CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 52N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA
I received my letter from the CAA about EASA FCL this morning. It says nothing other than you had better keep up with the changes in legislation relating to your licence or we'll get you. I know that; it is my duty as a citizen to be law abiding not simply in matters realting to aviation regulation. I would like to try, but am I alone in needing help and guidance from those to whom I pay a fortune in fees for this so called regulatory process, and get none? That letter was a waste of a stamp, envelope and the time spent debating it by the Head of Licencing and Training Policy and his minions.
I have read various EASA and CAA papers on FCL and the Part M rubbish, and all it has done is to make the aviation and aircraft ownership side of my life more complicated, time consuming, less certain and less safe. I have real experience of my maintenance guys becoming so involved with observing the letter of the latest law that they neglect good aeronautical engineering practice. The same will happen with basic and recurrent flight training.
We could all waste loads of time, energy and words while raising our collective blood pressures over the semantics of the black magic of EASA regulation and so called "stakehoder participation". In my 50 odd years of using my native language (English), I have never heard the word "Comitology", yet alone thought I needed to use it, but it appears with frequency in every EASA reference I read. We need to vote with our feet and rid ourselves of this EASA nonsense and expensive mystique. Apart from our seemingly worthless vote for an MEP has anyone a sensible suggestion on how to do it?
I have read various EASA and CAA papers on FCL and the Part M rubbish, and all it has done is to make the aviation and aircraft ownership side of my life more complicated, time consuming, less certain and less safe. I have real experience of my maintenance guys becoming so involved with observing the letter of the latest law that they neglect good aeronautical engineering practice. The same will happen with basic and recurrent flight training.
We could all waste loads of time, energy and words while raising our collective blood pressures over the semantics of the black magic of EASA regulation and so called "stakehoder participation". In my 50 odd years of using my native language (English), I have never heard the word "Comitology", yet alone thought I needed to use it, but it appears with frequency in every EASA reference I read. We need to vote with our feet and rid ourselves of this EASA nonsense and expensive mystique. Apart from our seemingly worthless vote for an MEP has anyone a sensible suggestion on how to do it?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X,
I think you misunderstand; it has nothing to do with acting illegally in any way.
From time to time, pilots who are not instrument rated / current / qualified fly into weather which is worse than expected - sometimes pilots end up where they do not want to be. A certain small percentage of VFR pilots get into such trouble.
If EASA proceeds, there will be thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - fewer instrument rated / current / qualified pilots. So there will be a lot more VFR pilots.
Therefore there will be a lot more pilots who could get into difficulties if they get into unexpected weather, and a small number will die as a result - who would not have died had they been allowed to retain their current instrument privileges.
I cannot see anything illegal or illogical about it.
I think you misunderstand; it has nothing to do with acting illegally in any way.
From time to time, pilots who are not instrument rated / current / qualified fly into weather which is worse than expected - sometimes pilots end up where they do not want to be. A certain small percentage of VFR pilots get into such trouble.
If EASA proceeds, there will be thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - fewer instrument rated / current / qualified pilots. So there will be a lot more VFR pilots.
Therefore there will be a lot more pilots who could get into difficulties if they get into unexpected weather, and a small number will die as a result - who would not have died had they been allowed to retain their current instrument privileges.
I cannot see anything illegal or illogical about it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If EASA proceeds, there will be thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - fewer instrument rated / current / qualified pilots. So there will be a lot more VFR pilots.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are roughly 67000 European FAA pilot in Europe! remove their ability to safely fly in the airway system and force them OCAS and I guarantee the death rate will increase dramatically, no doubt about it.
What easa are saying is if you live in europe get easa papers. As i said earlier its nonesense but i doubt there is a legal basis for contesting easa ability to determine the licensing requirements in its own airspace.
As i said earlier i think there is a complete contrast with the imcr; a rating after all granted to european citizens albeit if only the uk contingent.
