N-reg situation update [Archive]

goldeneaglepilot

8th Apr 2012, 14:36

Peter,

An interesting article, it seems to say that a person resident in a country controlled by EASA, even if they hold a US FAA licence will not be able to fly an N registered aircraft IFR, in EASA controlled countries legally?

To quote the article

Take John C. He is an American Airline
Transport rated Pilot with more than 20 years
and many thousands of hours experience in
everything from a Cessna 172 to a King Air
350. He is also an experienced and highly
skilled Air Traffic Controller who worked in
many of the busiest US Air Traffic Control
Centers. On the invitation of a large European
Air Traffic Control Agency he has come to
our shores to help us out with our ATC staff
shortage and train future European Air Traffic
Controllers. His contract is for three years. It
might not be unreasonable for someone in
his profession and his position to keep up
with his flying-proficiency during his time
here in Europe. Any sane country or licensing
system would probably trust John C.
with a small General Aviation aircraft after
a minimum of due process for validation or
conversion.
Nevertheless, here is what John C. would
have to do to fly any C172 or SR20 under
IFR in his host country of Germany (no, not
just a German registered rental, but even his
very own US-registered aircraft if he had decided
to bring it along for the three years):

peterh337

8th Apr 2012, 14:57

Yes; that is the situation.

Unless he holds EASA papers, in addition to the FAA ones.

That's why I did the JAA IR recently. It is completely useless for legal flying for me.

But this hangs on the EU residence of the "operator", not the pilot. The residence or citizenship of the pilot is irrelevant.

I think that it is time we valued our own training industry in EUrope and I see nothing wrong in sensible rules for Europe, about time we got a bit more businesslike and put European pilots firstThat's the European protectionist approach. But it's doing it backwards. It is the bizzare European practices which have driven most of the IFR community to be N-reg in the first place.

belowradar

8th Apr 2012, 15:19

Peterh337

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't start to get our european house in order come on guys surely you would prefer to start building a thriving European flight training system

peterh337

8th Apr 2012, 15:22

Well, yes, but with EASA having just revamped all the regs to do with training, and having just put in yet another tightly protectionist system, with just a few concessions to common sense here and there, that discussion is 100% theoretical..... nothing is going to change now for many years (short of an EU meltdown, which is perhaps not all that unlikely).

The obvious opportunity to rationalise the whole system and create an incentive for the N-reg scene to dry up by itself, has been missed.

421C

8th Apr 2012, 15:52

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't start to get our european house in order come on guys surely you would prefer to start building a thriving European flight training system
I don't think anyone doesn't want a world-class thriving European traning system. So why not build such a system, and let people flock to it instead of the FAA.

Instead, the "North Korean" approach, as Jan Brll put it, is to stop people exercising any choice. In general, most political and economic systems have not found that a good means of getting their "house in order" or "building thriving industries".

robin

8th Apr 2012, 15:59

Pardon my confusion, but if my current CAA UK-PPL for life was ICAO-compliant yesterday, what has changed to make it non-compliant today? Or is it simply that the EASA FCL 'act' automatically removes the ICAO-compliant status on national licences?

peterh337

8th Apr 2012, 17:04

Your ICAO papers, whether issued by the UK, the USA, or Mongolia, remain as before, and remain required by the State of Registry to fly an aircraft on that registry, worldwide. Nobody can take those away from you (except the issuer).

What EASA (an agency of the EU) has so far done is to force EU pilots to obtain additional papers.

So pilots flying on non-EASA ICAO papers, e.g. UK non-JAA PPLs, or FAA PPLs, or FAA IRs, etc, will need to obtain EASA papers as well - after April 2014 in the UK.

EASA could have brought in a reg requiring the pilots to wear pink underpants, or get a certificate in taxidermy. It would amount to the same thing. For the portion of a flight which takes place in EU airspace, they have the power to do all of these things - because the UK signed up to obey the EU.

That is why I did the JAA IR (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/) recently. It's not that I need it to fly, and in fact the UK/JAA PPL/IR is not even valid to fly my own plane (actually it is valid in the issuer's airspace - the UK - which is a bit useless, since the FAA CPL/IR covers me for that, and the rest of the world) but I got these extra papers as an insurance policy against what might happen after April 2014, or even before that should the 15hr IR conversion route disappear.

goldeneaglepilot

8th Apr 2012, 17:58

Its my understanding that a JAA licence will be updated to an EASA licence.

The main issue seems to be for people domiciled in EASA land with only an FAA licence

peterh337

8th Apr 2012, 18:21

Yes; but the detail is not quite like that.

The circumstances where the pilot (or pilots, in a multi pilot aircraft) will need to have the EASA papers are

- flying in EU airspace, and
- operator based in the EU (the exact wording is in EASA FCL somewhere, and is vague), and
- the country where the operator is based has not applied for the April 2014 derogation

So yes an N-reg pilot flying in EU airspace whose operator is EU based will need to have EASA papers in addition to the FAA ones.

There is no definition of what an EU based operator is.

Domicile, or tax domicile, is a yet different concept...

Whopity

8th Apr 2012, 19:18

but if my current CAA UK-PPL for life was ICAO-compliant yesterday, what has changed to make it non-compliant today?It is still an ICAO PPL but the buffoons in Europe don't recognise ICAO PPLs unless they are issued in compliance with their own rules, and they of course, are not members of ICAO! The return of Monty Python!

stickandrudderman

8th Apr 2012, 19:35

Monty Python's The life of Brian - I want to be a woman - YouTube

:ok::ok:

Bob Upanddown

8th Apr 2012, 19:58

Help, Help. I'm being oppressed

piperboy84

8th Apr 2012, 20:14

Dual US and Uk citizen, living in the Uk flying a N reg aircraft with a FAA PPL. Am I bolloxed with the new rules?

mm_flynn

8th Apr 2012, 20:45

Dual US and Uk citizen, living in the Uk flying a N reg aircraft with a FAA PPL. Am I bolloxed with the new rules?

Your citizenship is irrelevant. The question you need to answer is -

'Is the operator of the aircraft you are flying EASA resident?'

If the answer is 'Yes' then you will need EASA papers and the papers required by the State of registry (for an N-reg that means FAA papers or only fly the aircraft in the EASA country that issued the EASA papers).

If it is your aircraft and you are resident in the UK you are caught. There are potential structures that could result in the operator being located somewhere else, but these are unlikely to be practical for a typical Piston GA aircraft.

piperboy84

8th Apr 2012, 20:57

If it is your aircraft and you are resident in the UK you are caught

It is my own personal aircraft, I brought it with me when I returned to live in the UK.

What do the ramifications of being "caught" mean for me?

mm_flynn

8th Apr 2012, 21:23

It is my own personal aircraft, I brought it with me when I returned to live in the UK.

What do the ramifications of being "caught" mean for me?

You need an EASA licence and IR (if you fly IFR). If it is an aircraft with a type rating, the FAA type rating still works for it. If it is one of the aircraft with an EASA type rating but no FAA comparable type rating (single engine turbines) I think you need to get an EASA type rating. If you live in the UK you have until April 2014 to get sorted (plus a once in a life time 1 year validation you can apply for if you are partway through the training).

If you are in some other country you need to ask the NAA what derogations they have applied for.

piperboy84

8th Apr 2012, 21:37

mm_flynn

8th Apr 2012, 21:46

Alll you need to do is get an EASA PPL and medical (there are a number of AME's that can do both the FAA and CAA at the same time so it is no big deal). My recollection of the PPL level conversion is that it is a bit of PITA but not that big a deal.

chrisbl

8th Apr 2012, 23:00

Peter 337 wrote:

That's why I did the JAA IR recently. It is completely useless for legal flying for me.

Peter, Your JAA IR (now EASA PPL IR) is totally useful for legal flying for you. To say other wise is totally wrong.

You may not like having to do it but thats another issue as you have made patently clear. But as someone who went N reg and FAA as a convenience to dodge the JAR requirements it looks like time is running out.

I was in the same position with an N reg and FAA and saw the writing on the wall. Its take to stop having a tantrum about it and just fly for gods sake.

I dont think all the carping on about the exams is helpful. People have a choice, do them or dont do them, same as the IR.

If some have woken up to the fact that the 15hr conversion ends soon well tough on them. Others were up to seeing what was happening and did something about it in good time. Now there is just a hard way to get an IR.

I am not going to lose any sleep over it. If pilots dont know or understand the privileges of their licences they should not be flying.

Its not difficult to read the EU Law it reads a lot like the ANO and JAR.

MrFusion

9th Apr 2012, 00:08

Could you not just setup some kind of corporate structure based in the US and have your plane "owned" through that, therefore making you a US operator and getting around the problem?

I have a G reg plane and am just looking into doing the FAA IR route in a couple of weeks.

peterh337

9th Apr 2012, 07:33

Ok so if I take (and hopefully pass) the EASA license (I am a VFR rated pilot flying a VFR equipped N reg, 180hp Maule) will I then be legal to fly in the UK or will I have to re-register the plane as a G reg. This would be a real pain as it has had a recent paint job with the N number in big letters plastered down the side. Hate to think I have to mess with the beautiful paint job

As mm_flynn says getting an EASA PPL is not at all hard - so long as you can pass the UK CAA Class 2 medical, which is an issue for a small % of pilots who will in due course be grounded, unless they can get flying under the NPPL/LAPL/whatever.

However there is no need to move from N-reg to G-reg. It would be pointless, get you nothing (except saving the annual trust fee, and having to pay an FAA CFI for a BFR every 2 years), and land you with some stupid maintenance requirements. EASA is not proposing to impose long term parking controls on N-regs (the only controls that would be possible). I am staying N-reg too.

Your JAA IR (now EASA PPL IR) is totally useful for legal flying for you. To say other wise is totally wrong.

No' it's useless because the moment I go outside the airspace which issued my JAA/EASA PPL/IR, these papers are not valid under FAR 61.3. I suggest you look up this old chestnut. The word is issued and there are no less than two FAA chief counsel rulings on it (you can find the refs on my website).

Once outside UK airspace, the JAA/EASA papers are worth no more than a certificate in taxidermy. And if I didn't want to fly abroad, I would not need an IR because one can fly all over the UK in Class G, VFR, in VMC or IMC, etc.

I am not going to get into personal issues but I am sure you had your reasons to do the FAA route originally. Now that you are working as a UK instructor I expect you to have a different take on it - the whole training establishment was never fond of foreign pilots. I was "evicted" out of my flying school the moment I got my own plane (which then was G-reg) because I was not spending any more money there and was de facto usurping their instructors' authority by using GPS, etc.

Could you not just setup some kind of corporate structure based in the US and have your plane "owned" through that, therefore making you a US operator and getting around the problem?

It's pretty obvious that lots of people will be looking at that. In many corporate / syndicate cases the solutions are obvious, but not for a straight private owner-pilot.

I have a G reg plane and am just looking into doing the FAA IR route in a couple of weeks.

If you don't have an N-reg, I wouldn't do it. An FAA IR is not worth anything on a G-reg. The UK automatic validation (due to end April 2014) validates an ICAO PPL for worldwide VFR (which is useful to the few who could get an FAA medical but could not get the CAA Class 2) and validates an ICAO IR for worldwide IFR but only OCAS which makes that worthless since nearly all of IFR flight in Europe is in CAS. In the UK, an FAA PPL/IR in a G-reg could fly IFR to say Biggin Hill (Class G) but not to Bournemouth (Class D).

