News ::: Part FCL.008 ::: by N-Flyers of Europe

S

sjenny

New member
News*::: Part FCL.008*::: by N-Flyers of Europe

The CRD is published*: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_135

In short*:

A Part-FCL licence holder who also holds ICAO Annex 1 instrument rating issued by third-country and the required 50 hours of flying experience as PIC in IFR/IMC needs only to pass a skill test and demonstrate the adequate level of theoretical knowledge during the skill test. He/she also needs to demonstrate English language proficiency.

Crediting for third-country licence holders

The Agency introduced a few changes in order to simplify the criteria for Part-FCL licence holders also holding a third-country IR, to obtain their IR converted into a Part-FCL IR.

Firstly, the demonstration of theoretical knowledge was clarified by allowing the applicant to demonstrate an adequate level of knowledge to the examiner during the skill test. The number of subjects was also reduced to three and cover air law, meteorology, and flight planning & performance.

Secondly, several comments proposed to further review the requirement of 100 hours prior instrument flight time as PIC. As this requirement stems from criteria already established for the acceptance of licences and ratings, the Agency came to the conclusion that this could be reduced to 50 hours of minimum experience (instrument flight time) as PIC. The Agency also made provisions for those pilots with less than the 50 hours of minimum experience by allowing them to credit PIC hours towards the EIR and competency-based IR(A) courses. Please see paragraph ‘crediting of prior experience’ in this section and items 13 and 31 for further details.

Finally, several comments requested the deletion of the skill test and English language requirements. The Agency strongly believes that to ensure a minimum standard and consistency both requirements should be kept and therefore decided to keep the skill test and the FCL.055 English language proficiency requirements as proposed by the NPA. The method of assessment shall be established by the competent authority.

Prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments

With GM1 Appendix 6 (6)(c) an additional GM was developed in order to address the issue of prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments. The three scenarios under which prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments as PIC will be credited as instrument flight time are:

Flight time should have been completed:
- instrument flight time under a rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC issued by a competent authority of a Member State; or
- instrument flight time under a national instrument rating issued by a Member State completed before Part-FCL entered into force; or
- instrument flight time under a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country.
 
Het bijzondere is dus dat men niet alleen het urencriteria heeft teruggebracht van 100 naar 50.. maar ook de eis van "actual instrument time" hebben omgezet naar "flighttime under ifr".

Op een ander forum heeft iemand inmiddels bevestiging gevraagd wat dit betekent aan EASA. Door EASA is dit uitgelegd als: "at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes.

Het lijkt er dus sterk op dat het nu gaat om PIC op vluchten onder IFR vlucht plan. Voor de zekerheid heb ik EASA hierover om opheldering gevraagd.

Ik vond wel terug dat met name IAOPA.DE(EU) het volgende had gegegeven als commentaar en het lijkt erop dat men dit heeft overgenomen. Persoonlijk lijkt mij dit heel redelijk .. je hebt immers al een ICAO IR.

IAOPA(EU) agrees with sub-paragraphs 8(a) and 8(c), but has the
following comments with regard to the rest of paragraph 8:
8(b). IAOPA(EU) considers that the demonstration of acquisition of
knowledge to which this sub-paragraph refers can be satisfactorily
assessed by the Examiner during the pre-flight preparation and
conduct of the C-B IR Skill Test, supplemented if necessary by oral
questions. It should be noted that the requirement for the holder of an
IR issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the
Chicago Convention to sit further written theoretical knowledge
examinations when converting to a EU IR is widely regarded as an
expensive waste of time, which serves very little practical purpose.
An Examiner will be able to make a much more pertinent assessment
of the applicant’s relevant knowledge; we strongly recommend that
oral assessment in the manner described should satisfy the
requirements of sub-paragraph 8(b).
8(d). IAOPA(EU) considers that 100hrs of instrument flight time as
PIC is excessive. Pilots with considerable flight time under IFR would
be disadvantaged; there would be safety implications for a pilot to fly
deliberately in IMC, with the attendant risks of turbulence and icing,
merely to reach the 100hrs requirement. We therefore recommendthat sub-paragraph 8(d) is reworded as follows:
8 (d) have a minimum of at least 50 hrs of flight time under IFR as PIC
on aeroplanes.
We remind the Agency that the C-B IR is ‘competency based’ by
definition and that, although some relevant experience is clearly
needed, the Skill Test will provide entirely sufficient assessment of the
applicant’s suitability to be issued with the C-B IR.


De theoriekennis gaat dus getoetst worden als mondeling tijdens je examenvlucht.


