DGAC unveil achievable IR for France
Originally Posted by Billiebob
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying, proudprivate, that you do not agree with Billiebob?
In view of your involvement on the UK side in this file, and in view of the suffering it causes to N-reg pilots now and the whole General Aviation community in the near future, I read your quoting Ian Richardson in the House of Cards trilogy as totally misplaced.
As for Billiebob's comment, I also believe the rulemaking processes at EASA are completely outdated and inefficient; quite peculiar for an organisation that only exists for a couple of years.
So coming back to your statement about "EASA being underfunded", which at first could only draw Homerical laughter, I would answer :
"It depends on what you want to do at EASA and how".
If it's just to get in a few more admin drones who plan schemes of the legislative planning calendar (really !) or to set up a pointless "task force" to reward some NAA civil servants with an expat contract for services rendered, then of course its a nono. Then € 107 million is already way over the top, as I'm sure you can agree.
If, by contrast, you want to implement a Copernican revolution, which gets rid of the drones and which aims at actually promoting aviation in Europe and save some costs at the NAA level, you would have my blessing.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looked and the limits are still as I mentioned according to the FAA IR test document.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet the FTOs loved JAA when it arrived
My memory may be wrong here, but I have a feeling the JAA route reduced the cost for the majority of IR candidates. Although it increased the hours a bit (eg. from 40/45 to 50/55), it raised the amount that could be done on an FNPT2 a lot: from 10 to 40. (numbers I believe roughly correct).
What the JAA seemed to do was put smaller clubs/schools out of the commercial/professional/IR training business, I guess through the FTO approval requirements being to onerous if you had a small training business. I seem to remember an awful lot more schools could teach the CPL or IR pre-JAA?
brgds
421C
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I could see just as I was getting into flying you are correct 421c.
But at the time the FNPT II's used to cost a fortune and the cost of a sim hour wasn't far off paying for the aircraft.
When I was making my choice the cost for an IR course was 10k unless you went to oxford.
It didn't matter which way you did it
1. all in the aircraft, single followed by twin
2. FNPT I +45 hours aircraft
3. FNPT II +15 hours aircraft.
I went for the second option because you got more logged hours. And we got free solo on the FNPT I
But alot went for the 3rd because you had less chance of wx issues or tech aircraft issues.
Then the MCC reared its ugly head and everyone went to FNPT II's so they could milk that fat cow.
But at the time the FNPT II's used to cost a fortune and the cost of a sim hour wasn't far off paying for the aircraft.
When I was making my choice the cost for an IR course was 10k unless you went to oxford.
It didn't matter which way you did it
1. all in the aircraft, single followed by twin
2. FNPT I +45 hours aircraft
3. FNPT II +15 hours aircraft.
I went for the second option because you got more logged hours. And we got free solo on the FNPT I
But alot went for the 3rd because you had less chance of wx issues or tech aircraft issues.
Then the MCC reared its ugly head and everyone went to FNPT II's so they could milk that fat cow.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What phrase led you to this? The closest I came is
which I would translate as "non-complex aircraft, no jets". But it is not clear what exactly is understood by "non-complex" in this context, for me it would mean "having either retractable gear or a constant speed prop or both" but it can hardly mean that in this context because it wouldn't make sense to limit this nice new license to Jodels and Cubs.
I guess we'll have to wait for a clear definition of these "avions non complexes, pas reacteurs".
Avions non complexes (pas réacteurs).
I guess we'll have to wait for a clear definition of these "avions non complexes, pas reacteurs".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to worry about. According to EASA a complex-motor-powered aircraft means:
(i) an aeroplane:
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5700kg, or
- a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 9, or
-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots, or
- equipped with (a) turbo-jet engine(s)
(ii) a helicopter
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 3175kg, or
- a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 5, or
-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft
(i) an aeroplane:
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5700kg, or
- a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 9, or
-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots, or
- equipped with (a) turbo-jet engine(s)
(ii) a helicopter
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 3175kg, or
- a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 5, or
-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft
That's a dated version of the definition. The definition in the BR is:
(j) ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:
(i) an aeroplane:
— with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
— certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
— certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
— equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
(ii) a helicopter certificated:
— for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
— for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
— for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft;
The differences are irrelevant for most of us, and your point -- that most PPLs fly non-complex aircraft -- remains a good one.