An FAA PPL/IR purely to fly a G-reg never made sense.

I suggest you go here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/) and scroll quickly all the way to the bottom, starting with Keeping the JAA IR Valid.

There is a marginal argument for using an FAA PPL/IR purely to get a JAA PPL/IR, using the 15hr IR conversion route, but it makes sense only if you are totally cash strapped (too strapped to actually fly, frankly) and your time is worth very little. In that case, doing the cheapest possible FAA route followed by the cheapest possible conversion route (Spain, probably) may be less cost than doing the 50hr ab initio JAA IR in the UK. But it's a load of hassle. If you want a "cheap" JAA PPL/IR then the best way to do it will be to go somewhere where standards are "informal" and the weather is good, and you camp out there and fly 2x a day until done, which in acceptably managed FTO terms means a particular establishment in Spain, or probably Egnatia in Greece.

The FAA IR was much harder than the JAA IR but I did it because I was flying 2x a day for 2 weeks, and the checkride was right on the 13th day. This level of currency makes "everybody" very good and minimises costs.

goldeneaglepilot

9th Apr 2012, 08:54

The FAA IR was much harder than the JAA IR but I did it because I was flying 2x a day for 2 weeks, and the checkride was right on the 13th day. This level of currency makes "everybody" very good and minimises costs.

I suggest that had you done a JAA/IR first then you would have said the JAA/IR was much harder than the FAA IR. You're right, its all about the degree of currency and experience. Starting an IR is always a tough learning curve. From memory your IR is a single IR, again that is much easier than a multi IR. I speak from experience of teaching both.

Both FAA and JAA systems for the IR have quirks, merits and disadvantadges, I could not hand on heart say one is better / easier than the other.

Both allow you to to do a journey in IFR conditions and to have the skill set to decide if that journey will be safe due to limitations such as the aircraft or weather.

peterh337

9th Apr 2012, 09:27

Both allow you to to do a journey in IFR conditionsOnly for a very trivial flight though, in Europe.

Interesting you think an MEIR is a lot harder. People who have done it say it isn't much harder because you just fly around on one engine, trimmed, and very slowly :) I also bet the instructor/examiner is watching the ASI rather keenly because his life depends on it.

The reason I advise people to not do ME just for fun (like a lot of people used to, years ago) is the annual renewal, not just for the IR but also for the PPL. Unless one is an ME owner, this is going to cost a little into 4 digits, not least because one's currency in the rented twin will be poor.

Anyway, we now have the Kafka-esque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial) situation whereby a policeman can pop over to Biggin and can try to arrest a few of the N-reg pilots landing there. The arrivals notice board tells him where they flew in from, so he can just pick a country which has not applied for a derogation. 99% of them won't have EASA papers..... and (this is the best bit) none of them will have a COONER (Certificate of Operator NON-EU Residence). Ergo, all = guilty.

What is the maximum penalty until this EU :yuk: law?

:ugh:

Pace

9th Apr 2012, 10:02

It seems that not many countries have applied to EASA for a derogation on N-regs, so these people may be flying illegally as from today.

Peter

How can you be flying illegally when the laws are illegal themselves?

I am of course referring to ATPs and Commercial pilots where EASA damned well know what they are doing contravenes not only employment laws but age discrimination laws.

I agree its a total mess and a huge joke if it was funny.

EASA have delayed till 2014 if individual countries do not acknowledge what has been decreed by the rule makers that is their problem.
We should take up the French mentality and say get stuffed.

Maybe it will take a court case to drive some sense into all this madness.

Pace

md 600 driver

9th Apr 2012, 10:49

So Peter

My head is now spinning with all the cooners and other requirements

To make it easy what do I need to have a Vfr flight in my n reg helicopter
A in the uk
B in Europe
C in the rest of the world

My helicopter is on a southern aircraft trust and I am a uk national

Cathar

9th Apr 2012, 11:02

Anyway, we now have the Kafka-esque situation whereby a policeman can pop over to Biggin and can try to arrest a few of the N-reg pilots landing there. The arrivals notice board tells him where they flew in from, so he can just pick a country which has not applied for a derogation. 99% of them won't have EASA papers..... and (this is the best bit) none of them will have a COONER (Certificate of Operator NON-EU Residence). Ergo, all = guilty.

My understanding is that the UK derogation applies to UK airspace - is the text available anywhere? (As the aircraft concerned are not on the UK register I find it hard to see on what basis the UK could issue a derogation covering flights by UK based aircraft in other Member States.) If so there will be no offences committed in the UK regardless of where the aircraft/operator is based. Also there will be no need for enforcement action in the UK until 2014.

What is the maximum penalty until this EU law?

Presumably there is not one yet in the UK given the derogation but one will no doubt be introduced before 2014. Presumably this will mirror the current penalty for flying without an appropriate licence , ie £5,000 on summary convicton or a (unlimited) fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

How can you be flying illegally when the laws are illegal themselves?

I am of course referring to ATPs and Commercial pilots where EASA damned well know what they are doing contravenes not only employment laws but age discrimination laws.

I think that that is nonsense. However, if you are correct it would be very interesting. Could you tell me the exact provision of EU employment and age discrimination legislation that you think that these rules contravene?

EASA have delayed till 2014 if individual countries do not acknowledge what has been decreed by the rule makers that is their problem.

EASA have not delayed the requirement until 2014. Under the Aircrew Regulation it applies from 8 April. However, the Regualtion also gives individual Member States the option to delay the implementation of the requirement until April 2014. Under the Regulation this is entirely at the discretion of the Member States. It appears to me that the derogation would have to apply to a Member State's airspace rather than to aircraft/operators based in that Member State.

Pace

9th Apr 2012, 11:06

Md 600 driver

If all this rubbish ever came into being which I doubt!! You would require a basic PPL H EASA variety to run alongside your FAA Licence.
Its the guys who fly N reg IFR who will have the biggest problem.
Private jets will not have a problem it being easy to operate outside Europe.
The guy running a private single MAY have a problem but I could well see a scheme put into place which is cost effective for the small guy to take that operation out of EASA land.
But hopefully we will never get to the stage of being forced into doing things like that!

Pace

bookworm

9th Apr 2012, 11:10

My understanding is that the UK derogation applies to UK airspace - is the text available anywhere?

The EU regulation text is not specific. Here's the UK take.

AIC W025/2012 (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=159&Itemid=56.html)

3.1 Private flights - The UK is deferring the European validation requirements for private operations of aircraft registered in third countries (non-EASA States) until 8 April 2014. Pilots flying non-EASA Member State aircraft privately for a UK-based owner or operator using licences that are valid under the law of the State of Registry of the aircraft may therefore continue to do so under the terms of Articles 61 and 63 of the Air Navigation Order until 7 April 2014. After that date they will require a licence validation in accordance with EU regulations.

Cathar

9th Apr 2012, 11:36

Bookworm

Thank you that is interesting. I was told quite specifically that the UK derogation was airspace related and not aircraft/operator related. This seemed quite sensible to me. It does seem that the transition arrangements have been fluid so it could have changed. I would still like to know the wording of the actual derogation as notified to EASA if anyone has seen it.

However, I still do not see how the UK derogation can extend outside of the UK given that these aircraft are not registered in the UK and their pilots are not within the UK licensing system. It seems to me that if another Member State has not issued a derogation then the requirement applies in their airspace and flights by UK based aircraft will be illegal unless the pilot has an EASA licence.

peterh337

9th Apr 2012, 11:55

Regardless of which way this bit is interpreted, it means that as of yesterday almost every EU country can arrest an almost every N-reg pilot flying in from almost every other EU country.

The FTO business must be rolling on the floor laughing its head off.

bookworm

9th Apr 2012, 12:02

However, I still do not see how the UK derogation can extend outside of the UK given that these aircraft are not registered in the UK and their pilots are not within the UK licensing system. It seems to me that if another Member State has not issued a derogation then the requirement applies in their airspace and flights by UK based aircraft will be illegal unless the pilot has an EASA licence.

I think if we were talking about international aviation in the classic sense, you'd be right. But the EU slices and dices it a bit differently in the Aircrew Reg.

Article 8
Conditions for the acceptance of licences from third countries
1. Without prejudice to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and where there are no agreements concluded between the Union and a third country covering pilot licensing, Member States may accept third country licences, and associated medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.

Article 12
Entry into force and application
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from 8 April 2012.
...
4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 until 8 April 2014.

ANNEX III
CONDITIONS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES
A. VALIDATION OF LICENCES
General
1. A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business.
...

The logic seems to be that because a pilot or operator would apply to the state in which they reside or are established for validation, the that state's derogation applies to the pilot or operator, because the derogation would prevent the pilot or operator from obtaining a validation. The same logic is applied to national licences, which cannot be replaced until the state that issued them gets round to doing so, in which case they must remain valid throughout the EU until then.

mm_flynn

9th Apr 2012, 13:34

Pace

9th Apr 2012, 15:35

If you live in the UK you have until April 2014 to get sorted (plus a once in a life time 1 year validation you can apply for if you are partway through the training).

That is NOT correct!!! This was supposed to have all kicked off in 2012 not 2014.

The extension to 2014 was for one purpose and one purpose only and that was for EASA to get an FCL agreement with the FAA.
That was the sole reason for an extension.

A Bilateral agreement was signed up to a few months back.

It has provision for FCL to be added and that is the published and stated intention of EASA to get a bilateral agreement with licence acceptance.

I have heard from very good authority that even 2014 will not happen.
Obviously EASA will not state that at this time as they are still pushing for such an agreement with the FAA by that deadline.

It is accepted by all involved that bar a miracle in bilateral FCL negotiations 2014 will move to 2016.

Regarding type ratings! A third country type rating is acceptable on a third country jet! Crazy as an EASA one is not :E

I do not believe something like a King Air which does not hold a requirement in the USA for a type has yet been decided.

EASA have hit a brick wall regarding European law and European residents working in Europe on FAA reg jets as well as certain discrimination laws which these regulations would undermine.

Hence the silence on employed pilots working in Europe on FAA reg aircraft.

EASA would not stand a chance in the European courts and they know it!
A poorly instigated set of regulations which could never see the light of day legally or morally.

Pace

peterh337

9th Apr 2012, 16:01

However I don't think any legal stuff would involve EASA. They just did the crooked work, the crooked dealing to get the transport committee votes, and now they are out of the picture.

As this is EU law and is forced upon all countries that signed up to the EU, any enforcement would be done locally.

Or not, of course.

Insurance issues would be done under civil law.

Contacttower

9th Apr 2012, 17:10

The extension to 2014 was for one purpose and one purpose only and that was for EASA to get an FCL agreement with the FAA.

If that is true why did EASA not make the 2014 delay universal, instead of leaving it up to member states to decide?

I have heard from very good authority that even 2014 will not happen.

Could you maybe elaborate on this?

peterh337

9th Apr 2012, 17:32

Presumably this will mirror the current penalty for flying without an appropriate licence , ie £5,000 on summary convicton or a (unlimited) fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.How can you get done for flying without a license, when you do have a license. You have the FAA PPL/IR or CPL/IR which complies with ICAO.

