DGAC unveil achievable IR for France
The UK had an identical IR up to 1999 but the JAA prevented us from continuing with it. I seem to recall France was once a member of the JAA as well, so how come the requirements don't apply to them? Of course, they couldn't give a diddly squat pas!
I note that the UK has failed to notify a difference from ICAO in the 11 years it has followed the JAA requirement which is considerably different.
I note that the UK has failed to notify a difference from ICAO in the 11 years it has followed the JAA requirement which is considerably different.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comments
This has appeared on the French AOPA site
2) Maxime Coffin participated at the Meeting and in his current capacity he is Deputy Chairman of the EASA supervisory board
3) A recognition of FAA IR's is suggested
So here's my theory :
- EASA (or at the very least its deputy chairman) was not unfavourable towards grandfathering or immediate recognition of FAA IR's towards a European (Private ?) IR.
- The European Commission's Aviation "Safety" Unit got pissed off by EASA gradually gaining importance and expanding its remit, at the expense of the Commission.
- This resulted in Kazatsay writing an angry letter, telling EASA to stick to its mandate and use JAR as narrow guidance.
- This, in turn, lead to a few medium to high ranked EASA people getting quite frustrated and reasoning along the lines of "They (the Commission) want a dogs breakfast ? They're gonna get a dogs breakfast !"
- Mix that with a few incompetents and a couple of axe grinders (some I can think of have a dual capacity) together with some UK FTO lobbying and some civil servant pecuniary coersion for good measure, and we have what's on the table.
Pretty pathetic for a bunch of reasonably well paid civil servants pretending to have aviation expertise.
The UK had an identical IR up to 1999 but the JAA prevented us from continuing with it.
And if the CAA/DoT/UK was so pro private IR, why was it always insisting that the FAA IR was insufficient to navigate the airways ?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the FAA tolerances are higher than the UK IR for a plain SEP IR.
From memory
Heading, airspeed,RMI and dme arc is double that of UK tolerances
The CDI allows 3/4 deflect in the Uk its half scale.
The method behind holding procedures is also different.
I think the only limit that they are the same on is +- 100ft on altitude.
There are other small things as well such as ADF dip not occuring in the FAA world but in everyone elses.
Similar tolerances to an IMC which is what it was classed as equivalent to.
The tolerances on an FAA ATP IR on a type I believe are the same as the european ones.
From memory
Heading, airspeed,RMI and dme arc is double that of UK tolerances
The CDI allows 3/4 deflect in the Uk its half scale.
The method behind holding procedures is also different.
I think the only limit that they are the same on is +- 100ft on altitude.
There are other small things as well such as ADF dip not occuring in the FAA world but in everyone elses.
Similar tolerances to an IMC which is what it was classed as equivalent to.
The tolerances on an FAA ATP IR on a type I believe are the same as the european ones.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADF dip... really relevant (not).
Let me let you into an industry secret. The Comet is finished.
Your memory needs a refresh, MJ. Not a single item in your list has any relevance to today's IFR.
Let me let you into an industry secret. The Comet is finished.
From memory
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suspect all those who wanted an IR and had 600 hours; however that probably didn't amount to very many.
I think a high proportion of the "older" UK IR private pilots (and they form the majority of UK/JAA IR private pilots in almost any pilot gathering) went via that route. It was ended by JAA in 1999.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly did that route allow you to skip?
My recollection was that you could skip the mandatory classroom, but still had to do all the exams and the dual training.
My recollection was that you could skip the mandatory classroom, but still had to do all the exams and the dual training.
My FAA IR test consisted of (if I recall correctly 5 years later) a 2-3 hour oral, depart on a SID from an airport I had never once previously been, join an airway, an intersection hold off a VOR, DME arc to a VOR approach to mda then missed, another intersection hold, NDB tracking, procedural ILS with engine failure just before localiser intercept, single engine go around, vectored ILS approach to DH then missed, go around partial panel vor approach to mda then circle to land single engine. A few unusual attitude recoveries chucked in for good measure along the way.
Granted not the same NDB requirement as JAA land but all things considered I'd say it was hardly just given to me on a plate! A tad trickier than my IMCR in my opinion. That was on a Duchess although I later did a similar IR renewal on a King Air sim.
Granted not the same NDB requirement as JAA land but all things considered I'd say it was hardly just given to me on a plate! A tad trickier than my IMCR in my opinion. That was on a Duchess although I later did a similar IR renewal on a King Air sim.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah; mine was mostly partial panel, timed turns, route I had never done before, unusual attitude recovery on partial panel, a 4 hour oral before that. Not easy stuff at all.
What exactly did that route allow you to skip?
JAR-FCL increased the 40 hour approved course to a 55 hour approved course, and less people obtained first time passes! Probably because of the shift to STDs and a reduction in aircraft time.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's astonishing. It explains why nearly all the "old boys" I have bumped into and who have a UK IR did it under the 700hr route 
Incidentally, a 170A appears to be a UK-only thing.
Incidentally, a 170A appears to be a UK-only thing.
The F170A was introduced in the late 80s as lots of people were turning up to take tests and failing. The CAA was having trouble meeting the demand for tests as they did all the CPL and IR Skill tests so introduced the F170A as a form of filter. It is not a JAA requirement but has remained in place ever since. Its not an EASA requirement either. The F170A is actually a Course Completion Certificate!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) It refers to a meeting in September 2009, so pretty dated (an era ago, when counted in EASA years)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the US AOPA release.
The French propose to validate FAA IRs. This is a bombshell, of course.
Not unexpected when one looks at the wider political picture of aviation.
With a bit of luck, we may be watching EASA's bogus FCL initiative come apart at the seams.
The French propose to validate FAA IRs. This is a bombshell, of course.
Not unexpected when one looks at the wider political picture of aviation.
With a bit of luck, we may be watching EASA's bogus FCL initiative come apart at the seams.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mad_jock
Double on everything bar the Altitude, same as the IMC limits.