(j) ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:
(i) an aeroplane:
— with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
— certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
— certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
— equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
(ii) a helicopter certificated:
— for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
— for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
— for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft;
The differences are irrelevant for most of us, and your point -- that most PPLs fly non-complex aircraft -- remains a good one.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Irony
Yes, the English sense of irony is a little difficult to grasp, isn't it?
As for your last quote, I fear it shows that racism is a lot more prevalent than irony in the British society. The fact that explaining this little bout of "irony" took laying it on with a trowel to the esteemed gentlemen of the DofT and the CAA paints a grim outlook indeed for the aviation community.
That's a dated version of the definition. The definition in the BR is:
This emphasizes the safety angle behind the basic regulation, drafted by professionals, in alignment with EASA's mission statements.
If you're a civil servant and you are actively participating in deceiving the general public - and in your case for your own personal benefit - at the expense of general aviation....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what's happened here is this:
EASA now needs the FCL008 IR badly, and it needs it within the 2014 timeframe otherwise the s**t is going to hit the fan when it grounds a few thousand private IR holders in Europe.
This has come about because they got the (very vague) Basic Reg passed, and then they disingenuously stuck their anti N-reg FCL proposal on top of it, hoping they would get away with it, but they now realise they won't because too many MEPs know that EASA is about to screw most of the private IFR community.
So, France has done an under the table deal with EASA, to allow France to have a national IR, indefinitely.
In return for the deal, EASA gets French support on FCL, in comitology and elsewhere... but EASA gets a bigger prize: France having its national IR, crucially with easy conversion from the FAA IR, makes the pan-EU acceptance of the FCL008 IR proposal (with easy conversion options from the FAA IR) a fait accompli.
That would defuse the N-reg situation.
It doesn't deal with FAA CPL/IR conversions, of course, which remain in the 14-exam + load of bollox domain. But there is no current proposal to deal with that bit, anyway. Maybe EASA has something up its sleeve if all else fails; I certainly would have. Also I think you will meet the letter of the proposed FCL regs by getting the FCL008 IR, and then separately doing a 9-exam EASA CPL which is basically a load of pottering about the place VFR with a stopwatch
This kind of linkage makes sense because that's how EASA works. They like to create inter-dependent regs in which the first stage is easily passed, and each subsequent stage presents the EU with the option of a Yes vote (and no hassle) or a No vote (and mayhem).
I see this in other areas of EU regulation e.g. ROHS, REACH, WEEE. It started with seemingly innocuous bans on some chemicals and has now grown to a huge number of substances which nobody can have a clue if some product they are buying-in contains or doesn't contain. Industry has got tired of protesting, and now everybody covers his a**e by getting a piece of paper from every supplier confirming the substances are not present, and everybody just signs this... So e.g. Siemens has to get such a statement from their supplier of bog rolls. It's all a load of balls, a total charade with no enforcement.
EASA now needs the FCL008 IR badly, and it needs it within the 2014 timeframe otherwise the s**t is going to hit the fan when it grounds a few thousand private IR holders in Europe.
This has come about because they got the (very vague) Basic Reg passed, and then they disingenuously stuck their anti N-reg FCL proposal on top of it, hoping they would get away with it, but they now realise they won't because too many MEPs know that EASA is about to screw most of the private IFR community.
So, France has done an under the table deal with EASA, to allow France to have a national IR, indefinitely.
In return for the deal, EASA gets French support on FCL, in comitology and elsewhere... but EASA gets a bigger prize: France having its national IR, crucially with easy conversion from the FAA IR, makes the pan-EU acceptance of the FCL008 IR proposal (with easy conversion options from the FAA IR) a fait accompli.
