N-reg in Europe latest?

[Squeegee Longtail]

Are there any updates on the proposals by those in charge (!) to stop European residents flying N-reg in European skies?

[IO540]

No, just the usual scaremongering.

IMHO, it won't happen because it is the hottest of all the political hot potatoes.

Anyway, EASA has not proposed anything on airframes.

What they have done is proposed on FCL, and they propose (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17b.pdf) (P159-161) to strip European residents of foreign license privileges in EU airspace. This is obviously equally aggressive and I don't think this will happen either. But, in theory, it would be a lot less unenforceable than imposing long term parking limits (the only possible regulatory attack on airframes) on foreign reg planes.

Those 3 pages are pretty ambiguous and some clever people I know have dismissed them as applying only to FAA - > EASA validations (which I am sure is the wrong interpretation).

But that's about it.

The scaremongering will continue till the last minute - that is how you do regulation. Ever watched Yes Minister? Then there is the humiliating climbdown, with some kind of face saving compromise.

Expect to hear more as 2012 gets nearer.

[Pace]

EASA has already been shown up to be a joke, had its knuckles wrapped and told to stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

maybe the lot should be sacked and some people placed there who actually know something about aviation and who care about aviation rather than the bunch of interfering amateurs that form this shambles at present.

They also need reminding that there are already laws and a body representing human rights and discrimination in Europe and a court to go with it before attempting to fly in the face of existing laws.

Now if they want to be constructive they should examine why so many are forced down the N reg route and start doing things which are worthwhile.

They could then get people to turn away from N reg by putting something more attractive in place based on freedom and choice rather than oppression

Pace

[IO540]

IMHO there is a significant possibility of a meltdown in this department i.e. status quo going forward.

But nobody can tell this far out.

One thing which is sure is that the issue is going to become red hot nearer the time. I say this because every time I discuss this with anybody in the top end of GA (light jets, etc) they (a) simply cannot believe it will happen; (b) are sure to make a massive fuss via top level political contacts; (c) take part in a large scale legal action.

Within the UK only (I made some legal enquiries re that a while ago) the Govt can do anything regardless of economic losses, under the Crown Immunity principle. But EU-wide it is not so simple.

A few years to go, anyway. I am enjoying my IFR privileges to the full in the meantime :)

[Pace]

10540

I hold an FAA ATP and type ratings and make an income from flying N reg aircraft in Europe.

With the discrimination laws how on earth can they remove my income by saying you are European have equal licences to a Non European but must loose your income to a non European.

They might as well say you are black so cannot fly in europe unless you are white.

All I could see them being able to do is to insist on full FAA licences rather than ones based on JAA licences

Pace

[IO540]

With the discrimination laws how on earth can they remove my income by saying you are European have equal licences to a Non European but must loose your income to a non European.

I agree; it is bizzare. Also IIRC while ICAO permits any member state to stop its "nationals" flying on foreign licenses within that member's airspace, this means a "citizen" and not a "resident" which the EASA proposal talks about. Residency would need to be defined, which could be tricky especially for commercial or quasi-commercial pilots.

EASA would likely exempt AOC holders, and this would take care of the obvious case of say a Spanish resident flying for a US airline, into the EU.

The problem is that if you exempt AOC holders, and somehow exempt all those who are going to make a massive top level political fuss, it doesn't leave you with very much - just a tiny sector of light GA, IR holders mainly.

[Pace]

10540

There are huge corporations and very wealthy businessmen who own multi million $ jets in europe who do not use their aircraft for Air Taxi Operations or who do not want the large costs of running an AOC.

They employ crews to fly those jets on full FAA licences.

So hardly a few PPLs with FAA IRs?

EASA cannot remove someones livelyhood based on discrimination which this would blatently be.

This N reg thing has been tried before and failed. They may possibly be able to do something with the aircraft but then there is always the IOM which looks more attractive by the day!