The additional EASA FCL requirements are not relevant to aircraft operation. For example, the EASA papers do not meet FAR 61.3 once you are outside the issuing CAA's airspace.

I see the EU has the power to add whatever requirements they wish, but I don't see that these requirements are a "license". They rank no higher than say the Mode S requirement, or a requirement to carry a PLB.

One could file a Z flight plan, which is VFR within the airspace of your country (which has not applied for the derogation), and you fly IFR over the rest. Who is going to prosecute? If you have to land somewhere unexpected, an it's not a mayday, you cancel IFR first. And various versions of that :)

Could you maybe elaborate on this? I don't know what Pace knows but it is pretty obvious that there is close to no prospect of a bilateral with the USA which would have the effect that pilots desire.

Another thing is any likely practical implementation of a bilateral. I wrote a lot of stuff on this a while ago and basically it is to do with what any bilateral paper deal would be actually like. In most of the world, you can validate/convert one set of ICAO papers into another, by sitting an Air Law exam and doing a flight test - or something similar. If you look at what this might mean in reality in Europe, nobody is going to pass say the UK CAA IRT without considerable training, and this would surely be at an FTO (the FTO industry will make sure of that ;) ). There would never be any kind of straight swap from an FAA IR to an EASA IR. EASA would never ever even try to negotiate that in the first place. That is why I did the JAA IR... when you look at the incremental difference between that and various possible future options (the CBM IR, which may never happen, or some BASA-based paper swap, which in the EU will always involve exams and training and the IRT), and throw in some significant possibilities like a lack of a question bank (which makes the revision workload some 5x harder)... you get my drift? Europe is never actually going to do anything the "easy" way.

What I think has suprised many people, myself included, is that most of the EU has simply ignored EASA and EASA FCL and whatever laws the EU places on the books. Most of the EU has not applied for the available derogation (the Irish kind of did but they misunderstood it :) ) and together with EASA FCL reaching the books on 8th April this has the nasty effect of making most of the European N-reg community technically illegal.

This makes a mockery of the FCL008 project, of course, whose work is now totally worthless because if you are illegal now, with several years to run like that, then it's a bit like not being a virgin now.

But they are no more illegal than all the Cirrus SR22 pilots who for years have been flying IFR in CAS without ADF+DME... and nobody I know has heard anything about prosecutions, or insurance issues, there.

piperboy84

9th Apr 2012, 17:46

However there is no need to move from N-reg to G-reg. It would be pointless, get you nothing (except saving the annual trust fee

What trust fee? I don't have or pay for any kind of trust for my aircraft. Am I missing something?

peterh337

9th Apr 2012, 17:49

I thought you said you were N-reg.

You have to be a US citizen to own an N-reg directly.

piperboy84

9th Apr 2012, 17:54

I am a dual national (UK/US) so i guess I don't need a trust, the aircraft is registered to me at my UK address

421C

9th Apr 2012, 22:57

the FCL008 project, of course, whose work is now totally worthless because if you are illegal now, with several years to run like that, then it's a bit like not being a virgin now.If you are legal now because your country has applied the derogation, then FCL008 should give you an easier conversion to an EASA IR (eg. UK resident FAA pilots). If you are not legal now, then it should give you the prospect of becoming legal more easily. So the work of FCL008 is as important as it ever was.

It may be worth some pilots bearing in mind that FCL008 proposed an IR conversion mechanism for experienced FAA IRs which is much easier than at present - a single exam and training "as required" to pass the checkride. However, annoyingly, that route requires significant experience of instrument flight whilst qualified to be PIC in IMC - 100hrs. This is a huge amount, and I understand EASA have been asked to reconsider this. It might end up as 50hrs - still a lot. Remember, this time does not include instrument flight time whilst under training and thus not qualified to fly in IMC (ie. not holding an IMCr or ICAO IR). If at present you have fewer instrument flight hours logged, you might consider trying to accumulate more over the next couple of years - in actual IMC, or under the hood with a safety pilot or instructor.

It's impossible to know whether, when and how the FCL008 proposals will actually become part of FCL, so one can't make this suggestion with any certainty. However, it might be, on the margin, worth trying to gain more instrument flight time experience over the next year or two based on the above.

peterh337

10th Apr 2012, 07:18

I didn't realise the CBM IR 100hrs conversion requirement is PIC time. Even at 1400+hrs I don't think I have 100hrs instrument time as PIC. I have 170hrs IT but that includes the IMCR, FAA IR, JAA IR training. And I do about 5x the GA average annual hrs.

That is completely ridiculous :ugh:

I can see where it comes from (an FTO industry :yuk: revenue :yuk: protection :yuk: measure, to prevent ATPL cadets doing an FAA CPL/IR in say Arizona and then converting in Europe) but why 100hrs? The chap can still do the FAA IR, which needs 40hrs total instrument time of which 15 must be dual, and then simply ignore the conversion option here and just do an ab initio CBM IR, which needs 40hrs total instrument time of which 10hrs must be at an FTO. His FAA training time will count towards his 40hrs instrument time, won't it? His min total IR time will then be 40+10=50 which is barely below the 55hrs min total IR time at present, but he will benefit from lower cost and more concentrated training in the USA, and will pick up a valuable FAA CPL/IR at the same time.

The currently proposed CBM IR zero-training conversion is equally worthless because nobody (least of all any "modern pilot") will pass the IRT without considerable training, on NDB tracking etc. I don't see even the most experienced private or professional pilot passing the ME IRT in a piston twin in less than 15-20hrs of focused training. Such a conversion should have never been proposed because nobody will be able to use it, but it would have scared the wits out of the FTO industry.

The reason the CBM IR (FCL008 IR) is barely relevant now is that most of the pilots who are in the non-derogation countries will simply throw in the towel and quit flying, before the CBM IR arrives perhaps 2 years from now at the earliest.

What's happened is pretty disgusting. But it is a puzzle. Most of the non-derog countries were happy with resident N-regs for decades (as were the few currently known derog ones) so why did they not apply? They either have some cunning "plan" (which will include not enforcing anything) or they ritually ignore the EU and never read the EASA regs.

Aware

10th Apr 2012, 12:24

I think pilots have stopped bothering wanting to jump through hoops anymore, lifes tough enough at the moment. Im an instructor and we have not seen many IR conversions, and not many IMCs. All the FAA IR holders I know have said it will never happen, and if it does how will they police it ?

There a lot of apathy out there, people just don't give a s@@@ amymore to eurocrat nonsense.

Its akin to the computer 2000 issue, lots of hype and b@@@@@@@, people spent loads of time and money sorting something that didn't really need sorting.

Fear is a great way to get people to spend money, it looks like many have not been sucked in by it all.

peterh337

10th Apr 2012, 14:51

I think there is a lot of truth in that...

BTW, this (http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/faq.html) is a handy page with explanatory notes on all this crap.

I particularly like this bit (http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/faq.html#jaacqb)

Therefore, in the light of these considerations and due to the high sensitivity of the database (especially in relation to the substantial investment in both intellectual and monetary terms) and considering the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of the TRIPS agreement and of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, it is the understanding of the Agency that any form of unauthorised disclosure of proprietary information would constitute an instance of violation of the intellectual property rights of the JAA Member States, individually and collectively.

They are trying to pre-empt another FOIA action to get the JAA 7 CQB released. So it will be left to the FTOs to do their old thing and get students to memorise 1 or 2 questions each :)

At the end they have

Third country operators

Sorry, under construction

which is quite fitting since they managed to get the cock and bull law passed first.

brockbank

14th Apr 2012, 17:24

mm_flynn

14th Apr 2012, 17:37

My Cirrus is N reg but owned by Delaware Trust, I am English and spend over 6 months each year in USA, only 3 months in the UK. Am I resident in EASA land, and seeing as my aircraft is operated by a USA Trust, can I fly in EASA? I can find no definition of 'residency'.
Thanks
David
Dave,

I think you will find it unlikely the trust operates the aircraft (they own it, but that is not the same as operating). However, if you are non-resident in the EU for tax purposes and resident in the US, I would have thought you are established in the US not in the EU. It is also quite likely that you are the operator as well - so the rules appear not to apply to your specific situation.

(NOTE - IANAL and no one has definitive rulings on this issue).

peterh337

14th Apr 2012, 18:05

I've made some top level enquiries (sorry can't say where) on whether anybody has heard anything about how "operator" will be defined and the answer was "we have no idea".

Welcome to European "Union" :yuk: rulemaking :yuk:

brockbank

14th Apr 2012, 21:10

I am an accountant by training, but dont work as one, but I know a lot of good accountants! Residency is a big big taxation subject and it is no surprise that there is no 'residency' definition in EASA land. For a fee, I can find a lot of USA companies who can be the registered operator of my N reg aircraft......but how do I know if I as the pilot am an EASA resident? Is it the tax definition, time spent, citizenship, domicile, parenthood??????

Fuji Abound

14th Apr 2012, 21:41

We have been here before. Were it ever tested before the courts the word operator would take its ordinary meaning in the absence of a definition or other reference in the act. Its everyday meaning is probably not helpful but a search of the easa paperwork for the use of the word elsewhere points to a different meaning. It would however be surprising if the legislation is adopted in its current form.

peterh337

14th Apr 2012, 21:49

AFAIK the legislation is already law, in the original wording.

The word "operator" would/should be taken in its ordinary aviation context which AIUI is whoever controls where the plane flies.

That is very easy to arrange in most cases where the plane is flown by multiple people in multiple scenarios, but not for the simple private owner-pilot.

Has EASA hung its coat on the residence of the pilot then yes the taxation residence or whatever might be used, but they haven't done that. Also had they done that, it would have created a big demand for pilots who do not hold any EU passport, which would be a bit of a shot in the foot :)

brockbank

14th Apr 2012, 22:57

A lot of private pilots who own N reg aircraft and fly them in EASA land, with American IFR rating will be deemed to be the operator. So a huge amount hinges on the residency of the operator/pilot. I can find no definition of resident in the context of an aircraft operator or pilot, and previous posts have said that there seems to be no definition.....so how do I know as a UK pilot operator, who spends over 6 months with my aircraft, out of EASA land, whether I have to qualify under JAR?

WestWind1950

15th Apr 2012, 07:44

I see residency as the primary place where you live. What address is on your aircraft documents? Where is your "officail" mailing address? What address is your passport registered at? Where are you officially registered?

What is so difficult to define that?

As to operator. I see it as the main user of the aircraft, in case of many N-regs it could be the "owner". In other cases the operator would be the club, company, or other organisation that charters it out to others. Again, THEY are the ones with the paperwork showing it's basicall their aircraft, but they legally charter it out to pilots. They are probably also responsible for the up-keep, maintenance, etc.

So in my opinion, the operator is the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft.

peterh337

15th Apr 2012, 07:51

There is no address in a UK passport :)

In other cases the operator would be the club, company, or other organisation that charters it out to others.

which could easily be a company outside the EU, and let's face it this is a very common situation - even covering flying schools doing self fly hire.

What is so difficult to define that?

Because law is not the same as common sense, which works only for the most obvious scenarios.

the operator is the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft.

Responsible for what aspect of it?

It's not so easy.

I suspect EASA used some pub lawyer in Brussels. He was quite clever, avoiding the standard pitfalls like long term parking limits. But he was probably not involved in aviation to any depth.

