N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA

[G-SPOTs Lost]

IO540

However if somebody just cant be bothered studying for and obtaining the license because of the time and effort involved but can then go out and spend 200k on a brand new trinidad

If that is the thing that gives you most "concern" about all the things said so far, then I sincerely wish I hadn't tried to put my point across so passionately - sorry.

This is not an anti FAA diatribe - I love the can-do attitude the feds have about flying and only wish EASA was as good in this regard, Flying in the US weather permitting is fantastic. I'll say again IM PRO FAA and OPEN SKIES for everyone, just a shame EASA doesn't feel the same way as me (and presumably you) but they make the rules and if the new rules make it safer and legislate the abusers of the airways then I'm all for it and I can only assume that so are you.

As a matter of fact one cannot buy a "brand new trinidad"; they stopped making them in 2002.

Whatever they call a retractable tobago nowadays they are still crap with the park brake where you cant see it and dodgy switches. Smooth windows though

PS dont say your going to ignore me and then follow it by a "however" and a dig

[dublinpilot]

PS dont say your going to ignore me and then follow it by a "however" and a dig

If you really meant that, then you wouldn't be purposely be trying to get a dig in

Whatever they call a retractable tobago nowadays they are still crap with the park brake where you cant see it and dodgy switches.

That comment shows you up to be very small minded indeed.

[IO540]

It just makes me wonder why we have such heated debates without any reference to the accumulated evidence.

Fuji, I think the reason you and I post on here is not because we enjoy the discourse. If I met somebody with those views somewhere socially, I would just ignore him. It's just one person after all, and he is entitled to his views.

The reason we get stuck into these debates is because we feel they have the potential to (a) mislead people who are looking at which way to go on their private flying path and (b) feed bogus information to somebody reading it who might one day end up in a regulatory/influential position.

This is the big problem with pilot forums. Quite a lot of people read them and bogus info spreads widely as a result.

It also makes me wonder why so many legislative changes are made without reference to the evidence.

Well, thankfully no legislative changes at all have yet been made.

I can also tell you that a lot of people have looked for evidence that FAA training is less safe than JAA training, and no data was ever found.

The most prominent example was c. 2004 when the DfT asked the CAA for such data (supporting a case against N-reg), and the CAA told them there was none. Reportedly the DfT was not amused.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Fuji - Indeed I agree, I can only comment on my own experiences though.

You are correct - stats speak for themselves.

Would it not be easier to campaign for a EASA wide IMCR, enabling access to more rather than taking from less. Maybe with an upgrade path to an IR

WRT the six in six or yearly IR renewal, my point is more about self assesment rather than having to impress an IRE, whose job it is (in the examiners handbook) to maintain standards (in the EASA system)

With regards to the second insult - I would agree. FTR I have no allegiance to any agency I have flown Uk public transport, N reg aprt 91 and now operate on the Manx register. We went manx cos the boss wanted a groovy callsign!, Ive no axe to grind other than my own opinion on standards and how If I only had a FAA IR and wanted to fly and use it in Europe I would go about avoiding a ban!!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Dublin Pilot

Oh Come on.....

If you really meant that, then you wouldn't be purposely be trying to get a dig in

Quote:
Whatever they call a retractable tobago nowadays they are still crap with the park brake where you cant see it and dodgy switches.


That comment shows you up to be very small minded indeed.

I also dont like Ford Mondeo's does that make me small minded as well, I was actually trying to lighten the mood - Failed miserably didn't I

PS sorry to all Mondeo drivers

[dublinpilot]

G-Spots,

You took an intentional dig at IO540, and then challenged him to live up to his statement that he would ignore you. (Which actually he didn't say. He said he'd just ignore the anti FAA stuff). In the school yard such people are called bullies. In the adult world they tend to be called small minded men. It's nothing to do with Fords.

If you were really trying to lighten the mood, then good on you, but I have to agree that you failed miserably.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

G-SPOTS

Thank you for recognition of my different point of view.

It is not that I am pleased you agree, but it is disappointing there are some entrenched in their views yet without any evidence on which to base them.

IO540

I agree. I remember only too well the heated debated over IMCr minima. (Please, that is not an invitation to anyone to start that one again). It still amazes me those who argued the contrary even when the CAA wrote in unequivical terms to set out the correct interpretation of the legislation. Unfortunately I suspect they still believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, but at least anyone who really wanted to know also wrote, asked the question, and got the same reply. (How do I know - three people PMed to say so)

[DFC]

Does 6 certified approaches in 6 months make you any more or less safe than demonstrating your competence and making your next approach nine months later? Both of course meet the requirements.

Fuji Abound

I think what he is getting at is that under the self certified system, a pilot can fly an instrument approach and a hold every month in VMC, make a total hash of it but delude themselves into logging it as a great approach suitable to be counted towards the requirements. They then continue to delude themselves for 10 years until they have to do it fro real and they either cause a total mayhem in the system and survive or win themselves the aviation version of the Darwin award.