Pace

[Squeegee Longtail]

Thanks guys, sounds like nothing has happened.
Effectively aren't EASA trying to find a way of stopping European "residents" from using FAA IRs in Europe, without actually coming out and saying it?
Their bone of contention is that they reckon it is not as "safe" because it doesn't involve as much study as theirs.
The whole commercial airframe/license side will, I believe, be allowed, but GA will be made to comply as the concession.
Just my pessimistic view!

[englishal]

I can understand the European view that they don't like "flags of convienience". However the way they then address these problems is to crack down and look to ban stuff rather than to ask "why" people use a flag of convienience.

Realistically if EASA turned around tomorrow and said "We'll give all ICAO IR holders who are Euro residents an exact equivalent EASA IR but in exchange then they must keep it up to date as per any other EASA IR holder" then 99% of FAA IR holders would take them up on their offer. Same with CPLs and Medicals. Sure some people will exploit this system and go off and do training stateside, but that happens anyway and the financial impact to Europe would be minimal.

Regarding maintenance and other rules - they insist on re-inventing the wheel all the time. They only have to look across the pond and realise that aeroplanes are not falling from the sky left, right and centre because they have their prop inspected once ever 600 hrs as opposed to 300 (or whatever). Why not simply adopt the rules from the worlds most mature Aviation Administration?!

The trouble is we're European. If it wasn't invented here, it must be crap, right?!

[IO540]

The politics of this stuff is basically "we are Europeans and we must have European solutions, not American solutions". Obviously this is a daft statement which a 5 year old would realise is meaningless but this is how it works.

There is no safety case for banning foreign reg planes from Europe. If there was, things would be very different already.

The thing which works in our (light GA) favour is the picture which Pace paints - the bigger end of GA is not going to lie down and be shafted, and these are the people with top level political connections. It was (as far as anybody can tell) these people that killed off the 2005 UK DfT proposal to kick out N-reg after 90 days' parking. It was the same people, plus Dassault, EADS and the other companies which own the French government, who killed off the earlier French proposal to do the same.

So I remain optimistic.

The daft thing is this: if I was on that EASA FCL committee and I wanted the proposal to fail miserably I would have made sure the proposal was maximally aggressive - just like has happened. If the proposal was reasonable, the situation would be far worse for us. But EASA has come up with WW3. I would be amazed if they pull it off. They obviously never watched Yes Minister.

Anyway, we have a few more years in which to explore various options.

[Pace]

10540

You have to remember that a lot of the calls to ban N reg which then filters down into the lower end of GA comes from the industry itself.

Post this thread in the corporate jet forum and you would instantly see the massive divisions between private and AOC. AOC operations in Europe firstly dont want wealthy companies buying their own jet operation and neither do they want private aircraft undercutting and stealing their potential customers.

A lot of money flows into the coffers from an AOC operation and in turn AOC operators demand protection from the private sector of aviation. The same goes for Pilots who see private run jets as their jobs rather than FAA qualified pilots. Its a bit like the battle between private and black cabs.

So yes the industry sees N reg as a thorn in its side which must be plucked.
But instead of lookingf at why people go N reg and saving a lot of money in the industry by putting something there which is even more financially attractive they shoot themselves in the foot by building in more and more expensive regulations, more and more interference in the industry.
The small end of GA just catches the fallout and in the end everyone in aviation looses.

Pace

[IO540]

Pace - I agree and I have seen some of the rows in the bizjet forum, alleging AOC breaches etc etc.

In any human activity, if a bar is set which has to be met in order to be allowed to do Service X, those who have met that bar (by making the commercial decision to spend the money) are then trying to undermine all those who have not met the bar (by making the commercial decision to not go for that market) but who can make substantially the same money doing other things.

I see it in my business (electronics) where an awful lot of people represented by trade associations (bloodsucking vermin IMHO) are constantly lobbying the EC to introduce more regulation and to enforce the existing regulation. For example there is a pile of big exemptions to RoHS (which is a load of balls anyway, for the most part) which component distributors want to close because they want to force much of the manufacturing industry to scrap a lot of component stock and replace it with new. RoHS has already forced in a massive scrapping of product designs - most people have no idea how much electronics (components and whole products) has ended up in skips, for no reason other than the solder containing lead.

