CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA [Archive]

mm_flynn

3rd Jun 2011, 18:04

I'm still not clear here.

Where are the transitional arrangements??
It is an interesting document.

there are clearly no transitional arrangements in the document
there isn't a definition of an EASA aircraft in the document and my recollection is the EU reg defined this as all aircraft other than a specified group, registered in an EASA country or operated by an entity established in an EASA country.
the addition of pilot residency in 61 may or may not be relevant. If the aircraft is non-EASA by virtue of it being operated by an overseas operator, then this overriding fact makes the residency of the pilot a subsidiary issue (although slightly different than the EU principle in that it would appear to allow a non EU resident to operate a non UK but locally operated aircraft on any licence acceptable to the state of registry). If on the other hand the intent is to require any aircraft type that is not specifically on the non-EASA list where either the operator or the pilot is resident in the EU to have EASA licences this will come as something of a shock to any foreign aircrew who might be resident in EASA (I.e. A Delta pilot who has chosen to live in the UK)
The language specifically removes IMCr privileges rather than the previously muted 'can't take away an existing privilege' logic. (Worth AOPA taking up the 'WTF you guys promised us that you would address this issue in implementation!!' campaign)

Pace

3rd Jun 2011, 18:25

MM

But as we all know this is all as relevant as the paper we flush down the Loo.
EASA have stated and extended the date from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of signing and agreeing a Bilateral agreement.
If things are to be believed the first part has already been signed leaving the door open for FCL.
We all know that EASA are working around the clock so that the above will never be required.
Relax, don't worry as we can all trust EASA ?
Just an exercise to keep the CAA busy and in gainful employment .

Pace

BillieBob

3rd Jun 2011, 22:52

Given that BillieBob was at the 7/8 december EASA meeting where he voted yesGiven that proudprivate is a liar (or seriously ill-informed) I kinda doubt the value of anything that he posts. Just for the record, I was not present, in person, at the EASA meeting on either the 7th or the 8th December and, consequently, did not cast a vote in either direction. Also for the record, it is my personal and entirely uninformed opinion that proudprivate is seriously deluded - but then, what do I know?
EASA have stated and extended the date from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of signing and agreeing a Bilateral agreement.Not true. EASA are not in a position to determine an implementation date, that is already enshrined in EU law as 8 April 2012. EASA may 'recommend' a derogation to 2014 (as they have) but it is up to the EU parliament to agree this. However, given that the MEPs will vote only as their puppet-masters direct, this supposed control is entirely ineffective.
there are clearly no transitional arrangements in the documentThere don't need to be - the amended ANO must become effective on 8 April 2012 to accord with EU law.
there isn't a definition of an EASA aircraft in the documentThere doesn't need to be - an EASA aircraft is anything that is not included in Annex II to the Basic Regulation
If the aircraft is non-EASA by virtue of it being operated by an overseas operatorYou clearly do not understand the concept of an EASA aircraft - a PA28 is an EASA aircraft irrespective of where it is registered or who operates it, as is a B747 or a Lear 45.
this will come as something of a shock to any foreign aircrew who might be resident in EASAPrecisely! Under the currently proposed amendment to Article 61 of the ANO, a Delta pilot resident in the UK would need an EASA licence to fly a Delta 767 into Gatwick notwithstanding the fact that the aircraft operator is not 'established' in an EU member state. This restriction, of course, exceeds the EASA requirement and is entirely illegal but, based on past CAA performance, is also entirely predictable.

mad_jock

4th Jun 2011, 00:17

From the little I and my collegues have been told there is going to be a whole heap of planes getting grounded with pilots in pokey on that date if they are daft enough to operate into certain countrys. UK should be OK but stay well clear of France and Germany. Aparentoly its going to be ground and ask questions when they have time which with the numbers involved will be more than a couple of days in the slammer.

If it wasn't so serious with guys with familys it would be funny.

mm_flynn

4th Jun 2011, 05:54

There doesn't need to be - an EASA aircraft is anything that is not included in Annex II to the Basic Regulation
You clearly do not understand the concept of an EASA aircraft - a PA28 is an EASA aircraft irrespective of where it is registered or who operates it, as is a B747 or a Lear 45.
Precisely! Under the currently proposed amendment to Article 61 of the ANO, a Delta pilot resident in the UK would need an EASA licence to fly a Delta 767 into Gatwick notwithstanding the fact that the aircraft operator is not 'established' in an EU member state. This restriction, of course, exceeds the EASA requirement and is entirely illegal but, based on past CAA performance, is also entirely predictable.

on that basis one assumes the whole world wide fleet of aircraft (other than annex 2) aircraft are now EASA aircraft and the UK ANO is trying to establish operating rules for those world wide if either the operator or pilot has a tie to the EU. (and the said delta pilot would need an EASA licence to fly into Atlanta as well!)(it is not I don't understand, it was my recollection the regulations FCL, OPS, MAN were structured to try to not claim control of the world wide aircraft inventory)

Pace

4th Jun 2011, 08:23

Oh well 14 exams. Six months full time study for an ATP. 20K cost all in and dead brain cells to remember how many molecules in a screen.

My knowledge and thousands of hours prop turbine and jet count for nothing.

Thats it folks that will be me dead and buried by the EASA machine.
Is it easy to become a train driver?

Knew we should have never joined the EEC

Pace

bookworm

4th Jun 2011, 08:57

there isn't a definition of an EASA aircraft in the document

There isn't one in the amendment because it's already defined in the ANO.

'EASA aircraft' means an aircraft which is required by the Basic EASA Regulation and any implementing rules adopted by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation to hold an EASA certificate of airworthiness, an EASA restricted certificate of airworthiness or an EASA permit to fly;

As far as I can see, that definition includes

"aircraft registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator" (i.e. within the BR by virtue of 4(1)(b))

and excludes

"aircraft registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community;" (i.e. within the BR by virtue of 4(1)(c))

It looks like the draft amendment makes an attempt to deal with that in Art 61(1), but cites the wrong paragraph, 4(1)(d)

"aircraft registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community"

Personnel involved in the operations of aircraft falling under 4(1)(d) are not required by the BR to comply with the Essential Requirements for Pilot Licensing and do not fall within the scope of Part-FCL.

The whole structure of the FRA provisions is pretty clumsy (I'm not slinging mud -- it's complicated) and needs some review.

bookworm

4th Jun 2011, 09:12

there are clearly no transitional arrangements in the document
...
There don't need to be - the amended ANO must become effective on 8 April 2012 to accord with EU law.

If the UK were going to take advantage of the derogations, wouldn't you expect the transitional arrangements to appear in the ANO even if they had to get the legislation in place by April 2012?

BillieBob

4th Jun 2011, 14:42

If the UK were going to take advantage of the derogations, wouldn't you expect the transitional arrangements to appear in the ANONo, the ANO will deal only with arrangements for Annex II aircraft. After 8 April 2012, the UK has no power to legislate in respect of EASA aircraft in the area of flight crew licensing. Derogations are as permitted by EU law and the UK CAA has already published its intentions in this respect..

bookworm

4th Jun 2011, 15:30

No, the ANO will deal only with arrangements for Annex II aircraft. After 8 April 2012, the UK has no power to legislate in respect of EASA aircraft in the area of flight crew licensing.

But that's clearly not the case. The ANO amendments as proposed do legislate in respect of EASA aircraft. They must do so in a way that is consistent with the EU Regulation, and if the ANO were not changed, it wouldn't prevent the EU Regulation from having direct effect in the UK. But the amendments do cover EASA aircraft, even if the amended ANO simply says that Part-FCL, and not the explicit provisions in the ANO, apply to the crew of these aircraft.

Derogations are as permitted by EU law and the UK CAA has already published its intentions in this respect..

True enough, but it would be a bit silly if in 2013 a UK licence were permitted for flying a G-reg aircraft by Part-FCL via a derogation, but forbidden by the UK's own ANO. And as far as I can see, that's what the proposed amendment does.

IO540

9th Jun 2011, 08:59

That CAA page has vanished. Has anybody got a new URL, or a copy?

IO540

10th Jun 2011, 09:44

It's here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2131/20110608ProposedAmendmentsToTheANOLic_v2.pdf)

Small change in Article 61, I think.

clivewatson

10th Jun 2011, 15:49

Community legislative acts shall be drafted clearly, simply and precisely. The drafting of a legislative act must be:

clear, easy to understand and unambiguous;
simple, concise, containing no unnecessary elements;
and precise, leaving no uncertainty in the mind of the reader

Perhaps someone should remind the 140 rule makers employed by EASA of this!

IO540

10th Jun 2011, 19:25

No, this is UK CAA drafting.

It also contains various mistakes which are immediately obvious to anybody who has watched the anti-N-reg proposals.

EASA proposes that the crew to require EASA papers if the operator is EU based.

The CAA version, which is supposed to aligned with EASA, requires the crew to have EASA papers if any crewmember or the operator is EU based.

mad_jock

10th Jun 2011, 19:59

And thats to stop the perm slip crews in the UK.

eg CX and others, so its not just N reg its going to affect.

IO540

10th Jun 2011, 20:48

No; the CAA has no right to add restrictions to EU regs. So this is a mystery; it appears to be extremely poor (or wishful) drafting.

MM_flynn's points above also remain, so the whole thing makes little sense.

In the commercial context, you are talking about AOC ops, and they would be exempted, otherwise e.g. a Brit could never get a job with Continental and fly an N-reg 747 into LHR. Quite where such an exemption appears in the ANO, I have no idea. I suspect it has never actually existed but for obvious practical reasons nobody has bothered otherwise all airlines would have to employ 100% own citizens/residents.

IO540

11th Jun 2011, 05:51

The CAA does refer to the 2 year derogation in this (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/d-FAQMay2011_linked%20to%20paper%20v3.pdf) new document, e.g. page 10.

In this doc, they have correctly stated the EASA position re the operator being non EU resident, and they explicitly state that the N-reg situation is OK till April 2014.

What is not clear (that I can see) is whether the present ICAO IR to JAA IR 15-hour conversion option will also continue till April 2014, or will end April 2012 as it currently appears.

BillieBob

11th Jun 2011, 09:27

The 15 hour conversion option for the holder of an ICAO IR relates to the issue of a JAA rating; the UK may not issue any JAA licence or rating after 8 April 2011. The derogations allow existing JAA/national qualifications to be used in EASA aircraft for the periods stated. To have an IR issued after 8 April 2011, it will be necessary to comply with the the requirements of Part-FCL.

IO540

11th Jun 2011, 09:30

BillieBob

11th Jun 2011, 14:04

I did, of course, mean 2012. Must remember in future not to post before the first pint of coffee takes effect.

Justiciar

15th Jun 2011, 12:03

The CAA version, which is supposed to aligned with EASA, requires the crew to have EASA papers if any crewmember or the operator is EU based.

It would be very interesting to hear from those in the know as to how many operations will actually be affected by these requirements. We have seen a lot of posts about the theoretical position, but some real world examples would be useful. What it amounts to is operators based in the EU and operating "N" reg aircraft and relying on EU resident pilots holding only FAA licences to fly those aircraft. So, we are not taking about dual qualified pilots. What I am referring to is commercial operators, not private individuals, as any change to these proposals will come off the back of the serious economic and commercial impact of the proposals, if any.

Are there many such operators and if so how many; how many pilots will be affected by this and what are the operators doing about it now? Are they just getting on with retraining their pilots; are they lobbying like mad to get this changed? There seem few actual examples being quoted.

BillieBob

15th Jun 2011, 14:16

What it amounts to is operators based in the EU and operating "N" reg aircraft Not only 'N', there are quite a few 'VP', 'M', etc. that may be affected.

IO540

15th Jun 2011, 15:04

Most pilots of non-G-reg corporate ops will have only FAA papers, validated if appropriate by the registry of the aircraft e.g. IOM.

So the effects would be pretty wide in the corporate jet sector.

Pilots employed by AOC operators will have JAA papers anyway so they are unlikely to be affected.

However, the bigger operators will easily set up a "non EU resident operator" structure - if they do not have one already.

are they lobbying like mad to get this changed? There seem few actual examples being quoted.

There is probably some lobbying taking place within the EU. Manufacturers of turboprops and jets will be very concerned about this.

tdbristol

15th Jun 2011, 15:14

What it amounts to is operators based in the EU and operating "N" reg aircraft and relying on EU resident pilots holding only FAA licences to fly those aircraft. So, we are not taking about dual qualified pilots. Actually, need to be explicit here - I am 'dual qualified' in that I have both a JAA PPL and an FAA PPL - but I am not dual qualified in the sense that I only have an FAA IR, not a JAA IR.
I believe the number of pilots who have an FAA IR but not a JAA IR is somewhere over 10,000 in Europe.
I know many of the 10,000 are not commercial, but all will be badly affected - me included. Like many others, I am 'lobbying' as best I can i.e. I write and e-mail frequently to MEPs, MPs etc. - although rarely get a response, and I have no contacts other than looking at the 'contact your MP/MEP' sites.

The upshot will be without an IR, no European touring, so no point in me having a plane.. so like thousands of others in the same position, I will give up flying - in the end it becomes just too much effort and pain trying to dance around the ever-increasing EASA stupidity.

So, amongst non-commercial operators - it will directly affect thousands (plus the many companies and jobs that depend upon the money we currently spend).

Aerials

16th Jun 2011, 08:13

Well said Silvaire 1 (and Sir Winston, of course!). The trouble is that we are now in the very state where "control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing ... governments to a degree which is overwhelming...." Sir Winston was speaking from our free and independant United Kingdom which happily traded with the rest of the Commonwealth and was beholden to no-one. Today, things are very different where we trade mostly with our European neighbours. Our young generation are conditioned to accept things how they are and will readily accept the creeping removal of some remaining freedoms without complaint...and so it goes on. The governments are in effect run by Civil Servants and there is probably more than a grain of truth behind the television series 'Yes, Minister'.

In our very small aviation community with its very small voice, I for one do not have the faintest idea what can be done to turn back the clock and throw off these shackles. I'm very fed up with the current situation. Yours, frustrated of UK.

englishal

16th Jun 2011, 08:23

I'll just continue to fly as I do now - an N reg with FAA IR. I also have JAA PPL along with IMC rating, and if I get ramp checked, I'll leave it up to "them" to determine where I am domiciled, or whether the aircraft operator is based in the EU.

I can't be bothered to jump through hoops for these clowns. Worse case scenario I'll take one last flight to take my aeroplane to the USA and sell it there. I'll then buy a boat, and do all of my flying in the USA.

Whopity

16th Jun 2011, 08:26

One might expect our CAA, whose sole task is to regulate for safety, to make the transition as simple and seamless as possible, but it appears they are wallowing in the mire of bureaucracy and attempting to preserve and emphasise every little piece on nonsense they can find. What's the betting one or two States not far away will just give everyone with a PPL an EASA PPL! At the end of the day its just a piece of paper and all the other claptrap will not enhance safety one iota.

IO540

16th Jun 2011, 08:45

Yeah, but a PPL has never been much of a problem. Medical issues aside (and yes these will ground some pilots for ever) a PPL conversion is basically easy.

The big Q is whether anybody will convert an FAA IR into an EASA IR.

Englishal - I agree that ramp enforcement is going to be zero, because of the impossible "residence" test. It is insurance that would concern me. Insurers love grey areas which enable them to play... they can ignore them, until you stick a big claim in and then they pull it out.

englishal

16th Jun 2011, 09:32

I don't see how insurance could not pay out. You are correctly licensed to fly the N tail number plane in all respects - In fact as soon as you enter foreign airspace you are REQUIRED to hold these certificates. No where else in the world requires you to be dual licensed to fly a particular tail letter.