Under the yearly renewal for the ICAO IR or 2 yearly for the UK IMC, there is an independent check of competence.

Remember that if you fly in the US, the FAA oversight system is very much in evidence. You can not put much of a foot wrong at an airfield without at best being given a good pointer from a local CFI/CFII at worst, the local FAA guy having a severe word in your ear.

That oversight is not provided in Europe.

The more European PPLs fly N reg aircraft and use FAA ratings to fly within Europe, the more the pressure will be politically and from the NAAs to sort things out.

So those that seek the demise of the European pilot flying N reg IFR on a US LICENCE are best served by encouraging more and more pilots to follow that route.

They are also best served by having few pilots using that system.

In terms of numbers it is a loose loose position for N reg operators / FAA licence holders based in Europe - too many holders puts more pressure on governments to crack down.......too few and they have too small a voice to prevent any change.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Now look 'ere!

Please can we stop the petty handbagging and bitchiness and concentrate on finding a sensible way forward through the cack of EASA's legislative intentions....

Assuming that the 'Class 2 IR' is ever sponsored, it would of course require holders of the Rating to have 'ICAO Level 4' English, to fly FM-immune equipped aircraft and to fly under a radar service in IMC. Presumably with mandatory Mode S before very long...

So it's not as though there'd be squadrons of mumbling incompetents flying poorly equipped aircraft threatening the flying people-tubes - which should provide some reassurance to the so-called 'professional' mafiosi who don't want you in 'their' airspace..... Although I doubt whether it will

[englishal]

Please can we stop the petty handbagging and bitchiness and concentrate on finding a sensible way forward through the cack of EASA's legislative intentions....

I don't think we stand much chance if EASA / JAR / Whatever is populated by the same pompus asses who post on these forums. And I am reliably informed that some of the "authoritites" do indeed frequent these boards....

I think I may just apply for my green card now, my FAA quals are good enough to fly a jet in busier airspace than that of this magical,mystical, UK class a.....

[TelBoy]

humm - I think a US gallon is a bit smaller than a UK gallon actually.

As for the FAA taking over - well I do not want any foreign party running me thank you, and that includes the EASA.

In reality the FAA do a good job and considering they are the largest single aviation authority in the world, deserve recognition as such.

In Europe in everything including aviation we tend to be very "stuck up" an BS is the order of the day. In newer countries such as the US, Canada, Australia they tend to be a lot more practical and go by what works - seems the best way to me.

The Europeans will always "bash" the FAA and its ratings as being second class, but in reality they are not easy but they are fit for purpose, just as it should be.

I think the EASA will be in for a rough ride from individual nations (like the deviations in JAA) but this will be in Europen Law - not good.

[IO540]

We went manx cos the boss wanted a groovy callsign!,

What is needed at this point is an emoticon showing somebody falling over backwards laughing.

Yeah, right, that must have been the reason.

Pot & Kettle comes to mind. I hope The Boss doesn't find out his crew disapproves of his new EASA avoidance scheme, currently available to 5700kg+ only.

As a refresher on the topic of getting EASA to introduce a more accessible IR:

The current position is that EASA is taking over JAA FCL more or less whole, with no plans to change anything for maybe a few years. Even the reduced PPL/IR ground school (developed in JAA committee over the past 2 years and much advertised in pilot forums as "just around the corner") has been left unimplemented.

EASA wanted an instrument add-on for what is now called the LAPL (a sub ICAO European PPL, effectively a "Euro NPPL") but the EASA committee tasked with defining it has sunk any chance of an instrument add-on; it was cleverly overloaded with well organised "ultralight/sports/gliding" interests (EAS being one of them) and they wanted the barest possible VFR-only license and for a smooth passage they wanted to avoid the usual predictable opposition from the "professional IFR elite" (the sort we see on this thread). This is not the end for European IFR but it has scuppered what would have amounted to a "Euro IMCR". Such a license/rating would have dried up a large chunk of the low-end (piston) N-reg scene, even if it was sub-ICAO and thus no good for flying to say Africa.

Something in the way of an FAA-style "accessible IR" may still come but it is years away. EASA is not really the problem; they are well aware the present private IFR option is hopelessly over-regulated. But they still have to work the political process and this is so non-transparent that nobody IMHO has any idea where things will lead.

Everybody knows that if EASA accepted FAA certification (airframes/equipment) and FAA licenses/ratings/medicals (as a swap for EASA ones) then the N-reg scene would dry up very fast. But this kind of thing is politically unacceptable and anybody wondering why only needs to read some of the drivel above.

My take is that nothing will change (for N-reg) for a few years at least, and then (IF something does change) common sense and cool heads will prevail and there will be options for going forward which we cannot guess at present.

