Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

FCL008 IR / CBM IR - any news?

It has gone very quiet...

Months ago, it was going into Comitology.

I haven't heard any more.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Comitology

Love that word! Sounds like some kind of religion based on deep sleep....

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

Love that word! Sounds like some kind of religion based on deep sleep....

Love it! I always heard it in my head more like commit.....as if someone was about to commit a really nasty deed!

EIWT Weston, Ireland

Such as L Ron Goudou! "The way to make a million dollars is to start a reguligion"...

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

Maybe it being a little late is related to the number of pages in the Comment-Response Document - 991 pages. The "resulting text" starts on page 775 and most of it is the (reduced!) syllabus/-bi.

Or maybe EASA/EU is busy with more urgent issues like OPS. After all, we have EASA-rules on all aspects of Instrument Ratings as it is. The bad old ones, more or less.

The Danish Transport Board hosted an EASA conference in the beginning of March. An EASA "official" lectured us all on the published (essentially unchanged from JAR) Part-FCL, without mentioning FCL.008 or EIR/IR at all. When queried, he got the blank look and was rescued by his seconding younger "official", who promised that FCL008 is ready and will get the stamp "soon".

huv
EKRK, Denmark

I do wonder whether due to various (and non converging) opinions from member states that the EIR and CBM IR could be dead and EASA will revert to including the old JAR line (601 or something I recall) which allows member states to have their own instrument qualifications for national airspace. That way lies continuance of the IMCR and could explain the French plan for their own lower level IR.

Now retired from forums best wishes

It does concern me what's happened to it.

The real problem in Europe is that the status of a "professional pilot" has been tied to the IR (and the ATPL is essentially handed to him when he reaches 1500hrs incl 500hrs multi pilot) whereas in the USA the status of a "professional pilot" has been tied to the ATP which has its own theory exam and checkride.

Unravelling this emotional attachment has proved to be almost impossible.

Even if the CBM IR comes along, the ATP cadets will still need to do the standard 14 exams, so the CBM IR will merely offer a potentially lower minimum time with an instructor in the plane (or a sim). And since most of them have almost no flying experience, they will mostly need ~50hrs to reach the IR test standard.

So the FTOs are not IMHO going to see significant reductions on their normal ATPL "food supply". They will see them on their private pilot customers but those numbers are very small anyway.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Today in the IAOPA newsletter:

EASA IR regulation expected ‘soon’

Moves towards a more attainable Instrument Rating in Europe are running behind schedule by about two years, AOPA Germany’s Managing Director Michael Erb reported to the Regional Meeting. Publication of EASA’s ‘opinion’ – effectively its plans for rulemaking – are expected shortly, however. After pressure from the French, Dr Erb said, there was reason to hope that third country Instrument Ratings might be transferable into European IRs simply by having a check ride with an examiner. “Every year, Instrument Rating holders have to have check ride, anyway, and this would be an enormous advantage to the holders of third country IRs. They must hold a European PPL, to which they can attach their IR.” Emmanuel Davidson of AOPA France said checks in the United States on pilots with a current medical, an Instrument Rating and a European address showed there were more than 11,000 on the FAA’s books. Martin Robinson said the UK CAA was determined to retain the IMC Rating in the UK, although EASA continued to stand out against it. While IMC rating holders had grandfather rights, under EASA new pilots could not be extended the protection of the rating, leading to a strange situation where one pilot would be flying with the increased safety provided by the rating, while the next was denied it. “The UK is not saying it wishes to impose its IMC rating on the rest of Europe,” he said. “It is saying, please read your own rules and allow the IMC rating to continue in the UK.”

And here is a UK AOPA view on the IMC Rating...

The problem with this whole topic is that rational debate went out of the window the instant that EASA decided to

  • shaft the FAA licensed pilot community, and

  • create absolute uniformity across the EU i.e. killing the IMCR unless everybody adopts it

There is no rational argument for the above. It's purely political. Rational debate is a complete waste of time. The key lies in EU politics, and currently IMHO it lies in the near-disintegration of the EU which is usefully teaching the Eurocrats a few lessons.

It was totally obvious to all that the chance of everybody adopting the IMCR was precisely zero, because due to most EU airspace structures being devoid of Class A, the IMCR would be equivalent to a full IR. It's only in the UK where the large amounts of Class A make the IMCR sufficiently distinct from the IR to keep the old guard happy.

The only other country where something similar could be achieved would be Italy (loads of low level Class A, devoid of any traffic whatsoever) but there is almost no IFR GA in Italy so presumably little interest in pushing this.

That said, the FCL008 "CBM IR" was an amazing achievement, done in committee by a small number of pro-GA people, and it would be good to see it progress. Where it is right now remains a mystery.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter,

AFAIK Class A airspace is mainly used by ATS routes in the UK.

Why is the IMCR pilot banned from the easiest part of IFR flying - the en-route section?

44 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top