View Full Version : Interesting development on Bi Lateral recognition on FCL?
Getting the bilateral licensing show on the road
IAOPA is mounting a Transatlantic campaign to bring American and
European regulators together to agree a formula for accepting each
other’s licensing systems. The aviation industry is suffering because
of uncertainty over future licensing procedures, and those who make
the rules must agree urgently on what the rules are.
EASA has stuck a spoke in the wheel by insisting that all pilots
domiciled in Europe must in future have European licenses and ratings,
which strikes at the heart of a system under which large numbers of
aircraft have operated in Europe on the N-register with their pilots
licensed by the FAA. The main reason for this has been the inability
of European pilots to obtain instrument ratings – something EASA is
addressing – but other imperatives include maintenance schemes,
airworthiness directives that apply in some jurisdictions and not in
others and so forth. While EASA’s attack on the N-register is entirely
chauvinistic – it recognises that there are no safety issues involved
– it accepts that the cost and difficulty of being required to have
duplicate qualifications from two different authorities is as
undesirable as it is unnecessary, and has suggested that it may be
possible to agree a formula for mutual acceptance of licences, and to
add it as an annexe to a Bilateral Agreement on safety signed between
Europe and America earlier this year. Unfortunately neither side seems
keen to get on with the business, so at last month’s AOPA Summit in
Hartford, Connecticut, AOPAs in Europe and America agreed to work
together to get this thing kick-started.
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson met with Craig Fuller,
President and CEO of AOPA US, to plan a strategy for forcing the
issue. AOPA US has enormous lobbying power and influence that European
AOPAs can only envy, and it will be of great benefit to European
general aviation, which risks being dragged down by the new regulatory
landscape, to have AOPA US impressing upon the FAA the need to address
these issues as a matter of urgency. There are many pitfalls, however.
Both sides must work to ensure that any demands EASA makes for changes
or additional training are solely safety-related. There are hidden
dangers in any de facto acceptance by the FAA that its training
systems are deficient; the Administration must not be placed in a
position where it either has to change its national training system or
risk liability action in case of accident. IAOPA will be working with
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association to get this issue
settled, but it’s not going to be easy, or quick.
I believe that EASA have agreed to only look at identifiable safety issues to get something sorted 2016 ? As far as employed pilots on N reg I believe EASA have hit a brick wall with existing EU law in what they are trying to do.
But it will be interesting how all this shapes out in the end?
Pace
I posted this because very little has been discussed on conversion of 3rd country licences to EASA.
FAA PPL IR what will you be expected to do to get the EASA IR? A differences exam and flight test? More than that?
What about higher licence conversions? Maybe not the right forum but main point here is getting mutual acceptance of licences and the above seemed to indicate some admittances by EASA which are quite revealing if true?
As the extensions are for such agreements to be sorted and put in place by EASA to do just that how committed are EASA really to achieving something?
:ugh:
Pace
There is a bit of a parallel thread here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=72343&start=240) but I think the bottom line is that we will never get a truly bilateral version of what the USA does right now, over here in Europe, because that would enable all the European airline pilot wannabees to go to the USA and collect the FAA CPL/IR, or indeed the FAA ATP, at a much lower cost than doing it in Europe, and then come back home and convert it.
Given that most of these people are flat broke (they have to be to want to fly RHS on ~£25k, for quite a while) the decision whether to spend say 60k here or 40k over there would be a total no-brainer.
That would destroy the European FTO business, which is already creaking under the costs of propping up the various national CAAs (see Cabair etc).
There is simply no way, short of hell freezing over, that the EU will let that happen.
What could happen is a "free" EASA PPL/IR, handed out to anybody with an ICAO PPL/IR or CPL/IR, by sitting an air law exam and a flight test. That is the fairly standard procedure around the world for validating foreign CPL/IR/ATPL papers to local CPL/IR/ATPL papers, so you have that precedent already. But the EU can't do that, for straight protectionist reasons.
The air law exam serves the obvious piece of meat to the regulatory dog ("our air law is different to the USA's") notwithstanding the fact that the JAA CQB air law questions are nearly all utterly irrelevant bollox (e.g. the masses of ATC-type runway separation questions from the Portugese ATCO who got the job of writing it).
The flight test similarly verifies the pilot can fly.
And the loss of FTO income would be pretty small.
But I don't think even that will happen, because the FTOs must already be sharpening their pencils, hoping for a torrent of Euro resident PPL/IRs and CPL/IRs about to be shafted by EASA, turning up on their doorstep. This won't happen because the 2014 derogation is likely to be extended past that date anyway, etc. Almost nobody, as a % of the total potentially affected population, is doing the conversion route at present.
charliegolf
7th Oct 2011, 12:36
they have to be to want to fly RHS on ~£25k, for quite a while
£25k is a good wage. I'd be happy with that. Or are you alluding to the £70k they spent on training. By choice.
CG
10540
That thread is at Flyer not PPRUNE :{
Yes the ultimate aim in years to come should be that licences are acceptable world wide either commercial or private but we are some way off achieving that goal and that will only arrive when the standards between FCL almost come together.
At this stage I accept that you cannot get a shortcut to say an EASA ATP by trundling over to the USA and picking up an FAA ATP then converting that with ease.
But there is no reason why the same FAA ATP cannot work on N reg FAA aircraft based in Europe by meeting safety based differences standards while at the same time giving authority to EASA to have some control and satisfaction or oversight that they are happy those pilots can fly to the same standards as their own EASA licenced pilots.