Nothing new there. The world is full of axe grinders who want more regulation because they want to kill off everybody below their level.

But there is a big difference in this case: the international nature of aviation, underpinned by ICAO.

Certain elements cannot ever be attacked - for example the ability of a person or a business to buy a plane (registered in Country X), employ a pilot with a CPL/IR (issued by Country X) and pay this pilot to fly persons connected with the aircraft owner anywhere, worldwide, without an AOC. Any attempt to mess with this is doomed to failure.

Sure, a country could attack it within its airspace (every country has total sovereignity there) but they would face reciprocal action by others, which nobody wants.

I don't see a way around this. Forcing every corp jet op to have an AOC is not possible because of the cost, and the alternative is to make AOCs worthless which no national CAA wants either because they want to charge fat fees for the issuance.

They could screw light private GA (us) but I suspect that the fallout from the bigger end will cause enough problems.

My reading of the FCL proposal is that it was drafted by a committee behind closed doors (which is physically certainly true), populated with old industry hands who were in some cases axe grinders for their national aviation industries e.g. Czechs, Germans, Austrians (but who were not politicians) and they never realised what is possible and what isn't.

Anyway, their EASA leaders would have told them that EASA can do anything. I have met some top EASA people and they say just that. Absolutely categorically - such and such WILL be implemented on [month,year]. A regulator will always say that. A regulator will never say "hey here is a new regulation scheduled for 2012 but if people moan hard enough we will water it down". Have you ever had kids? :)

That's why I remain optimistic, and certainly would not go down any expensive road on the assumption of our world melting down in 2012.

OTOH I would not go down any road which would turn out expensive if I was wrong e.g. buy an N-reg plane and fill it up with avionics which have no chance of being EASA approved. If you install a GPS in an N-reg which is an EASA major mod on a G-reg (but is itself EASA approved), then the worst case is throwing say £2k to an EASA design company for the paperwork, when the plane is transferred to an EASA reg.

But even then there is another level. If N-reg airframes were hit (directly with long term parking limits, or indirectly with an FCL based attack like the one proposed) it would be foolish to assume that all UK based N-regs will go to G-reg. They will be able to go to any EASA-reg. If some firm in Bulgaria is willing to put your N-reg onto the Bulgarian reg, with "no hassle" ;) , then that will be your new register, and the UK CAA (which, unlike every other CAA, has to make its x% return on capital) will get shafted. Of course they know this!!!! How many fans do you think EASA has inside the UK CAA? Basically, only those who left its employment, relocated, and are now working for EASA ;) Of course this is a silly argument; I mean, e.g. Bulgaria and the rest of the old Iron Curtain are pillars of integrity, underpinned by the strictest anticorruption regulatory regime in the world, and they would never issue a piece of paper which........... ;)

[AN2 Driver]

@IO540

If some firm in Bulgaria is willing to put your N-reg onto the Bulgarian reg, with "no hassle" , then that will be your new register, and the UK CAA (which, unlike every other CAA, has to make its x% return on capital) will get shafted. Of course they know this!!!! How many fans do you think EASA has inside the UK CAA? Basically, only those who left its employment, relocated, and are now working for EASA Of course this is a silly argument; I mean, e.g. Bulgaria and the rest of the old Iron Curtain are pillars of integrity, underpinned by the strictest anticorruption regulatory regime in the world, and they would never issue a piece of paper which...........

IMHO Bulgaria won't work as a flag of convenience, nor will most of the other former Iron Curtain countries. They are trying very hard to conform to everything the EU throws at them and are scared to death of stepping over some invisible line. Aviation in Bulgaria suffered a meltdown with EASA taking over their CAA last year, several companies had to outsource to places like Ukraine to keep operating at all.