[mm_flynn]

I hope you are right IO. Consider though answers to some of the questions people have posed.

What other areas can people avoid national law through offshoring?

Banking, taxation, shipping, corporate ownership all come to mind. But really only the big players.

Would (doctors, engineers, anyone else) be acceptable trained to 'lower' standards than in the UK/Europe?

- This is a valid issue with flags of convenience, BUT, The rules that manage a domestic aviation market bigger than any other in the world, the majority of airframe manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and aircrew is hardly the traditional tiny island nation with no real regulatory capability.

Closing down the N-reg for private aviation while leaving the ability to steep out of EASA regs open to large operators would be vindictive and therefore unlikely

One only has to look at the UK approach to non-domiciles to see the small guy getting a pounding while the large guy gets an escape route. Hopefully the arcane details of pilot licencing wont appear on the national stage in a way that encourages cheep shots.
It is interesting that in a climate where the NAAs clearly want to crack down on offshore registrations the UK comes along and creates another true offshore registry to allow tax avoidance and a light regulatory touch for the big players but not the little ones. This does not inspire me with confidence in the 'non-vindictiveness' of the intended course of action.

----------------
As an aside, I do agree the FAA 6 and 6 system is lacking somewhat in Europe. In the US insurers place a great deal of pressure on people for recurring training and there are oodles of ways of achieving this. For instance for myself (A36 driver) I could go through AOPA wings programmes, Beach Pilot Proficiency Programme, and Flight Safety Bonanza specific training. As far as I can tell, I need to fly to the US to take advantage of any of these so am left to build my own programme with training organisations who seem stunned that someone wants to pay for something not legally mandated!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Quote:
We went manx cos the boss wanted a groovy callsign!,
What is needed at this point is an emoticon showing somebody falling over backwards laughing.
Yeah, right, that must have been the reason.
Pot & Kettle comes to mind. I hope The Boss doesn't find out his crew disapproves of his new EASA avoidance scheme, currently available to 5700kg+ only.

Now that you have run out of reasoned discussion - have go at the boss - Thats brave and constructive isn't it

When you are as wealthy as him things like this matter (as well as the zero rate corporation tax, no IPT and the less political registration when operating in non freindly areas)

You have made another huge assumption that his crew don't like the Manx register, I LOVE IT! FAA/JAA crew validations the same day straightforward maintenance procedures that allow JAA Engineers & FAA A&P guys to perform line maintenance or how about RVSM/MNPS approval within 3 days as opposed to three months.

Why not set up a Manx trust company so that people who do not live there can register aircraft there in much the same way you do now with your American registered aircraft. You can register lighter aircraft there but its not a free for all. Why not pick up the phone and speak to the Director of Civil Aviation - I'm lucky enough to have his mobile number if you want I'll make the call

Has anybody asked the question, he might well be waiting for somebody to pick up the phone. He is regulated by the IOM ANO if its legal and the aircraft surveys properly how can he refuse. (Caveat to say he can wander down the corridor and get the ANO changed fairly easy)

The DCA is the ex Senior Flight Ops Inspector at Gatwick who is a smashing chap, I have heard from the horses mouth that they unashamedly want new equipment that is flown to professional standards - not necessarily professionally. The IOM government has one of the most successful shipping registers in the world and the aircraft register is to mirror that - they will be more conservative then EASA they are under the microscope.

If you pitch up with a N reg 30 year knacked old twin com with a non compliant Sony CD autochanger down the back and never train recurrently its probably not going to happen for you.

If you pitch up with a newish Twinstar/Seneca IV or V and maintain your FAA/IR to JAA standards and use the twinstar/seneca sim bi annually to have some freaky failures thrown at you - he's going to be hard pressed to say no isn't he. Maybe if the PPL/IR Europe Group approach him as an organisation with a common sense proposal alleviating EASA's safety concerns

There is a very nice TB21 on the register right now, I can only assume that the individual involved either lives in the IOM or has company there
mmflynn said:

As an aside, I do agree the FAA 6 and 6 system is lacking somewhat in Europe. In the US insurers place a great deal of presure on people for recurring training and there are oodles of ways of achieving this. For instance for myself (A36 driver) I could go through AOPA wings programmes, Beach Pilot Proficency Programme, and Flight Safety Bonanza specfic training. As far as I can tell, I need to fly to the US to take advantage of any of these so am left to build my own programme with training organisations who seem stunned that someone wants to pay for something not legally mandated!

IO 540 what comments do you have about the above quote, this is a responsible and common sense approach to maintaing currency. Your vision of direct swap FAA/JAA Licenses is a pipe dream as you say.

The fact that it is not legally mandated at the moment doesn't mean that its not good practise not to train regularly. EASA are probably not worried about people like mm_flynn.