Yes there will be pilots that unintentionally enter imc, there always has and always will be. Easa will make europe waste land for private ir pilots and will set back aviation safety light years but courts will uphold the law, and in so far as the safety case is concerned easa will state the mechanism exits to becomd easa instrument qualiied, it is up to thd individual to do so.
It is like arguing that easa should be forced to accept any ir issued any where in the world, if push comes to shove easa will state simply that we dont, we are entitled not to do so, and thats our form of democracy.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose and Fuji
I am a realist! Pilots crash because they do stupid things but they are human and we humans are very imperfect beings.
Take away privileges that people have enjoyed and many will try to carry on albeit with the new regulations they have.
Ie they will fly OCAS in questional weather when they could be much safer flying in CAS.
We are not talking about a handful of pilots but thousands!
Ok EASA can say that they can legally do what they want but the reality is that remove N Reg and the fatality rate will increase.
EASA have NOT addressed the reasons that drove thousands of pilots to N Reg.
If they had the problem would not exist.
EASA are mandated to regulate on safety! I would suggest that they have a duty of care to the 67000 pilots in question which they are not meeting by their unsafe regulation making.
They will be responsible for the deaths that do occur due to their I'll thought out political legislating.
Pace
I am a realist! Pilots crash because they do stupid things but they are human and we humans are very imperfect beings.
Take away privileges that people have enjoyed and many will try to carry on albeit with the new regulations they have.
Ie they will fly OCAS in questional weather when they could be much safer flying in CAS.
We are not talking about a handful of pilots but thousands!
Ok EASA can say that they can legally do what they want but the reality is that remove N Reg and the fatality rate will increase.
EASA have NOT addressed the reasons that drove thousands of pilots to N Reg.
If they had the problem would not exist.
EASA are mandated to regulate on safety! I would suggest that they have a duty of care to the 67000 pilots in question which they are not meeting by their unsafe regulation making.
They will be responsible for the deaths that do occur due to their I'll thought out political legislating.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I agree, Bose will accuse me of being melodramatic, but blood on their hands and all that.
Everytime a pilot in France sets off in questionable weather and ends up being a CFIT victim part of the blame is with the State for making instrument training so inaccessible.
Regulation must be proportionate. Citizens should not be flying unless they are qualified to a standard that does not put their lives and others at unreasonable risk. I guess we would all agree that the State cannot condone untrained pilots operating in IMC.
So of course that is why we and EASA debate what constitues a reasonable instrument qualification. The FAA have a view, the UK has a view in so far as the IMCr is concerned and EASA have a view.
It seems illogical that someone who has been flying on instruments for years with a qualification which was was once acceptable is no longer. There in lies the condrumn. States want control, they want "power", that is what motivates politicians. We are compelled to accept that a German doctor can come to the UK and practice because we believe that Europe will oversee the doctor, but we may have different concerns about a doctor that was trained and has been practising in Outer Mongolia.
Logically we all know there are many ways to accomodate existing FAA IR holders or IMCr holders but then other political issues get in the way and that is why we are in the mess we are in.
It is a mess, and it doesnt make sense, but my point is I have never seen a basis for a legal challenge so far as the FAA IR is concerned so we all left with conjoling and badgering EASA into an about turn, hoping they are deemed not fit for purpose or with mass support instigating the nuclear option. I dont see the last two happening and I am having reservations that EASA is interested in the first.
As I said earlier I reckon there is a reasonable chance of the IMCr surviving in some form because I think EASA could be on to a legal hiding, but I equally think they are on a safe legal bet with their N reg proposals.
I agree, Bose will accuse me of being melodramatic, but blood on their hands and all that.
Everytime a pilot in France sets off in questionable weather and ends up being a CFIT victim part of the blame is with the State for making instrument training so inaccessible.
Regulation must be proportionate. Citizens should not be flying unless they are qualified to a standard that does not put their lives and others at unreasonable risk. I guess we would all agree that the State cannot condone untrained pilots operating in IMC.
So of course that is why we and EASA debate what constitues a reasonable instrument qualification. The FAA have a view, the UK has a view in so far as the IMCr is concerned and EASA have a view.