Personally, I feel the general direction in European Aviation is to ban what can be banned. GA first and of those light planes. With the more and more pronouced shift to the Left and anti-everything attitude, the former 68' ers now in power in several countries are more than happy to shaft the "rich folks" in their private planes, whatever they are. Of course, N-Regs are high on their hate list, a) because they feel they do circumnavigate some of the efforts they do to strangle GA in Europe and b) because America is bad anyhow.

There is no arguing with such folks, they will keep their destructive attitude up to complete destruction of the society we know, if we let them.

Best regards

AN2 Driver.

[Squeegee Longtail]

Whooaa there AN2. Even I'm not THAT pessimistic. (You're probably right though!!)

[IO540]

IMHO Bulgaria won't work as a flag of convenience, nor will most of the other former Iron Curtain countries. They are trying very hard to conform to everything the EU throws at them and are scared to death of stepping over some invisible line.

I agree with that. The Czechs (e.g.) implemented JAA totally - even to the extent of specifically banning the use of the UK IMC Rating in OK-reg planes (I did ask them).

OTOH the Czechs have a big VFR industry to support, and being a small country historically surrounded by thugs they have always had to know which side their bread is buttered, and to sway with the wind :)

But I do think that my comment on going to certain foreign registers (rather than G) does apply.

[africanbushpilot]

I have two questions:

1. Will I be able to legally fly to/in europe with an N-reg aircraft based in Dubai as a Belgian Citizen? As I believe There are many pilot's like me doing exactly this. If Not ... EASA will be in trouble with lots of lawsuits including mine!

2. I have two aircraft based in Europe as well, obviously FAA N-registered. What will be the cost that EASA's stupid rule for me to convert FAA ATP to EASA license....because I am not going to pay this! NO NO not again. I already went to a flight school years ago and already proven that the wheel is round! EASA will pay this conversion or give me a validation...IF NOT...

What they are trying to do is:

-Take my job (FAA pilot in Europe-Africa-Middle East)
-and take all my belongings (Two aircraft)

What I will do is:

- I am trying to figure this out after someone tries to destroy my life: It's gonne be ******-up!

[peterh337]

1. Will I be able to legally fly to/in europe with an N-reg aircraft based in Dubai as a Belgian Citizen? As I believe There are many pilot's like me doing exactly this. If Not ... EASA will be in trouble with lots of lawsuits including mine!Only the authorities in Dubai will be able to answer that. As the government of that sovereign country (Dubai is not yet in the EU) they have total jurisdiction over its land and air.

The EU is not proposing long term parking limits on foreign reg planes. Its proposals are currently to require the pilot(s) to have EASA papers, as well as the State of REgistry papers which are required under ICAO, if the operator is EU based (loosely speaking, but the proposals are vague too).

A summary can be found here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/).

It would suprise me if Dubai had long term parking limits on non Dubai reg planes, because that is a very "African / police state" way of doing things, but I really have no idea.

2. I have two aircraft based in Europe as well, obviously FAA N-registered. What will be the cost that EASA's stupid rule for me to convert FAA ATP to EASA license....because I am not going to pay this! NO NO not again. I already went to a flight school years ago and already proven that the wheel is round! EASA will pay this conversion or give me a validation...IF NOT...If you actually need the ATP privileges then you will need to get an EASA ATPL too. But if the operator is outside the EU then you may not need to do anything. The current wording is vague but it would appear that if the controlling power is in Dubai then they won't be able to touch you.

What they are trying to do is:

-Take my job (FAA pilot in Europe-Africa-Middle East)
-and take all my belongings (Two aircraft)

What I will do is:

- I am trying to figure this out after someone tries to destroy my life: It's gonne be ******-up!There are numerous indications that legal action will follow from commercial pilots if this happens, because converting CPL/IRs or ATPLs is a lot of time (=money) and money.

