DGAC unveil achievable IR for France

[Contacttower]

The French propose to validate FAA IRs. This is a bombshell, of course.

My reading of that bit in the article is that they will get the validation for the new French IR, not the full JAR one though, so a similar arrangement by which the CAA gives FAA IR holders an IMC rating.

[IO540]

I agree it seems that way but the French IR will not be sub-ICAO like the IMCR is, which means it could be potentially valid worldwide.

[Contacttower]

Would be quite funny if everyone started moving to F reg and doing the French IR...want to go to France?..quick scud run to the FIR boundary and then you could go anywhere in France IFR...

[Pace]

With the French very bad VFR accident statistics we have to commend them for doing this.

Are there any comments from the CAA? A replacemnt for the IMCR with allowances towards getting the new rating..

Two major GA countries in Europe accepting this would soon have others following and EASA quickly trying to claim it as their own.

The UK CAA have a good arguement with the abolishment of the IMCR to follow suit.

A shame that our CAA had not got the guts to have done this themselves

France thanks for the spoon

Pace

[Whopity]

We have EASA run by a very nice but rather useless Frenchman called Goudu; his FCL team of clerks run by another Frenchman named Cluzeau, no relation of course, and now the French DGAC pulling in entirely the opposite direction whilst the man at the CAA is bending over backwards to kiss Goudu's arse. Better than a Whitehall Farce. Vive la France

[VMC-on-top]

Is there anything official available about this from the French CAA?

[Justiciar]

What is rather sad is that to read some of this material you would think that the French are the only ones to have thought that PPLs need an instrument qualification suited to their needs. Good luck to them though and this is something which EASA will either have to confront head on or give way to.

There is nothing about limiting it to particular types of aircraft. I cannot yet see how this is going to sit with the Part FCL proposed regulations. The truth may be that this is wholy incompatable with Part FCL, which begs the question as to where those regulations are going .... maybe they are going nowhere

[IO540]

For many years the French (and the Brits, and the Germans) were perfectly happy about N-regs providing the solution to an "achievable GA IR", right under the noses of their constantly campaigning FTOs, because it suited them.

They all knew that if they let the FTO rottweilers loose onto the GA IR community (by crippling the N-reg option) the result would merely be a virtual elimination of IFR GA.

But they could never go public with this policy, while taking nice fat fees from the FTOs, drafting national regs, etc.

So the status quo was maintained. With various pressure limiting devices like no commercial ops, no training by flying schools, etc. Throw in a bit of FUD and there you go... ATPL wannabees will "always pay whatever it costs" and that keeps the FTOs in the money.

The jet scene could never be touched because the planes are too mobile. Most of the owners have multiple homes, etc. You would drive a bus through ICAO if you messed with jets.

Outside of Africa and various assorted dictatorships / police states around the world, Denmark was the one place which persecuted N-regs (sporadically, on the basis of long term parking).

But now EASA has threatened to actually do the deed and cripple the IFR GA community, so the French (and the others) had their hand forced, but only the French have the balls to do anything. The UK CAA just sends out handwashing letters, like the one I got the other day.

I also think the French know something we don't know about the FCL-008 IR e.g. it is not going to happen. Otherwise, why bother with their own IR proposal? It's obvious really, and the French must have the total inside track on everything in EASA.

It would not suprise me if most other EU countries follow suit and introduce their own non-EASA IRs, just before EASA gets around to doing the dirty work (IF indeed it does get around to it). Amazingly, one FTO boss told me recently that his local CAA told him this will happen. This was unprompted and I was very suprised. But it makes sense. If they do it now, they can because JAA is dead but EASA FCL does not yet exist. The only EASA law (the BR) is so vague it is meaningless.

[Contacttower]

I also think the French know something we don't know about the FCL-008 IR e.g. it is not going to happen. Otherwise, why bother with their own IR proposal? It's obvious really, and the French must have the total inside track on everything in EASA.

All things considered there must be an element of truth in that..or at least they are confident they can head Part-FCL off without too much trouble. The fact that the release stated that it could start as early as September suggests they are not wasting any time.

[bookworm]

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.

What the AOPA article says is:

"While the rating is limited to French-registered airplanes in French airspace, it includes a provision for foreign pilots with instrument ratings, such as those from the United States, to validate their instrument rating on their French certificate."

Part-FCL also includes a provision for foreign pilots with instrument ratings, such as those from the United States, to validate their instrument rating on their Part-FCL licence. You just don't like the small print.

[Pace]

I wonder how much Socata sales in europe has to do with this? It would not suit Socata to loose N reg in Europe.

Pace

[proudprivate]

Bookworm :

Nous retenons particulièrement les points qui sont mis en avant dans le document de la DGAC tels que:

• Allégement du théorique IFR
• Reconnaissance des IFR américains et report de ces derniers sur la licence Européene
• Eventuelle mise en application par la France, avant même la publication des textes EASA et Européens définitifs

You don't seem to like the French print .