It seems illogical that someone who has been flying on instruments for years with a qualification which was was once acceptable is no longer. There in lies the condrumn. States want control, they want "power", that is what motivates politicians. We are compelled to accept that a German doctor can come to the UK and practice because we believe that Europe will oversee the doctor, but we may have different concerns about a doctor that was trained and has been practising in Outer Mongolia.
Logically we all know there are many ways to accomodate existing FAA IR holders or IMCr holders but then other political issues get in the way and that is why we are in the mess we are in.
It is a mess, and it doesnt make sense, but my point is I have never seen a basis for a legal challenge so far as the FAA IR is concerned so we all left with conjoling and badgering EASA into an about turn, hoping they are deemed not fit for purpose or with mass support instigating the nuclear option. I dont see the last two happening and I am having reservations that EASA is interested in the first.
As I said earlier I reckon there is a reasonable chance of the IMCr surviving in some form because I think EASA could be on to a legal hiding, but I equally think they are on a safe legal bet with their N reg proposals.
So of course that is why we and EASA debate what constitues a reasonable instrument qualification. The FAA have a view, the UK has a view in so far as the IMCr is concerned and EASA have a view.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
I do not disagree with a lot of what you are saying! I am not sure how legally secure EASA are in what they are doing as it conflicts with their mandate of a safety agency?
I stress I don't really think EASA have thought out the ramifications.
Various organizations have tried to stop N Reg in the past and failed.
I am sure EASA have given the problem to their legal department who have found a solution but that's it!
Nobody at EASA have really thought out the ramifications and having found a solution are blindly trying to pretend the ramifications don't exist?
But of course none of this will see the light of day because what EASA really want is a Bilateral agreement, hence the delay to 2014 and of course EASA are fighting day and night to get that accepted ? How come I doubt anything sincere from EASA ?
Pace
I do not disagree with a lot of what you are saying! I am not sure how legally secure EASA are in what they are doing as it conflicts with their mandate of a safety agency?
I stress I don't really think EASA have thought out the ramifications.
Various organizations have tried to stop N Reg in the past and failed.
I am sure EASA have given the problem to their legal department who have found a solution but that's it!
Nobody at EASA have really thought out the ramifications and having found a solution are blindly trying to pretend the ramifications don't exist?
But of course none of this will see the light of day because what EASA really want is a Bilateral agreement, hence the delay to 2014 and of course EASA are fighting day and night to get that accepted ? How come I doubt anything sincere from EASA ?
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
More likely to get EASA sectioned under the mental health act ?
I really don't want to be in a position of knocking EASA. I would rather be singing their praises or at least seeing them as reasonable and fair people.
They won't get the control they appear to want using licences which don't attach to FAA aircraft. There is no safety basis for this! More likely that certain individuals want N out of Europe and the legal team have found a way to do it
No more no less.
Pace
More likely to get EASA sectioned under the mental health act ?
I really don't want to be in a position of knocking EASA. I would rather be singing their praises or at least seeing them as reasonable and fair people.
They won't get the control they appear to want using licences which don't attach to FAA aircraft. There is no safety basis for this! More likely that certain individuals want N out of Europe and the legal team have found a way to do it
No more no less.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the FAA IR is achievable by a lot of people as a) it doesn't require a mortgage, b) doesn't require a year of study and c) can be done with a freelance CFII as and when, in whatever aeroplane you like, & many European people go off and do it as a challenge. This then makes them a safer VFR pilot in Europe. Many do this as they *might* get the chance to fly IFR in Europe later on either through access to a N reg or by virtue of their free IMCr that the CAA grant them on their return. By withdrawing any chance of flying IFR in Europe based upon an FAA IR then it is a far less attractive option.
But lets be clear about this, this DOES NOT mean that all of these IFR wannabes will suddenly go out and get a EASA IR instead, for the points listed above. So these "would have been very capable IFR capable pilots" are now only VFR pilots and will suffer from the same mishaps as many VFR only pilots do when they get into trouble in the weather. So having an FAA IR in the back pocket DOES benefit safety in Europe rather than reduce safety. As does having an IMC rating. Banning these two things will actually increase weather related incidents in Europe IMHO.