[africanbushpilot]

Thanks Peterh337,

Most important what is FAA going to do about these nonsense. I invested a ton of money in the USA why are they not doing anything about this chauvinist EASA rule? I rely on the FAA to make some common sense out of this as they are my only hope. The GA is already pretty much vanished in Europe since the last 10 years so our voices will not be heard.

I also hope for the EASA and other license holders to stand on our side as this is really ending it all. Indirectly EVEN for the EASA registered aircraft!

Read my words:
Next attack from EASA after foreign registers will be the ULM Micrlights...I will also back this community...

I am very pessimistic about this and will fight till the end!

[S-Works]

What they have done is proposed on FCL, and they propose (P159-161) to strip European residents of foreign license privileges in EU airspace. This is obviously equally aggressive and I don't think this will happen either. But, in theory, it would be a lot less unenforceable than imposing long term parking limits (the only possible regulatory attack on airframes) on foreign reg planes.

Ah, sweet memory.....

[englishal]

But doesn't this all depend on either the"Operator" of the aircraft or the residential status of the EU citizen ?

So if the aircraft "operator" is in Dubai then you are ok. If you are not an EU resident then you will be ok.

I have a visa in my passport saying "the holder of this visa is a resident of Mexico". Does this mean that I can show the Stazi this visa and then I have no case to answer?

<section deleted by Admin>
[Al, kick the ball, not the player. Personal attacks on other Ppruners will not be tolerated; if you want to be rude to somebody, PM or email them, don't do it in public. Moderator.]

[S-Works]

No loopholes mate despite what Peter 'thinks' he knows.

I am merely pointing out that despite assurances the contrary the impossible came to pass. Makes your move to the N reg less advantageous.....

[englishal]

Not really. I am a non EU resident see ;)

Also the move to N reg cost 2k, which included the first annual...less than a EASA annual. Combined with the savings on ARC fees etc., then I think you'll agree that it was certainly worth going to the N reg.

I have faith in what Peter says when it comes to aviation, because in the past he has proved to be reliable, and his advice is often very good advice. Many people on here are unreliable and spout so much bull you wouldn't believe it.......The really sad bit is when they convince themselves that the bull is true. I work with a guy like that, he bull****s so much he actually believes it himself. He recently did a HALO jump with the RAF Red Devils...never mind that they are actually parachute regiment.....but hey ho, I realized why, I found a copy of FHM laying around and funnily enough it was going on about HALO jumps.....I am sure I could buy a book on...I dunno...saturation diving...... and then go and post on SDRuNe or something and profess to be a super diving god if I wanted......

[Barcli]

Deep Down Diving ?:ok:

[S-Works]

Oooh Barcli, I am so hard for you right now. Must be that stalking thing you have going on... ;)

[Pace]

AfricanPilot

You have not said what your aircraft are based in Europe? EASA have a legal problem with employed FAA pilots in Europe holding FAA CPL AND ATP licences who are also European Residents.
My guess is they will have to offer ongoing excemptions to those existing pilots.
Failing that PM me your E mail as there is another solution in the wings

Pace

[proudprivate]

Pace,

Quite predictably, your PM is full...

[M-ONGO]

Only the authorities in Dubai will be able to answer that. As the government of that sovereign country (Dubai is not yet in the EU) they have total jurisdiction over its land and air.

The UAE, Qatar, Saudi, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain all accept FAA tickets for pilots and dispatchers aswel as mechanics. That's not going to change. That would stump the massive airline growth in the region. Rest assured.

[peterh337]

I am sure that's true.

BTW the EASA proposal for dual papers has been postponed till April 2014 (my link mentions this, I think).

This means nobody is affected till then.

What happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine is that the derogation will be renewed, because the political situation which brought it about will not go away. OTOH the derogation was probably the bribe which the noisier MEPs got under the table from EASA in return for their support, so it may not be renewed. But anything could happen. The forthcoming EU meltdown is obviously a positive factor here.