That would defuse the N-reg situation.
It doesn't deal with FAA CPL/IR conversions, of course, which remain in the 14-exam + load of bollox domain. But there is no current proposal to deal with that bit, anyway. Maybe EASA has something up its sleeve if all else fails; I certainly would have. Also I think you will meet the letter of the proposed FCL regs by getting the FCL008 IR, and then separately doing a 9-exam EASA CPL which is basically a load of pottering about the place VFR with a stopwatch
This kind of linkage makes sense because that's how EASA works. They like to create inter-dependent regs in which the first stage is easily passed, and each subsequent stage presents the EU with the option of a Yes vote (and no hassle) or a No vote (and mayhem).
I see this in other areas of EU regulation e.g. ROHS, REACH, WEEE. It started with seemingly innocuous bans on some chemicals and has now grown to a huge number of substances which nobody can have a clue if some product they are buying-in contains or doesn't contain. Industry has got tired of protesting, and now everybody covers his a**e by getting a piece of paper from every supplier confirming the substances are not present, and everybody just signs this... So e.g. Siemens has to get such a statement from their supplier of bog rolls. It's all a load of balls, a total charade with no enforcement.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, we in Great Britain form committies, groups, organisations to discuss this at great length (over Whisky at the boys club no doubt) then approach EASA and grovel with them, and when they tell us to run and jump, we do. Whereas the French just announce that this is what we are doing, get used to it.
But, as IO540 pointed out, there is a separate level in French society where things do get decided and done, usually very quickly, without much "public consultation" or transparency and - for the most part - with a fair bit of common sense (as long as a certain N. Sarkozy hasn't had a hand in the matter
). They got rid of their royal family, but the French never really did away with the ruling élite, and sometimes they highlight the frustrating flaws of accountable democracy.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French regulation can be found here
I saw a translation of this 2 days ago (before it was officially published) but it may be slightly different.
Amazing stuff, and it's obvious France is going to run with this until EASA comes up with something similar.
I saw a translation of this 2 days ago (before it was officially published) but it may be slightly different.
Amazing stuff, and it's obvious France is going to run with this until EASA comes up with something similar.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, a conversion route via 100 hrs IFR, 3 exams and flight test (+Class II medical)
To train, 3 exams over 3 hrs 5 mins with a total of 150 questions. The French have taken a large knife to the TK requirements.
To train, 3 exams over 3 hrs 5 mins with a total of 150 questions. The French have taken a large knife to the TK requirements.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moreover it is obvious they have no intention of chopping it in April 2012 or even in April 2014.
This is going to run until EASA delivers something into which this can be merged.
It is also known now that this is done with EASA's blessing, so the "plan" is clearly like I said earlier i.e. EASA is colluding with France on this to create a "momentum" behind the FCL008 IR which, if successful, will defuse the private N-reg issue in Europe. In return for that, France gets protection for its IFR community which is almost totally N-reg and a lot of which is expensive hardware flown by rich and thus politically well connected individuals.
If EASA fails to deliver, France will stick a finger up to the EU and carry on. EASA can hardly argue with that; to do so would be an admission that the FCL008 IR was merely a piece of meat to pacify the dog for a bit.
Good old politics.... never changes.
I just hope that EASA hasn't got something nasty up its sleeve.
This is going to run until EASA delivers something into which this can be merged.
It is also known now that this is done with EASA's blessing, so the "plan" is clearly like I said earlier i.e. EASA is colluding with France on this to create a "momentum" behind the FCL008 IR which, if successful, will defuse the private N-reg issue in Europe. In return for that, France gets protection for its IFR community which is almost totally N-reg and a lot of which is expensive hardware flown by rich and thus politically well connected individuals.
If EASA fails to deliver, France will stick a finger up to the EU and carry on. EASA can hardly argue with that; to do so would be an admission that the FCL008 IR was merely a piece of meat to pacify the dog for a bit.
Good old politics.... never changes.
I just hope that EASA hasn't got something nasty up its sleeve.