Actually I would be licesensed as I hold a JAA (EASA) PPL but not the IR so they'd have to prove I was flying in IMC ;)

proudprivate

16th Jun 2011, 09:39

I for one do not have the faintest idea what can be done to turn back the clock and throw off these shackles. I'm very fed up with the current situation. Yours, frustrated of UK.

You're lucky enough to live in the West-Midlands. Contact Philip Bradbourn or Mike Nattrass, both MEP's on the EP transport committee and tell them they should

- Reject the current EASA / Commission draft measure through a resolution for objection - they need to talk to the rapporteur, Said El Khadraoui (labour, BEL), who is well aware of the situation, to get this done.
- Talk to Philip Hammond about the pending regulatory mishap and what a mess the Commission (including recently appointed UK director Mike Baldwin) is making of things and how the Commission is deliberately deceiving the European Parliament deliberately confusing mutual licence recognition issues and equating private flying (as a proper means of individual transport) with recreational flying and sightseeing.
- Ask the Commission to redo their homework properly, so that a uniform licensing system can be implemented without affecting flying privileges that have existed for decades. "Grandfathering" springs to mind.
- Demand from the Commission to conduct further proceedings in a transparent and non-disruptive manner, with clear communications and without hidden agendas, so that everyone involved in the process can be made accountable for their actions and so that future personal conflicts of interest can be avoided in the legislative process
- Demand from the Commission to temporarily suspend Article 70 from the basic regulation (216/2008) to buy time for clarification and implementation.

Don't wait. Get on the phone or behind your laptop and do it now...

...you may have to fight them on the beaches, but it'll be your finest hour ! :ok:

PP.

Pace

16th Jun 2011, 10:22

10540

The insurance would be an odd one. You have to be fully FAA licenced to meet insurance requirements on an FAA reg aircraft.

Example say you held all the EASA licences but not FAA you would not be insured to fly the FAA aircraft.

In that way any EASA licences would have NO bearing on the FAA aircraft they would purely be a technical requirement of EASA.

As such unless the insurance specifically requires you to hold the EASA licence as part of the insurance document you are fully licenced to fly the FAA aircraft with the EASA licences as a state requirement which has no relevance as such to the aircraft.

Pace

IO540

16th Jun 2011, 11:13

Pace & Englishal

My case for not treating this carelessly is as I wrote above.

Sure the FAA papers will be good for an N-reg under ICAO.

Sure the EASA papers will be invalid for an N-reg under ICAO (because they do not comply with FAR 61.3, once you leave UK airspace, etc).

But that doesn't prevent the EU forcing each of its member states to implement a national airspace requirement for the pilot(s) to have EASA papers in addition to the ICAO-mandated FAA ones.

In exactly the same way that if you fly to the airspace of the Republic of Upper Volta, they may have an airspace requirement for you to carry a dead goat in the back of the plane.

ICAO does allow this, because every signatory retains (obviously, otherwise nobody would have signed the treaty) a total sovereignity over its own airspace.

An example closer to home is the UK ADF+DME requirement for IFR in CAS, widely flouted by many planes we know about. Those planes comply with State of Registry requirements, but they fail to comply with airspace requirements.

That this is not enforced is a comfort, of course, and any prosecution would be a bit of a farce anyway once you pulled out a lawyer who has more than 2 braincells and who knows what a DME is, and who would much enjoy having the CAA wrapped in knots explaining how a DME tells you a distance to a waypoint but somehow a GPS doesn't :) :) :) The ANO requires "distance measuring equipment", not a "DME". I bet the CAA doesn't even dream of having these sleeping dogs tested in court because it would show what a charade this stuff is, and anyway they love reading the endless pprune debates on it :) Half the CAA is on pprune, at the office, and the other half is on Flyer.

But the fact is that if you do not meet the airspace requirement, you are not legal, and an insurer can just tell you to go and p1ss in the wind. The insurance policy does require you to be legal. You then have to sue him.

The fact that a law is meaningless (e.g. the "residence" test) doesn't help a whole lot. It will probably just mean that it will have to go to the High Court, which is 5 figures just to get started. Gosh, you can even get a JAA CPL/IR for that :) There is a lovely laid back fishing village in Greece...

The correct way is to fight these proposals, and given the way EASA is set up (in a bunker, etc) this involves informing MEPs etc. Democracy is EASA's achilles heel; they absolutely hate it. The whole thing is set up to use disinformation and lies, publishing massive tomes which almost nobody can decipher, and relies absolutely on the vast majority of stakeholders not knowing what is going on. Pre-internet, they would have pulled this off without anybody knowing.

If the proposals become law as currently written, we can have a fun debate on how to work with or around them. But remember that CAA, DfT and EASA people (including the top people in those organisations) are right here reading these forums.

englishal

16th Jun 2011, 11:48

But by that token, someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A ? Or someone who is in Class D without a clearance is now uninsured. I think this is too complicated and insurance companies tend to look at the easy stuff. In fact, come to think of it, when we bought our aeroplane off the insurers to rebuild, it transpired that all the hoses in the engine bay were out of calendar time (we were going to replace anyway but it was interesting to note that they still paid out to the previous owner after his gear collapsed.)...

My insurance doc for our N reg stated we needed to be checked out with a "qualified flight instructor" before we could solo. When queried, they said a CRI was ok - despite a CRI or QFI not being recognised in FAALand.

(Funnily enough, they said that a buddy of mine, who is a Biz Jet pilot, with JAA and FAA ATP, thousands of hours, FAA CFI CFII and MEI was required to be checked out by this "qualified flying instructor" before he could solo. The really funny bit is that when I wanted to name the CRI on the insurance, they said no problem, but he will need to be checked out by a "Qualified Flight Instructor" - despite checking all of us out! In fact my FAA ATP buddy can now check him out...despite being checked out by him in the first place! - Nonsense the whole lot).... :}

mm_flynn

16th Jun 2011, 12:46

But by that token, someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A ? Or someone who is in Class D without a clearance is now uninsured.
the specific risks seem to be getting ramp checked after executing an Instrument approach (which is the same risk an IMCr pilot holds if IFR operating outside the UK), the other issue is crashing during an Instrument
Approach from a filed IFR flight plan (it is easy to prove after the fact that the flight was planned to be not compliant with this particular aspect of EU law
- not withstanding that the flight would be 100% legal anywhere else in the world). We will need to wait for a case to be decided where the insurer elects not to pay and is then litigated to know the answer.

IO540

16th Jun 2011, 13:19

someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A

No, that is negligence, and negligence is insured.

The scenario where insurers tend to not pay out (if the claim is big enough for them to examine it closely, i.e. 5 figures plus) is where the flight was illegal before it got off the ground

- no license
- no IR (on an IFR flight plan)
- no CofA
- no medical

The above are believed to be actual cases. The other stuff which keeps coming up in pilot forums e.g.

- outside of W&B
- airspace-mandated equipment (e.g. ADF) not carried
- mandatory equipment proved INOP before departure
- actual dodgy maintenance
- legally dodgy maintenance (forged paperwork, etc)

have never (to my limited knowledge) featured in GA non-payouts, but could if proof was obtained.

The more common stuff e.g.

- not enough fuel
- "impossible" weather for flying
- didn't check weather before flying
- no planning

is just negligence/stupidity/incompetence/pilot error, and that is insured; if it wasn't then insurers could avoid paying in the vast majority of accidents :)

The other aspect is that under the UK Civil Aviation Act passenger liability hangs on establishing pilot/operator negligence, and I bet you that this will be a whole lot easier if the pilot gets previously lynched for not complying with some airspace rule.

Pace

16th Jun 2011, 13:25

not withstanding that the flight would be 100% legal anywhere else in the world). We will need to wait for a case to be decided where the insurer elects not to pay and is then litigated to know the answer.

MM

That would be very interesting ? Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?

Those licences have about as much relevance as holding a train drivers licence alongside your flying licences and then having an insurance company refusing to pay out on the fact that you dont hold train drivers licences.

These are state requirements not aircraft requirements or safety based requirements.

As for legal? The avarage car driver breaks the law every time he sets foot in a car but car insurers pay out.

There has to be a seperation between state requirements which are technical infringements and licences and qualifications required to safely fly an aircraft and meet insurance requirements.

But really it just shows how ludicrous the whole EASA thing is and what a complete NON SENSE it is.

A supposed safety mandated organisation (joke) which has constructed regulations using devious loopholes and ridiculous non safety based manipulations to achieve a totally political end.
The whole organisation makes me sick.
Pace

IO540

16th Jun 2011, 13:57

Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?

Those licences have about as much relevance as holding a train drivers licence alongside your flying licences and then having an insurance company refusing to pay out on the fact that you dont hold train drivers licences.Yes; it is mad.

But it is objectively no less mad than requiring the carriage (the regs don't specify the use of) an ADF for IFR enroute. Or requiring the wearing of brown underpants; in fact those might be more applicable to some types of flying than an ADF.

IF, when all this comes to pass, I can get my insurer to confirm I am insured on my FAA papers alone, I will be happy to fly with that. But, I have found, insurers refuse to spend money on their own lawyers, and they even refuse to spend their own time to think about something you ask them. They just say you have to be "legal", which leaves them with all the options, which is exactly how they want it.

proudprivate

16th Jun 2011, 14:23

They just say you have to be "legal", which leaves them with all the options, which is exactly how they want it.

That is not necessarily true. For example, when an insurance broker is faced with losing some nice hull, 3rd party and pilot insurance premiums in the amount of say, £ 5000 or even £ 10000 per annum (I wish I had that shiny armour), it might be worthwile to negotiate with them. It is the insurance contract that counts, not whether the activity is legal.

For example, I know of insurance companies that offer employer's insurance for "domestic staff", even when there is no contract and everything is paid under the table. At the end of the day, the letter of the contract stands, unless the contract is made explicitly void by law. So the contract is the place to look for license requirements, brown underwear and the slaughtered goat in the back.

Undoubtedly many insurance companies will lose out if this terrrible legislative proposal were to make it past the EP Transport Committee. Are Aviabel / BNP Paribas / Global Aerospace / Hayward Aviation etc... aware of what the Neazis are up to ?

Not a bad idea to call your insurance company now and ask them what their stance is going to be and if they don't like what's coming, would they mind informing the transport minister of their thoughts etc...

Meanwhile, back in Belgium :

Aerials :
Someone just told me that the Transport Minister to contact is Theresa Villiers, as opposed to Philip Hammond, but you get the jest of it.

IO540

16th Jun 2011, 14:43

unless the contract is made explicitly void by law

Yes, and my insurance is so.

I don't know if every UK aviation policy requires the flight to be "legal" (the wording is a bit longer than that, along the lines of complying with all licensing and airworthiness requirements) but I think most of them do.

Anyway, Haywards own most of the UK GA market :)

S-Works

16th Jun 2011, 14:51

That would be very interesting ? Having to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft in question?

They are not illegal. Just not valid. There is a difference. You wont be required to replace your FAA licence, just have a corresponding European licence to meet the airspace requirements.

Pace

16th Jun 2011, 15:39

Bose

Sorry you are of course correct! Illegal if used in any form, shape or manner to fly an FAA aircraft Across Europe or the world.

On the basis of this discussion on insurance an EASA licence is itself illegal if used to fly throughout Europe.

You wont be required to replace your FAA licence, just have a corresponding European licence to meet the airspace requirements.

WHY??? do those airspace requirements expect a Brazilian FAA ATP to meet those requirements.It is blatant discrimination something which distastful in any other walk of life. May I add very expensive discrimination.

Pace

Pace

16th Jun 2011, 16:05

Silvaire

Good luck with the westward movement of the former east block

You said it :( Very crafty of Russia! forget the cold war just give Russia in big chunks to Europe and take over Europe through the back door that way :E

Pace

S-Works

16th Jun 2011, 17:28

On the basis of this discussion on insurance an EASA licence is itself illegal if used to fly throughout Europe

Yes but no one is saying that you have to replace your FAA certificate with an EASA certificate to fly an N Reg. You still have to hold your FAA Certificate and keep it valid so there is no relevance to discussing insurance.

The issue is around the fact that you will have to have an EASA licence that duplicates your FAA privileges in order to operate in EASA airspace in an N reg aircraft. In fact it is not restricted to the N reg it is an ICAO non EASA licence and aircraft.

So if we are going to debate the issue it needs to be around the actual facts rather than a tangent!

I don't agree with the dual licence requirements at all as I do not see a safety case for them in any shape or form and yet it is in the name of safety oversight that EASA or claiming they need this.

Justiciar

17th Jun 2011, 05:58

421C

17th Jun 2011, 07:08

I think it is interesting that EASA appear to encourage the opposite, i.e. pilots will be "legal" if they fly N reg in Europe with a lapsed/expired/revoked FAA licence (no BFR) provided they have an EASA licence which is valid

WHY??? do those airspace requirements expect a Brazilian FAA ATP to meet those requirements.It is blatant discrimination something which distastful in any other walk of life. May I add very expensive discrimination

Its relevant if the FAA certificated owner/pilots concerned consider the EU licensing law unenforceable, and continue operations as-is. Its certainly looks that way to me unless the pilot's own national government assigns police to investigate and verify residency, after a ramp check identifies an FAA-certificated individual that they suspect is resident in Europe

I am sorry to write what I am sure will be annoyingly blunt comments. I think you are being delusional on some aspects of the EASA FRA regulation.

1. It is not in conflict with any FAA or insurance regulation. This is a simple point. EASA are not "encouraging" anyone to fly a US aircraft without current and valid qualifications. They are overlaying their own requirements. If you operate a US registered aircraft you must comply with 14CFR. If you are resident in the EU, you must meet additional EASA requirements. In respect of maintenance and operations, these are near zero. The critical one is the FCL requirement.

2. The EASA rule I believe is highly enforceable, to the extent that any regulation is. Let's face it, a pilot may fly with a valid medical but know he has a condition which renders him unfit, or with maintenance paperwork up to date and an aircraft which would pass a ramp inspection, but knowing there is an unairworthy condition etc etc. Some regulations are hard to enforce. This one isn't. A person's residency (EU or not) is not some vague and grey thing for 99% of people. All a ramp inspector has to do is get you to sign a declaration. At that point you can either own-up or lie. I don't believe anyone is going to take this risk flight after flight. It's just silly to suggest it. There is a question about the definition of "operator", which I suspect would easily be resolved to capture any bona-fide private or group flying.

3. As much as I don't like it, the EASA rules are not "discrimination" in any reasonable person's usage of the word. They are simply unneccesary over-regulation. (Wiki) 'Discrimination' is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. All EU residents are treated exactly the same: if they want to operate an airplane in the EU, they need an EU qualification. If that airplane happens to be on a 3rd country register, they also need to meet the 3rd country requirements. I am afraid trying to call this "discrimination" weakens rather than strenghtens the case. I think most reasonable people (say an MEP you wrote to) would dismiss it as false hyperbole and it would reduce the credibility of any argument you make. Discrimination is a serious matter. Unfair and unreasonable over-regulation is too. But don't mix them.

Let me suggest something to get annoyed about. It is a fact that European law since 2008 has imposed a requirement that EU residents operating 3rd country aircraft shall comply with EASA FCL. It is not worth contesting this.

However, what is worth contesting is the implementation of these requirements in Part FCL and the way that EU/EASA stakeholders have replied to concerns about the requirment, the FAA IR issue in particular. The general tenor of those replies is "we have to do it because of the Basic Regulation". This is disengenuous, often to the point of dishonesty. The FRA community are not opposing the BR - they are opposing the specific implementation in EASA FCL. I believe it is totally false for someone to claim EASA "had to" impose the restrictions in the way it has done. The FCL regulation could simply have said that 3rd country IRs could be added to an EASA licence restricted to 3rd country aircraft - exactly as it does with 3rd country type ratings. It could have (for the case of a commercial pilot flying a private aicraft) made the Annex III validation of a 3rd country CPL for use on 3rd country private aircraft a simple matter. It could have made the validation last indefinitely rather than 1 year. The list is endless.

