1 / 16

Licensing Roland Stuck EGU Congress Olten 27 and 28 February 2010

Licensing Roland Stuck EGU Congress Olten 27 and 28 February 2010. Background. In March 2008, the OJ of the EU issued the new basic regulation 216/2008 which extends EASA's field of competence to licences and operations

brenna
Download Presentation

Licensing Roland Stuck EGU Congress Olten 27 and 28 February 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LicensingRoland StuckEGU Congress Olten 27 and 28 February 2010

  2. Background • In March 2008, the OJ of the EU issued the new basic regulation 216/2008 which extends EASA's field of competence to licences and operations • EGU was involved in the drafting of the implementing rules about licensing (PP and RS) • In June 2008, EASA published NPA 2008-17 with the IRs about Flight Crew Licensing and medical fitness • For the glider pilot licences, all proposals made by EGU have been accepted (except the cloud flying rating) • 2 identical licences LPL(S) and SPL, differing only by the medical and the commercial rights LAPL(S) - Light Aircraft Pilot License (Sailplane) • EASA received 11000 comments (!)

  3. Comment review • All comments have to be answered and a Comment Review Document (CRD) has to be published • A Comment review group has been established 5 subgroups: - Subgroup 1: Subparts B, C and I ( except flight test rating), LAFI and related AMCs • - Subgroup 2: Subpart A: theoretical knowledge (FCL.025, FCL.035), Subparts D to H, all Appendices, and related AMCs • - Subgroup 3: Explanatory note, Subparts A, J and K, Annex III and IV, flight test and related AMCs • - Subgroup 4: Medical LPL – Subpart B, section 3, Subpart D and related AMCs • - Subgroup 5: Medical class 1 and 2 – Subparts A, B except section 3, C and related AMCs

  4. Subgroup 1 • All comments have to be answered and a Comment Review Document has to be published • EGU was represented in Subgroup 1 • Subgroup 1: Subparts B, C and I ( except flight test rating), LAFI and related AMCs (aprox. 2.500 comments) • Mathias Borgmeier (EASA), Mike Dobson (UK C AA) , Rudi Schuegraf (EAS), Pamela Campbell (IAOPA), Markus Haggeney (Balloons, GER), Kurt Brechbühl (CAA SWI), Roland Stuck (EAS/EGU), • 4 meetings were held • Most gliding issue were discussed directly with Matthias • Note: the subgroup can only make recommendations, final decisions are made by EASA

  5. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  6. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  7. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  8. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  9. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  10. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  11. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  12. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  13. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  14. The outcome (maybe not the final one!)

  15. How will it continue ? • Following a discussion between EASA and the European Commission it has been decided that the CRD and Opinion for Part-FCL will be published before the ones for Part-Medical • For Part-FCL the CRD should be published by end of March 2010, we will have 2 months to comment, and the Opinion should be issued in August 2010 • The CRD and Opinion for Part-Medical will follow a couple of months later • Cloud flying rating this issue is dealt with by the working group FCL 008. The outcome will be published in an NPA and stakeholders will have a chance to comment

  16. Conclusion • Despite several requirements are more stringent than the ICAO requirements or than the requirements we have at national level the EASA proposal is satisfactory • However we have not yet won the battle because the NAAs may still influence the outcome when the EASA Opinion will be submitted to the European Commission • Especially the LAPL is in danger because many NAAs are against. Also the AMEs strongly oppose the LAPL Medical • WE NEED TO DO LOBBYING AT THE NAA LEVEL IF WE WANT TO GET THE LAPL THROUGH !

More Related