Daarnaast valt mij op dat ze voor de France IR rating nu ook conversie pad hebben gecreëerd. Althans .. zo interpreteer ik :

Flight time should have been completed:
- instrument flight time under a Rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC issued by a competent authority of a Member State; or
- instrument flight time under a national instrument rating issued by a Member State completed before Part-FCL entered into force;
 
wsh said:
Het lijkt er dus sterk op dat het nu gaat om PIC op vluchten onder IFR vlucht plan. Voor de zekerheid heb ik EASA hierover om opheldering gevraagd.
Click to expand...

The EASA developed an additional GM in order to address the issue of prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments. The three scenarios under which prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments as PIC will be credited as instrument flight time are:


Flight time should have been completed:
- instrument flight time under a Rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC issued by a competent authority of a Member State; or
- instrument flight time under a national instrument rating issued by a Member State completed before Part-FCL entered into force; or
- instrument flight time under a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country.

If you read the first bullet EASA specified IFR and in IMC
At the third bullet, which is our concern, the statement is only: instrument flight time, IMC is not required
 
That is doubtfull.

Instrument Flight Time has always been "Actual IMC/Simulated IMC". A lot of people in Europe have always logged flights under IFR plan while in fact exactly the same rules applied as in the US... you log actual instrument time..

Flight under IFR may be explained differently....

It is clear that people are interpreting things differently.

Iaopa made a point to state that it was ridiculous to require pilots to stay unnecessary long in IMC conditions with potential risks of icing and turbulence especially as a skilltest has to be done anyway.
 
JC said:
Where in the regs is IR time defined as actual IMC?
Click to expand...

If you read the explanatory notes.. Easa states:

Secondly, several comments proposed to further review the requirement of 100 hours
prior instrument flight time as PIC. As this requirement stems from criteria already
established for the acceptance of licences and ratings, the Agency came to the conclusion
that this could be reduced to 50 hours of minimum experience (instrument flight time) as
PIC.


This is the definition as it has always has been under JAR. I have not seen any sign that this has been changed.

On the dutch CAA website you can find the following document. Look at the top left corner of page #3.

http://www.ilent.nl/Images/Loggen van vlieguren (A) 200804_tcm334-318880.pdf
 
JC said:
Where in the regs is IR time defined as actual IMC?
Click to expand...

FAR part 61.51(g)(1)

(g) Logging instrument time.


(1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

(2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions.

(3) For the purposes of logging instrument time to meet the recent instrument experience requirements of Sec. 61.57(c) of this part, the following information must be recorded in the person's logbook--


(i) The location and type of each instrument approach accomplished; and

(ii) The name of the safety pilot, if required.


(4) A person can use time in a flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience, provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.
 
what is IR time? Dat is geen term.

Er is

"flight under Instrument Flight Rules" (onder easa moet je dit loggen .. operationele omstandigheid)
&
"Instrument Flight Time" (dit mag je loggen .. behalve bij een training .. dan moet dat .. (amc1.fcl050)

Dit zijn verschillende dingen.

Als je de alinea leest over de eisen voor conversie .. praat men over het eerste.

In de toelichting (de GM) praat men over het 2e.

In een ander forum, heeft iemand die dichtbij EASA staat, van EASA de toelichting gekregen dat de bewuste paragraaf over conversie gelezn moet worden als

"at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes." ... dat lijkt weer op de conversie alinea.

Wie het weet mag het zeggen.. Ik heb inmiddels de indruk dat we het hebben over 50 uur actual instrument time..
 
Sjenny, laten we Annex 1 er even bijpakken naar aanleiding van "the third bullet"
- instrument flight time under a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country.

In Annex 1:
Instrument flight time. Time during which a pilot is piloting
an aircraft solely by reference to instruments and without
external reference points.
Click to expand...

Je zou toch zeggen dat hier zo goed als consensus over is en toch is er iedere keer weer verwarring over de term "instrument flight time".

Naast FAA, JAR en ILENT hanteert ook CASA (Australië) een stricte definitie:

Instrument flight time. A flight conducted on an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan is not to be counted as instrument flight unless flying in IMC;
Click to expand...
 
Radix said:
Sjenny, laten we Annex 1 er even bijpakken naar aanleiding van "the third bullet"
- instrument flight time under a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country.

In Annex 1:


Je zou toch zeggen dat hier zo goed als consensus over is en toch is er iedere keer weer verwarring over de term "instrument flight time".

Naast FAA, JAR en ILENT hanteert ook CASA (Australië) een stricte definitie:
Click to expand...

Ik denk dat we het wel eens zijn over de definitie 'instrument flight time' alleen dit is niet wat wij in ons logboek schrijven.