The other bone of contention is the residency of the operator. It surely can't be based upon residency of the pilot for the simple fact that I could be a UK resident, living in the UK, but flying a UA 777 from London to LAX daily. There is no way on this planet that they could mandate that I, as an EU resident, now had to do a JAA ATPL even though I am flying perfectly legally with an FAA ATP, whereas the First Officer who lives in LA doesn't need on. And if they tried to enforce that the FO now needed one, the FAA would tell EASA to take a running jump and tell all Europeans flying into the USA in whatever reg aeroplane that they would need an FAA ATP. Therefore it must be the aircraft operator, and so if the aircraft operator moves out of the EU then all is good again.
Whatever happens, if EASA continue on the road they are on, it will have a very negative impact to Europe, and Europe alone. Hardly what you want from a European organisation !!
But lets be clear about this, this DOES NOT mean that all of these IFR wannabes will suddenly go out and get a EASA IR instead, for the points listed above. So these "would have been very capable IFR capable pilots" are now only VFR pilots and will suffer from the same mishaps as many VFR only pilots do when they get into trouble in the weather. So having an FAA IR in the back pocket DOES benefit safety in Europe rather than reduce safety. As does having an IMC rating. Banning these two things will actually increase weather related incidents in Europe IMHO.
The other bone of contention is the residency of the operator. It surely can't be based upon residency of the pilot for the simple fact that I could be a UK resident, living in the UK, but flying a UA 777 from London to LAX daily. There is no way on this planet that they could mandate that I, as an EU resident, now had to do a JAA ATPL even though I am flying perfectly legally with an FAA ATP, whereas the First Officer who lives in LA doesn't need on. And if they tried to enforce that the FO now needed one, the FAA would tell EASA to take a running jump and tell all Europeans flying into the USA in whatever reg aeroplane that they would need an FAA ATP. Therefore it must be the aircraft operator, and so if the aircraft operator moves out of the EU then all is good again.
Whatever happens, if EASA continue on the road they are on, it will have a very negative impact to Europe, and Europe alone. Hardly what you want from a European organisation !!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I also got my letter this morning, and as usual, up to me. That's a problem because attempting to read your way through this rubbish, is not only very time consuming, but leaves you more uncertain than when you started
Advice, from those that have a better grasp on the thing than I - I have a UK CAA issued Flight License, with IMCR and Night Rating.
I also have an FAA licence issued in 2003. I now fly both types, UK registered and my main mode of transport, N-reg.
I started the JAA IR course, but am now slightly confused as to where I require to go - FAA IR/ continue with JAA.
I fly mainly UK, France and Spain. Any thoughts on where this might end up?
Advice, from those that have a better grasp on the thing than I - I have a UK CAA issued Flight License, with IMCR and Night Rating.
I also have an FAA licence issued in 2003. I now fly both types, UK registered and my main mode of transport, N-reg.
I started the JAA IR course, but am now slightly confused as to where I require to go - FAA IR/ continue with JAA.
I fly mainly UK, France and Spain. Any thoughts on where this might end up?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a complicated decision.
I would not recommend doing an FAA IR unless you have assured access to an N-reg plane. The case for doing it gets pretty strong if you own the plane and it is technically advanced, and by that I don't mean an off the shelf SR22 with all the goodies and with everything available under an EASA TC
If you plan to do 337 mods, or minor mods, then the case is strong.
The biggest reason for doing the JAA IR now, rather than wait to see what EASA does (which is what the vast majority of FAA IR holders are evidently doing), is that the ICAO IR to JAA IR 15hr conversion route is apparently going to end in April 2012, thus forcing you to pack your logbook with 50/55hrs at some £200/hr plus (SE) or £250/hr plus (ME) if you leave it after that date.