WestWind1950

15th Apr 2012, 08:34

Peter, my passport (US) also has no address in it, but I did have to list one when I applied for it. And I am regisitered with my present adress in the data base of the consulate (I assume).

Also, it has been jumped on enough in the Robert Weaver thread that the FAA needs the actual address to make the FAA certificate legal. So I would consider THAT to be the address of residency, as far as flying certificates/licenses are concerned.

Responsible for what aspect of it?

as I mentioned before... maintenance, keeping the paperwork in order, add to that the insurance, etc. etc.

And yes, that organisation could be outside the EU. That's why, as I see it, it wouldn't be required for an United Airline (or other 3rd country airline) to have all their pilots hold a EU licence! That would really be nonsense! But if the airline, or whoever, has their MAIN business office registered in an EU country, then it would apply.

Maybe I do think too common sense.... or many of you think too complicated? :p

peterh337

15th Apr 2012, 08:54

But if the airline, or whoever, has their MAIN business office registered in an EU country, then it would apply.

Ah, but now you are bringing the registered office address of the corporate owner into it :)

See - it's not simple.

It is quite bizzare that if United Airlines set up an EU company for managing the maintenance of the part of their fleet which flies to the EU, they would apparently fall foul of this reg. But the regs make no exceptions for e.g. AOC holders which would be the obvious thing to do. In the pre-EASA scenario, getting an AOC meant that you could do just about anything that was approved in the CAA approved manual - including using an N-reg for charter work, etc. But not anymore.

Bob Upanddown

15th Apr 2012, 14:25

I hold my hand up as having an FAA licence but not having an EASA acceptable licence.
I am a EU resident. I don't deny that I am.
So, as it stands, I cannot fly N reg outside the EU state that issued my original national licence. I can apply for my current national licence to be changed to an EASA one but not until EASA FCL is adopted (depending on which country issued my licence, it might be another year). UK CAA lead the way as usual by adopting ill-written regulations from July 2012.

The problem is that the EASA clowns and the national authorities could not foresee all the problems that this disjointed and muddled introduction of EASA FCL would produce as they are just pen-pushers and don't live in the real world. But then we N reg pilots only fly N reg in the EU thanks to a muddle of regulations so we should not complain.

So, maybe, by 2014, I will have an EASA licence to keep EASA happy in their airspace and an FAA licence to keep the FAA (state of registry of the aircraft) happy. I will be happy in maybe 2 years. It is not a long time to wait for peace of mind and the ability to fly an aircraft that is not governed by Part M. We should be grateful to be able to continue flying on the N reg. Just don't tell EASA that EASA FCL won't stop anyone doing that.

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not.
He has made his own arrangements to keep flying. We don't all live or fly in the same circumstances as him. I think Peter is winding you up to look for ways around EASA FCL by claiming non-EU residency when, in fact, this is only a short-lived problem.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can see.

peterh337

15th Apr 2012, 16:04

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not.I did not say that. I was drawing attention to the current issue. Awareness of current and upcoming threats is always a good thing. What you want to do about it is up to you.

I see you are in Denmark. Assuming you are a private owner-pilot, have you checked whether Denmark has applied to EASA for any derogation? That would be a start.

He has made his own arrangements to keep flying. We don't all live or fly in the same circumstances as him. I think Peter is winding you up to look for ways around EASA FCL by claiming non-EU residency when, in fact, this is only a short-lived problem.That may be true, in which case can you explain how it is "short lived"?

I see no evidence that a BASA is coming at any time, and in any case it would never be a straight paper swap.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can see. That's because most of them don't really exist. Even the biggest countries have poor representation, and most of Europe has effectively nobody (and very little GA).

Also AOPA UK has a bit of a history being in two minds whether to support N-regs or not. Go back say 5 years and they were very ambivalent. Unsuprising, given the large number of corporate (FTO) members. They came on board recently though.

Germany is doing quite a lot, it seems.

421C

15th Apr 2012, 16:48

It is quite bizzare that if United Airlines set up an EU company for managing the maintenance of the part of their fleet which flies to the EU, they would apparently fall foul of this reg.
Who says? A maintenance subsidiary is not an operator. UA is a Part 121 operator resident in the USA.

Also AOPA UK has a bit of a history being in two minds whether to support N-regs or not. Go back say 5 years and they were very ambivalent. Unsuprising, given the large number of corporate (FTO) members. They came on board recently though.
That's not true. AOPA UK were 100% behind the N-reg operators in 2005 (7 years ago) when the DfT consultation in the UK proposed to ban them. This was before any inkling of EASA regs. They have since been 100% supportive. Why do you keep writing this stuff?

Peter 337 does not help by suggesting (posting the same posts across a number of forums) that all N reg operation is at an end when clearly it is not He didn't post that. Conversely, your post is the one that does not help because it's a confusing muddle.

AOPA's across the EU should be helping N reg pilots with advice how to continue to fly. They aren't doing that as far as I can
see. An AOPA member concerned that important advice is not being given to members should contact his AOPA. AOPA people are responsive and accessible in my view. In practice, there is little advice for AOPA to give. If you fly with an FAA IR in a derogation country you have until 2014 to get an EASA IR by whichever means are available.

peterh337

15th Apr 2012, 16:58

If you fly with an FAA IR in a derogation country you have until 2014 to get an EASA IR by whichever means are available.The flip side of that is that if you fly with an FAA IR in a country which for reasons unknown has not bothered to apply to EASA for the last-minute derogation option (which appears to be nearly all of the EU countries, most likely because they did not want to waste their lives reading the thousands of pages of EASA diatribe) you are on the face of it grounded right now, which is a situation which most find hard to accept, because (as I wrote before) it is something straight out of Kafka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial) (one of my countrymen, I believe :) ).

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as they say. So let's see how many EU based FAA IR holders pile into the (relatively few) FTOs willing to run FAA IR to JAA IR conversion courses. On the numbers of the last few years that this stuff has been cooking, the answer will be "almost none" which takes us back to the practical picture.

Bob Upanddown

15th Apr 2012, 17:00

If you look for "most N-reg flight is technically finished as of today." You will find it in one of Peter 337 posts.

And where does it say in EASA-land that you have until 2014 to fly on an FAA IR?

Many opinions, I think, but little fact.

peterh337

15th Apr 2012, 17:02

What you might now get is a few people posting the EASA FCL passages for the nth time... maybe.

421C

15th Apr 2012, 17:10

And where does it say in EASA-land that you have until 2014 to fly on an FAA
IR?

Many opinions, I think, but little fact
OK. Tell us the facts. What is the regulatory position today and outlook for an EU resident operating an N-registered aircraft on the basis of FAA pilot and medical qualifications?

peterh337

15th Apr 2012, 17:19

Bob Upanddown

You can start here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/index.html).

It is a bit of a mess though.

Sir Niall Dementia

15th Apr 2012, 19:17

I've just had to apply for new licenses. I hold UK ATPL/A and H with current IRs and all the right ticks in the boxes. According to PLD at the Belgrano if I want to fly in EASA land after 2014 I need an EASA license, I can apply for Uk licenses, but after a date in 2014 will be restricted to UK reg only and the rest of EASA land will be out, even as a destination for work.

I had an e-mail yesterday telling me that I can't have my new licenses because my Class 1 will lapse 25 days before the licenses are due to start and my medical must cover the start date. I'm so old I'm on six monthly medicals (some of my work is SPIFR) so I will have to re-submit when my medical is current. (I even had to send a copy of the cert, surely they can walk across reception and ask in the med dept if I have a medical)
God alone knows when I will see my logbooks again.

Also France is refusing to acept JAR and hence EASA at the moment, and may refuse it all together, Germany is going the same way. EASA is currently looking a bit like the Euro, some in and some out with all the inherent differences.

Sadly our beloved CAA is supine they have cheerfully bent aviation in the UK across a metaphorical table, dropped it's trousers and allowed EASA to
f+*@ it royally.

The CAA may be our regulator, but it is still a company, the service is crap, maybe its time to start a new company and go for the regulation contract, as a customer of the CAA I'm often disappointed, I spend 20 hours a week on how legislation is changing and how it will affect my company and I'm frankly sick of it.

Rant over, now back to N reg in JAR land

SND

bookworm

15th Apr 2012, 19:39

Sadly our beloved CAA is supine they have cheerfully bent aviation in the UK across a metaphorical table, dropped it's trousers and allowed EASA to f+*@ it royally.

That's completely out of order. The CAA has provided clarity of intentions which surpass anything that any of the other NAAs have done. Neither France nor Germany have a choice as to whether to accept EASA.

Get your next medical, then send the forms off to the Belgrano after July 1, and you're done.

BillieBob

15th Apr 2012, 20:09

The CAA may be our regulator, but it is still a companyNo, it isn't, the CAA is a public corporation, wholly controlled by central government through the DfT.

Bob Upanddown asks the important question - where is this 2 year derogation pending amendment of the bilateral that was dangled in front of the TRAN committee by Mathew Baldwin last year?

Amended to say that I should have taken my own advice and examined all of the relevant legislation. I see that the UK have invoked Article 12(4) of the Aircrew Regulation to defer the application of Annex III until 2014, but only for non-commercial purposes. There remains, as far as I can see, no derogation for AOC holders or other commercial operators.

Bob Upanddown

16th Apr 2012, 18:07

OK. Tell us the facts. What is the regulatory position today and outlook for an EU resident operating an N-registered aircraft on the basis of FAA pilot qualifications?

I am not an expert (as you are 421C from you many postings and Peter337) but this is what I find.

EASA have stopped all flight on an FAA licence (but not stopped all flight in an N registered aircraft) because:

REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 20 February 2008 says at
CHAPTER II SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS Article 4, Basic principles and applicability

1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) 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; or
(c) 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; or
(d) 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 shall comply with this Regulation.

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 says at Article 12 that
the regulation shall apply from 8th April 2012

Article 12, para 4. Says
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 until 8 April 2014.

The EASA regulations therefore seem to me to state that a pilot must comply with EASA regulation 216/2008 from 8 April 2012. In other words, a pilot in the EU must hold an EASA licence whatever he flies.

The EASA regulations seem to allow a pilot with an FAA CPL/IR or PPL/IR to exercise that FAA CPL/IR or PPL/IR in his state of residency for private flights if that state has applied for a derogation up to 2014.

In a state without such a derogation, but where a state will not introduce EASA licence issue until 2013, the EASA regulations seem to me to say that a pilot must comply with EASA regulation 216/2008 from 8 April 2012.

FARs Part 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person—
(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used;

FAR Part 61 .3 does not allow operation on a Denmark PPL in UK so, if EASA will not allow FAA licence to be recognised, on what licence is a Denmark PPL flying an N register aircraft in UK? Because EU is not a state or country?

If FAA do not recognise EU as a state or country, then it must be that from now, you must have EASA (or JAA recognised by EASA) licence and FAA licence to fly N registration across EU. If you don’t have EASA licence but have a national licence, you must fly only N registration in own state of residency.

I think your arguments are that pilots who live in a state like UK can fly on FAA IR across EU. I think not. You need EASA IR and FAA IR. From 8th April 2012.

Bob

peterh337

16th Apr 2012, 19:01

I think your arguments are that pilots who live in a state like UK can fly on FAA IR across EU. I think not. You need EASA IR and FAA IR. From 8th April 2012.