IE a differences exam and a flight test.
The same should be the case with FAA PPL IRs based in Europe.
They too should be able to take one differences exam and an IR flight test through an EASA examiner.
The USA have for a long time issued licences on the back of their UK licence rather than holding a standalone FAA licence.
I could see the same sort of arrangement where EASA privalages are allowed but based on the FAA licence and attached to that licence alone.
In that way the FAA ATP or PPL IR wanting a standalone EASA equivalent would have to run through the EASA training system to achieve it.
Albeit with allowances based on FAA licences and experience.
Really part of the problem is the lack of control that EASA feel they hold over FAA licenced pilots.
I support the already in existance system of excemptions renewable on an annual basis and could see excemptions used much more frequently in the coming years before we finally do have worldwide licencing.
Excemptions would give EASA the control and policing abilities over 3 rd country licence holders.
Misbehave and your excemption is not renewed.
These are the sort of areas I hope they discuss in a bilateral agreement in easing things forward to maybe world acceptance of licences and standards 10 years plus hence.
Someone has to start the move in that direction as the present system is antiquated, stupid, terratorial, expensive and plain daft.
The most unbelievable NON SENSE in a one world direction we seem to be moving in in so many other ways.
Pace
AdamFrisch
7th Oct 2011, 19:42
As much as I hate bureaucracy and federal/political molasses, the basic thought that FCL's should be unified, is a good one. I'm as appalled at the political shenanigans as everyone else, but if, by the end of this purgatory, we have a unified license standard, that's ICAO interchangeable and collaborative, then I'd say it's worth it. For all our bitching and moaning, does anyone remember how it was when all of Europe had their national licenses? It was a worse pain than this. JAA is, in it's basic form and devoid of all politics, a good idea.
JAA did not change anything in practice.
Pre-JAA, if you had a German PPL and you were flying a German-reg plane, you could fly it worldwide VFR, as usual. If you had an IR on that German PPL, you could fly that D-reg worldwide IFR (as usual).
All basic ICAO stuff. License = aircraft reg => worldwide flying privileges.
What JAA gave us was the ability to fly e.g. a D-reg plane on a UK issued JAR-FCL compliant PPL, and fly it worldwide.
How many pilots take advantage of that, I don't know. Some surely do.
On mutual license recognition, ICAO asks for this, but almost no "major" country actually does it. All of them run various protection rackets.
EASA is taking things a bit further than most, well into the 3rd world police state area, by forcing pilots to have EASA papers (in addition to the ICAO-required) purely according to the operator's residence, even if the EASA-required papers are not themselves valid for that aircraft.
Silvaire
I have to agree with you that I cannot see anything much in it for the FAA other than pressure from US manufacturers who do business in Europe.
That is the one thing which makes me question EASAs real intent here other than getting rid of the vast number of N reg based in Europe.
The FAA do not have the same problem of 1000s of EASA or European aircraft based in the USA.
Having to hold dual licences one set having no relevance to the aircraft being flown backs up the absurdity of what is going on and points to a Lawyers solution to achieve an aim.
EASA have come up against legal problems in the EU in trying to force that especially with employed EEC N reg pilots so I would imagine if they want to go ahead they will have to look at excemptions on an ongoing basis for those commercial pilots.
My guess with the PPL IR they will back off using the stick to beating N reg IRs out of Europe and allow more concessions to gaining an EASA IR for existing based N reg pilots in Europe.
It would have saved Europe a fortune if EASA had just copied the FAA model.
Politically EASA are a reflection of why Europe is in such a financial mess.
Rely on the financial world not production for wealth and create jobs in government departments for employement with gold plated incomes and pensions.
Trouble is those departments have to have something to do and someone has to pay for it all.
Pace
chubbychopper
8th Oct 2011, 10:37
Has the definitive text for part FCL been published yet? If it has not, then I wonder why are so many here speculating and pontificating about what may or may not happen, or what the final document will, or will not include?
Those who may be effected by the proposals have little chance of changing anything now, although I do recognise that some obviously wish to vent their anger or frustrations.
David Roberts
8th Oct 2011, 11:47
The final text of Part FCL is currently being translated into all the EU languages. The English version is final (post Member States' scrutiny in Comitology and Parliament Transport Committee scrutiny) but not yet published. When translations are finalised they will appear on the EU website.
Has the definitive text for part FCL been published yet? If it has not, then I wonder why are so many here speculating and pontificating about what may or may not happen, or what the final document will, or will not include?
Chubby
What is in the document is irrelevant in one particular way! EASA have stated that their sole reason for extending FCL to 2014 was to get a BI Lateral agreement with the USA.
To that end they have promised to be relentless.
They have stated (I have the letter) That their desire is not what is included regarding 3 rd country licences but a Bi Lateral is their desire.
The only other option to all this is deception and dishonesty which I hope is not the case.
I would rather see documents from EASA on their efforts towards a Bi Lateral and to how they see that Bi Lateral evolving?
Pace
BillieBob
8th Oct 2011, 15:26
The English version is final (post Member States' scrutiny in Comitology and Parliament Transport Committee scrutiny) but not yet published.Actually, the post-comitology version of Part-FCL, that was accepted by the EP on 31 Aug, can be found here (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/tran/dv/tran20110525_pilotlicences_/tran20110525_pilotlicences_en.pdf). Since no objections by MEPs were upheld, it should be identical in content to the one that is eventually published.