CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA
It I were the boss of some company drafted with designing a new flight safety system in Europe,...
Adoption of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) would have solved the IMC Rating issue at one stroke.
The JAA was content with JAR-FCL 1.175(b), so why isn't EASA? What logical, SAFETY reason can they possibly have for failing to adopt it?
The JAA was content with JAR-FCL 1.175(b), so why isn't EASA? What logical, SAFETY reason can they possibly have for failing to adopt it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA is overstretched and underfunded, and wants the simplest and quickest possible solution to any problem consistent with what it believes (sometimes mistakenly) is safety.
And this way of working goes right through about 90% of what EASA does.So no wonder it is hard to find people who are willing to buy into the "cockup over conspiracy" theory. (Actually, "conspiracy" is the wrong expression, as it implies a criminal conspiracy; it is just a blatent job protection / anti American policy. Whether you call this "malicious", is another matter. Personally I wouldn't; I don't think EASA is out to screw pilots or screw GA. They just run their gravy train, along with countless others in the EU machine, and they couldn't care less if they screw GA as a byproduct of their way of working).
A source close to EASA suggested to me that without the complications of the IMC rating rant and the enroute IR proposals, this would be done and dusted by now.
Nobody in their right mind was going to trust EASA to deliver an IMCR replacement which was similarly accessible i.e. doable in 15+ hrs, at your old PPL school, in any old plane, etc. when an FTO charges £130/hr just for supplying an instructor!
Sivel, at that presentation, said that Europe must have "standardisation" and this was not negotiable. So the IMCR was going to die no matter what. That is not a good basis for getting support for a replacement. Now, much later, EASA has said they cannot stop national licenses/ratings after all...
The "FCL-008 IR" is a great step forward and I really hope it comes to pass, but I can't blame anybody for refusing to take the IMCR v. "FCL-008 IR" trade at face value, when the latter is just a very early proposal.
There is a number of factors working against the new IR: the long European precedent for fundraising / FTO job protection, the long proven ability of European CAAs to invent new ways of raising money and jobs when EASA robs them of parts of their remit, the long term hate of the FAA IR (which resembles the new IR rather closely), etc. As I say, I hope we get it, but I would never chuck away the IMCR which has done so many pilots here so much good, on the promise of the new IR, from anybody and especially now not from EASA whose chief was seen on TV saying that 10k+ pilots are liars and that 14 exams are "a little test".
That's probably true, but that is like me crashing your plane, sh*gging your wife, and then asking you for a £100k loan which I need to buy food to survive, and then when I am on my deathbed, I blame you for my impending death as a result of refusing to lend me the money.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
If EASA are so hated by people like myself and 10540 its because we have seen nothing positive towards the future health of aviation coming forth.
EASA could have used this to deregulate and to encourage aviation to grow not strangle it to death with ever increasing burocracy and unneeded legislation.
EASA was almost disbanded and warned not to try to reinvent the wheel!
When EASA state that they have no desire to implement their threats against the mass of N reg in Europe, extend the deadline from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of getting a bi lateral agreement when most of us know that this is just a smoke screen.
Regarding N reg EASA could like sensible people ask why? If my competitor is selling twice as much as me do I go to court to get him shut down or do I ask myself whether maybe he is selling a better product at a better price.
If I fight him by selling an even better product at an even better price thats how the free world ticks along.
The other way is the way of the street thug or the communist big state!
Sadly they care little about the jobs lost or huge financial cost to so many by the simple flick of a pen! There is no reason or compromise offered to limit this damage.
N reg has been in Europe for over 30 years, longer than the EEC itself.
Bookworm as you know accepted practice (which N reg has been for so long) gains legal status in many areas in its own right.
Surely EASA must feel some moral obligation towards so many that they will damage so heavely? Obviously not as they appear to be doing nothing towards incorporating those people into their new system as painlessly as possible.
More important is EASA s mandate! One of a safety organisation. When we as onlookers see such a group legislating on political grounds and infact legislating in a way which will kill pilots (YES AND I DONT SAY THAT LIGHTLY)
do you wonder why some of us dislike this organisation so intently and doubt their honourable motives.
