Agree. Without the EASA IR, you are not legal for IFR in pretty much half of Europe.
I am not sure exactly what you are referring to by that, boscomantico. Half of Europe sounds a lot. Last I checked there was only a small handful of countries that had not requested an exception (adhered to the postponement).
It is anyway a good point that the 2019 deadline does not or will not apply to all countries, and if this requirement is not postponed to 2019 before 8 April, technically it will go into force until the postponement is adopted.
It’s a bit more than one handful of countries, but yes, not quite half of Europe.
boscomantico wrote:
It’s a bit more than one handful of countries, but yes, not quite half of Europe.
So which countries have not requested the exemption?
IIRC somebody posted a link to the EASA website that contained several documents with all exemptions that had been requested, including for this. But of course I cannot find the thread, and could not find it on the EASA web site either
Well done!
The question I asked myself when I first saw that table was the difference between the 4 countries with no entries at all (blank) and the 10 that say “Will not apply”. Are the blank ones those that have not applied but still may apply, or “don’t know”? And I suppose “will not apply” means they have not applied and have confirmed they will not apply.
But there were indeed more countries that I remembered. “Only” 18/32 countries are recorded as having filed an exemption. I am glad I did get the EASA IR.
The blank ones are probably the CAAs who don’t know where to find EASA regs.
Some of the “will not apply” would be a surprising candidate for “screwing N-regs”. Are there lots of N-regs in CZ (where there is zero enforcement of various very interesting things), Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta… I think these are in the “sod this – I am not getting involved” category.
Also, isn’t the requirement for dual papers based on where the pilot is based, rather than the airspace being flown in? This has been done here a few times; I recall the verdict as being the former, which is highly significant.
@jasonc how current is that table? I can’t see a date on it at that URL.