That depends on the interpretation of the 2 year derogation, and how one defines the residence of the "operator" mentioned in

(d) registered in a third country, ....., and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community

which I think is the bit most applicable to private pilots.
If you go back a bit in this thread you will find a post by bookworm which is IMHO the right way to approach it.

But the bottom line is that PROB99 none of the EU national CAAs have much idea what to do about this stupid regulation. For example what does "out of the Community" mean? Does it mean that a flight out of the EU is illegal? That is just bollox.

cessnapete

16th Apr 2012, 20:07

If your interpretation of the rules is correct, then hundreds if not thousands of N Reg FAA licenced EU citizens are now flying illegally since 8/4 !!
I understood there was a delay until 2014 and then a year allowed for FAA licence holders to pass the EASA licence requirements.

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 08:22

I think most are flying "technically illegally" as of 8th April 2012.

However there is another possibility which I have just read about. Many may have quietly applied the other available derogation that slipped in to the March 30th Regulation:

"By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Annexes I to IV until 8 April 2013".

Annexes I-IV are all of Part FCL and Part MED so presumably this derogation would deal with the N-reg issue, at least until 2013.

chubbychopper

17th Apr 2012, 08:54

Does anyone know which member states have applied for derogations?

Also, does ICAO define precisely what the term "operator" means? I've seen the term defined in some ICAO publications, but I presume the definition only applies in respect of the context of those documents.

It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.

In the private corporate world I think that the term operator would adequately describe the individual or company who is contracted to ensure that the aircraft is crewed, flown, maintained and operated in accordance with applicable legislation, that all bills are taken care of and that the aircraft is made available to the owner (or beneficial owner) in line with his flight schedule. In my language, those functions are taken care of by "Aircraft Managers." Whether EASA would care to argue otherwise is a matter of speculation, but I hope they pick on an airplane "operator" who has the balls for a legal challenge!

Bob Upanddown

17th Apr 2012, 09:09

I think most are flying "technically illegally" as of 8th April 2012.

What you believe depends on your own interpretation but I agree with Peter 337.
On a interpretation scale of one to ten, some will be at 10 and consider the rules and derogations allow a pilot to fly on a FAA PPL/IR until 2014 anywhere in EU. Others will be at one and consider no further flight in N registered is allowed in EU.
Bookworm has a good agreement but so does Cathar.
Where are the authorities on the scale of one to ten? Maybe Germany is at one and will soon arrest pilots flying IR on FAA licence? UK must be at 10??
We are in a crazy situation but at least we can still fly N registered aircraft in EU if we have the correct licenses so it is not as bad as it could have been. Maybe we should be thankful for that?

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 09:22

Does anyone know which member states have applied for derogations?

EASA have promised a list "soon" :)

I suspect it is embarrasingly short.

It is interesting that EASA chose to use the term "operator" rather than owner, or beneficial owner, or other such term. I can only conclude that they had reason to be a little vague, and perhaps they may have been afraid to contradict ICAO principles in some way.

There are two possibilities here.

1) They got good legal advice, and did this for a clever reason. One could speculate on what that reason might be. If they followed ICAO provisions and hung this on the "nationality" (citizenship) of the pilot, it would push corporate operators into firing their EU-passport holding crews and replacing them with crews holding non EU passports, which would be a massive own-goal. It is easier to understand why EASA did not propose long term parking limits: this was tried by France (2004) and the UK (2005) and both were hastily abandoned when somebody with a brain realised it would be unworkable (and easy to get around for the big boys). Hanging this on the "operator" is more subtle but leads to easy work-arounds for the bigger boys. It does capture the small private owner quite well though, IMHO, and whose only option would be to syndicate-out the aircraft to a non-EU operating company which then runs a booking website and effectively controls the aircraft.

2) They didn't get good legal advice and developed this in the committee. I think that option is more likely. The wording is far too vague to have come from a lawyer.

Where are the authorities on the scale of one to ten? Maybe Germany is at one and will soon arrest pilots flying IR on FAA licence? UK must be at 10??

UK is definitely at 10 - a top level contact told me the other day they have no clue how to interpret this.

Perhaps a useful way to see this is to examine each country's previous attitude to N-regs.

Germany was easy with them, as were most others. One well known exception was Denmark which imposed vague long term parking controls and did sporadic fines. The well known "zero VAT" lawyer got fined a few hundred euros. I think Norway is similar. But I see no reason why most of Europe should suddenly want to do anything.

mad_jock

17th Apr 2012, 09:39

I would be more concerned about the Dft thinking that it would come under thier remit than the CAA.

The CAA don't seem to bother doing that many spot checks. And don't have that many teams roving about unlike some countrys.

Dft turn up in all sorts of places, have alot more inspections and are alot more anal retentive compared to the CAA teams.

cessnapete

17th Apr 2012, 10:26

Easy to say 'if you have the correct licences' but what are the correct licences at the moment?
Not being a lawyer I recently rang the CAA for guidance, the answer I received- this is an EASA matter ask them!!

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 11:01

The DfT have for years been very straight over the N-reg (and related FRA) community.

Sure the person at the CAA responsible for prosecutions (Ian Weston, until fairly recently) is/was actually on the DfT payroll, but I don't see a problem here.

The UK has filed for the 2 year derogation anyway...

Germany, I hear from a German pilot, has also done similarly but apparently not for everything. I don't have any details, and while I have asked a number of foreign pilots about this, most of them don't know where to look, and those that do have been told by their their CAA that they don't know what to do. France (DGAC) has told people they don't know what to do about this and frankly I don't think France gives a flying **** what EASA does.

S-Works

17th Apr 2012, 11:11

I have had a lengthy call with the CAA this morning regarding who adopted what on the 8th April and they have absolutely no idea!! There is no EASA list saying who has adopted Part FCL and who has applied for derogations. They have told me that they understand the vast majority of member states have adopted with effect from the 8th without derogation but are awaiting confirmation.

The ones that seem to have adopted Part FCL immediately seem to be those that struggled with mutual recognition audits in the past as there is no concept of mutual recognition. If you issue a Part FCL licence or state as the UK did that your JAA licence is a Part FCL licence then it has to be accepted.

It would seem that the derogation to give a transition period for the dual licensing was to low down on the list. Speaking to the Spanish DGAC as well today, as far as they are concerned they have no plans to apply for a derogation at this time so expect N Reg pilots to be compliant.

I have dropped mails to the other NAA's that I deal with at work to ask opinion.

But it does strike me that this has become somewhat of a beggars muddle..

WestWind1950

17th Apr 2012, 11:28

the info for Germany is here (http://www.lba.de/DE/Luftfahrtpersonal/Rechtsgrundlagen/Teil_FCL/Einfuehrung_Teil_FCL.html;jsessionid=5FEC41AA68000DF6FBFB771 3E623825B.042?nn=20280), but only in German unfortunately.

mad_jock

17th Apr 2012, 11:35

personally I think the UK CAA has played a blinder by doing that.

Its going to let all the others sort the mess out.

They won't have to commit any resources to it and when ever people ask them about matters they can just point them towards the other NAA's.

By the time 2014 comes along folk will have either got there EASA tickets or the aircraft will have gone due to the whole thing being a pain in the arse.

Germany looks as if its going for 1 year.

Fuji Abound

17th Apr 2012, 11:44

Its interesting in that to to some extent none of this really matters to the average private pilot (over even small commerical operator) at the moment. It is quite clear that there is some much confusion you doubt any authority would bring a prosecution, and, if they did, you would doubt how successful they would be.

The real rub I guess for many is that (God forbid) if anything were to go wrong its whether or not the insurance company would have grounds for refusing the claim (and there in are the real dire consquences for most). I wonder if an an insurance company if asked the question (lets say in the circumstances peterh337 outlines) what their answer would be. I know their answer in one specific case but ultimately it is a matter between each owner and their insurance company.Were I in the situation I know I would want to ask the question and make certain I receive a written answer.

VMC-on-top

17th Apr 2012, 12:12

This is all quite confusing in light of the recent AOPA announcement that the French had been asked (by EASA) to take a fresh look at GA regulation, from the ground up.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/480971-aopa-reports-easa-changes-air.html

Why would they (EASA) ask the French to take a clean-sheet approach to this when, to all intents in purposes, the guillotine is on the way down already?

Is it really likely that, given all the apparent chaos and confusion, that in a year or so time, EASA will turn round and say "hey guys, we got it wrong, forget everything we've told you, we're using a new system [X] which is, (for the sake of argument) identical to the FAA system?

My gut feeling is that Part FCL will be adopted in its entirety in a couple of years or so and from there on, it will be pretty difficult to unwind the whole thing, even if the French, the Germans, the Irish, and every other member, all agrees (as do the board who have commissioned this report) that system X is the way ahead?

bookworm

17th Apr 2012, 12:41

There is no EASA list saying who has adopted Part FCL and who has applied for derogations.

I would expect the list to appear here (http://www.easa.europa.eu/approvals-and-standardisation/opt-outs-to-regulation.php) within a couple of weeks.

They have told me that they understand the vast majority of member states have adopted with effect from the 8th without derogation but are awaiting confirmation.
...
Speaking to the Spanish DGAC as well today, as far as they are concerned they have no plans to apply for a derogation at this time so expect N Reg pilots to be compliant.

I would be astonished if there are any states that do not apply the horizontal derogation (i.e. everything) in the 30th March amending regulation.

S-Works

17th Apr 2012, 12:58

There are a lot of things that you would expect. Lets see if they happen and then we can be astonished or just flabbergasted....

Personally I would think that if they have not bothered yet then they may not bother. The UK CAA were ready....

Fuji Abound

17th Apr 2012, 13:14

Hmmm, I have to say Bookie is usually correct, but time will indeed tell.

What a complete mess - which I did pint out some moons ago, to be told by certain forumites that I was wrong and EASA are entirely fit for purpose, open and transparent. I wonder if you still think so 421C?

n5296s

17th Apr 2012, 13:36

As a Brit living and flying the US I follow all this with horror. If one day I do decide to return to Europe I think it will be time to hang up my headset for good or maybe buy an LSA or an Extra but certainly give up the concept of flying for the purpose of going somewhere.

It's interesting hat the EU member states seem to be getting generally fed up with the incomprehensible bureaucratic mess that Brussels has become. In a completely different field my wife is very actively involved in some new EU initiatives and the member state attitude seems to be "do what you want, we'll just make sure that whatever you do it doesn't apply to MY country".

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 13:37

There is no doubt that EASA as a whole is a joke.

The only question is how will this mess be sorted out.

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 14:16

I know their answer in one specific caseHaving just phoned them, so do I and it is what I expected in the present situation where determining one's legality is pretty difficult.

do what you want, we'll just make sure that whatever you do it doesn't apply to MY countryThat's very true but in practice it tends to be only the "old" southern Europe that actually sticks a finger up to Brussels. Northern Europe (UK, Germany, etc, all the the north of there, and to a lesser extent France) implement all the EU crap with relative enthusiasm, as do the younger EU members (e.g. Czech Rep, Slovakia, Slovenia) which brown-nose every EU official they come across in the Brussels corridors. I am Czech personally and while I can see that they have to always be aware which side their bread is buttered and bend with the prevailing wind, it makes me a bit sick. Watching some of the small country MEPs on the EU parliament videos is like watching the sycophants at a Hitler rally.