The point is that EASA FCL contains a very onerous implementation of the Basic Regulation. There has been zero transparency in the debate over what this implementation should be - beyond the cursory replies to comment in the EASA CRD. There is no safety case, or any case, published to impose this huge (perhaps crippling) burden. That is what we should be annoyed about, and when stakeholders dishonestly hide behind "we are only obeying the Basic Regulation". If you write to your MEP, tell him that he or she will get the reply that the BR mandates the FRA restrictions, and anticipate this. Have them ask what case was established to select the current, very onerous implementation amongst the many better options which would have been equally consistent with the BR.

brgds
421C

Justiciar

17th Jun 2011, 07:26

Perhaps I did not express myself very well. My point is this: by international rules and by US law a pilot of an N reg aircraft must have a valid FAA licence, passed a BFR and hold a current FAA medical applicable to the type of flying he is doing. The imposition of a second layer of licensing which is not required in any other jurisdiction in the world means that as far as EASA land is concerned a pilot may be flying legally even though by any other international standard he may be illegal. This as a matter of principle seems wrong and violates what courts in international terms refer to as the comity of nations.

To make this work officials will it appears have to concentrate on enforcing EASA rules at the expense of the rules of the state of registry of the aircraft.

A person's residency (EU or not) is not some vague and grey thing for 99% of people. All a ramp inspector has to do is get you to sign a declaration. At that point you can either own-up or lie. I don't believe anyone is going to take this risk flight after flight. It's just silly to suggest it. There is a question about the definition of "operator", which I suspect would easily be resolved to capture any bona-fide private or group flying.

I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement without some evidence to back it up. The sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence or where they are established. So, if a pilot is asked to sign a declaration and refuses, the sanction is what? He has an address in New York and one in London! So far this year 60% of his time has been spent in London but his intent is to spend the rest of the year in New York. Where is he resident for these purposes? If last year most of his time was spent in New York is he resident their even though this year he may spend most of his time in London. A person may be resident or established in one state even if he lives most of his time in another, as his intention is always to be considered a resident of the first state. This is a concept known as domicile, which exists in common law jurisdictions but not in continental systems. One can go on and on. But, in the absence of a definition of when someone is deemed to be resident in or out of the EU how is a pilot to know and more importantly how is the official trying to enforce this to know. It will be a very subjective judgment in many cases.

S-Works

17th Jun 2011, 07:42

If last year most of his time was spent in New York is he resident their even though this year he may spend most

Moot point though as the minority who can claim this is infitesimally small. This legislation effects the majority of average N reg flyers who I am pretty sure don't keep apartments in New York........

The majority of N reg operators are ordinary people operating under a flag of convenience generally for the purposes of an IR. It is this people who are getting caught up in this.

BEagle

17th Jun 2011, 07:43

Originally we were told that it was the intention of EASA to make it 'more attractive' to operate an aircraft on a European register than on a 3rd country register.

It soon became obvious that the lying bunch of €urocratic shysters couldn't deliver on that, so they turned to compulsion. Or should that read blackmail.

Now we learn that, far from the 2-3000 pilots EASA thought this might affect, the figure is around 68000.

The whole damn nonsense of Regulation 216/2008 needs to be thrown in the bin and EASA needs to be scrapped. Then a more reasoned fresh start made. But regrettably that's somewhat porcovolant, so we must continue the political lobbying and public exposure of EASA madness.

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 07:51

Justiclair

How many N reg pilots in Europe have the luxury of spending big chunks of time in New York?
Most own a home in Europe and are probably employed not far from that home. They pay their taxes in Europe. Their Kids go to school in Europe. They bank in Europe
At best they may hold some sort of time share again in Europe.
They will be registered to a Doctor in Europe.

The government will know every detail about them even what colout socks they wear.

The guy who flits transcontinental in the way you describe probably makes up a fraction of a percent of N reg pilots in Europe.
Secondly the onus would probably be put on the pilot to prove he is not an EC resident rather than the authorities proving he is!

What 421C says makes a lot of sense but there has to be a concerted and powerful effort.

A few of us moaners in these forums wont hack it.

What is AOPAs latest moves and advice on the N reg situation and where we go from here to actually achieve something rather the rather disjointed firing off we are all displaying me included.

Pace

421C

17th Jun 2011, 08:13

as far as EASA land is concerned a pilot may be flying legally even though by any other international standard he may be illegal
No. It is simple. EASA are adding and not substituting. If you fly a 3rd country aircraft in Europe complaint with EASA but not the state of registry you are still illegal.

This as a matter of principle seems wrong and violates what courts in international terms refer to as the comity of nations.
It doesn't. There is vast precedent in ICAO and international law that countries have sovereignity over their airspace, and can impose regulations on their citizens, including not permitting them to operate 3rd country aircraft within their home state. I am sorry. There are plenty of, what seem to me, valid arguments, against what EASA are doing and "violating the comity of nations" isn't one of them. Isn't violating the rights of citizens not to have bad, politically-motivated regulation imposed on them enough?

I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement without some evidence to back it up. The sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence or where they are established. So, if a pilot is asked to sign a declaration and refuses, the sanction is what? He has an address in New York and one in London! So far this year 60% of his time has been spent in London but his intent is to spend the rest of the year in New York. Where is he resident for these purposes?
The reason I said 99% is that I think it reasonably captures the fact that a great majority of people impacted are unambiguously resident in the EU. Where is your evidence for the sweeping claim that "the sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence"? Hey, if people aren't resident in the EU and can establish reasonable grounds for this, I suspect they have nothing to worry about. It's the rest who are worried.

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 08:24

This has all been argued before...

Justiciar is right in that a lot of people do have ambiguous "residence". And there is a strong correlation between pilots of upmarket aircraft and people with an ambiguous residence. Half the TBM/bizjet owners I see have a house in Jersey, etc.

So it is the low end of GA that is going to get caught up.

This cannot be what EASA intended, because - to the America haters in Brussels - the most provocative part of GA (turboprops and jets) will carry on as before. So why are they doing it? There is no possible honest policy behind this. It is like an income tax collection system where everybody whose taxable income is above £1M is exempt from paying income tax (they have that in Greece, I believe). This whole thing is the work of several powerful, crooked, dishonest and deceitful individuals running a private agenda within the EU machine.

As to actual enforcement, there is absolutely no reason to think that anybody on the ramp is going to give a flying **** about some pilot's residence any more than they currently give a flying **** about whether he carries an ADF and a DME, having landed off an IFR flight plan. In fact the pilot's residence is a good one level of abstraction removed from airspace requirements which are crystal clear, documented in every AIP, and have been crystal clear since Day 1 (decades).

If they ask you to sign a form saying you are non EU resident you just sign it... so what? The vast majority of the forms one has to sign at a big foreign airport, or when renting a car, etc, are unreadable anyway. Get yourself a mailbox in Jersey and use that address. The penalty is going to be zero because the advantage you obtained by doing that is zero.

The only thing driving compliance will be the tendency of pilots to self police, for insurance purposes. And that will be only for pilots who see themselves as clearly caught up in whatever the final wording is.

It took me 5 minutes to work out a perfectly effective way around the 2005 DfT reg on booting out an N-reg after 90 days' parking on UK soil. It took me a similar amount of time to work out a way for a suitably structured syndicate to do the same under the new regs. And there are far better brains than me out there.

421C

17th Jun 2011, 08:27

Then we have nothing to worry about.....

With respect IO, what is the point of all this evasion/avoidance stuff? Either the EASA regs will not have a practical impact on FRA operators or they will. I happen to believe the latter.

The sort of people who will be caught by these rules are just the sort of people likely to have ambiguity over their residence
I disagree. I think the main intention of the FRA regs was to capture low-end GA. Turbine FRA have always been part of the scene in Europe. I believe it was the growth of light SEP on foreign registers that triggered some of the moves against FRA, perhaps when regulators realised the majority of non-training GA was going to end up on the N, flown by FAA IRs.

Justiciar

17th Jun 2011, 08:35

The majority of N reg operators are ordinary people operating under a flag of convenience generally for the purposes of an IR. It is this people who are getting caught up in this.

Again, I don't know the authority for this statement. However, even if were true, the fact is that the whole intention of ICAO is that it shouldn't matter. If an aircraft is maintained and the pilot qualified to ICAO minimum standards the nationality of the aircraft irrelevent.

and can impose regulations on their citizens, including not permitting them to operate 3rd country aircraft within their home state

But the point is that EASA have not taken the obvious route available to them, by doing what is allowed under the convention and refusing to recognise third country licences granted to nationals of EU countries, which would be a clear definition and easy to police. This proposal pays absolutely no regard to nationality or citizenship. Their decision to try and regulate based upon residence or establishment is clearly an attempt to introduce protectionist measures which will hit any pilot irrespective of nationality who happens to be "resident" in the EU.

How many N reg pilots in Europe have the luxury of spending big chunks of time in New York

I don't know and neither do you, EASA or anyone else, and that is the point. The impact of this in economic and commercial terms has simply not been assessed. You cannot assume it is a minority. It does not of course have to be New York; what about say Jersey or the Isle of Man or Switzerland, neither of which is part of the EU. I certainly know several people who divide their time between the UK and one or other of those jurisdictions. It actually doesn't matter exactly "how many". The point is that ascertaining whether a pilot is legal by reference to residence is going to be difficult if not impossible in many cases.

If BEagle's figures of 68,000 are any where near correct (I would be interested to know where that comes from) then that reprsents a huge cost for either individuals or companies to pick up in a recession with no possibility of recouping that expenditure. It is not as if any of it will contribute to enhanced profit for commercial entities; quite the reverse.

We are not of course talking about people clearly established in the EU because they pay tax, have children born here etc. We are talking about the many whose work or business takes them to different parts of the world for short or long periods of time. They may or may not be professional pilots but they may seek to exercise their licence privileges in say N reg aircraft whilst their work takes them to the EU for a week, month, year at a time.

Secondly the onus would probably be put on the pilot to prove he is not an EC resident rather than the authorities proving he is!

Actually no, as if it came to it the burden would be on the prosecution to show that someone was flying illegally and they would have to show on the facts that the pilot was "resident" in the EU.

S-Works

17th Jun 2011, 08:55

Again, I don't know the authority for this statement. However, even if were true, the fact is that the whole intention of ICAO is that it shouldn't matter. If an aircraft is maintained and the pilot qualified to ICAO minimum standards the nationality of the aircraft irrelevent.

Its information freely out there. It's information freeely being discussed on this forum. I doubt IO keeps an apartment in New York and Pace has already stated that he does not.

It is not that I disagree with your sentiment, the purpose of ICAO is just as you state it just that your argument is flawed. The vast majority of N Reg operators ARE ordinary people flying ordinary aircraft on the N reg who live in Europe with no legitimate US address. The vast majority off them already state the reason they operate on the N reg is the IR.

After all if it was just the PPL then as long as they have the 100hrs they can get a JAA one with nothing more than an air law exam.

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 09:02

Either the EASA regs will not have a practical impact on FRA operators or they will.I have explained who I think will get caught up and who won't.

I think the main intention of the FRA regs was to capture low-end GA. Turbine FRA have always been part of the scene in Europe. I believe it was the growth of light SEP on foreign registers that triggered some of the moves against FRA, perhaps when regulators realised the majority of non-training GA was going to end up on the N, flown by FAA IRs. But who should care? There is no safety issue. These pilots are not depriving the national schools of revenue because they are not having new training. And even I don't go for the cynical view that this is all a FTO/ATO revenue generation exercise, though without a shadow of doubt the FTOs are out there lobbying (discreetly, because nobody will be seen dead doing a filthy deed openly) to block the N-reg scene.

It is purely emotional IOW a private project.

Again, I don't know the authority for this statement.Bose is just winding people up. He claimed to have been flying on an FAA IR since about 2004. The subject of some hilarious Flyer threads.... Pot and kettle.

It is not as if any of it will contribute to enhanced profit for commercial entities; quite the reverse.Because the extra "training" is just a paper collection charade, most of them will go to Spain or Greece, where you can knock it off efficiently, not the pricey N European FTOs.

Actually no, as if it came to it the burden would be on the prosecution to show that someone was flying illegally and they would have to show on the facts that the pilot was "resident" in the EU.In a criminal prosecution, exactly.

Like I said earlier, it is the insurance position that will hold the key to all this.

S-Works

17th Jun 2011, 09:16

I am not winding anyone up IO. Although as usual you instantly take to personally insulting me. You are such a child. Try actually reading what people say rather than always being on the lookout for an excuse to make childish jibes. Otherwise we could start on the anecdotal stories of your FAA PPL skill test...... ;)

As someone who has been dual qualified for many years I should not really be bothered.

But, the point I am making is that the average N reg flyer will not have the ability to claim residence outside of the EU. Justicairs argument is flawed.

According IO's very own words over the, years the reason he operates on the N reg was that he did not want to the 'pointless' JAA exams. Although he is biting the bullet now...... :ok:

The FAA provided him with a flag of convenience on order to do so. If you read the forums it is the same story over and over. Those people are ordinary people not business jet operators with dodgy domiciles and it is they who are going to be hit the hardest by it.

I really don't see what was wrong with the original ICAO agreement of mutual recognition. There is no safety case in this, just political motivation.

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 09:35

on the anecdotal stories of your FAA PPL skill test......

a story which you would have got from your very well known one-time "friend" in Norwich, who I have never flown with in any aircraft... and in that case, stones and glasshouses come to mind, as both of you have already found out after that notorious email between the two of you which was CCd to half the internet, accusing me of flying on fake licenses :)

For whose who wonder why I am doing the JAA IR: I am doing it because my view is that insurance will be an issue for those who do not have a non-EU address and cannot be bothered to organise one.

I also run my non-work time as a series of "projects". I have recently completed one big project, and the JAA IR seemed to be a viable way of filling in a few months of evenings, until I start the next one.

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 09:41

Bose

Sadly in my case I started an IR Years ago. As I wanted to fly corporate jets I took the FAA way right up to ATP as the majority of corporate jets were N reg, Cayman etc.
Ie I chose the path which would lead best to what I wanted to do.
Sadly for me I nearly took the paper conversion through Ireland and didnt.
Converting an FAA ATP to an EASA one wont be an easy or inexpensive exercise.
MIDDISH 50s it frankly wont make sense for me and I will probably chuck the whole lot in and get a piper cub or VLA for sunny days.

I dont have the motivation, the time, staying power or the desire to chuck away a huge amount of money just to do what I am already doing to satisfy some power crazed burocrat.

For me it is wrong! If EASA came up with a sensible reason for all this which was within their mandate like a shown safety issue then I would bite the bullit Convert to a PPL IR and Fly my jets with that.
The owners would have to pay me some other way or take payment through my FAA ATP?

Addendum
Anyone know whether an EASA PPL IR would suffice alongside an FAA ATP? rather than having to sit 14 exams?

Pace

S-Works

17th Jun 2011, 10:33

Pace, I have no idea why you are pointing your comment at me. if you bother to read what I have written I am not condoning the action of EASA. I have every sympathy with those caught by it. However those who come up with methods of evasion are hardly going to do the cause any good.

I have merely pointed at that EASA are not replacing anything merely gold plating for political reasons of which there is no safety case for. 421C has made the same point, the EASA requirements are an overlay to what you already hold and unfortunately they DO have the legal right to do so.

Now considering that EASA are the European Aviation Safety Agency it makes it a bit hard to swallow.

a story which you would have got from your very well known one-time "friend" in Norwich, who I have never flown with in any aircraft... and in that case, stones and glasshouses come to mind, as both of you have already found out after that notorious email between the two of you which was CCd to half the internet, accusing me of flying on fake licenses

He has never been a friend of mine and I was just one of many people copied in on that rant. It was just as hilarious seeing you being made a dick of as you find it when doing the same to others.