There are many things in life that are legal, just because they are doesn't mean they are a good idea

English Al said

I don't think we stand much chance if EASA / JAR / Whatever is populated by the same pompus asses who post on these forums. And I am reliably informed that some of the "authoritites" do indeed frequent these boards....

If these people do frequent these boards, then no wonder they have concerns:

They have you saying how straightforward IFR flying is and how others think that its "not rocket science" and see such resistance to domestic training standards and levels of checking.

So imagine you are a non pilot EASA eurocrat tasked with maximising safety levels for boeingbuses and they read this BS, what would you think.

I come on here and in effect say leave it as it is at your peril chaps - sort it out yourselves or have the sorting done for you by EASA and then get flamed for promoting safety and regualr checking.

One mans pompousness is another mans reasoned debate.

Beagle - did you just virtually knock mine and IO540's head together?

[Contacttower]

The fact that it is not legally mandated at the moment doesn't mean that its not good practise not to train regularly. EASA are probably not worried about people like mm_flynn.

Instead of killing off the FAA IR and IFR N reg why not have a "semi official" check ride with an examiner from a European CAA for FAA IR holders who are based and wish to fly in Europe.

It wouldn't affect the actual validity of the FAA IR itself but it would be a way of simply satisfying EASA that the FAA pilots were keeping themselves up to standard. It wouldn't involve any written exams or the 15hrs conversion training to JAA IR or anything like that...it would just be a simple test to make sure that FAA IR holding and N reg flying pilots aren't abusing the FAA system away from the US regulatory structure.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Good idea - might go some way to alleviating EASA's concerns before the idea of a ban gathers momentum and reaches a critical mass

[youngskywalker]

I have to admit I don't like the FAA system of currency for the IR either, I have no objections to regular sim checks, my company and our insurance insist on flightsafety or simuflite even though no legal requirement to do so. I'd be surprised if any of the posters on here would object to being checked/tested for competency. It does irk me sometimes when people assume that you are unprofessional just because you operate with an FAA licence.
I too have chatted on the phone to the 'DCA' Isle of Man, he seems very helpful, enthusiastic and with a 'can do' attitude. My company is seriously considering placing our new aircraft on the M reg. I'm hoping that the IOM register will not need dual faa/jaa licences when EASA take over or else for me it's probably the end of the road.
Happy new year!

[englishal]

I'd have no problem converting my IR with a "check ride" and then maintaining JAA currency requirements...But of course being Europe we throw in a 170A, 15 hrs mandatory training (whatever that includes), etc....which brings the cost to £7-9000 or so when you take into account the ground exams. My friend who has in excess of 3000 hrs, converted last summer in minimums allowed. The flying / Sim cost him £7000 + exams, but for him it was worth it as he is now a paid captain of a turbo prop.

For the private flyer what do we get in converting? NOTHING! Or rather a bit of paper to say you can now do in a G reg what you could already do, but only if N was painted on the tail. This is what grinds me, it is "jobs for the boys" and nothing to do with safety whatsoever. Anyone who thinks it is to do with safety obviously comes from the same pompus ass place as some of the others on here.

The beauty of the conversion bein based on a check ride is that a) If you are not up to scratch, you fail, and b) If you are up to scratch, you pass! Funny that, an examiner determining whether you are fit to fly IFR or not!

Flying IFR is not rocket science and not tough either. A few months ago I flew the Twin Star sim for my FAA IPC (My choice - to renew my IMCr), and suffered numerous failures and "survived".

[scooter boy]

Anecdote 1 Evidence 0

G-Spot,
What this question really boils down to is are we going to have to tolerate the imposition of extra European regulation of unproven safety benefit on a far larger more proven (FAA) system that already works perfectly well.

If our regulators take small-minded bigots like you (blurting out non-evidence-based diatribes about how some bloke once in an N-reg malibu once did something that you found offensive) seriously then this may come to pass.

Fortunately you and your extremely judgemental evidence-free opinions are polarised into a tiny minority. A minority who usually have a vested interest in FAA bashing and are heavily invested in the european flight training system. I think the regulatory authorities will take a rather more pragmatic and mature view than those that you have espoused above.

I hope you wake up on Jan 1st 2008 with a better attitude and greater tolerance for your fellow man.

Happy New Year,

SB

[DavidHayman]

I'm just about to start the FAA IR training course in Europe to upgrade my IMCr - just got an SR22 on the N Reg - after reading through the threads - I'm wondering whether I should save my energy for a while - any thoughts?? Incidentally - I've been trained in USA for my multi and have now done 6 BFR's over there and I reckon that the Americans have seriously high standards and if anything - are more regimented and procedural than we Brits. I can't help but agree that this looks like EASA could turn the whole business of GA IR's into a bureaucratic nightmare that will need qualifications just to read and understand what will be required....