I would be astonished if there are any states that do not apply the horizontal derogation (i.e. everything) in the 30th March amending regulation. Do they have to notify EASA?

One problem with this stuff is that I don't think much of Europe has actually read these regs :ugh:

Inside each national CAA, there are probably only just 1 or 2 people who can understand them as a whole.

Many pilots I know of have phoned their national CAA, only to be told that nobody there knows what to do or what it means, and sent the pilot off to ask EASA. But that is bizzare because EASA "only" drew up the rules; they are not any kind of legal interpreter of them. Only a court can definitively interpret a law which is on the books.

bookworm

17th Apr 2012, 16:10

Do they have to notify EASA?

Yes, but the whole thing was an eleventh hour comitology kludge tacked on to the cover reg for Part-CC/ORA/ARA. It was only published on 5 April and so in principle doesn't take effect until 25 April!

I've heard a timescale of a couple of months mentioned for notifying derogations, but I haven't seen chapter and verse.

chubbychopper

17th Apr 2012, 16:18

I contacted my regulator today.....response "we are not sure. We'll get back to you."

I think I'll try my insurance company now...perhaps they have a definition of "operator," or will name the states within which we may fly, or not fly, (ie., those who have applied for derogation, and those who have not) when using FAA licenced crew in our TCO registered aircraft, which may, or not be, operated (depending on the definition) by a "management company" based inside the EU or elsewhere.

I feel like someone has stood me in a barrel and told me to piss in the corner = confused!

cessnapete

17th Apr 2012, 16:42

These EASA documents are uninteligable to the ordinary mortal, we are not lawyers. We need the information in plain English. Because of this EASA mess, many people are now probably flying unlicenced and therefore uninsured.

jxk

17th Apr 2012, 16:49

cessnapete - Hear Hear Like :D :ugh:

Perhaps in future there will be a legal requirement for all pilots to carry not just a map but a huge tome with all the EASA regulations.

172driver

17th Apr 2012, 17:41

Perhaps in future there will be a legal requirement for all pilots to carry not just a map but a huge tome with all the EASA regulations.

Don't give them ideas, jxk, just don't....:=

bookworm

17th Apr 2012, 19:33

These EASA documents are uninteligable to the ordinary mortal, we are not lawyers. We need the information in plain English.

Believe me, you're preaching to the converted. It took me three attempts just to find the text permitting the horizontal derogation.

Because of this EASA mess, many people are now probably flying unlicenced and therefore uninsured.

I think that quite unlikely. Though if you're an N-reg operator and resident in a state other than the UK or Germany, it would certainly make sense to find out what your state's arrangements for transition are.

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 19:56

Germany seems to have gone for a 1 year derogation; that's a translation of that German site by a German pilot. I have no more details e.g. which of the two derogations they have gone for.

I think that quite unlikely.

The real Q is who decides you are illegal. In these circumstances it can only be a court interpreting the regs (during a prosecution) which are so vague they can be argued about for ages.

If one is talking about prosecutions i.e. a criminal offence then all the pub lawyers thinking they know how an "operator resident in the EU" is defined are not worth anything.

I would suggest contacting your insurer is much more relevant. I did that, and the reply was that in the present circumstances (where even the CAAs don't know what the regs mean) they would not regard the flight as illegal, especially if the paper issue is not relevant to the incident (which it almost never is anyway). It thus appears to me that insurers are not going to try interpreting the EASA regs for themselves, keep their decision quiet, and then refuse to pay out if you have a prang.

As I have written here countless times, I did the JAA IR (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/index.html) not because I was worried about illegality (because the EASA FCL reg is a load of vague self evident crap which nobody will know how to police for ages, if ever) but because of the insurance angle.

What I did not expect, and nobody else did either by the looks of it, is that the situation would become 10x more vague by most of the EU ignoring the regs totally as if they never read them (which most probably haven't). This makes the insurance angle pretty vague also.

The other reason I did the JAA IR (conversion) is because I was concerned for the lifetime of the very valuable 15hr conversion route. It now appears that since nobody knows what to do, the present route looks like it is just carrying on. I gather the UK CAA is happy to approve the "abbreviated approved course" if it is still 15hrs like at present, with maybe a bit of flexibility. But almost nobody is doing the JAA IR conversion anyway..............

brockbank

17th Apr 2012, 20:03

Watch this extract from the EU:

EASA Nonsense 1.wmv - YouTube

Then watch the response from the boss of EASA reply: (it starts 1 min into video)

EASA Nonsense 2.wmv - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUdtOE36zIA&feature=youtu.be)

We are all talking nonsense - that's official from the boss of EASA

bookworm

17th Apr 2012, 20:11

What I did not expect, and nobody else did either by the looks of it, is that the situation would become 10x more vague by most of the EU ignoring the regs totally as if they never read them (which most probably haven't). This makes the insurance angle pretty vague also.

You seem to be mixing up EU regulation and exact science. ;)

maxred

17th Apr 2012, 20:22

The real Q is who decides you are illegal. In these circumstances it can only be a court interpreting the regs (during a prosecution) which are so vague they can be argued about for ages.

I think this is the hub. If our regulator, CAA, can't give any definitive angle or interpretation, and Insurance companies have no clue, like the rest of us, then it can be easily argued that pilots/operators who have covered the angles, and have remained as current and licenced as possible, then frankly, I do not feel there is much to worry about, re illegality/prosecution issues.

The chance of your insurer giving a written note to that effect is probably zero however. Has the CAA offered anyone written confirmation of their own personal status, when asked by telephone????

M1900

17th Apr 2012, 21:12

I have tried to wade through most of the pages of this thread, but I'm afraid my brain has gone numb.
As this is a Private Flying forum, I would like to ask a simple question to which I hope there is a simple answer.
I very recently obtained a UK CAA JAA PPL(H) - it says it was "issued in accordance with ICAO and JAR-FCL standards".
I 'own' (through a US trust) an N-registered helicopter, and fly purely privately wholly in the UK.
Am I currently legal to do this?

421C

17th Apr 2012, 21:39

It sounds like you are.
You can go back to the article that started the thread here PPL/IR Europe - EASA Part FCL and Foreign-Registered Aircraft (FRA) (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=615)
It provides a one-page summary of the situation for UK residents and the CAA source.
brgds
421C

Fuji Abound

17th Apr 2012, 21:57

421c i am pleased to see you have joined the debate and forgive me repeating but i told you so. I dont say that with any pleasure but more in the hope that you do at least now agree!

peterh337

17th Apr 2012, 21:59

I very recently obtained a UK CAA JAA PPL(H) - it says it was "issued in accordance with ICAO and JAR-FCL standards".
I 'own' (through a US trust) an N-registered helicopter, and fly purely privately wholly in the UK.

The state of registry (the USA i.e. the FAA for an N-reg aircraft) determines whether any particular pilot papers are valid for its aircraft.

In this case, FAR 61.3 is what you need to look up.

If you have a PPL(H) issued by the UK, you can fly in UK airspace.

If you have a PPL(H) issued by say France, you can fly in French airspace.

I don't see this privilege disappearing under the EASA FCL anti-N-reg proposals because it is nothing to do with that (you already have an EASA pilot license) and there is no (known/planned) proposal to impose long term parking limits on foreign reg aircraft.

Only the FAA could stop this, by amending FAR 61.3 to disallow the use of foreign pilot papers. But the USA rarely changes its regs substantively.

I have some notes here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc-privileges/index.html).

Pilots who are not mixing papers (e.g. flying a G-reg on a UK/JAA PPL) which is what most people do, do not need to understand this well, and indeed I am sure most don't. Certainly most pilots I meet haven't got a clue about this stuff, but then they don't need to - so long as they stick to the straightforward scenarios.

But pilots who are mixing papers do need to understand how this stuff works.

It's not particularly hard to understand, but one first needs to get away from the pub aviation barristers who come out with the "2 out of 3 rule" etc etc :)

421C

17th Apr 2012, 22:01

Fuji - agree with what? 421C

Fuji Abound

17th Apr 2012, 22:14

421c my post #89

S-Works

18th Apr 2012, 07:22

You should be careful with your 'I told you so's' Fuji because I told you this whole N reg situation was coming several years ago and you and Peter argued I was wrong.......

peterh337

18th Apr 2012, 07:32

Bose .................. X
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)

S-Works

18th Apr 2012, 07:42

Harsh Peter, but not unexpected......:ok:

mad_jock

18th Apr 2012, 08:10

Peter alot of us have known this for years and told you it.

Also as well I don't think you realise how much negative feeling there is about the current N reg status Quo. Both in the industry and politically across europe.

And the political types and NAA's publicly getting there nose rubbed in the fact that N reg crowed say that there system is ****e just makes them more hard nosed.

Everytime I see a post saying the EU system is ****e (and I don't for one minute think its perfect just different philosophy which has lost its way) Compared to FAA or a public slagging off of the politicians involved all I think is bang another nail into the coffin. Any chance of a compromise is disappearing down the plug.

They don't care that people are going to loose thier jobs,
They don't care if flight safety is going to be reduced
They don't care that there will be less flying.
They don't care that revenue will be decreased.
They don't care if they are taken to court over it. But history shows pilots arn't very good at organising a coherent line of attack over issues.

All they care about is that the citizens and residents of thier countrys abide by the laws and philosophys of thier law makers.

Which is one of the reasons why I don't think there will ever be a easy swap for FAA tickets to EASA ones. Call it a fine for getting caught taking the piss with a loop hole.

The revamping will occur but only once the current N reg fleet has been much reduced to a fraction of what it was and the pilots have gone local again or are not flying in europe in protest.

Bob Upanddown

18th Apr 2012, 08:36

It sounds like you are.
You can go back to the article that started the thread here PPL/IR Europe - EASA Part FCL and Foreign-Registered Aircraft (FRA)
It provides a one-page summary of the situation for UK residents and the CAA source.
brgds
421C

Will he stand up in a German court for you (or your estate)?
I think it is very dangerous to place your faith in the opinion of one man. Your note at the bottom pretty much says that. Ask three FSDO's in the USA for an opinion and you will get at least three different answers.
On what does he base he opinion that you can fly as UK resident in EU for another 2 years on an FAA IR only? He can only speak for UK and UK airspace??

peterh337

18th Apr 2012, 08:56

Also as well I don't think you realise how much negative feeling there is about the current N reg status Quo. Both in the industry and politically across europe.Only among full-time gravy train riders. Of which there are many, of course. On here, too. In most cases they are obvious (FTO owners, for example). Some are G-reg charter pilots who are bitter about illegal charters and think that N-reg is to blame for that (but actually anybody with a brain will do illegal charter work in a G-reg ;) ).

I also find that people who have done the whole JAA route tend to "go native". Maybe I will one day (I have no more papers that can be physically collected) but it doesn't look like it presently, does it? :)

But hey this is normal. I have a business in electronics. Been doing this since 1978 so have seen a few things pass by... more than most people actually. Almost nobody who started in business when I started is still working in it. Most have gone bust, or moved into Marketing ;) BS5750, ISO9000, ROHS, REACH. WEEE, the list is longer than my arm. Every year we get a feast closely followed by a famine (the two terms are exchanged according to whether you are a supplier or a consumer :E ) as the sales reps :yuk: go around spreading daaaark tales of impending shortages so they get people to over-order so they can collect their commissions and change jobs quickly.