The story of your failed FAA PPL test is also just as funny. Of course it was all the examiners fault. A story that came from elsewhere as well.... So lets quit throwing stones at each others greenhouses eh! :=:=:=:=

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 10:52

I never failed an FAA PPL test :)

Justiciar

17th Jun 2011, 11:36

Its information freely out there.

I am not sure that it is freely "out there" and no one seems actually to know what the figures are. But, even if those involved in commercial operations (like Pace) are only 15% of the number flying a "flag of convenience", there is still no justification in putting those pilots and/or their operators through the time and huge expense of a conversion where there is no safety case.

Have EASA filed notice of differences with ICAO? In fact, I don't believe they actually have any standing to do so as they are not a signatory. Adoption without filing a difference will put every EU country in breach of its obligations under the conventions.

I doubt IO keeps an apartment in New York and Pace has already stated that he does not.

I am sure that they don't but there will be quite a number who do. A regulation which cannot be universally, consistently and clearly applied is inherently bad.

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 11:36

Bose

Firstly you addressed your whole post above to me without making it clear that the second portion is directed at 10540.

Secondly I am just pointing out that even under EASA getting a PPL IR is far easier than converting an ATP which is a mammoth task!

A lot of the N reg discussion is directed at the PPL IR so my post is just to remind that some of us will have a bigger mountain to climb if this goes into law.

Pace

S-Works

17th Jun 2011, 12:01

Pace, I am addressing my post to you now, see how I address to 'pace'.....

You are arguing with the wrong person. At no time have agreed with the ruling nor do I support it. I am merely point it that making cries of illegal and discussions of avoidance are pointless. The rule making is legal, has been implemented and we need to work within the law to find a solution.

As far as your comments about refusing to do the ATPL exams etc, well thats your choice but it does strike me as a little bit of cutting your nose off to spite your face. We operate in one of the most highly regulated industries on the planet. We are always going to have pointless hoops to jump through. I did point out a number of years ago that this was coming and I recall you were one of the people that told me I was wrong! Unlike many I never underestimated the venom of the regulators and there political agendas.

The choices are pretty simple at this moment in time. Find a way of getting the rules changed, bite the bullet and meet the requirements or give up flying.

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 12:01

Have EASA filed notice of differences with ICAO? In fact, I don't believe they actually have any standing to do so as they are not a signatory. Adoption without filing a difference will put every EU country in breach of its obligations under the conventions.I recall reading that EASA applied for a seat on ICAO and were told that this would be possible only if every EU member state resigned its seat. That's as far as it got :)

They can achieve the same result using the EU Directive route but yes this could be a long process...

Secondly I am just pointing out that even under EASA getting a PPL IR is far easier than converting an ATP which is a mammoth task!You cannot ever get a JAA ATPL, because it requires 500hrs multi crew cockpit time. Well, maybe John Travolta could afford 500hrs in a sim :)

To comply with the EASA proposals, for your bizjet ops, you will need a JAA CPL/IR (ME). Your existing ICAO/FAA Type Rating is acceptable as it is.

So what is the easiest way to pick up a CPL/IR (ME)? My research so far points at FIS in Spain or Egnatia in Greece as being worth a closer look. I have visited the latter 2x on my trips down there. I've sent you some details some days ago. They quoted me 6k euros for a PPL/IR (ME) on a DA42, including their own (pretty basic) accomodation, and a CPL is I think another 20-30hrs. FIS is priced similarly, and being German-run may well be better organised.

You can also do it in the UK of course and this is worth considering if you need to fit it into a busy schedule. I may do that but if there is any hassle I will give the UK a miss. The UK is a lot more pricey, but you have the ability to do it in your own N-reg plane and you "just" pay for the instructor (£130/hr or so :) ).

This paper collection exercise is a total charade and you don't need to collect anything else beyond the most basic CPL and IR. If you fly a private 747 then you need an ME CPL/IR :)

The gotcha is that there is no obvious way around the 14 JAA exams. As an ICAO IR holder you get a dispensation to attend the classroom but this saves only about a week. I estimate this at several months of evenings, hammering the question bank. Memory retention is limited to 1-2 weeks max so the final month is the most important. I have 2 exams left to do (Met and Air Law) and plan to do 10 mock exams on each subject on each day during the final week, with extra revision with a laptop in the CAA car park on the morning of the exams. As an experienced IFR pilot you will start at 50% and each mock exam is worth about 1%.

The other gotcha, for some people, will be the need to do an Initial JAA Class 1 medical. Being an Initial medical, you don't get Demonstrated Ability on most (or any?) of it.

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 12:29

Sadly one of my co pilots who has now become a good friend and drinking buddy from pprune has an eyesight problem.
He failed the JAA class 1 but was passed on the FAA class 1 and hence holds FAA licences.
He holds an A320 type rating and an SIC which i trained him up to on the C500 Series.
As a European resident God knows where all this will leave him as he will fall down on getting the EASA class 1 medical?

Bose

I realise you are opposed to this. The main point which we all ignore probably because we regard EASA as a bunch of Liars and manipulators is that they extended the deadline from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of achieving a Bilateral agreement.

EASA stated that this was their chosen route blaming the FAA for holding things up.

This agreement was signed barely a couple of months ago opening the way for FCL or so it was said.

Nobody seems to put any weight to what EASA have publicly stated.
EASA stated that they are working hard and wont rest till this is achieved.
Why do I feel we have all been conned?

The only saving grace is in the commercial world where with the emergence of China and third world countries into the pilot demand market and the lack of new pilots coming in from below there will be a massive shortage of experienced pilots of all denominations.

This will mean that an agreement for mutual recognition will have to take place when we exit the world recession.

Pace

BEagle

17th Jun 2011, 12:52

Nobody seems to put any weight to what EASA have publicly stated.

Quelle surprise.....

"If you think we're going to gamble on EASA's guarantees, you're making a grave mistake. So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall... and even then we won't listen!"

Fuji Abound

17th Jun 2011, 12:56

In reality I agree with Bose. The choices are self evident. As matters stand there are many who may not like them but that is the way it is and all the talking in the world will not change things.

It is probably never to late to whinge and protest mind you, and there is always a chance the legislation will be changed. The more that whinge and protest inevitably the better.

It is always worth picking the bones of the legislation - it is surprising how often the regulator manages to leave wriggle room in any legislation - and there will be plenty of people trying.

All that aside I have to disagree with you in your claim to be opposed to these changes. You are being disingenious because you have a long history of appearing to relish the demise of the FAA IR holder and of the IMCr holders, which I think does you no credit because I believe this is to the detriment of GA unless acceptable alternatives are found (which at the moment they have not been) - not that any of it matters directly to me - but that doesnt stop me supporting Pace, IO and others.

Fortunately it would seem you have been proved wrong with reagards the IMCr but I guess even here time will tell - you may yet be correct. :)

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 13:15

So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall... and even then we won't listen!"

Beagle (BROTHER) we are on the same side fighting the same war :{

Maybe there should be more marches up Whitehall or planes dropping the dung from a thousand Camels all over EASA headquarters.

There we are a disjointed bunch spread to far and as individuals much too insular and gentlemenly.

The odd angry letter to an MEP isnt going to do a lot. We need unity and load of marketing exercises to expose EASA for what they really are and what they are really doing.

We also have to realise that N reg is hated in some pilot quarters especially AOC ops and flight schools where N reg is seen as nibbling away at their markets.

There is also a holier than thou where FAA licences are still looked down at as inferior in many quarters although that has not been backed up in any statistics.So while we shout many rub their hands with glee at our demise!
Sad as its not N reg which is robbing them but the huge costs of burocracy,needless regulations and interferance.
They are fighting the wrong enemy.

Pace

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 13:17

Practically everybody who flies GA "for real" and who does not support the IMCR is being dishonest.

This is because nearly every one of those pilots started off on the IMCR, and only through the application of copious amount of money, time and a major sacrifice, including the purchase of a suitable aircraft, did they manage to get an IR which (FAA or JAA) has always been out of the reach of the vast majority of UK pilots.

And the vast majority of UK pilots with the FAA IR did it on the back of the IMCR experience, not to mention logbook time.

The vast majority of UK/JAA IR holders I know have done their IR many years before JAA came in, using concessions like the 700hr route.

It's however funny how many people "go native" and start slagging off the very things which got them going.

The odd angry letter to an MEP isnt going to do a lot.

It does do a lot. The MEPs (assuming they are from a country with a backbone of sorts) do hassle EASA.

We need unity and load of marketing exercises to expose EASA for what they really are and what they are really doing.

What is needed is US AOPA - sized lobbying in the EU. I think there is a certain amount of that going on, but the EU has been very carefully set up to disregard commercial lobbying. Look at the way the biggest GSM companies (they don't come much bigger than say Vodafone) have been forced to drop their ludicrous roaming charges. The EU however remains responsive to political under the table dealing.

englishal

17th Jun 2011, 13:48

A person's residency (EU or not) is not some vague and grey thing for 99% of people. All a ramp inspector has to do is get you to sign a declaration.
How does one test for "EU residency"? For example, I spend more than 183 days outside the UK, often on a different continent. I pay taxes around the world, including Norway which is NON EU. I have a property in the UK and a British passport, but that is no test as I could live in Brazil but retain my British passport, and can even get an address (Mailbox or real) outside the UK for £20 per month. IN fact I believe my employment contract is out of the BVI....

I don't see how one can test for EU residency when several of EASA's members are non EU anyway (Norway springs to mind). And I note that all the documents I have read do state EU rather than EEA or whatever it is called now.

S-Works

17th Jun 2011, 13:53

All that aside I have to disagree with you in your claim to be opposed to these changes. You are being disingenious because you have a long history of appearing to relish the demise of the FAA IR holder and of the IMCr holders, which I think does you no credit because I believe this is to the detriment of GA unless acceptable alternatives are found (which at the moment they have not been) - not that any of it matters directly to me - but that doesnt stop me supporting Pace, IO and others.

No I have a long history of relishing the demise of IO540. There is a difference..... :p:p:p

The IMCr aside I have never suggested that the these rules are correct or warranted. I will however point out that it is many years since I told you this regulation was coming and you, pace and IO amongst a few told me a was wrong and that there N Reg movement in Europe was so powerful it would never happen. I would be lying if I said that element did not have some schadenfreude attached to it.

However I do genuinely think these rules are wrong as there is just not a safety case to support it.

Fortunately it would seem you have been proved wrong with reagards the IMCr but I guess even here time will tell - you may yet be correct.

I don't think I have been proven wrong just yet. But am happy to be proven so. Just don't count your chickens yet.

Fuji Abound

17th Jun 2011, 14:04

Bose

Ok, I see.

Not splitting hairs but I dont think I ever took issue with you over the N reg issue since Europe has such a history of wanting control over its own citizens.

We did take issue over the IMCr and perhaps it will prove to be the case that neither of us was right or wrong if we eventually end up with just the grand father rights remaining. I think you thought there would be no IMCr and I thought there would?

If the asurances which appear to have been given regarding grandfather rights are false then I hope neither of us would relish claiming we were right - or wrong, because that would indeed be a hollow "victory".

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 14:23

Fiji
Under the present proposals the IMCR is already dead and buried.all the grandfathering rights do is to close a blind eye to some people carrying on a practice restricted to the uk.
There will be no IMCR as such ! No new PPLs of the future will be able to get one as it won't exist.
Some victory? Just a false olive branch given with a big laugh by EASA
Here there could be hope by taking EASA to court for endangering the lives of pilots by removing it without putting an equivalent safety rating for pilots in it's place.

PACE

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 14:25

My take is that some people will do the IR conversion, most won't (that is evident from speaking to FTOs; the conversions are running at a very low level) and over the next 2-3 years either the proposals will in effect melt down or there will be some political solution, in which case we may be able to abandon the new IRs and just let them lapse.

The problem is that it is not wise to rely on this if you need IFR capability seriously.

Of course all the assorted axe grinders reading this are laughing their heads off. FUD rules, as always.

nick ritter

17th Jun 2011, 15:09

Hello

Sorry if I sound like a complete moron – but can someone please help explain in English what is going to happen with the IMC post this April 2012 date?

If I have one – which I do – what do the new rules mean for me?

Will I be able to use its privileges in the UK going forward or is this a complete unknown still?

If it is scrapped what will happen when it is time to revalidate? Will those who have it just be able to continue to use it without any revalidation?

Sorry if this is somewhere buried in these past 5 pages, I have tried to read through most of it together with articles in various monthly magazines and still walk away having no idea

Thanks in advance

Nick

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 15:21

The short answer is that nobody knows.

It was scheduled to die in April 2012 but proved to be such a political hot potato that EASA has said it will be able to continue for those who already have it on that date.

No actual regulation has yet appeared saying this, but this looks like the most likely outcome.

BEagle

17th Jun 2011, 15:26

Currently the situation is unknown.

However:
1. Grandfathering of existing IMCR privileges is highly likely.
2. EASA will release their long-delayed FCL.008 NPA in the late summer.
3. If the NPA does not include a satisfactory solution for the future of IMCR privileges within UK airspace, EASA will be told to explain their failure to the European Parliament.
4. Never say never.

Very regrettably, the UK representatives on FCL.008 failed to be sufficiently assertive regarding the IMCR. This failure must not be repeated!

However, it will be possible to continue to include the UK IMCR in 'new-style' UK pilot licences for use ONLY on Annex II aircraft with Certificates of Airworthiness (e.g. Chipmunk, Tiger Moth, Bulldog).

Pace

17th Jun 2011, 15:44

10540

EASA have never said the rating can continue! Only that existing holders can continue to exercise it's privileges ! Subtle difference but a big difference. The IMCR will no longer exist.

Pace

peregrineh

17th Jun 2011, 15:48

I am about 1/3 through my IMCr - I am pressing ahead, a relative novice pilot I am only doing it to take myself to the next level and increase my understanding of flight - I have to say I am not overly keen on flying in IMC conditions!

IO540

17th Jun 2011, 16:00

Nobody actually likes to fly in IMC for extended periods, and it is hard work without an autopilot.

What it gives you is a big mission capability improvement, and a very big safety improvement generally because you can now plan every flight fully "IFR", navigate it using radio nav (GPS, etc) and complete it safely if the conditions happen to be not VFR.

Even if you like flying in nice weather, instrument capability is highly valuable and remains so even if you cannot use it legally abroad. Night flight, haze, etc can be 100% legit on a plain PPL but they require a full instrument flight capability to be done safely.

englishal

17th Jun 2011, 16:53

Reading this thread and others absolutely convinces me that I will never have anything to do with EASA pilot licensing or aircraft registration within the EU
I quite agree. If post 2012-2015 EASA make such and ARSA of themselves to effectively kick out foreign reg aeroplanes and certificates for EU residents then I will:

a) Become a non EU resident and continue to fly as per normal when I am home for 182 days per year AND dump all my EASA qualifications. (i.e. continue as I am now but not bother to have anything else to do with EASA). I will keep the aeroplane on the N reg.

or failing that

b) stop flying in Europe.

HOWEVER, if EASA was clever enough to come up with a simple conversion route to EASA equivalent certificates and mutual recognition and ease of implementing FAA STCs (as most aeroplanes are American), then I would convert and possibly put my aeroplane back on the G reg.

Actually regarding the EU - since the CAA came up with this wonderful ARC (Airworthiness Review Certificate - like a never expiring CofA), our annual costs when G registered went up 44% over night due to the £800+VAT ARC fee. This means that a "no rectification required" annual on a very simple SEP cannot be done for less than £3100 when VAT is taken into consideration (£1800 for the annual + ARC fee + VAT). I must say I am very glad not to be subject to this additional £1000 pa, so maybe I'd reconsider going back to the G reg....