When you have something solid to print here from EASA rather than the empty promises we have had on many issues then maybe I will start singing their praises but so far nothing to advance aviation and I am not just talking about the IMCR or N reg issues.
Pace
If EASA are so hated by people like myself and 10540 its because we have seen nothing positive towards the future health of aviation coming forth.
EASA could have used this to deregulate and to encourage aviation to grow not strangle it to death with ever increasing burocracy and unneeded legislation.
EASA was almost disbanded and warned not to try to reinvent the wheel!
When EASA state that they have no desire to implement their threats against the mass of N reg in Europe, extend the deadline from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of getting a bi lateral agreement when most of us know that this is just a smoke screen.
Regarding N reg EASA could like sensible people ask why? If my competitor is selling twice as much as me do I go to court to get him shut down or do I ask myself whether maybe he is selling a better product at a better price.
If I fight him by selling an even better product at an even better price thats how the free world ticks along.
The other way is the way of the street thug or the communist big state!
Sadly they care little about the jobs lost or huge financial cost to so many by the simple flick of a pen! There is no reason or compromise offered to limit this damage.
N reg has been in Europe for over 30 years, longer than the EEC itself.
Bookworm as you know accepted practice (which N reg has been for so long) gains legal status in many areas in its own right.
Surely EASA must feel some moral obligation towards so many that they will damage so heavely? Obviously not as they appear to be doing nothing towards incorporating those people into their new system as painlessly as possible.
More important is EASA s mandate! One of a safety organisation. When we as onlookers see such a group legislating on political grounds and infact legislating in a way which will kill pilots (YES AND I DONT SAY THAT LIGHTLY)
do you wonder why some of us dislike this organisation so intently and doubt their honourable motives.
When you have something solid to print here from EASA rather than the empty promises we have had on many issues then maybe I will start singing their praises but so far nothing to advance aviation and I am not just talking about the IMCR or N reg issues.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 18th Jun 2011 at 17:54.
EASA was almost disbanded and warned not to try to reinvent the wheel!
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EASA’S MANAGEMENT BOARD MEMBERS
Subject: Commission position on Agenda item 6 of the EASA MB meeting of 9 June 2009 – Progress Report on NPAs related to the Agency’s extensions.
The Commission is both surprised and extremely worried by the paper presented by the Agency related to the adoption of the implementing rules linked to its extension of competences.
On several occasions in the past, the Commission has made clear to EASA that the NPAs published for the 1st extension are too ambitious and could put at risk the timeframe mandated by the basic Regulation.
Precisely for this reason, the Commission already called on EASA, in its opinion related to the EASA Work Programme for 2009, to concentrate its resources on specific priorities defined in close cooperation with the Commission and the industry.
Subsequently, in its opinion on the Management Board’s recommendations following the Agency evaluation, the Commission declared that “it is of a paramount importance to guarantee that the implementing rules to be adopted in this field reproduce the existing relevant legislation (EU-OPS Regulation 3922/91). This will ensure continuity and coherence with such legislation and therefore more certainty for the industry. It will also allow the Agency to immediately start carrying out the related standardisation inspections. All efforts should be deployed to avoid any delay in the adoption of the implementing rules”.
The Commission notes that, to this date, EASA does not propose practicable solutions to ensure that the implementing rules related to the EASA extension of competences would be adopted within the timeframe indicated by the co-legislators and contained in the basic Regulation.
The reviewed calendar of rulemaking attached to the Agency’s paper is unacceptable because it will be impossible for the Community institutions and the Member States to process simultaneously an estimate of 16 EASA opinions within 15 months.
In addition, the deadlines for adoption by the Commission of the implementing rules related to the 2nd extension contained in the attached planned rulemaking calendar are clearly going beyond the legal constraints (i.e. 31.12.2012 for ATM and 31.12.2013 for aerodromes).
