Peter wrote:
That’s horrible because a lot of IFR flights may not have a flight plan, or it may have been filed via an agency which has disappeared.
It is also a ridiculous request because there is no requirement to keep these records, even under EASA regs.
Sounds to me “We don’t really want, so let’s set an impossible task.”
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Sounds to me “We don’t really want, so let’s set an impossible task.”
Bottom line is it’s either ignorant or malicious, but I’ve learned through this that you can’t fight it with logic. This process has involved many irrational steps and ridiculous hoops to jump through. Kiwa is universally despised in the Dutch aviation community, because it’s a third party for-profit licensing agency (for many fields, not just aviation) that generally doesn’t know how these things work. A “conversation” with them can take months, since their response time on email can be as long as two weeks even when you’re in an active thread.
In any case I’m not super worried, given that my DE is the head examiner and I’ve got until next summer to sort it out. Worst case is I’ll just start keeping copies of flight plans and rack up the required IFR hours between now and next summer, then send them an updated logbook. But it’s pretty stupid logic considering I’m literally already flying IFR all over Europe and have passed the theory and skill tests. Exactly what else would someone expect me to demonstrate?
Well, they obviously want to catch people who are moving from the inferior FAA system, which is full of pilots cheating and forging their logbooks, to the superior EASA system, where nobody forges their logbooks, because if the latter did it would not do them any good because they have to fly with a gold plated NAA-appointed IR examiner every year anyway 
This sentiment is everywhere, within the European regulatory establishment.
It has also been invoked by tax inspectors who wanted to challenge somebody’s “business” flying claims. One chap, formerly here, posted that he had to dig out a load of airport movement logs going back years.
I keep the confirmations from the Autorouter but I don’t keep the routepacks (which contain a page showing the ICAO FP) because they are big files.
There are similar issues going EASA → FAA, due to crappy drafting of the BASA, but I have yet to digest the implications.
dutch_flyer wrote:
Bottom line is it’s either ignorant or malicious, but I’ve learned through this that you can’t fight it with logic.
True. Not even with a simple “why”. Because the answer will be: “Because we can.”
dutch_flyer wrote:
But it’s pretty stupid logic considering I’m literally already flying IFR all over Europe and have passed the theory and skill tests. Exactly what else would someone expect me to demonstrate?
Don’t ask. They’ll think of something ;)
A quick update on this for anyone who finds it later. Kiwa (the licensing authority in NL) has come back asking me to “prove” all my IFR logbook entries with copies of flight plans
Tell them it’s not good enough as you need proof of filed IFR FPL, another proof that someone sent DEP or ACK and 3rd proof ATC did not CNL
Just show them an FPL on your name on any date they wish going forward without even flying, it will help the bureaucrats to understand more
I did not have an “IFR time column” when I sent my logbook to DGAC, I only kept track of “BSRFI time” under the hood or in clouds (CAA just loves this one), they were happy with my calculations of IFR time
If you have been creating FAA 8710-1 forms for obtaining new ratings or flight reviews, they will often have your most recent experience as of a date of the application. Some pilots will use this when they do a Flight Review. It ends up being an official source if you need to reconstruct your experience if you lose your log books, as you have to certify the experience as being correct with false entries being cause for charge of perjury.
Update:
I submitted my FAA flight plans and screen shots from ForeFlight. They rejected the FAA flight plans because they don’t have a date field. I responded by saying this is ridiculous given I am applying for conversion on the basis of an FAA agreement, so how should one comply with the requirement if FAA flight plans are not valid documentation? I also noted that the agreement states that in the absence of documentation of the required hours, the theory exams must be written instead of verbal (check) and you must have 10 hours IFR acclimatization in Europe (I have >30 hrs). That was a week ago, so we’ll see what happens…
dutch_flyer wrote:
They rejected the FAA flight plans because they don’t have a date field
All of the IFR flight plans auto generate the date field in field 18, DOF/. How far back are your ForeFlight flight plans?
NCYankee wrote:
All of the IFR flight plans auto generate the date field in field 18, DOF/.
My flight plans were just FAA forms which have no date. They’re of course really just intended for use by the pilot and not any kind of official record.