Just now I have got an email with a 20 page questionnaire listing hundreds of substances which the Politburo in Brussels has banned and I must sign it to say our products don't contain any of them. It is an almost daily ritual now. Of course I will sign it; everybody does. Some arse covering idiot at the receiving end smiles and files it, and doesn't remove me from his approved supplier list :yuk: He is probably on £50k plus a car. He is one of the winners...... but if I did his job I could not go home and say to my lady and my kids that I am proud of my job.

Each one is a gravy train for somebody. For every loser there is a winner, and the winner doesn't give a flying XXXX for what happens to the loser. The winners rarely if ever work in electronics manufacturing (they sit on committees and work for e.g. consulting companies :yuk: ) just like the winners in aviation regulation are almost never pilots.

And the political types and NAA's publicly getting there nose rubbed in the fact that N reg crowed say that there system is ****e just makes them more hard nosed.What do they expect? Do you seriously think that if p p r u n e was shut down, anything would change? I tell you what would change if internet forums vanished. With the sh****y PPL and IR training which is almost totally inadequate and irrelevant for the job, pilots would be much less clued-up than they are. I reckon 95% of tactical aviation expertise now comes from the internet, not from your instructor.

All they care about is that the citizens and residents of thier countrys abide by the laws and philosophys of thier law makers. No they don't. They care about their well padded gravy trains. You need to get out more and meet some of the types behind this stuff.

Which is one of the reasons why I don't think there will ever be a easy swap for FAA tickets to EASA onesThat I agree with 100%. The "BASA around the corner" is a load of bull***t. But even if it wasn't it would never deliver a paper conversion route (along the lines of the old Irish FAA ATPL => JAA ATPL paper swap one for example).

That is why I did the JAA IR conversion (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/) (sorry to post that link again but many people email me saying how useful it is) because any conversion that might come is not likely to be significantly easier. Even if the exams shrink from the present 7 to say 2, all they need to do is remove the QB study option (which EASA clearly wants to do; refs in my writeup) and the study workload will be at/above the old system. And almost nobody will pass the JAA IRT without something like 15hrs' training. The "gravy tomorrow" talk is IMHO bollox. The option which is on the table now is close to the best possible future option (short of a total EU meltdown).

mad_jock

18th Apr 2012, 09:08

No nothing would happen if all the forums shut thier doors today. The damage has been done and the slow moving cogs have been put into motion. They will eventually reach thier destination.

I agree with the rest of it though.

And give you that it maybe gravy train iced with political morals (oxymoron that one) doesn't change the fact that N reg is humped in europe.

peterh337

18th Apr 2012, 09:53

Time will tell, but I agree that the pros and cons are changing over time.

But they've been changing for a long time anyway. If you read the pros and cons here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/index.html) you can see they have always been pretty sharp tradeoffs, and this is just another negative to consider.

If the EU gave everybody with FAA papers the equivalent JAA papers, accepted FAA STCs and all other Approved Data, and some other stuff, the N-reg scene would dry up. I remember saying this to a JAA Director some years ago and he agreed. But this will never happen because the present "winners" would start a war. The EU is trying to crack a problem which is 100% their own fault for creating.

mad_jock

18th Apr 2012, 10:33

Prats like Weaver don't do your cause any good at all.

The engineering side of things may be sorted after the bulk of the N reg fleet is gone.

But I can't see the license stuff being sorted. And neither can I see us going to a rolling currency for the IR or MEP etc.

peterh337

18th Apr 2012, 10:54

Prats like Weaver don't do your cause any good at all. He could have done the same on a G-reg. The UK CAA does practically zero ramp checks.

Aviation is full of "character types" and the biggest ones I have come across were all G-reg commercial operators.

The engineering side of things may be sorted after the bulk of the N reg fleet is gone. You have no way to know that :)

But I can't see the license stuff being sorted. And neither can I see us going to a rolling currency for the IR or MEP etc.Of course not, in Europe. Here, everybody is assumed to be crooked and faking their logbook, hence the annual flight.

mad_jock

18th Apr 2012, 11:11

You wouldn't have a one eyed commercial pilot he wouldn't get a commercial medical here.

And to be honest Weaver is being talked about pretty much world wide. He is the face of N reg in alot of places.

Engineering wise,

I don't have anyway of knowing that but it wouldn't generate half as much fuss as doing the same with licenses. And you could set a start date and everything after that date would be deemed new and comply's with both and anything prior to that would have to go through the old system.

And they have already agreed in principle and the FAA is willing to reciprocate which is a huge tick in the box which licensing won't get. It helps having Airbus and Boeing having a common interest in that occuring.

In fact it might be quite a good way to encourage the retirement off alot of the old flying school junk out there.

To be honest the low powered single engine side of things I can't really get excited about it not being tested. The multi engined side of things you need to get regular practise single engine, the work load goes through the roof and it can bite your arse hard very quickly. I believe the high powered single can be a bit fiesty as well on the go around and you need a knack and practise for a nengine failure not to be a certain crash.

peterh337

18th Apr 2012, 11:19

You wouldn't have a one eyed commercial pilot he wouldn't get a commercial medical here.

Come on MJ you are the biggest troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) here after all.

The USA is full of one eyed pilots and they are all flying into LHR right now, and they are crashing on the ILS because with one eye you can turn onto the localiser only from one side and not the other.

I believe the high powered single can be a bit fiesty as well on the go around and you need a knack and practise for a nengine failure not to be a certain crash.

I am going to give up commenting on your posts.

mad_jock

18th Apr 2012, 11:32

There not actually, all those boys/girls have class 1 medicals.

You can get a Class II and III with one eye though under FAA.

Its the reason why Weaver went FAA in the first place.

Didn't a ppruner go for a swim in the Tay because they were a bit fiesty?

And that wasn't even a particularly powerful one.

Fuji Abound

18th Apr 2012, 11:38

Bose

You should be careful with your 'I told you so's' Fuji because I told you this
whole N reg situation was coming several years ago and you and Peter argued I
was wrong.......

Ah, but that is like the Sun's reporting of what the Chancellor said about the cap on charitable doantions.

In fact we said it would be extraordinarily difficult to draft legislation that would achieve this objective (you will recall the last attempt with regards based aircraft). Sounds to me "I told you so" was more than appropriate! The N reg situation has always been coming and will probably always be "coming" unless they finally manage to "kill" it off - they just might, but that is another story.

On the other hand you will of course recall your predictions with regards the IMCr - whilst we await the final outcome, I ownder if you feel a slight tremor beneath your feet? ;)

421C I am glad to see the transparent process you previously referred to has taken some of the most experienced minds on this forum and others to find the relevant legislation and make sense of it. I do this sort of thing for a living and to be frank I have never seen such a cumbersome process. Personally it bothers me little, but that isnt the point. I dont know why but it bothers me a lot more than some people support the process. ;)

this is my username

18th Apr 2012, 12:12

You can get an FAA Class 1 if you have monocular vision - all that is required is a Medical Flight Test with someone from the FAA.

You can also hold a JAA Class 1 medical if you are monocular.

Don't ask me how I know ..... I haven't hit anything yet.

mad_jock

18th Apr 2012, 12:20

I don't think you can any more. There was a period pre JAR when you could or if you held a Class 1 and had an accident and lost one you could continue.

So you can hold one if you have already got one but you can't get through an intial.

S-Works

18th Apr 2012, 12:51

On the other hand you will of course recall your predictions with regards the IMCr - whilst we await the final outcome, I ownder if you feel a slight tremor beneath your feet

Not at all. I still believe tha my prediction will be correct. The IMCr is history,grandfather rights probably. But pretty useless on Annex II and permit aircraft......

Unfortunatly.

Fuji Abound

18th Apr 2012, 13:03

Bose - strange, I dont recall your predicting grandfather rights? I am not sure I even recall your predicting anything other than an EASA IR in the bold new EASA world? ;)

this is my username

18th Apr 2012, 13:03

I don't think you can any more. There was a period pre JAR when you could or
if you held a Class 1 and had an accident and lost one you could
continue.

So you can hold one if you have already got one but you can't
get through an intial.

It is possible.

S-Works

18th Apr 2012, 13:29

I am not fighting with you over this Fuji, go back and look at what I have said in the past. I predicted the situation with the FAA and said that they would just pay lip service to you until the 11th hour and then roll you over. I have said the same thing with the IMCr, they will pay lip service and roll you over. An IMCr or whatever they choose to call it in an Annex II or permit aircraft is the ultimate chocolate teapot.

While I will admit to enjoying the torture of Peter over these subjects it does not mean I support the situation we find ourselves in. There is no safety case for the FAA clampdown and there is a very clear safety case for retaining the IMCr. But as EASA have demonstrated time and time again minor details like that do not bother them as long as we are all uniform. Remind you of something?

421C

18th Apr 2012, 13:50

421C I am glad to see the transparent process you previously referred to
If I recall we had a discussion about the EASA rulemaking process. The Derogations that appear in the regs are decided outside that process in Brussels. Choosing to apply or not the derogations is a matter for individual states. What has that to do with the transparency of the EASA NPA rulemaking process?

Please point me to a specific exchange of posts you are claiming you were right/I was wrong?

mm_flynn

19th Apr 2012, 09:14

There have been a number of comments along the lines of ...

.... after the bulk of the N reg fleet is gone.

I am clearly missing something. As I understand it, the rules have pretty much guaranteed the long term security of N (and similar reg) foreign based aircraft. We now have it documented that it is allowed under EASA/EU law, that all aircraft need to comply with the respective aspects of EU-OPS (which I think was broadly true before) and that the FAA maintenance regime is acceptable. The only issue remaining is in parts FCL/MED (and the slightly bizare need to have two licences and medicals to fly an N vs an EU aircraft).

This last element certainly removes a major driver for moving PA28 C172 type aircraft onto the N. However, for more complex aircraft the N still preserves

your ability to operate globally (you can get maintained anywhere)
prevents having to make expensive modifications to get onto the local reg - which then may need to be removed to sell the aircraft back into the global market
the ability to install modern safety/functionality upgrades
the ability to operate (at the turbine level) under a demonstrably safer regime.
The ability to operate in an internally consistent and stable regulatory environment

For Joe Bloggs in a spam can, these reasons probably are not enough to spend £5k moving to N-reg. But they are probably enough to prevent moving back to EU reg. For turbine operators these are going to be way more significant than the short term hassle of retraining crew or hiring different crew.

I accept that a bunch of EU citizens being thrown out of work is a bad thing for the individuals, but I don't see it as a reason for the operators/owners to change registration.

So I can see this change stemming the tide of light piston aircraft moving off EU registers, but I certainly don't see this driving tide of turbines (or even Nreg pistons) onto the EU registers.

S-Works

19th Apr 2012, 09:17

Absolutely correct..:ok::ok:

mad_jock

19th Apr 2012, 09:59

I though you would have to come under both systems for oversight now if perm based in EU.

Bob Upanddown

19th Apr 2012, 12:04

mm_flynn - That is exactly as I see it.

I though you would have to come under both systems for oversight now if perm based in EU.

The proposals I have seen does not change the maintenance regimen for the small aircraft.

peterh337

19th Apr 2012, 13:18

Provided it is what EASA calls non complex i.e. not ME turboprop, not over 18 seats, not over 5700kg, not a turbojet.