In the light of all the above and responding to the invitation made in the EASA Progress Report on NPAs, the Commission believes that time has come to take clear decisions to steer the Agency in a different direction. In this respect it is essential to carefully consider the alternative of going back to the original structure, and wording (whenever possible) of JARs and ICAO requirements which should be transposed into Community law. This would certainly ensure a smooth transition and allow EASA to work calmly in the future on the ambitious improvements and shifts which have raised general concern and misunderstandings both from Member States and stakeholders alike.
The Commission strongly believes that the time has come to give a clear signal in this direction. This will allow first and foremost to ensure safety (since the present system gives enough guarantees), it would also allow to respect the legal and institutional deadlines laid down by the Member States and the European Parliament while at the same time paving the way towards a smooth improvement of the system in the coming years, in full cooperation with the Member States and all the stakeholders.
In any event, the Commission reserves the right, in order to comply with the legal and institutional obligations imposed on it by the basic Regulation, to proceed along the line described above.
The Commission draws the attention of the Management Board of the Agency in relation to this important matter, where time has come to steer the work of the Agency in a clearer and more effective direction in order to allow the Community discharge itself of its obligations in full compliance with Community law.
Best Regards,
(Zoltan Kazatsay)
Subject: Commission position on Agenda item 6 of the EASA MB meeting of 9 June 2009 – Progress Report on NPAs related to the Agency’s extensions.
The Commission is both surprised and extremely worried by the paper presented by the Agency related to the adoption of the implementing rules linked to its extension of competences.
On several occasions in the past, the Commission has made clear to EASA that the NPAs published for the 1st extension are too ambitious and could put at risk the timeframe mandated by the basic Regulation.
Precisely for this reason, the Commission already called on EASA, in its opinion related to the EASA Work Programme for 2009, to concentrate its resources on specific priorities defined in close cooperation with the Commission and the industry.
Subsequently, in its opinion on the Management Board’s recommendations following the Agency evaluation, the Commission declared that “it is of a paramount importance to guarantee that the implementing rules to be adopted in this field reproduce the existing relevant legislation (EU-OPS Regulation 3922/91). This will ensure continuity and coherence with such legislation and therefore more certainty for the industry. It will also allow the Agency to immediately start carrying out the related standardisation inspections. All efforts should be deployed to avoid any delay in the adoption of the implementing rules”.
The Commission notes that, to this date, EASA does not propose practicable solutions to ensure that the implementing rules related to the EASA extension of competences would be adopted within the timeframe indicated by the co-legislators and contained in the basic Regulation.
The reviewed calendar of rulemaking attached to the Agency’s paper is unacceptable because it will be impossible for the Community institutions and the Member States to process simultaneously an estimate of 16 EASA opinions within 15 months.
In addition, the deadlines for adoption by the Commission of the implementing rules related to the 2nd extension contained in the attached planned rulemaking calendar are clearly going beyond the legal constraints (i.e. 31.12.2012 for ATM and 31.12.2013 for aerodromes).
In the light of all the above and responding to the invitation made in the EASA Progress Report on NPAs, the Commission believes that time has come to take clear decisions to steer the Agency in a different direction. In this respect it is essential to carefully consider the alternative of going back to the original structure, and wording (whenever possible) of JARs and ICAO requirements which should be transposed into Community law. This would certainly ensure a smooth transition and allow EASA to work calmly in the future on the ambitious improvements and shifts which have raised general concern and misunderstandings both from Member States and stakeholders alike.
The Commission strongly believes that the time has come to give a clear signal in this direction. This will allow first and foremost to ensure safety (since the present system gives enough guarantees), it would also allow to respect the legal and institutional deadlines laid down by the Member States and the European Parliament while at the same time paving the way towards a smooth improvement of the system in the coming years, in full cooperation with the Member States and all the stakeholders.
In any event, the Commission reserves the right, in order to comply with the legal and institutional obligations imposed on it by the basic Regulation, to proceed along the line described above.
The Commission draws the attention of the Management Board of the Agency in relation to this important matter, where time has come to steer the work of the Agency in a clearer and more effective direction in order to allow the Community discharge itself of its obligations in full compliance with Community law.