Zie JAR-FCL 1.080 en IEM JAR FCL 1.080:

citaat uit het IEM (als toelichting op kolom 9 waar we IFR/Nacht tijd in ons logboek moeten schrijven):

"Kolom 9:noteer de vliegtijd die u 's nachts of onder instrumentvliegvoorschriften (IFR), indien van toepassing, voor uw rekening hebt genomen."

e.a. ook in : http://www.ilent.nl/Images/Loggen van vlieguren (A) 200804_tcm334-318880.pdf

met een JAA logboek is het dus lastig aantonen hoeveel 'Instrument flight time' je hebt. (maar je hoeft dan natuurlijk ook niet deze conversie te doen waar het onderwerp over gaat)
 
Ik heb de vraag uitgezet en beantwoord gekregen van EASA.

Vraag 1. I read that now instead of “instrument flight time” … now “flight time under IFR” is written… What does this mean? The first was actual (S)IMC conditions. What is the second??

Antwoord: 1) ‘Flight time under Instrument Flight Rules’ (IFR) is defined in FCL.010. It means all flight time during which the aircraft is being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules. This means it can be also in VMC as long as it is under IFR.

Vraag 2. If one does not meet the 50 hours yet and what to advance faster than during normal flights, I presume that one can fly/train with a Safety or FI/IRI under SIMC conditions and that those hours will count as experience?

Antwoord: I assume you refer to situation, where the applicant holds a Part-FCL licence and in addition valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country but does not yet have 50 hours PIC time under IFR. Please notice that the intention was that credited PIC time should be under IFR, so including also IFR in VMC.


Er is dus met de nieuwste versie echt heel bewust gekozen om af te stappen van de eis van 100 uur actual instrument time naar 50 uur op een IFR vlucht plan!

50 uur IFR is wat mij betreft echt een heel redelijke eis.
 
Dat is goed nieuws !
Uit het antwoord op het tweede deel van de vraag blijkt dan ook nog eens dat degene die je email beantwoord heeft, echt weet waar het over gaat. Dat zie je weinig in de luchtvaart.
 
Hoe gaat dit alles nu praktisch ?? April 2014 komt er tenslotte toch aan en ik wil graag wel blijven vliegen vanaf april volgend jaar.

Op de site van kiwa kom ik niet veel verder. Bij wie moet ik nu een afspraak maken om mijn FAA-PPL-IR naar een EASA-IR om te laten zetten.

Of is de praktische invulling nog niet geheel duidelijk? Iemand al begonnen hiermee?
 
A

A

Flylikeapro said:
Hoe gaat dit alles nu praktisch ?? April 2014 komt er tenslotte toch aan en ik wil graag wel blijven vliegen vanaf april volgend jaar.

Op de site van kiwa kom ik niet veel verder. Bij wie moet ik nu een afspraak maken om mijn FAA-PPL-IR naar een EASA-IR om te laten zetten.

Of is de praktische invulling nog niet geheel duidelijk? Iemand al begonnen hiermee?
Click to expand...
Contact opnemen met KIWA om de omzetting in gang te zetten.
 
wsh said:
geduld hebben

dit moet eerst wet worden..
verwacht einde jaar
Click to expand...
Flylikeapro heeft alles FAA en zal m.i. eerst z'n FAA PPL (VFR) moeten omzetten.

Voor de Skill Test, zal hij 'minstens' twee (Air Law en Human Performance) theorie examens (KIWA meldt CBR) moeten afleggen. Of KIWA 1:1 R/T, LPE (FAA = Level 4) en NQ overneemt, is 'vooralsnog' onduidelijk.

Flylikeapro, neem contact op met KIWA en start de procedure (Kopie: medical, license, FCC Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit, laatste X pagina's logboek e.d.).
 
Last edited:
Great Balls of Fire said:
Of KIWA 1:1 R/T, LPE (FAA = Level 4) en NQ overneemt, is 'vooralsnog' onduidelijk.
Click to expand...

Het wordt steeds gekker: ik doe mijn opleiding in het drukste luchtruim ter wereld (LAX), waar de controller je begint uit te schelden als je ook maar iets van je koers af bent……en nu moet ik de wijze heren hier gaan vertellen dat ik Engels kan……..je lacht je toch dood !!

Er staat trouwens nergens dat ik eerst gewoon een VFR moet halen. Lijkt mij vrij logisch dat als je IR rating hebt, je natuurlijk ook meteen een VFR hebt.
 
Flylikeapro said:
Er staat trouwens nergens dat ik eerst gewoon een VFR moet halen. Lijkt mij vrij logisch dat als je IR rating hebt, je natuurlijk ook meteen een VFR hebt.
Click to expand...

Je zult toch eerst een brevet moeten hebben om de rating op te zetten.
Dat staat overigens ook in de eerste post:

sjenny said:
A Part-FCL licence holder who also holds ICAO Annex 1 instrument rating issued by third-country and the required 50 hours of flying experience as PIC in IFR/IMC needs only to pass a skill test and demonstrate the adequate level of theoretical knowledge during the skill test. He/she also needs to demonstrate English language proficiency.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top