I must say I found your earlier references to Ian Richardson quite appalling. I hope you remember how the story ends ? You might end up being held more accountable than you had wished for.

Pace :

It is Socata Sales; also Dassault Sales; even Eurocopter Sales
It is also BNP Paribas Assurance;
It is the Syndicat d'Initiative of many a touristic place in France


Contacttower :

they are confident they can head Part-FCL off without too much trouble.

From what I hear, I think the road ahead is still quite bumpy.

[Mickey Kaye]

"All approved training, so you could train to test standard with anyone, pass a F170A with an authorised person and then take the test. You needed a total of 40 hours Instrument Flight time and 10 hours dual instruction logged, which coincided with the IMC course training, plus a pass in the relevant exams unless you held an exemption! Essentially, you met the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 Paras 2.6.1.2 ans 2.6.1.3.
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."


So you passed the IR test on merit. Oh for such a system today

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by Whopity

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.

Minimum amount of training for a JAR-compliant IR(A) (single engine though) is 50 hours. The additional 5 hours are only if you are doing straight ME/IR - I believe you know this, I write this just as clarification to others.

I believe the aircraft time is much more valuable than STD, but then again, you can't simulate anything in the aircraft - and of course, it's cheaper to do some (or even maximum possible) training in the STD (FNPT) than in real aircraft. This being said, I doubt any FTO would categorically refuse student, who would want to do all the training for IR(A) in the aircraft instead of doing it mostly in the STD.

[FREDAcheck]

The UK CAA have a good arguement with the abolishment of the IMCR to follow suit.

(shouldn't that be "abolishification"?)
Some of us are still hoping the IMCR won't be abolished. We think we've been told it won't be - at least for existing holders.

I'm really pleased that someone is doing something for an achievable IR. But this really isn't a replacement for IMCR, which is about IMC flight outside CAS, not IFR touring.

[bookworm]

You don't seem to like the French print

I haven't seen any "French print" yet, have you? The DGAC seems to be silent on this. The point is simply that IO-540 should not assume that "validation" means "validation without further requirements". I hope it does.

I must say I found your earlier references to Ian Richardson quite appalling.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Pace]

Some of us are still hoping the IMCR won't be abolished. We think we've been told it won't be - at least for existing holders

.

FREDAcheck

I think we were also told that EASA had no desire to remove European N reg Pilots but were working for a bi lateral agreement?

Giving existing holders the right to exercise its privalages means just that! There will be NO IMCR rating.

What puzzles me is the CAA in all this! If the French can unilaterally create a brand new IR whyt are we even in this position of hoping the IMCR will be given a last minute stay of execution by EASA.

As with the French shouldnt the CAA just tell EASA that they will be maintaining a full IMCR rating for the uk! End of story.

The French can do it so how come our CAA are such wet lettuces

Pace

[FREDAcheck]

What puzzles me is the CAA in all this! If the French can unilaterally create a brand new IR whyt are we even in this position of hoping the IMCR will be given a last minute stay of execution by EASA.

As with the French shouldnt the CAA just tell EASA that they will be maintaining a full IMCR rating for the uk! End of story.

The French can do it so how come our CAA are such wet lettuces

Quite. We make a lot of noise, grumble about the EU, then do what we're told. The French don't complain, they just do what they want.

[IO540]

The point is simply that IO-540 should not assume that "validation" means "validation without further requirements". I hope it does.

The EASA FCL IR validation provisions are worthless.

Historically, a precedent for a conversion of a foreign PPL/IR or a CPL/IR might be

- an air law exam
- a flight test

and I would expect the DGAC to do something like that.

The JAA IR Air Law contents is at least 90% bollox (it has tons of irrelevant garbage like traffic separation between two parallel runways; apparently the syllabus was written by an ATCO) but looking at it from the emotional/political angle (always the best way; forget this is "aviation") it is hard to argue against the proposition that a "foreign pilot" needs to know the local laws.

And same for the flight test. If you can fly, you will pass the test, no? And if you can't fly, you have no business here

The 700hr IR option would save somebody about £15000 today. I bet the FTOs loved JAA when it arrived What they didn't realise is that the number of private IRs would fall to single figures per year for all of the UK.

[proudprivate]

I haven't seen any "French print" yet, have you?

The French print I was referring to comes from VFR-UK's reference. As it happens, I have also seen recent French print.

What on earth are you talking about?

I was referring to your saying

...you might think that, Billiebob, I couldn't possibly comment

which is symptomatic for the cynicism applied by a number civil servants and consultants, at European and National level alike, and which acts to the detriment of the credibility of Europe and the civil service (at all levels)