Justiciar

17th Jun 2011, 17:20

very simple SEP cannot be done for less than £3100 when VAT is taken into consideration

Sounds right. Our very well cared for PA28-180 cost £5,100 for maintenance last year, to include a new beacon!

BEagle

17th Jun 2011, 19:26

The IMCR will no longer exist.

Pace, there is still time..... Either EASA wises up to fulfilling their political commitments or we 'go nuclear'...:(

BillieBob

17th Jun 2011, 21:18

since the CAA came up with this wonderful ARC (Airworthiness Review Certificate - like a never expiring CofA)Actually, it was EASA that came up with the ARC, not the CAA.

Jim59

17th Jun 2011, 23:08

Nobody actually likes to fly in IMC for extended periods,

IO540

I love sweeping generalisations...

IO540

18th Jun 2011, 06:46

Life would be so boring if one had to caveat everything :)

Are you looking for an answer?

Out there, there is always somebody who enjoys something. I live below a hill, on top of which is a car park, and all night we see flashing lights up there. Even in +TSRA, they are up there doing their stuff. I have no idea what they are doing of course, but they seem to be quite determined :)

I quite like hand flying in IMC for practice but, operationally, for long distance flying, it is not the way to go if one has a choice, due to icing, turbulence, having to fly at/below Va, cannot avoid CBs unless one has radar, etc.

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 08:56

However:
1. Grandfathering of existing IMCR privileges is highly likely.
2. EASA will release their long-delayed FCL.008 NPA in the late summer.
3. If the NPA does not include a satisfactory solution for the future of IMCR privileges within UK airspace, EASA will be told to explain their failure to the European Parliament.
4. Never say never.
Very regrettably, the UK representatives on FCL.008 failed to be sufficiently assertive regarding the IMCR. This failure must not be repeated!

You and Malone still repeat this misleading assertion. FCL.008 was not tasked with finding "a satisfactory solution for the future of IMCR privileges within UK airspace". The terms of reference (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/TORs1/ToR%20FCL.008%20(a)(b).pdf) are clear:

Review the existing JAR-FCL requirements for the Instrument Rating with a view to
evaluate the possibility of reducing these requirements for private pilots flying under
Instrument Flight Rules. This evaluation shall take into account the ICAO Annex 1 SARPs
for the issue of an IR.

Review the requirements of the UK IMC rating and other national qualifications for flying
in IMC and consider whether there is a need to develop an additional European rating to
fly in IMC with less training but also with limited privileges.

The "UK representatives" (as you put it) were not on FCL.008 to "be assertive regarding the IMCR". They were there, with everyone else, to find a solution that was a European rating. As you well know, the IMC rating does not fit the bill.

Subsequently, you and Martin Robinson have apparently got some commitment from EASA to retain IMC rating privileges within the UK. Congratulations. But that's a separate issue. You should not expect to find proposals for doing so in the FCL.008 NPA, as it was never part of its remit. It was tasked with thinking more broadly than you have been prepared to do, about the safety of GA pilots outside the UK, and how the safety benefits of instrument flying, which we have access to through the IMC rating in the UK, can be shared with them.

If you persist in decrying the progress that FCL.008 has made simply because they didn't agree exactly with your point of view, you risk ending up in a situation where there will be no IMC rating, and the IR will remain unattainable for PPLs.

BEagle

18th Jun 2011, 10:19

bookworm, Sivel gave the assurance at the Kingsway meeting in front of industry and the CAA.

Although the FCL.008 ToRs were poorly drafted, EASA's political assurance was later repeated to the European Parliament. The fact that they subsequently failed to ensure that FCL.008 needed to respect this assurance is wholly theirs.

The NPA, when it finally emerges, will be assessed against AOPA's declared policy.

Pace

18th Jun 2011, 11:06

Bookworm

In previous postings I was always opposed to trying to save the IMCR not because of it's proven safety benefits to the VFR pilot but because I felt it would detract from an achievable European PPL IR.
That should have been EASA s target and the best way of removing N Reg in Europe.
Sadly EASA has lost it's way from
It's mandate of safety and is so wrapped up in it's own bureaucracy, rulemaking and self interest that it is now threatening the lives of pilots by it's political rulemaking.
There is no reason on earth why EASA could not copy the FAA PPL IR in total bar European Airlaw but sense doesn't come into their dictionary.
We have been promised so many things only to find that they were empty promises to appease the people they are supposed to represent and to smooth the way for passage through to law for their own ends not aviations good.

IO540

18th Jun 2011, 11:16

Sivel gave the assurance at the Kingsway meeting in front of industry and the CAA.

I was at the meeting and wrote up some detailed notes afterwards, which I posted in ppl/ir (and anybody can have them if I can find them).

Sivel said a lot of things, including direct answers to my questions afterwards, but he says a lot of different things to a lot of people. Like Goudot, the overwhelming evidence is that neither can be trusted as far as you can throw them. But neither of them actually runs EASA; the outfit is driven by several other people also, and they have their own other personal agendas...

There is no reason on earth why EASA could not copy the FAA PPL IR in total bar European Airlaw

This is not possible precisely because it is American. The whole thrust of EASA is to stick a finger up to America, to force them to sign various treaties on the EU table.

Unsuprisingly, America is not too keen on this kind of thing, especially as they can so clearly see that EASA hardly speaks for the countries which signed up for the con called the "Common Market" all those years before, and this is even before the effective disintegration of the EU which we are seeing today, where more than half the countries would leave if they could, but they can't because the whole edifice has been set up so that if somebody leaves, the whole lot comes crashing down.

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 12:01

In previous postings I was always opposed to trying to save the IMCR not because of it's proven safety benefits to the VFR pilot but because I felt it would detract from an achievable European PPL IR.

I agree. If done in the wrong way, a campaign to save the IMCR might well detract from an achievable European PPL IR. But I don't see why the two campaigns, if carried out constructively and reasonably, could not work side by side.

Both you and IO540 read a malicious intent into the issue that is absent in reality. EASA is overstretched and underfunded, and wants the simplest and quickest possible solution to any problem consistent with what it believes (sometimes mistakenly) is safety. In the case of FCL, the simplest and quickest solution was transposing JAR-FCL. But the issue of the gold-plated IR was highlighted in FCL.001, and so we got FCL.008 to deal with it. A source close to EASA suggested to me that without the complications of the IMC rating rant and the enroute IR proposals, this would be done and dusted by now. But it's not, and now there's a real possibility that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, because EASA doesn't have the time and attention to deal with it properly.

The NPA, when it finally emerges, will be assessed against AOPA's declared policy.

As far as I can read, AOPA UK policy is:

1) Support for the concept of an EASA part FCL/ICAO level IR with proportionate theoretical knowledge requirements.

2) Opposition to any future instrument qualification which does not include approach privileges.

3) Insistence upon the retention of UK IMCR privileges within UK airspace

4) Recommendation for the benefits of the UK IMCR be clearly explained to the rest of the EC

Provided 2 (I wonder who pushed for that one ;)) is not allowed to eclipse 1, and you don't expect 3 to be part of the FCL.008 NPA, I can't see a problem.

englishal

18th Jun 2011, 12:19

EASA is overstretched and underfunded, and wants the simplest and quickest possible solution to any problem consistent with what it believes (sometimes mistakenly) is safety.
Why does it take EASA so long? Why is it under-funded? Is it because it has to employ vast quantities of faceless bureaucrats who draw a salary and expenses to draft silly, unworkable documents?

It I were the boss of some company drafted with designing a new flight safety system in Europe, I'd ask the FAA for help seeing as the FAA has a) the most number of pilots in the world under their oversight, b) the most number of aircraft under their oversight, c) VAST experience in rule making and enforcing, d) huge experience in all things aviation.

In fact I'd ask for their cooperation in trying to implement a similar system in Europe and even negotiate with the FAA to technical assistance and offer in exchange bilateral agreements to make a seemless transition between Euro and North American airspace (surely the volume of CAT between Europe and NA is the highest in the world after all).

But it is not about airsafety - it is about trade and protectionism.

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 12:27

It I were the boss of some company drafted with designing a new flight safety system in Europe,...

If you were the boss of a company doing that, you wouldn't be saddled with requirements to consult and respond to all stakeholders, taking their views into account. You'd just go ahead and do what makes most commercial sense, telling those who didn't like it "my way or the highway". You'd triage the issues into the big ones that involved lots of money, and the ones that didn't matter much. And guess which pile this one falls into... :(

BEagle

18th Jun 2011, 12:57

Adoption of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) would have solved the IMC Rating issue at one stroke.

The JAA was content with JAR-FCL 1.175(b), so why isn't EASA? What logical, SAFETY reason can they possibly have for failing to adopt it?

IO540

18th Jun 2011, 13:10

EASA is overstretched and underfunded, and wants the simplest and quickest possible solution to any problem consistent with what it believes (sometimes mistakenly) is safety.That is true also, but the key lies in the word "sometimes". It is far more than "sometimes". I gather that, right now, they are still opposed to two Garmin x30 GPSs installed in one plane. Well, they allow it, as a Major mod. So, what exactly do they do for the Major mod fee? Exactly zero, zilch, nowt, nothing. It is a pure charade, to earn the fee. You give them the paperwork and the fee and they say "now it is safe" :) And this way of working goes right through about 90% of what EASA does.

So no wonder it is hard to find people who are willing to buy into the "cockup over conspiracy" theory. (Actually, "conspiracy" is the wrong expression, as it implies a criminal conspiracy; it is just a blatent job protection / anti American policy. Whether you call this "malicious", is another matter. Personally I wouldn't; I don't think EASA is out to screw pilots or screw GA. They just run their gravy train, along with countless others in the EU machine, and they couldn't care less if they screw GA as a byproduct of their way of working).

A source close to EASA suggested to me that without the complications of the IMC rating rant and the enroute IR proposals, this would be done and dusted by now.That's probably true, but that is like me crashing your plane, sh*gging your wife, and then asking you for a £100k loan which I need to buy food to survive, and then when I am on my deathbed, I blame you for my impending death as a result of refusing to lend me the money.

Nobody in their right mind was going to trust EASA to deliver an IMCR replacement which was similarly accessible i.e. doable in 15+ hrs, at your old PPL school, in any old plane, etc. when an FTO charges £130/hr just for supplying an instructor!

Sivel, at that presentation, said that Europe must have "standardisation" and this was not negotiable. So the IMCR was going to die no matter what. That is not a good basis for getting support for a replacement. Now, much later, EASA has said they cannot stop national licenses/ratings after all...

The "FCL-008 IR" is a great step forward and I really hope it comes to pass, but I can't blame anybody for refusing to take the IMCR v. "FCL-008 IR" trade at face value, when the latter is just a very early proposal.

There is a number of factors working against the new IR: the long European precedent for fundraising / FTO job protection, the long proven ability of European CAAs to invent new ways of raising money and jobs when EASA robs them of parts of their remit, the long term hate of the FAA IR (which resembles the new IR rather closely), etc. As I say, I hope we get it, but I would never chuck away the IMCR which has done so many pilots here so much good, on the promise of the new IR, from anybody and especially now not from EASA whose chief was seen on TV saying that 10k+ pilots are liars and that 14 exams are "a little test".

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 15:39

That's probably true, but that is like me crashing your plane, sh*gging your wife, and then asking you for a £100k loan which I need to buy food to survive, and then when I am on my deathbed, I blame you for my impending death as a result of refusing to lend me the money.

Our friendship can survive many things. But I draw the line at crashing the aircraft. :)

Pace

18th Jun 2011, 17:34

Bookworm

If EASA are so hated by people like myself and 10540 its because we have seen nothing positive towards the future health of aviation coming forth.
EASA could have used this to deregulate and to encourage aviation to grow not strangle it to death with ever increasing burocracy and unneeded legislation.

EASA was almost disbanded and warned not to try to reinvent the wheel!

When EASA state that they have no desire to implement their threats against the mass of N reg in Europe, extend the deadline from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of getting a bi lateral agreement when most of us know that this is just a smoke screen.

Regarding N reg EASA could like sensible people ask why? If my competitor is selling twice as much as me do I go to court to get him shut down or do I ask myself whether maybe he is selling a better product at a better price.
If I fight him by selling an even better product at an even better price thats how the free world ticks along.

The other way is the way of the street thug or the communist big state!

Sadly they care little about the jobs lost or huge financial cost to so many by the simple flick of a pen! There is no reason or compromise offered to limit this damage.

N reg has been in Europe for over 30 years, longer than the EEC itself.

Bookworm as you know accepted practice (which N reg has been for so long) gains legal status in many areas in its own right.

Surely EASA must feel some moral obligation towards so many that they will damage so heavely? Obviously not as they appear to be doing nothing towards incorporating those people into their new system as painlessly as possible.

More important is EASA s mandate! One of a safety organisation. When we as onlookers see such a group legislating on political grounds and infact legislating in a way which will kill pilots (YES AND I DONT SAY THAT LIGHTLY)

do you wonder why some of us dislike this organisation so intently and doubt their honourable motives.

When you have something solid to print here from EASA rather than the empty promises we have had on many issues then maybe I will start singing their praises but so far nothing to advance aviation and I am not just talking about the IMCR or N reg issues.

Pace

BEagle

18th Jun 2011, 18:09

EASA was almost disbanded and warned not to try to reinvent the wheel!

Indeed. Here's what the EC's Deputy Director General of the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, Zoltan Kazatsay, wrote to the EASA Management Board on 9 Jun 2009:

NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EASA’S MANAGEMENT BOARD MEMBERS

Subject: Commission position on Agenda item 6 of the EASA MB meeting of 9 June 2009 – Progress Report on NPAs related to the Agency’s extensions.

The Commission is both surprised and extremely worried by the paper presented by the Agency related to the adoption of the implementing rules linked to its extension of competences.

On several occasions in the past, the Commission has made clear to EASA that the NPAs published for the 1st extension are too ambitious and could put at risk the timeframe mandated by the basic Regulation.

Precisely for this reason, the Commission already called on EASA, in its opinion related to the EASA Work Programme for 2009, to concentrate its resources on specific priorities defined in close cooperation with the Commission and the industry.

Subsequently, in its opinion on the Management Board’s recommendations following the Agency evaluation, the Commission declared that “it is of a paramount importance to guarantee that the implementing rules to be adopted in this field reproduce the existing relevant legislation (EU-OPS Regulation 3922/91). This will ensure continuity and coherence with such legislation and therefore more certainty for the industry. It will also allow the Agency to immediately start carrying out the related standardisation inspections. All efforts should be deployed to avoid any delay in the adoption of the implementing rules”.

The Commission notes that, to this date, EASA does not propose practicable solutions to ensure that the implementing rules related to the EASA extension of competences would be adopted within the timeframe indicated by the co-legislators and contained in the basic Regulation.

The reviewed calendar of rulemaking attached to the Agency’s paper is unacceptable because it will be impossible for the Community institutions and the Member States to process simultaneously an estimate of 16 EASA opinions within 15 months.

In addition, the deadlines for adoption by the Commission of the implementing rules related to the 2nd extension contained in the attached planned rulemaking calendar are clearly going beyond the legal constraints (i.e. 31.12.2012 for ATM and 31.12.2013 for aerodromes).

In the light of all the above and responding to the invitation made in the EASA Progress Report on NPAs, the Commission believes that time has come to take clear decisions to steer the Agency in a different direction. In this respect it is essential to carefully consider the alternative of going back to the original structure, and wording (whenever possible) of JARs and ICAO requirements which should be transposed into Community law. This would certainly ensure a smooth transition and allow EASA to work calmly in the future on the ambitious improvements and shifts which have raised general concern and misunderstandings both from Member States and stakeholders alike.

