Simon Hobson
November 9th 06, 09:41 PM
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:56:51 +0000, Peter wrote
(in message >):
> This has just been released. Well done to all those who lobbied.
Well it's kicked that particular proposal into touch FOR NOW. But I don't
think it's as rosy as all that.
> 7. Regarding the widespread desire for a simplified instrument
> rating, the Government recalls that the current rating was established
> by the JAA acting on the advice of experts from the national aviation
> authorities of the JAA member States. Responsibility for future
> changes will rest with EASA. The Government will support efforts by
> EASA to address this issue, possibly through the provision of a
> leisure pilots licence similar to the UK NPPL but recognised across
> Europe. Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to
> establish instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for
> European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by
> experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating
> would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to
> class A airspace.
Reading between the lines I see two things :
1) "It's not our fault"
and
2) "and don't go thinking you're going to get anything that's easier anyway"
Then there's a bit in section 6 that needs following up :
> Our objective remains that
> aircraft based in the UK should be required to meet safety standards
> acceptable within Europe and be subject to verification by the UK and
> other European aviation authorities that they meet those standards.
> Taking into account the responses to the consultation, however, and
> while we will continue to monitor the operation of foreign registered
> aircraft based here, we conclude that it would not be appropriate at
> this time to introduce a requirement to place such aircraft on the UK
> register or impose a time-limit on their activities. We have reached
> this view in part because it appears to the Government that European
> proposals published in November 2005 to extend the scope of common
> European aviation safety rules may provide a better means of achieving
> our objective in a proportionate way.
Which I read as meaning "we still think there's a problem that needs solving,
and we think new European wide rules will address it". Note especially the
"at this time" qualification, which usually means "and we'll be coming back
to this in the future".
(in message >):
> This has just been released. Well done to all those who lobbied.
Well it's kicked that particular proposal into touch FOR NOW. But I don't
think it's as rosy as all that.
> 7. Regarding the widespread desire for a simplified instrument
> rating, the Government recalls that the current rating was established
> by the JAA acting on the advice of experts from the national aviation
> authorities of the JAA member States. Responsibility for future
> changes will rest with EASA. The Government will support efforts by
> EASA to address this issue, possibly through the provision of a
> leisure pilots licence similar to the UK NPPL but recognised across
> Europe. Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to
> establish instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for
> European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by
> experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating
> would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to
> class A airspace.
Reading between the lines I see two things :
1) "It's not our fault"
and
2) "and don't go thinking you're going to get anything that's easier anyway"
Then there's a bit in section 6 that needs following up :
> Our objective remains that
> aircraft based in the UK should be required to meet safety standards
> acceptable within Europe and be subject to verification by the UK and
> other European aviation authorities that they meet those standards.
> Taking into account the responses to the consultation, however, and
> while we will continue to monitor the operation of foreign registered
> aircraft based here, we conclude that it would not be appropriate at
> this time to introduce a requirement to place such aircraft on the UK
> register or impose a time-limit on their activities. We have reached
> this view in part because it appears to the Government that European
> proposals published in November 2005 to extend the scope of common
> European aviation safety rules may provide a better means of achieving
> our objective in a proportionate way.
Which I read as meaning "we still think there's a problem that needs solving,
and we think new European wide rules will address it". Note especially the
"at this time" qualification, which usually means "and we'll be coming back
to this in the future".