that an IMCR with additional theoretical training on weather, holds, airways procedures and route planning, together with an extra 10 to 15 hours flying to get sufficient precision to fly approaches to minima with confidence and to deal with airways and holds is all that is required for a PPL/IR.

I don't really see the need to be examined by a retired navy or airforce pilot employed by the CAA either, most schools would be able to examine PPL/IR with appropriately trained instructors/examiners as they examine anything else.

The rest is just there to maintain the exclusivity of the club and the role of the IR as a stepping stone to ATPL.

[G-BLEW]

I don't really see the need to be examined by a retired navy or airforce pilot employed by the CAA either, most schools would be able to examine PPL/IR with appropriately trained instructors/examiners as they examine anything else.

John, that is a UK only requirement, it doesn't apply in other JAA states*. Some would call that an example of UK gold-plating.

Ian
*I think there is one other, Denmark rings a bell but I'm not sure.

[johnm]

John, that is a UK only requirement, it doesn't apply in other JAA states*. Some would call that an example of UK gold-plating.

Quelle surprise

[AlanB]

As for it's place within Europe, It's quite difficult to see how in practical terms that the EIR is an improvement of the current "VFR-on-top" rights that a French PPL holder has as part of his normal PPL

Well I would be in favour of the "allow access to all classes of airspace" as this would mean I could fly from crappy weather in England to sun in the south of France at a decent altitude. But all these silly rules will be unworkable in reality as only a pilot can determine actual weather conditions.

I think EASA should be scrapped and the FAA paid a huge fee (equivalent to all the salaries this whole process is generating, so it would indeed be a huge fee) to reorganise Euroland, which they could do in one easy swoop - by posting a copy of the FAR/AIM to Brussels. This would save the Eurotaxpayer millions, would give clear, concise, sensible rules to a frankly disjointed, cobbled together Quango.

I also don't see how the UK can retain its frankly messed up airspace classification in one harmonised (NB: harmonised - if you ignore the French, British, Norwegians, etc.etc...) EASA run operation.

It is a waste of money, will do nothing to aid safety, will cause untold problems for pilots and operators, and is all a bunch of bolleaux as le Francais would say.

[nickwilcock]

Since, technically, AOPA doesn't theoretically know what privileges are proposed for the so-called 'EIR', it can't really oppose them until we've seen the formal FCL.008 NPA.

Hence my wording

AOPA UK is totally opposed to any future instrument qualification which does not include approach privileges

rather than 'AOPA UK is totally opposed to the proposed EIR'....

Incidentally, I've been proposing 'national opt outs' for the IMCR for at least 2 years now....