The Commission strongly believes that the time has come to give a clear signal in this direction. This will allow first and foremost to ensure safety (since the present system gives enough guarantees), it would also allow to respect the legal and institutional deadlines laid down by the Member States and the European Parliament while at the same time paving the way towards a smooth improvement of the system in the coming years, in full cooperation with the Member States and all the stakeholders.

In any event, the Commission reserves the right, in order to comply with the legal and institutional obligations imposed on it by the basic Regulation, to proceed along the line described above.

The Commission draws the attention of the Management Board of the Agency in relation to this important matter, where time has come to steer the work of the Agency in a clearer and more effective direction in order to allow the Community discharge itself of its obligations in full compliance with Community law.

Best Regards,

(Zoltan Kazatsay)

robin

18th Jun 2011, 18:27

So given the b*lls-up they have made of this, what sanctions are being taken against EASA?

Answers on the head of a pin.....:ugh:

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 19:13

Indeed. Here's what the EC's Deputy Director General of the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, Zoltan Kazatsay, wrote to the EASA Management Board on 9 Jun 2009

Here are the minutes of the EASA MB meeting of 9 June 2009 (http://www.easa.europa.eu/management-board/docs/management-board-meetings/2009/02/EASA%20MB%2003-2009%20Minutes%20MB%2002-2009.pdf) which he refers to. They kissed and made up (http://www.easa.europa.eu/communications/press-releases/attachment/Commission%20EASA%20joint%20position%20MB%2015%2009%2009.pdf ) very quickly.

What you don't seem to get, BEagle, is that the Commission is pressing EASA to transpose EU-OPS, JAR and ICAO requirements directly into Community law. They're not pressing EASA to make the rules easier, or lighter. They're saying, "don't spend so much time trying to adapt them to fit modern European needs, just get on with it". There is no JAR IMC rating. There is no ICAO IMC rating. Have you read the stuff that comes out of ICAO?! It's cooked up by the need for consensus between states trying to agree an international standard, it's not designed to be transposed directly into law. If EASA does what the Commission wants and just takes the path of least resistance, we lose out, in more ways than just the IMC rating.

BEagle

18th Jun 2011, 19:18

....the Commission is pressing EASA to transpose EU-OPS, JAR and ICAO requirements directly into Community law.

So why won't they 'transpose' JAR-FCL 1.175?

JAR–FCL 1.175 Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required

(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.

(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.

Basically, if it doesn't suit the Germans, it won't happen......

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 19:21

More important is EASA s mandate! One of a safety organisation. When we as onlookers see such a group legislating on political grounds and infact legislating in a way which will kill pilots (YES AND I DONT SAY THAT LIGHTLY)

They're not "legislating on political grounds". They honestly believe that the way to create safety is by having more rules. I have spent a long time trying to explain why they are "in fact legislating in a way which will kill pilots", but the mentality of a regulator is a simplistic belief that regulation is the best way to enhance safety. Got a hammer? Ooh look, a nail! But it is getting through, slowly but surely...

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 19:31

So why won't they 'transpose' JAR-FCL 1.175?

I imagine it's because "national qualifications" cannot be used on EASA aircraft. But that's for you to press for, if you want the UK to retain the IMC rating.

Basically, if it doesn't suit the Germans, it won't happen...

The Germans (the LBA) don't engage with EASA.

Fuji Abound

18th Jun 2011, 19:34

Both you and IO540 read a malicious intent into the issue that is absent in reality

Bookworm if you believe that you are either dilluded or have a very different definition of malicious.

BillieBob

18th Jun 2011, 19:51

It is true that there is no malicious intent on the part of EASA personnel insofar as they do not deliberately set out to do damage to the industry. However, it is also true that the motives of the movers and shakers in Cologne are purely political; the health of the industry and safety are both so far down their list of priorities as to be invisible. In pursuit of their political ends, they have absolutely no consideration of the effect that the means they employ will have on the individual pilot or on any part of the aviation industry. Lies and broken promises are the stock in trade in a world where the end entirely justifies the means, however despicable.

IO540

18th Jun 2011, 20:28

The Germans (the LBA) don't engage with EASA.

That's an interesting statement.

bookworm

18th Jun 2011, 20:41

Bookworm if you believe that you are either dilluded or have a very different definition of malicious.

I may need dilaudid, but that's different. :)

BillieBob, you might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

Fuji Abound

19th Jun 2011, 07:44

Bookworm - you may well, certainly there are some that need to keep taking the tablets. ;)

The easa mailbox is overflowing with poison pen letters and i doubt committee members can turn their backs without dark mutterings from some pilot or another.

I can accept in all this they may have been striving to obtain a standard not tarnished by national exceptions but their abject failure to address the problem areas that cause their mailboxes to overflow is inexcusable.

This has nothing to do with creating more rules in the belief it promotes safety or right or wrong campaigns, that is just to excuse the failure of this process, it has everything to do with the ability of certain groups and individuals to promote their own agendas; i would not so readily let them off the hook as you appear to do.

That said for various reasons i have lost faith in the opposition process so long may the debate continue but i suspect the outcome is already well rehearsed and these debates will serve little purpose.

Pace

19th Jun 2011, 07:59

They're not "legislating on political grounds". They honestly believe that the way to create safety is by having more rules. I have spent a long time trying to explain why they are "in fact legislating in a way which will kill pilots", but the mentality of a regulator is a simplistic belief that regulation is the best way to enhance safety. Got a hammer? Ooh look, a nail! But it is getting through, slowly but surely...

More rules equals more cost and more restriction not greater safety.

Obviously there have to be regulations but they should be built around plugging known safety holes.

EASA as a aviation safety body should be doing just that.

By eliminating the IMCR and N reg in Europe and forcing those pilots into flying in minimum VFR conditions their regulating will actually kill pilots.
The french VFR accident statistics are a good example of how our accident rates will increase without the IMCR.

I Tend to think that EASA should look at a PPL IR American style or if thats not acceptable a mini IR on route to a full IR under their present system.

But to put nothing in place will just kill pilots and that is not acceptable from EASA a safety organisation.

Pace

bookworm

19th Jun 2011, 09:26

i would not so readily let them off the hook as you appear to do.

I doubt they'd view me as "letting them off the hook". We'll have to agree to differ on motivation then.

More rules equals more cost and more restriction not greater safety.
...
But to put nothing in place will just kill pilots and that is not acceptable from EASA a safety organisation.

I couldn't agree more.

Fuji Abound

19th Jun 2011, 11:36

Bookworm

I also doubt it, but there is a danger that we (you and others) create a sense that we should excuse them for what they do. With apologies (to you) that was the message your posts conveyed to me. In reality their motivation is irrelevant although i accept that in understanding their motivation we may have more chance of persuading them of the error of their ways.

Thank you never the less for your insight, how do you know it is correct?

bookworm

19th Jun 2011, 13:24

Bookworm, do you have any notion of the EASA thinking around the fact that the proposed 3rd Country Flight Crew Licensing seems to penalise EU citizens, whereas non-EU citizens can carry on as before.

This went into the Basic Regulation a long time ago, cjboy.

The NPA (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/npa_02_2004.pdf) asked:

a) Third country aircraft
17. As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically
demonstrated by recent accidents, that commercial operations in the Community of third
country operators shall be covered. This is the way the United States of America do
currently with Federal Aviation Regulation called Part 129. This is less clear for other
forms of operations. There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in
Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a
proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape
local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing
some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in
accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.

Question 3: Do stakeholders agree that third country aircraft used for non-commercial
activities in the Community by third country operators should be subject to Community
legislation?

EASA's Opinion (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/03_2004/easa_opinion_03_2004_en.pdf) of 2004 has para 22:

22. Concerning non-commercial activities of third country aircraft operated by third
country operators, the Agency agreed with many comments received that it would
be disproportionate to establish Community competence just to address the issue
of foreign aircraft more or less permanently based in the territory of Member
States. This indeed can be best addressed by adapting the text of Article 4(1)(c) of
the Basic Regulation so as to submit aircraft registered in a third country used in
the territory of Member States by a person residing in a Member State to the same
requirements as EU registered aircraft. Nevertheless, in doing so the Community
does not provide itself with the necessary tools to enforce on third country aircraft
the provisions needed to ensure the safety of flights in European airspace when
such safety requires specific equipment to be available on board, appropriate
qualifications to be held by the crew or specific procedures to be followed. At a
time when the Community has established its competence to implement the
European Single Sky, it would hardly be understandable if it did not put in place
the tools it needs to enforce the related operational specifications.

The issue appears to be about enforcement and control. Rumour has it that when an NAA official wanted to enforce ICAO standards on an EU-resident N-reg operator, the operator simply pointed to the N registration and made a slightly less than cordial gesture at the NAA official, knowing that they would get no assistance from the FAA. Article 4(c) was an overzealous payback for the gesture, a "last laugh". But I'm sure that's just rumour... Because if it were true, it would be verging on malicious wouldn't it? ;)

I think EASA risks damaging EU aviation safety with Article 4(c), as well as having a negative economic impact, for all the reasons Pace cites. But it's a done deal, as the BR became law years ago.

Various stakeholders expected Art 7(6)(e)

6. The measures designed to amend non-essential elements of
this Article by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance
with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in
Article 65(4). Those measures shall specify in particular:
...
(e) without prejudice to the provisions of bilateral agreements
concluded in accordance with Article 12, the conditions for
the acceptance of licences from third countries;

to result in IRs that were rather more liberal than they have turned out, with light rules for acceptance of third-country licences. But the problem is that that would have taken substantially more time and effort to draft and agree than EASA has had available in the preparation of Part-FCL. So we got the simplest possible transposition of JAR-FCL's provisions for validation and conversion of third-country licences.

Just a personal opinion.

IO540

19th Jun 2011, 15:03

The problem is that this

17. As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically demonstrated by recent accidents, that commercial operations in the Community of third country operators shall be covered. This is the way the United States of America do currently with Federal Aviation Regulation called Part 129. This is less clear for other forms of operations. There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing
some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.

is dishonest bullsh*t. There is no safety case supporting this. What "recent accidents" that are statistically significant against the demostic reg fleet? The accident rate of foreign regs is actually lower than domestic regs. Hardly suprising when you land at random airports and see most of the nice hardware being foreign reg whereas the stuff with grass growing around the (somtimes flat) tyres is some clapped out domestic reg.

This

Rumour has it that when an NAA official wanted to enforce ICAO standards on an EU-resident N-reg operator, the operator simply pointed to the N registration and made a slightly less than cordial gesture at the NAA official, knowing that they would get no assistance from the FAA. Article 4(c) was an overzealous payback for the gesture, a "last laugh". But I'm sure that's just rumour... Because if it were true, it would be verging on malicious wouldn't it?is a standard way of getting something through. It's a malicious rumour, and confirms that the anti N reg proposals are the private project of some individuals. Hitler uses these methods to rally the German population against the Jews. Actually the rumour I heard is that it was Sivel himself who was the subject of some one-finger gesture. It is also bullsh*t because every CAA has the right to inspect and ground an unsafe aircraft. The UK CAA has grounded some foreign airliners, with some Thai one a famous example.

What each CAA can't do, I gather, is inspect an aircraft to see if it complies with State of Registry maintenance requirements, in detail.

Sivel told me, personally, that the CAAs will get this power, and a power to impose fines if non-compliant, and that this would be the full extent of the anti N reg measures. This was in 2008.

But it's a done deal, as the BR became law years ago. The principle is, but the principle has always existed. Like I say above, the oversight has always existed, to a sufficient degree.

The BR is vague enough to be aligned with the existing system, which was previously not explicitly stated.

The BR got through because it is so vague it means more or less nothing that doesn't happen already, as a result of each EU country having a sovereignity within its own airspace. If you propose a law saying the foregoing, as the BR does, of course everybody is going to vote for it, because to do otherwise is to chuck away the sovereignity!

What EASA did was propose a law along the lines of Bob Geldof saying on stage "tonight we will abolish poverty".

Pace

19th Jun 2011, 17:46

Bookworm

I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?

The FAA are still ultimately responsable for the aircraft and licences, The EASA licences hold no relevance and are not legal to be used on the FAA aircraft.

EASA Licences would be an EASA requirement to hold to be able to fly N reg in Europe.

A far cheaper, fairer and easier way to give EASA that control would be by operating a system that is already in place.

EASA could issue ongoing annual excemptions from holding those licences.

Naturally those excemptions are not there by right so that any misbehaving EU resident flying N reg would not have that excemption renewed until the authorities agreed to do so or the misbehaving pilot complied.

Pace

englishal

19th Jun 2011, 18:19

I don't understand why it is so hard for EASA to "control" foreign aircraft. If an EASA man ramp checked me somewhere and said "ok lets see evidence of your last annual, and as you were flying IFR evidence of your pitot static checks, as per the FAA FARs". Easy peasy. Even I could ramp check IO540 and find out if he was flying legally or not.

On a related note, on our G reg some years ago, we "forgot" an annual. It transpired it expired 7 months previously (on checking the logbooks because we thought it was sometime around *now*).....Of course this was pre ARC and all that wonderfully expensive stuff, but we even forgot a calendar 6 monthly once too....

...soooo my question is....how does being on the G or N make any difference to oversight?

One other question I have - how come our ARCs were completed year on year without the ARC man ever seeing our aeroplane, and how come when we decided to sell it, he wanted to see it to cover his arse and then managed to draw up a list of things requiring attention?

I just can't see this having ANY safety impact.

(and the EU residency thing is bull**** anyway, no one has managed to state what will happen to Norwegian's flying N reg's?).

bookworm

19th Jun 2011, 18:22

I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?

I'm just responding to cjboy's question "do you have any notion of the EASA thinking around..." I'm not saying for a moment that I agree that it makes sense. Despite some perceptions here, I'm not an apologist for EASA's strategy or tactics. But I agree with Fuji that "in understanding their motivation we may have more chance of persuading them of the error of their ways".

IO540

19th Jun 2011, 19:08

I am sorry but I fail to see how making resident EU citizens hold equivalent licences will give EASA more control over N reg in Europe?It doesn't.

It is just a finger up to America.

Anyway, the EASA-required license isn't "equivalent". EASA accepts your existing ICAO Type Rating so e.g. a Lear pilot "merely" needs to pass the 14 CPL/IR 95%-garbage exams and get a JAA CPL/IR (ME) in a beaten up Seminole. If it is his own Lear then he just need to get a JAA PPL/IR (ME).

Like I say, it is just a "we are Europe and we do our own thing here, so a finger up to you" to the USA.

in understanding their motivation we may have more chance of persuading them of the error of their ways

Knowing your enemy always helps but in EASA's case everybody can see they are a load of political crooks, who don't listen.

One could influence minor aspects of their rulemaking but the big stuff is the private project of a small number of top people there and they won't budge unless comprehensively defeated by the EU parliament, or forced down by some directive from above which will prob99 be under the table.

Fuji Abound

19th Jun 2011, 20:39

It doesnt

Are you sure.

Bookworm has a point that it could be perceived faa pilots and n reg aitcraft "hide" behind their papers. I am not suggesting their papers are any more or less gold plated but enforcement action when required is likely to be more challenging

IO540

19th Jun 2011, 21:15

It depends on whether you consider theory or practice.

Sure the FAA doesn't bust pilots over here. But no CAA can bust pilots outside its own country; they rely on ICAO provisions whereby the State where the pilot can be "found" is supposed to go after the pilot. I know from my own experience that this can happen :)

But no European CAA does any meaningful ramp checks anyway, and the UK CAA does virtually nothing (on GA).

What the CAAs tend to do is do nothing, until somebody really p*sses them off and then go and bust him. The UK CAA has busted pilots who flew on FAA papers and who p*ssed them off by doing something provocative; the CAA can refuse to recognise non-UK papers (including medicals) in UK airspace.