Best Regards,
(Zoltan Kazatsay)
Indeed. Here's what the EC's Deputy Director General of the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, Zoltan Kazatsay, wrote to the EASA Management Board on 9 Jun 2009
What you don't seem to get, BEagle, is that the Commission is pressing EASA to transpose EU-OPS, JAR and ICAO requirements directly into Community law. They're not pressing EASA to make the rules easier, or lighter. They're saying, "don't spend so much time trying to adapt them to fit modern European needs, just get on with it". There is no JAR IMC rating. There is no ICAO IMC rating. Have you read the stuff that comes out of ICAO?! It's cooked up by the need for consensus between states trying to agree an international standard, it's not designed to be transposed directly into law. If EASA does what the Commission wants and just takes the path of least resistance, we lose out, in more ways than just the IMC rating.
....the Commission is pressing EASA to transpose EU-OPS, JAR and ICAO requirements directly into Community law.
JAR–FCL 1.175 Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.
More important is EASA s mandate! One of a safety organisation. When we as onlookers see such a group legislating on political grounds and infact legislating in a way which will kill pilots (YES AND I DONT SAY THAT LIGHTLY)
So why won't they 'transpose' JAR-FCL 1.175?
Basically, if it doesn't suit the Germans, it won't happen...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both you and IO540 read a malicious intent into the issue that is absent in reality
It is true that there is no malicious intent on the part of EASA personnel insofar as they do not deliberately set out to do damage to the industry. However, it is also true that the motives of the movers and shakers in Cologne are purely political; the health of the industry and safety are both so far down their list of priorities as to be invisible. In pursuit of their political ends, they have absolutely no consideration of the effect that the means they employ will have on the individual pilot or on any part of the aviation industry. Lies and broken promises are the stock in trade in a world where the end entirely justifies the means, however despicable.
Bookworm if you believe that you are either dilluded or have a very different definition of malicious.
BillieBob, you might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm - you may well, certainly there are some that need to keep taking the tablets. 
The easa mailbox is overflowing with poison pen letters and i doubt committee members can turn their backs without dark mutterings from some pilot or another.
I can accept in all this they may have been striving to obtain a standard not tarnished by national exceptions but their abject failure to address the problem areas that cause their mailboxes to overflow is inexcusable.
This has nothing to do with creating more rules in the belief it promotes safety or right or wrong campaigns, that is just to excuse the failure of this process, it has everything to do with the ability of certain groups and individuals to promote their own agendas; i would not so readily let them off the hook as you appear to do.
That said for various reasons i have lost faith in the opposition process so long may the debate continue but i suspect the outcome is already well rehearsed and these debates will serve little purpose.
The easa mailbox is overflowing with poison pen letters and i doubt committee members can turn their backs without dark mutterings from some pilot or another.
I can accept in all this they may have been striving to obtain a standard not tarnished by national exceptions but their abject failure to address the problem areas that cause their mailboxes to overflow is inexcusable.
This has nothing to do with creating more rules in the belief it promotes safety or right or wrong campaigns, that is just to excuse the failure of this process, it has everything to do with the ability of certain groups and individuals to promote their own agendas; i would not so readily let them off the hook as you appear to do.
That said for various reasons i have lost faith in the opposition process so long may the debate continue but i suspect the outcome is already well rehearsed and these debates will serve little purpose.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're not "legislating on political grounds". They honestly believe that the way to create safety is by having more rules. I have spent a long time trying to explain why they are "in fact legislating in a way which will kill pilots", but the mentality of a regulator is a simplistic belief that regulation is the best way to enhance safety. Got a hammer? Ooh look, a nail! But it is getting through, slowly but surely...
Obviously there have to be regulations but they should be built around plugging known safety holes.
EASA as a aviation safety body should be doing just that.
By eliminating the IMCR and N reg in Europe and forcing those pilots into flying in minimum VFR conditions their regulating will actually kill pilots.
The french VFR accident statistics are a good example of how our accident rates will increase without the IMCR.