My advice is for somebody wishing to embark on an IR conversion at some stage, as an anti EASA insurance policy, to do the current JAA IR exams, rather than wait for some future versions. The reason for this is that the current exams are supported by online question banks (CATS and GTS (http://flyingexam.com/) both have them) and having a QB to swat from reduces the workload massively - about 5x to 10x. Especially if you go to CATS. Nearly all the theory is irrelevant to flight so there is no point in learning it. Some EASA moves (I posted one EASA garbage study link here recently) tend to suggest they will not offer a QB in the future.

The exams are good for 3 years from the last pass and that should span the period of uncertainty.

[M-ONGO]

The forthcoming EU meltdown is obviously a positive factor here.

It would be nice if the Americans bought Europe. We could adopt the FAA system, have more Hooters franchises and A1 steak sauce would be readily available.

[172driver]

It would be nice if the Americans bought Europe. We could adopt the FAA system, have more Hooters franchises and A1 steak sauce would be readily available.

The way the EU is going they'll get it for free soon. Why they would want it, though, I couldn't imagine.....

100% agree re the FAA :ok:

[n5296s]

Sadly from an aviation perspective, it won't be the US (which has its own financial meltdown waiting in the wings) but China. Aren't they already negotiating selling Europe to China - I think I saw that in the news? And GA in China is NOT in good shape, to say the least. But you won't read about it here, because nor is internet access...

[africanbushpilot]

Yes and that is the problem...

Based outside Europe and flying to Europe if you have an AOC then no problem....BUT what about me?
Really there are only very few AOC holders flying N-regs to Europe, most of them are Part 91!

We are NOT an AOC holder as the FAA allows certain limited commercial operations to be conducted under Part 91 regs (Private so no AOC required).
Ours is Aerial Survey....FAA; No AOC required.

What about thousands of private Lear-jets parked outside Europe with an N-reg flown by Europeans regularly to Europe?

They all have to go back to school?:ugh:

I don't see how EASA will enforce it!

[Cathar]

BTW the EASA proposal for dual papers has been postponed till April 2014 (my link mentions this, I think).

This means nobody is affected till then.


This is an over simplification of the position. Article 12.4 of the Commission Regulation on Aircrew (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:0001:0193:EN:PDF) provides that "By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 until 8 April 2014."

It is therefore up to Member States to decide whether or not to derogate for flights in their airspace. As I understand it the CAA intends to derogate for UK airspace. However, it I am not aware of any statements from other Member States indicating whether or not they will derogate.

[NazgulAir]

It is therefore up to Member States to decide whether or not to derogate for flights in their airspace. As I understand it the CAA intends to derogate for UK airspace. However, it I am not aware of any statements from other Member States indicating whether or not they will derogate. Which means that in order to stay legal on a FAA-only ticket you might have to make a very awkward detour going from A to B...:ugh:

[peterh337]

Ah, Cathar... wondered when you would pop up.

How's life in Cologne these days?

Africanpilot - AOC has nothing to do with this. However I am sure that any AOC granted to an N-reg in Europe will require EASA pilot papers, as I am sure they do at present.

[proudprivate]

However, it I am not aware of any statements from other Member States indicating whether or not they will derogate.


Dear E,

Believe me, the world has had quite enough of your shenanigans and has seen through your game. It has caused damage far beyond your limited provincial French imagination.

The other day, the TRAN committee was discussing the intransparency and legal uncertainty that port authorities face when engaging in government sponsored development projects. The European parliament more and more resorts to using external consultants rather than have a commission official (style Seebohm) or agency pond scum making a representation. You might want to think a moment about what caused this evolution...


It is therefore up to Member States to decide whether or not to derogate for flights in their airspace.


Most member states will do this, if only for the timing aspects of the legislative and administrative procedure at national level.


Which means that in order to stay legal on a FAA-only ticket you might have to make a very awkward detour going from A to B...


No, it depends on who is the operator of the aircraft you fly and where it is registered.

[Pace]

CJ boy and Proudpilot now my mail box not full :E

Pace ;)

[VMC-on-top]

Pace, I've PM'd you.