Whereas the FAA is very pro-active in going after transgressions in the USA... and I am sure that if an American pilot did something bad over here, and the UK CAA complained to the FAA about it, the FAA would go after him - assuming he is USA resident of course so they can get hold of him.

So all this stuff about "oversight" is all meaningless really because the domestic CAAs don't do any oversight on their own fleets, and if they really did and did it 100% diligently, much of European GA, not to mention a lot of flight training planes, would be grounded. A lot of maintenance companies, including EASA-145-approved ones, would also be shut down immediately. There is clear circumstantial evidence that nobody touches organisations which pay fat fees to the CAAs, and that includes maintenance companies, and anybody with an AOC.

I have met some idiot pilots on the FAA scene here who told me straight that nobody can touch them, and this included some instructors, and we all know the stories of some UK-based FAA training ops where the wheels came right off (the Cessna twin fatal crash being one of the more famous ones) but this is no worse than what goes on on the domestic reg scene all the time, where a certain % of pilots are idiots too, and a certain % of instructors are cowboys (as I well know too).

S-Works

20th Jun 2011, 06:08

I have met some idiot pilots on the FAA scene here who told me straight that nobody can touch them, and this included some instructors, and we all know the stories of some UK-based FAA training ops where the wheels came right off (the Cessna twin fatal crash being one of the more famous ones) but this is no worse than what goes on on the domestic reg scene all the time, where a certain % of pilots are idiots too, and a certain % of instructors are cowboys (as I well know too).

Which Cessna twin crash?

Pace

20th Jun 2011, 07:31

Which Cessna twin crash?

Bose

I would imagine he is talking about the Biggin Hill Citation crash?

Regardless there are stupid pilot error crashes on both regs.

The main point here is that having dual licences wont give EASA that control over incidents in FAA aircraft that they dont have at present.

All they could do is to threaten to suspend the EASA licence bit thus making future flights illegal but that would also work by letting European Residents fly on their existing licences on annual continuing excemptions.

So we have to beg the question WHY!!!

Is it because N reg is now so prolific in Europe that EASA just want to stop them? Or some sort of protectionism?

If thats the case why dont they just do what most people do in a free world and offer something equally attractive instead off beating the people they are supposed to represent into submission.

I am actually starting to smell a possible court case against EASA if they remove N reg IRs and the IMCR and put nothing comparable in its place.
The accident statistics for those pilots will without doubt increase and EASA will go to court for killing pilots through their legislation.

That with their mandate of a safety legislator makes the whole thing laughable if it wasnt so serious.

Somehow I dont think EASA have really thought all this out or realised the possible consequences or more likely have just tried to find a legal solution to N reg and dont want to think through the consequences.

Pace

BEagle

20th Jun 2011, 08:18

I do hope that all those expressing their concern on this forum about the €urocratic nonsense which is EASA will have expressed the same concern to their MEPs!

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 08:42

It wasn't the Biggin one I was referring to. That one may have been an illegal charter but that would have been due to lack of an AOC, not because the plane itself was N-reg. Loads of illegal charter is done in G-regs.

Is it because N reg is now so prolific in Europe that EASA just want to stop them?I think EASA is acting on under the table pressure from the usual axe grinders (FTOs, assorted envy merchants, national CAAs after some revenue, etc) to curb the N-reg community.

They would have examined the obvious option which is a long term parking ban (tried by France and the UK in 2004/05, and still sporadically and of-necessity arbitrarily practiced in Denmark, and practiced similarly in much of the 3rd world) and found that it cannot be enforced without huge complications, so they looked at other ways, and creating a requirement for a second set of hard-to-get papers is an easy thing to draft and, once it is law, most pilots (who consider themselves affected) will self-enforce in order to maintain their insurance.

They will either stop flying overt IFR (basically, fly VFR in both VMC and IMC, and ask for a popup IFR clearance when absolutely necessary; not exactly a safe procedure), or they will do the exams etc, or they will give up flying long distances.

The FTO pressure would have come from the elitist N European FTOs but they are not the ones who will be making money out of this; most IR conversions will be done in Spain and Greece. The only revenue will be from the instructor payment for the annual IR renewal.

A charitable view might be that EASA genuinely think that requiring the second set of papers will improve safety but everybody with a brain who has been anywhere the process knows this is bogus, because the JAA IR ground school is a load of bollox with almost no relevance to aviation, and the flight training teaches you nothing of relevance that you don't know already as an FAA IR pilot who actually flies to places.

Pace

20th Jun 2011, 09:38

Beagle

Is the odd letter from posters in this forum going to make a lot of difference?

AOPA seem to have gone very quiet on the subject of late and it will only be something which scares EASA or them hitting a legal block which will make for a change.
Maybe ideas to AOPA or a comparable body would be better placed than to an MEP who will only be fobbed off?

EASA would be more scared as a safety body of the threat of being legally challenged on the grounds of their LACK of safety legislation than anything else.

IMO its the lack of safety angle which we should use against them! Frankly that can easely be demonstrated should they eliminate the IMCR and FAA IR without sidestepping existing European N reg pilots smoothly and cost free into an equal European alternative.

Pace

S-Works

20th Jun 2011, 11:02

Fuji Abound

20th Jun 2011, 11:49

Pace

What is the safety argument?

EASA may well say, FAA pilots you can have your IR, go sit the exams and the check ride. It just so happens our IR exams and check ride are different from the US exams and check ride, and we are entitled to not accept an FAA IR unless the conditions for its use are met. In short you have an equivalent safety alternative and nothing is being withdrawn that was granted to you in the first place by an EASA member state.

In point of fact I think they have a more difficult safety argument with the IMCr if they remove the entitlement from existing holders. In this event the existing holders have a legal case that a right is being withdrawn which was granted to them by a full standing member of EASA and for which the pilot has paid. Moreover in the absence of any grandfather rights or entitlement to an IR they are being denied a safty tool which they have porperly acquired within the Community. If for no other reason I think this is why EASA recognise "dealing" with the IMCr is legally much more difficult and why they will have to address the position of existing rating holders either by a lifetime grandfather or a transition into an equivalent or "better" rating.

I suspect they can do what they like with FAA IRs and a legal challenge would be a complete waste of time.

Doesnt mean I agree with their position however.

Pace

20th Jun 2011, 17:15

Fuji

I have no problem with EASA requiring FAA pilots in Europe to sit a differences exam (prob Airlaw) but on safety why only European resident FAA Pilots? Do we have different grey matter between our ears ?

There are roughly 67000 European FAA pilot in Europe! remove their ability to safely fly in the airway system and force them OCAS and I guarantee the death rate will increase dramatically, no doubt about it.

That will be a direct result of EASA regulation a supposed safety body.

You talk of FAA IR pilots as if its something new and just discovered by EASA which has to stop it in its tracks!

FAA in Europe has been an accepted practice for over 30 years. EASA have a moral obligation to offer an equivalent At minimal cost and time.

Regarding the IMCR grandfathering an ability to carry on the practice but not the rating means that new pilots will not have that safety rating and will stoop to the bad accident statistics of the French.

EASA have a responsibility to 67000 pilots who will be left up a creek with no paddle.