If you do teh 15hr IR conversion in your own plane, you pay "only" about £130/hr for the instructor. Plus the CAA fees etc; an extra grand or so.
The UK CAA has already published a 2 year derogation to April 2014 for the proposed requirement for dual papers, but they have not yet published a similar derogation for the 15hr conversion route.
The 15hr conversion route is available throughout JAA-land (and some attractive options are in Spain and Greece which are a no-brainer for somebody for whom doing it in their own plane is not a prime requirement) but after April 2012 one will need to be careful with e.g. doing it in Spain if e.g. the UK CAA has stopped supporting it, because even if Spain does it (and the Spanish FTO might be run by Austria so Austria must be supporting it in that case) the UK CAA might then refuse to add such a 15hr IR onto your UK PPL.
The above (loss of the 15hr route) seems to be the biggest risk. Otherwise, waiting till 2014 seems a good policy. A huge amount of sh*t is going to be flung at EASA during that time, and the result may be good.
But EASA is run by very clever shysters who know their way around this political maze. That's why I have started on the JAA IR, as an insurance policy. It's not in any way hard, but it is very very tedious and it is depressing because it is so utterly pointless.
I would not recommend doing an FAA IR unless you have assured access to an N-reg plane. The case for doing it gets pretty strong if you own the plane and it is technically advanced, and by that I don't mean an off the shelf SR22 with all the goodies and with everything available under an EASA TC
If you plan to do 337 mods, or minor mods, then the case is strong.The biggest reason for doing the JAA IR now, rather than wait to see what EASA does (which is what the vast majority of FAA IR holders are evidently doing), is that the ICAO IR to JAA IR 15hr conversion route is apparently going to end in April 2012, thus forcing you to pack your logbook with 50/55hrs at some £200/hr plus (SE) or £250/hr plus (ME) if you leave it after that date.
If you do teh 15hr IR conversion in your own plane, you pay "only" about £130/hr for the instructor. Plus the CAA fees etc; an extra grand or so.
The UK CAA has already published a 2 year derogation to April 2014 for the proposed requirement for dual papers, but they have not yet published a similar derogation for the 15hr conversion route.
The 15hr conversion route is available throughout JAA-land (and some attractive options are in Spain and Greece which are a no-brainer for somebody for whom doing it in their own plane is not a prime requirement) but after April 2012 one will need to be careful with e.g. doing it in Spain if e.g. the UK CAA has stopped supporting it, because even if Spain does it (and the Spanish FTO might be run by Austria so Austria must be supporting it in that case) the UK CAA might then refuse to add such a 15hr IR onto your UK PPL.
The above (loss of the 15hr route) seems to be the biggest risk. Otherwise, waiting till 2014 seems a good policy. A huge amount of sh*t is going to be flung at EASA during that time, and the result may be good.
But EASA is run by very clever shysters who know their way around this political maze. That's why I have started on the JAA IR, as an insurance policy. It's not in any way hard, but it is very very tedious and it is depressing because it is so utterly pointless.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks IO - I will mull that over.
When I re read my post, I was not being disparaging to those who have bravely waded through all the papers, and have diligently tried to make sense of it. I do truly find it all a bit confusing, as does everyone else.
When I re read my post, I was not being disparaging to those who have bravely waded through all the papers, and have diligently tried to make sense of it. I do truly find it all a bit confusing, as does everyone else.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know... What is the cheapest way for renting a clapped out Seminole at an FTO, with an instructor? I recall seeing some £250/hr rates but that was a while ago, and probably didn't include the instructor.
55hrs x £450/hr is eye-watering. Nobody is going to pay that. I suppose one would do an SE IR and then do the 5hrs in a ME at the end?
55hrs x £450/hr is eye-watering. Nobody is going to pay that. I suppose one would do an SE IR and then do the 5hrs in a ME at the end?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sim options don't make a whole lot of difference to the big picture however.
I have just heard that £450/hr is indeed the correct price for a southern UK FTO...
I have just heard that £450/hr is indeed the correct price for a southern UK FTO...