I Tend to think that EASA should look at a PPL IR American style or if thats not acceptable a mini IR on route to a full IR under their present system.
But to put nothing in place will just kill pilots and that is not acceptable from EASA a safety organisation.
Pace
i would not so readily let them off the hook as you appear to do.
More rules equals more cost and more restriction not greater safety.
...
But to put nothing in place will just kill pilots and that is not acceptable from EASA a safety organisation.
...
But to put nothing in place will just kill pilots and that is not acceptable from EASA a safety organisation.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
I also doubt it, but there is a danger that we (you and others) create a sense that we should excuse them for what they do. With apologies (to you) that was the message your posts conveyed to me. In reality their motivation is irrelevant although i accept that in understanding their motivation we may have more chance of persuading them of the error of their ways.
Thank you never the less for your insight, how do you know it is correct?
I also doubt it, but there is a danger that we (you and others) create a sense that we should excuse them for what they do. With apologies (to you) that was the message your posts conveyed to me. In reality their motivation is irrelevant although i accept that in understanding their motivation we may have more chance of persuading them of the error of their ways.
Thank you never the less for your insight, how do you know it is correct?
Bookworm, do you have any notion of the EASA thinking around the fact that the proposed 3rd Country Flight Crew Licensing seems to penalise EU citizens, whereas non-EU citizens can carry on as before.
The NPA asked:
a) Third country aircraft
17. As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically
demonstrated by recent accidents, that commercial operations in the Community of third
country operators shall be covered. This is the way the United States of America do
currently with Federal Aviation Regulation called Part 129. This is less clear for other
forms of operations. There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in
Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a
proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape
local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing
some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in
accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.
Question 3: Do stakeholders agree that third country aircraft used for non-commercial
activities in the Community by third country operators should be subject to Community
legislation?
EASA's Opinion of 2004 has para 22:
22. Concerning non-commercial activities of third country aircraft operated by third
country operators, the Agency agreed with many comments received that it would
be disproportionate to establish Community competence just to address the issue
of foreign aircraft more or less permanently based in the territory of Member
States. This indeed can be best addressed by adapting the text of Article 4(1)(c) of
the Basic Regulation so as to submit aircraft registered in a third country used in
the territory of Member States by a person residing in a Member State to the same
requirements as EU registered aircraft. Nevertheless, in doing so the Community
does not provide itself with the necessary tools to enforce on third country aircraft
the provisions needed to ensure the safety of flights in European airspace when
such safety requires specific equipment to be available on board, appropriate
qualifications to be held by the crew or specific procedures to be followed. At a
time when the Community has established its competence to implement the
European Single Sky, it would hardly be understandable if it did not put in place
the tools it needs to enforce the related operational specifications.
The issue appears to be about enforcement and control. Rumour has it that when an NAA official wanted to enforce ICAO standards on an EU-resident N-reg operator, the operator simply pointed to the N registration and made a slightly less than cordial gesture at the NAA official, knowing that they would get no assistance from the FAA. Article 4(c) was an overzealous payback for the gesture, a "last laugh". But I'm sure that's just rumour... Because if it were true, it would be verging on malicious wouldn't it?
I think EASA risks damaging EU aviation safety with Article 4(c), as well as having a negative economic impact, for all the reasons Pace cites. But it's a done deal, as the BR became law years ago.
Various stakeholders expected Art 7(6)(e)
6. The measures designed to amend non-essential elements of
this Article by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance
with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in
Article 65(4). Those measures shall specify in particular:
...
(e) without prejudice to the provisions of bilateral agreements
concluded in accordance with Article 12, the conditions for
the acceptance of licences from third countries;
to result in IRs that were rather more liberal than they have turned out, with light rules for acceptance of third-country licences. But the problem is that that would have taken substantially more time and effort to draft and agree than EASA has had available in the preparation of Part-FCL. So we got the simplest possible transposition of JAR-FCL's provisions for validation and conversion of third-country licences.
Just a personal opinion.
Last edited by bookworm; 19th Jun 2011 at 14:46.