Pace

tdbristol

20th Jun 2011, 20:08

It would be not unreasonable to say that given the chance, various terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda would like to bring down a plane or two in Europe and kill some pilots and passengers.
Thousands of people are working hard to ensure that this does not happen, and (to me) it seems unlikely that it will.
If MEPs were to sit idly by, and actually allow a law to be passed [with even some MEPs agreeing with it] that would permit Al-Qaeda to - in all likelihood - kill perhaps dozens of pilots and passengers over the next 5 years, and wipe hundreds of millions of Euros out of European aviation - you can imagine the outcry.

~~~~~~

Now substitute 'EASA' for 'A-Qaeda'.

EASA, if they are allowed to continue in the way they are doing now, will be by far the most 'successful' terrorist organisation in Europe.

S-Works

20th Jun 2011, 20:25

Oh my god..... Melodrama to the ultimate extent.

Why on gods earth do you think that EASA requiring dual Licencing is going to cause aircraftt to plummet from the sky? Get real. It's a major inconvenience and will curtail the activities of those unprepared or unable to comply but it is hardly going to be the cause of mass deaths.

To achieve the goal of getting the regulation changed you need to work on the economical issues not the meo,dramatic ones.

Pace

20th Jun 2011, 20:38

Bose

It is not melodramatic! We know the bad accident rate of the french compared to us with instrument training.

The IMCR is a proven safety rating.

In the same way what do you think the thousands of FAA IR pilots will do? All convert to EASA IRs ? Sorry but that has not happened to date.
Why do you think 67000 migrated to N reg? Have EASA done something to attract them back? I wish they had!

What do you think those 67000 pilots will do? a small minority will convert the majority will work with what they have got which will be a much higher risk invironment.

They will be forced to Fly OCAS in minimal weather with all those inherant risks and pilots will without doubt be killed due to EASAs unwarrented meddling.

Is there a practical or safety reason for all this? Sadly NO!

Pace

tdbristol

20th Jun 2011, 21:17

Bose-X,

Glad you appreciated my post.

Look at the cause and effect; what will in all likelihood happen if EASA continue, not the la-la land you would like to happen where all N-reg pilots just say "yes I'd love to do the JAA IR and I'm happy to spend the time and money" and everyone flies on the same but just with a totally unnecessary additional qualification.

As Pace says, without doubt, many current pilots with FAA IRs will not get JAA IRs, a small number will get into trouble in IMC when their skills are rusty and some will die: these, who would not otherwise die, but for the deliberate and carefully planned actions of EASA, who know in advance that this will almost certainly be the result of their actions.

Interestingly, a Danish MEP suggested a while ago that "EASA [is] the biggest threat to aviation safety in Europe", so it shows that at least one MEP appreciates the effects EASA is having (and will have in the future).

S-Works

20th Jun 2011, 21:26

Playing devils advocate here.

If I was looking at the comments here I would be reading that FAA pilots won't or can't be bothered to convert and will just carry on regardless. As a result there will be more accidents?

What am I to think about that?

Let's make it clear, there will not be more accidents because the rules have gold plated requirements but because pilots will choose to act illegally.

Now who has the screaming argument about illegal actions?

Come on guys, you will only win by presenting a logical case.....

Marchettiman

20th Jun 2011, 21:45

I received my letter from the CAA about EASA FCL this morning. It says nothing other than you had better keep up with the changes in legislation relating to your licence or we'll get you. I know that; it is my duty as a citizen to be law abiding not simply in matters realting to aviation regulation. I would like to try, but am I alone in needing help and guidance from those to whom I pay a fortune in fees for this so called regulatory process, and get none? That letter was a waste of a stamp, envelope and the time spent debating it by the Head of Licencing and Training Policy and his minions.
I have read various EASA and CAA papers on FCL and the Part M rubbish, and all it has done is to make the aviation and aircraft ownership side of my life more complicated, time consuming, less certain and less safe. I have real experience of my maintenance guys becoming so involved with observing the letter of the latest law that they neglect good aeronautical engineering practice. The same will happen with basic and recurrent flight training.
We could all waste loads of time, energy and words while raising our collective blood pressures over the semantics of the black magic of EASA regulation and so called "stakehoder participation". In my 50 odd years of using my native language (English), I have never heard the word "Comitology", yet alone thought I needed to use it, but it appears with frequency in every EASA reference I read. We need to vote with our feet and rid ourselves of this EASA nonsense and expensive mystique. Apart from our seemingly worthless vote for an MEP has anyone a sensible suggestion on how to do it?

tdbristol

20th Jun 2011, 22:20

Bose-X,

I think you misunderstand; it has nothing to do with acting illegally in any way.

From time to time, pilots who are not instrument rated / current / qualified fly into weather which is worse than expected - sometimes pilots end up where they do not want to be. A certain small percentage of VFR pilots get into such trouble.

If EASA proceeds, there will be thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - fewer instrument rated / current / qualified pilots. So there will be a lot more VFR pilots.

Therefore there will be a lot more pilots who could get into difficulties if they get into unexpected weather, and a small number will die as a result - who would not have died had they been allowed to retain their current instrument privileges.

I cannot see anything illegal or illogical about it.

IO540

20th Jun 2011, 22:42

If EASA proceeds, there will be thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - fewer instrument rated / current / qualified pilots. So there will be a lot more VFR pilots.

I very much agree. VFR as in "VFR" ;)

Fuji Abound

20th Jun 2011, 22:53

There are roughly 67000 European FAA pilot in Europe! remove their ability to safely fly in the airway system and force them OCAS and I guarantee the death rate will increase dramatically, no doubt about it.

But that does presuppose they will carry on illegally.

What easa are saying is if you live in europe get easa papers. As i said earlier its nonesense but i doubt there is a legal basis for contesting easa ability to determine the licensing requirements in its own airspace.

As i said earlier i think there is a complete contrast with the imcr; a rating after all granted to european citizens albeit if only the uk contingent.

Yes there will be pilots that unintentionally enter imc, there always has and always will be. Easa will make europe waste land for private ir pilots and will set back aviation safety light years but courts will uphold the law, and in so far as the safety case is concerned easa will state the mechanism exits to becomd easa instrument qualiied, it is up to thd individual to do so.

It is like arguing that easa should be forced to accept any ir issued any where in the world, if push comes to shove easa will state simply that we dont, we are entitled not to do so, and thats our form of democracy.

Pace

21st Jun 2011, 10:52

Bose and Fuji

I am a realist! Pilots crash because they do stupid things but they are human and we humans are very imperfect beings.
Take away privileges that people have enjoyed and many will try to carry on albeit with the new regulations they have.
Ie they will fly OCAS in questional weather when they could be much safer flying in CAS.
We are not talking about a handful of pilots but thousands!
Ok EASA can say that they can legally do what they want but the reality is that remove N Reg and the fatality rate will increase.
EASA have NOT addressed the reasons that drove thousands of pilots to N Reg.
If they had the problem would not exist.
EASA are mandated to regulate on safety! I would suggest that they have a duty of care to the 67000 pilots in question which they are not meeting by their unsafe regulation making.
They will be responsible for the deaths that do occur due to their I'll thought out political legislating.

Pace

Fuji Abound

21st Jun 2011, 12:20

Pace

I agree, Bose will accuse me of being melodramatic, but blood on their hands and all that.

Everytime a pilot in France sets off in questionable weather and ends up being a CFIT victim part of the blame is with the State for making instrument training so inaccessible.

Regulation must be proportionate. Citizens should not be flying unless they are qualified to a standard that does not put their lives and others at unreasonable risk. I guess we would all agree that the State cannot condone untrained pilots operating in IMC.

So of course that is why we and EASA debate what constitues a reasonable instrument qualification. The FAA have a view, the UK has a view in so far as the IMCr is concerned and EASA have a view.

It seems illogical that someone who has been flying on instruments for years with a qualification which was was once acceptable is no longer. There in lies the condrumn. States want control, they want "power", that is what motivates politicians. We are compelled to accept that a German doctor can come to the UK and practice because we believe that Europe will oversee the doctor, but we may have different concerns about a doctor that was trained and has been practising in Outer Mongolia.

Logically we all know there are many ways to accomodate existing FAA IR holders or IMCr holders but then other political issues get in the way and that is why we are in the mess we are in.

It is a mess, and it doesnt make sense, but my point is I have never seen a basis for a legal challenge so far as the FAA IR is concerned so we all left with conjoling and badgering EASA into an about turn, hoping they are deemed not fit for purpose or with mass support instigating the nuclear option. I dont see the last two happening and I am having reservations that EASA is interested in the first.

As I said earlier I reckon there is a reasonable chance of the IMCr surviving in some form because I think EASA could be on to a legal hiding, but I equally think they are on a safe legal bet with their N reg proposals.

bookworm

21st Jun 2011, 12:47

So of course that is why we and EASA debate what constitues a reasonable instrument qualification. The FAA have a view, the UK has a view in so far as the IMCr is concerned and EASA have a view.

And EASA is shortly to consult about changing that view. Let's make sure that it gets the appropriate encouragement to change from the JAR-FCL1 view, which was what the EU could come up with without the threat of EASA.

Pace

21st Jun 2011, 13:05

Fuji

I do not disagree with a lot of what you are saying! I am not sure how legally secure EASA are in what they are doing as it conflicts with their mandate of a safety agency?
I stress I don't really think EASA have thought out the ramifications.
Various organizations have tried to stop N Reg in the past and failed.
I am sure EASA have given the problem to their legal department who have found a solution but that's it!
Nobody at EASA have really thought out the ramifications and having found a solution are blindly trying to pretend the ramifications don't exist?
But of course none of this will see the light of day because what EASA really want is a Bilateral agreement, hence the delay to 2014 and of course EASA are fighting day and night to get that accepted ? How come I doubt anything sincere from EASA ?

Pace

IO540

21st Jun 2011, 14:07

EASA does not want a bilateral agreement unless it covers certain other (non GA) areas, the details of which are not publicly known.

Fuji Abound

21st Jun 2011, 14:46

Clearly not for compromising safety then. ;)

Pace - I tell you what, your best hope is a case under the trade descriptions act!

Pace

21st Jun 2011, 17:04

Fuji

More likely to get EASA sectioned under the mental health act ?
I really don't want to be in a position of knocking EASA. I would rather be singing their praises or at least seeing them as reasonable and fair people.
They won't get the control they appear to want using licences which don't attach to FAA aircraft. There is no safety basis for this! More likely that certain individuals want N out of Europe and the legal team have found a way to do it
No more no less.

Pace

englishal

21st Jun 2011, 17:22

Because the FAA IR is achievable by a lot of people as a) it doesn't require a mortgage, b) doesn't require a year of study and c) can be done with a freelance CFII as and when, in whatever aeroplane you like, & many European people go off and do it as a challenge. This then makes them a safer VFR pilot in Europe. Many do this as they *might* get the chance to fly IFR in Europe later on either through access to a N reg or by virtue of their free IMCr that the CAA grant them on their return. By withdrawing any chance of flying IFR in Europe based upon an FAA IR then it is a far less attractive option.

But lets be clear about this, this DOES NOT mean that all of these IFR wannabes will suddenly go out and get a EASA IR instead, for the points listed above. So these "would have been very capable IFR capable pilots" are now only VFR pilots and will suffer from the same mishaps as many VFR only pilots do when they get into trouble in the weather. So having an FAA IR in the back pocket DOES benefit safety in Europe rather than reduce safety. As does having an IMC rating. Banning these two things will actually increase weather related incidents in Europe IMHO.

The other bone of contention is the residency of the operator. It surely can't be based upon residency of the pilot for the simple fact that I could be a UK resident, living in the UK, but flying a UA 777 from London to LAX daily. There is no way on this planet that they could mandate that I, as an EU resident, now had to do a JAA ATPL even though I am flying perfectly legally with an FAA ATP, whereas the First Officer who lives in LA doesn't need on. And if they tried to enforce that the FO now needed one, the FAA would tell EASA to take a running jump and tell all Europeans flying into the USA in whatever reg aeroplane that they would need an FAA ATP. Therefore it must be the aircraft operator, and so if the aircraft operator moves out of the EU then all is good again.

Whatever happens, if EASA continue on the road they are on, it will have a very negative impact to Europe, and Europe alone. Hardly what you want from a European organisation !!

maxred

21st Jun 2011, 18:18

OK, I also got my letter this morning, and as usual, up to me. That's a problem because attempting to read your way through this rubbish, is not only very time consuming, but leaves you more uncertain than when you started:\

Advice, from those that have a better grasp on the thing than I - I have a UK CAA issued Flight License, with IMCR and Night Rating.

I also have an FAA licence issued in 2003. I now fly both types, UK registered and my main mode of transport, N-reg.

I started the JAA IR course, but am now slightly confused as to where I require to go - FAA IR/ continue with JAA.

I fly mainly UK, France and Spain. Any thoughts on where this might end up?

IO540

21st Jun 2011, 19:13

It's a complicated decision.

I would not recommend doing an FAA IR unless you have assured access to an N-reg plane. The case for doing it gets pretty strong if you own the plane and it is technically advanced, and by that I don't mean an off the shelf SR22 with all the goodies and with everything available under an EASA TC :) If you plan to do 337 mods, or minor mods, then the case is strong.

The biggest reason for doing the JAA IR now, rather than wait to see what EASA does (which is what the vast majority of FAA IR holders are evidently doing), is that the ICAO IR to JAA IR 15hr conversion route is apparently going to end in April 2012, thus forcing you to pack your logbook with 50/55hrs at some £200/hr plus (SE) or £250/hr plus (ME) if you leave it after that date.

If you do teh 15hr IR conversion in your own plane, you pay "only" about £130/hr for the instructor. Plus the CAA fees etc; an extra grand or so.

The UK CAA has already published a 2 year derogation to April 2014 for the proposed requirement for dual papers, but they have not yet published a similar derogation for the 15hr conversion route.

The 15hr conversion route is available throughout JAA-land (and some attractive options are in Spain and Greece which are a no-brainer for somebody for whom doing it in their own plane is not a prime requirement) but after April 2012 one will need to be careful with e.g. doing it in Spain if e.g. the UK CAA has stopped supporting it, because even if Spain does it (and the Spanish FTO might be run by Austria so Austria must be supporting it in that case) the UK CAA might then refuse to add such a 15hr IR onto your UK PPL.

The above (loss of the 15hr route) seems to be the biggest risk. Otherwise, waiting till 2014 seems a good policy. A huge amount of sh*t is going to be flung at EASA during that time, and the result may be good.

But EASA is run by very clever shysters who know their way around this political maze. That's why I have started on the JAA IR, as an insurance policy. It's not in any way hard, but it is very very tedious and it is depressing because it is so utterly pointless.

maxred

21st Jun 2011, 19:51

Thanks IO - I will mull that over.

When I re read my post, I was not being disparaging to those who have bravely waded through all the papers, and have diligently tried to make sense of it. I do truly find it all a bit confusing, as does everyone else.:*

Mickey Kaye

21st Jun 2011, 19:55

"or £250/hr plus (ME) if you leave it after that date"

Hate to correct you IO but shouldbn't that read £450/hr plus (ME) ?

IO540

21st Jun 2011, 20:01

Don't know... What is the cheapest way for renting a clapped out Seminole at an FTO, with an instructor? I recall seeing some £250/hr rates but that was a while ago, and probably didn't include the instructor.

55hrs x £450/hr is eye-watering. Nobody is going to pay that. I suppose one would do an SE IR and then do the 5hrs in a ME at the end?

mad_jock

21st Jun 2011, 21:46

No you don't have to do the whole lot in the aircraft there are a couple of sim options.

IO540

21st Jun 2011, 22:07

The sim options don't make a whole lot of difference to the big picture however.

I have just heard that £450/hr is indeed the correct price for a southern UK FTO...

englishal

22nd Jun 2011, 09:36

The sim will cost you £200+ per hour with instructor.

IO540

22nd Jun 2011, 18:39

Sounds like an ab initio ME IR is going to cost 20k for the flying, if done in the UK, even if done optimally.

That's appalling. I actually did not realise how much more expensive FTO flight training is, over normal schools.

No wonder the FAA IR has been so popular.

Also no wonder there are so many axe grinders trying to kill it. This is big money - if you can get it.

Mickey Kaye

22nd Jun 2011, 20:56

"The sim will cost you £200+ per hour with instructor."

And its costs the FTO some 8 grand a year in fees to the CAA to keep it approved

englishal

23rd Jun 2011, 13:29

But you can fly the same sim, with the same software, running the same graphics, in the USA for $95 per hour. Only it is not "approved" by the CAA - though it is for the FAA !

I wonder what £8,000 p.a. buys? (Whisky for the boys club perhaps?)

IO540

23rd Jun 2011, 14:12

When you see comparisons like this you begin to see why European aviation regulation is so screwed up.

The "industry" has forced up its prices to completely silly levels, which nobody would pay if they had a choice.

So the choice is removed, by forcing all JAA IR training to be done in JAA-land.

The depressing thing is that there is so far to go to backpedal from this position. When you see the political liars like Seebohm talk of throwing away all this gold plating if they get a bilateral treaty on FCL, can you believe this will ever happen? This is bigger than turkeys voting for xmas.

mattman

24th Jun 2011, 08:49

I am in a huge debate with someone about this now.

What are the costs involved to convert a FAA ATPL to a EASA JAR IR.

So far I have the following:
1. 14 exams Bristol distance learning course £2140
2. Exam fees £952
3. 10 hours flight in a clapped put Seminole with instructor £4500 (looking at above posts)
4. 5 hours sim time £1000
5. Flight test and examiner (estimate £3000)

Total so far: £11592
Now just to make it worse let's say we don't live in the UK, so that's flights and accommodation, living like a pauper and getting some EZ's from where we
are you looking at say 2 months and say 4 return trips back and forth we are looking at say £60 pounds a day accommodation and a food and £150 for the tickets add another: £4200

Now I am a full time employee with 28 days off a year soooooo now saying that I have to take some unpaid leave I am looking at an income loss of say
£4000, so add that to the pile but I won't.

Now I have not forgotten but have no idea what the licenses fees are and and medical and add some incidentals let's say another £2000.

So what are we at: a great whopping total of £21792

Seeing I am earning Euros at today's current rate €24700 ish euros, so I have a mortgage and a car loan to repay plus my wife does not work as she is not an EU national plus my little guy is enjoying the joys of his first year of school
So got those to fork out for. The only thing going is I have more than 500 on a multi crew aircraft so no MCC.

Now I am starting to wonder, maybe it's time to look closer to the sandpit as a place for employment than sticking out here.

Anyway, can someone shed some light a on just how accurate these figures are so I can put this to rest.

Cheers

Matt

mad_jock

24th Jun 2011, 09:05

Depends what you are flying currently.

If there is a sim for it in the Uk and you have enough hours on type you can just go straight to the IR test on your type without all the MEP stuff.

So theory looks about right and will take 4 weeks of brush up and a week of exams.

And then the sim detail will be about a grand for the caa exam and sim cost ontop. Then medical 400 quid for intial class one and 300 quid for license issue.

IO540

24th Jun 2011, 09:21

you have enough hours on type you can just go straight to the IR test on your type

Can you? I don't necessarily doubt you; I don't have an FAA ATPL (only a CPL/IR) so I don't know the ATPL conversion options, but I thought one had to do the 14-exam stuff, plus a CPL/ME/IR which is somewhere around 50hrs total (some can be in a sim). The IR conversion alone is 15hrs (that's the SE figure).

There are a lot of people in this position.

mattman - you don't say what you want the new papers for. If you are a paid pilot for somebody owning an N-reg (i.e. you just need a CPL/IR) then you "just" need a JAA CPL/ME/IR to cover the proposed EASA paper requirement.

The 15hrs you describe is a standard ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion, for a PPL.

mattman

24th Jun 2011, 09:44

mad_jock

24th Jun 2011, 09:51

Its all in G1.5 of lasors if you have one.

They don't have to do the full distance learning course either just pass the exams.

If thier type is over 30 tons there is another system where by they only have to do 2-3 exams.

just seen the reply you don't get any relief for king air but if the private jet in a MPA you may do depending on hours

IO540

24th Jun 2011, 09:52

Thanks for the response, so my understanding is the following IO, if I want to carry on flying the private jet and King air for my boss on N reg in the EU I have to go and complete the full conversion to a EASA CPL IR, which takes no account my experience and need to do a 50 hour training and exams. Not sure about the total # of hours but my understanding is Yes.

A conversion to a PPL/IR is 15hrs (of which 10 can be in a sim).

I don't know if there is any extra for ME but it won't be more than 5 hrs.

What I don't know is the CPL hours situation. I am sure many here know the answer; I think a JAA CPL is about 20hrs.

They don't have to do the full distance learning course either just pass the exams.That is "at the discretion of the head of training" but basically yes you skip the mandatory classroom attendance.

But that is potentially a big fallacy because the FTO won't sign you off as ready to sit the exams until you have handed in a pile of homework exercises.

The homework is FTO-specific. One FTO I know makes you do a lot of homework which barely relates to the question bank. To do that homework, you need to spend many days wading through their 3000 pages of study material. Another FTO apparently bases its homework on the question bank, which is obviously much more efficient because most of the exam study is hammering the QB.

UL730

10th Jul 2011, 09:21

Revised explanatory information on the expected effects of EU Legislation on Flight Crew Licensing

8 July 2011

IN-2011/68: The CAA Amends Website Information on the expected effects of EU Legislation on Pilot Licensing | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=4617)

Whopity

10th Jul 2011, 10:07

And reading it clearly tells all that the Lunatics have finally taken over the Asylum. Nobody in their right mind could have dreamt up such a load of nonsense, imagine if such a proposal had been produced 20 years ago, we would have laughed ourselves to sleep.

Why do we need a UK ATPL; are we to believe Annex II aircraft will be used for multi-crew public transport operations!

rn750

10th Jul 2011, 10:38

Right so my reading of this is I can't fly more than a paper aeroplane on my PPL (A) after April 2014; Unless I apply, with supporting conversion evidence, to the CAA to get a Non-expiring Part FCL??

Great!! and I thought I had escaped any action:ugh:
Is this correct??

Adie

rn750

10th Jul 2011, 10:42

I have just looked at what conversion evidence is required and I need to 'Demonstrate the use of radio navigational aids'.

Anyone have any idea of what I actually need to do??

Thanks
Adie

Gertrude the Wombat

10th Jul 2011, 10:52

There is one improvement, re CAA licence holders - the CAA used to advise us to get JAA licences without stating that this would cost extra. They've now changed the wording to say that this is just an option that we might like to consider and it's at extra cost.

So, a bit more honest then.

robin

10th Jul 2011, 11:05

..a lot more honest.

Mainly because the deadline remains fixed, the conversion details still not set in stone and the time remaining is short to get 15-20000 licences converted.

We still don't know the cost of the EASA PPL(A) and can't apply for it until after April 2012.

And behind it all, the EASA plan to make FCL easier and standardised has led to many more licences than we have at present and, of course, unimaginable extra cost.

So well done EASA. As successful as ever......:D:D:D

BEagle

10th Jul 2011, 11:17

Why do we need a UK ATPL; are we to believe Annex II aircraft will be used for multi-crew public transport operations! See P18 - there are indeed some non-EASA aircraft in this category (e.g. DC6).

Right so my reading of this is I can't fly more than a paper aeroplane on my PPL (A) after April 2014; Unless I apply, with supporting conversion evidence, to the CAA to get a Non-expiring Part FCL??It depends what you mean by a 'paper aeroplane'. You will certainly be able to continue to fly a Chipmunk, Bulldog or Tiger Moth, for example, without the need for an EASA part-FCL licence.

I have just looked at what conversion evidence is required and I need to 'Demonstrate the use of radio navigational aids'.

Anyone have any idea of what I actually need to do??There are various ways; if you are an AOPA member, see the next edition of General Aviation for some answers.

Nobody in their right mind could have dreamt up such a load of nonsense.True - and any document which requires 36 pages to tell you that the CAA still don't have all the answers to this €urocratic maze of Byzantine complexity is a testament to that!

A German EASA official also complained that they find political lobbying 'unhelpful'. Well, tough $hit, but if you find democracy inconvenient, you shouldn't have lost the b£oody war!