MJ will be disappointed :ugh:

Bob Upanddown

19th Apr 2012, 14:12

Provided it is what EASA calls non complex i.e. not ME turboprop, not over 18 seats, not over 5700kg,

So small then?

not a turbojet.

If you can ever buy a Cirrus Jet :rolleyes:

mad_jock

19th Apr 2012, 16:57

Not disappointed in the slightest Peter.

And thanks for clarifying the line.

Pace

19th Apr 2012, 17:09

Do not want to ruin the anti N reg party but I have heard information today which is very solid, reliable and detailed and which I cannot disclose ;)which wont get me hurrying to convert my Licences to EASA.

Pace

chubbychopper

19th Apr 2012, 17:28

Looks like a pointless post Pace, or more like wishful thinking. Either way, why post such a tease? What you or I may not wish IS going to take place because it is already law. Maybe a reliable and solid mate of yours thinks he can circumnavigate it is one thing but the courts, not him, will decide that.

Sorry, but it's here, and it ain't goin away.

PS. I know something else, but sorry, it's top secret!

mm_flynn

19th Apr 2012, 17:38

My approach would be to buy the aircraft from the N-register in the first place, and leave it there... assuming the aircraft type is FAA type certified and available.

.

Which is exactly what I did. However, at the airports I frequent there has been a very noticeable renregistration trend (or disappearance of EU airframes). At the rate it was going, by the end of the decade there would have only been the AOC operators and PFA types left on the EU reg! The changes will have dramatically slowed that particular flow from EU to N reg airframes.

Pace

19th Apr 2012, 17:41

Chubby Chopper

What was EASAs publicly stated reason for the extension from 2012 to 2014? Was it so people like you had time to convert? Was it because the relevant bodies did not have time to instigate the regulations? Or was it something else ? If it was something else which most of us thought was a smoke screen I can confirm that that is far from the truth wait till after June and you may realise why I for one am not in any hurry to do a thing.
More than that I cannot say other than the information comes from a very very reliable source who is at the heart of what is going on. Infact part of what is going on.
Had he said Pace get converted I was considering it but I was told do nothing!
But Chubby Chopper its a free world you do what suits you.
I can assure you this thread is way off mark. More than that I really cannot say with breaking a confidance.

Pace

chubbychopper

19th Apr 2012, 18:14

We will see; perhaps your confidant has the clout to change the legislation. One other significant point, the "delay" you mention applies only to those states who apply for it. Some states have applied for two years, some for one year only, and some it would appear have not made any appications for the required "derogations."

Depending on where you fly using your FAA ticket, and where the operator of your aircraft resides, YOU could be in breach of the legislation as I type NOW...the two years you speak of is not a granted right!

That said, I hope you are correct. It will make my job a lot easier.

Pace

19th Apr 2012, 18:39

As I said some time after June we will have a clearer picture of where this is all heading.
As for derogation I have yet to hear of a pilot who has had problems neither have I had a problem to date which could indicate that those countries are not that bothered or not very efficient? You would have thought they would be lined up waiting for every N reg aircraft on blast off day?

Pace

bookworm

19th Apr 2012, 19:30

Hmm. Can't think of anything (http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/2012_us_eu/) happening in June... ;)

chubbychopper

19th Apr 2012, 23:12

I can't possibly imagine what Pace knows, or what his confidant knows, but I'm sure that the legislation is not going to change! Sadly I have to assume that the only thing likely to happen in June will be rain.

I'll bet money on both.

mad_jock

20th Apr 2012, 07:37

Even if they do find a spoiler, that won't be the end of it. They will just make new legislation up to cover it. And we will have a re run of the same arguments. Then eventually they will succeed.

And my conclusion for that is that I have every faith that the US won't change there licensing rules just to help out a very small number of pilots and aircraft in the EU. And the EU certainly won't take it up the bum and just say o well we tried but we are just going to have to admit defeat.

As one poster said some aprons your pax could get confused thinking you had landed in the states with the amount of N regs on it. They can't let a whole sector of avaition be regulated by a country thousands of miles away

Pace

20th Apr 2012, 07:45

ChubbyChopper

I am very sure the regulation will change to what degree is the question.
EASA changed the deadline from 2012 to 2014 for the claimed sole purpose of obtaining a Bi Lateral agreement with the USA regarding licence recognition.
Most regarded that claim as false and as a smokescreen to smooth the way for the current legal framework to go into law.
We now know that both sides EASA and the FAA are motivated to add FCL to the bi lateral signed up recently.
EASA have only recently turned their attention towards a bi lateral on FCL and the good news is that both parties finally appear keen to achieve one.
EASA are also aware of legal problems regarding the present framework with employed working pilots so while I understand why you dont feel the regulations will change I am equally sure they will. What we have today will not be what we will have in 2014 or 2016 which I also feel is more likely!
To what extent those changes will be is the question mark but as a working ATP I wont be rushing off to study 14 exams quite yet.

pace

S-Works

20th Apr 2012, 08:02

To what extent those changes will be is the question mark but as a working ATP I wont be rushing off to study 14 exams quite yet.

pace

Then I wish you well but shan't show you sympathy if it proves to be short sighted.

I do not believe for one minute an agreement will be made that will give you what you want. The FAA will not give into the demands if EASA and the EASA demands are ridiculous.

But hey, I'm in it for the long game, so let's see what happens.

mad_jock

20th Apr 2012, 08:22

The EASA plans are rediculous for a very good reason which is as Bose stated so they don't have a hope in hell of getting them. And even if they do get them I have every faith in the US senate doing there usual and vetoing any changes. There are way to many things that have to line up and there are just as many out there trying to scupper them as there are trying to get them through if not more. Both on the US side of things and the EU.

As a pro pilot you would have to be barking mad not to have already started the proccess to get the required licenses. When it falls through and eveyone has to. Its going to be a nightmare get the exams sorted, more than likely if you do get a seat it will be in Glasgow (if they even still have that one open) The Intergrated schools book theres months in advance and it can be 2-3 months before you can get your local center when demand is high.

peterh337

20th Apr 2012, 08:28

Pace

I get your drift, and agree that not doing the 14 exams much before 2014 is a reasonable decision - for a UK based private owner-pilot or a UK based "working pilot" like you are.

I did the JAA IR in 2011/2012 primarily because I considered that capturing the current 15hr IR conversion option was a reasonably prudent policy. Had that option been lost, I would have faced the full grim option of burning 50hrs pf my time and avgas into my logbook.

As it happens, that option has been technically lost, but it appears to be carrying on for the time being because nobody knows what to replace it with :)

The next factor behind getting this stuff in the bag is the existence of the question bank, without which the study workload goes up massively. Particularly depressing as the theory is a good 90% useless garbage which was tossed out by the RAF in the 1970s due to lack of relevance and picked up by a departing RAF ground technician who then positioned it into the right place at the right time.

What I might not agree with you on is the BASA even if we assume it will come. I simply do not believe that EASA will agree to a straight paper swap on FCL, perhaps with air law and radio comms exams. This would undermine everything that Europe stands for which is ripping off FAA regs and gold plating them to protect European jobs. It would severely damage the European FTO industry because all the young skint lads who desperately want to be airline pilots would sod off to Arizona and do their CPL/IRs out there and then come back here to convert them. Forget "aviation" and just look at the politics - that's always been the right way to see this stuff.

I don't think EASA will ever negotiate an FCL BASA in good faith - unless there is a huge prize to be had elsewhere, along the lines of the USA allowing Euro airlines to operate internal US routes.

IOW, IMHO, the best BASA-assisted outcome will be something approximating the present 15hr IR conversion route, with the added risk of no QB.

mad_jock

20th Apr 2012, 08:47

Pace can just do a straight exams then skills test with a TRE on his type. Which more than likely can be combined with his FAA check. He won't have to fanny around in a piston unless he wants to.

I wouldn't be to sure about leaving it until 2014 all it takes is one crash in the wrong country and the insurance not paying out and the game changes quite dramatically.

It also opens your estate up for all sorts of liablities so not only one parent less but also pennyless as well.

Pace

20th Apr 2012, 09:08

Peter

I do not disagree with a lot of what your saying especially the fact that EASA will never allow an FAA route to bypass or make a fast track to an EASA commercial and I also agree that a lot of these regulations are protectionism based.

What I fail to understand is that before I considered the Bi Lateral regarding FCL to be a smokescreen purely to smooth ride the new regs into existence.

Now I know the 2012 to 2014 and possibly 2016 move is for real and the EASA Motives are genuine.
What more it appears that the FAA are also motivated.
I am equally convinced that there will never be a time when I will take my FAA ATP into an office to exchange it for an EASA one.
Bose gone are the days when you could take your FAA licence to Ireland and get it swopped for an Irish and hence JAA one. I was so so close to doing that now I could kick myself yet I know many pilots a lot who are the most anti FAA who took that route and others to an easy JAA licence!!

As an older pilot and a working pilot I am reliably told that the present new regs regarding working employed pilots in Europe would not stand up in the European courts if challenged so EASA will have to do something.

I am sure after june things will either look more hopeful or less hopeful and by the end of this year pretty clear on where things are going so I wont start 14 exams at my age just to do what I am already doing perfectly safely quite yet.

Pace

S-Works

20th Apr 2012, 09:30

I am sure after june things will either look more hopeful or less hopeful and by the end of this year pretty clear on where things are going so I wont start 14 exams at my age just to do what I am already doing perfectly safely quite yet.

And if they are not, are you just going to wait for the next straw to grasp until you eventually run out and are left unemployable?

You are already an ATP, the exams are just not that demanding for a man of your experience. There are no prescribed minima, no compulsory ground school attendance in fact as I understand it you can just direct enter for the exams and sit them and then and as MJ says do a skill test on your aircraft and you will get a JAA/EASA licence. If you have the MPA time you will get a direct ATPL, if not a CPL/IR.

With all due respect, your approach just smacks of petulance.

mad_jock

20th Apr 2012, 10:23

He's not unemployable though.

Just not employable where he wants to be.

There are all manner of ****eholes out there that have N reg biz Jets looking for pilots. Which is what I think one of the counter arguments would be if it ever goes to court. Mind you I wouldn't fancy Nigeria either.

This hasn't grounded any of them they can still use thier licenses anywhere else that allows the practise or for that matter in the US if they can get employment visa's.

Pace

20th Apr 2012, 10:59

Bose

Yes my motives do smack of petulance :E I admit it!

The FAA and transport Canada have a Bi Lateral agreement which involves one exam to convert one to the other and that seems to work well yet Canada is closer to Europe on its training structures.
I fly as a Captain on Citations and have done so for several organisations so I am petulant about studying 14 exams full of irrelevant material to do what I am already doing.
Air Law? Yes !! European airspace is different and there is total justification in sitting that exam or even a differences exam but 14 exams? That does not sit right in my mind.
If I have to do it I have to do it but the advice I have recieved from someone in the EASA negotiating team tells me to do nothing at least for the remainder of this year.
If I was in my early 40s absolutely as EASA would open more doors working for AOC Ops but late 50s? An EASA Licence will bring me nothing positive workwise so I have to look at the least painful route to maintain what I am doing and have been doing.
Flight test??I have never failed one in my life and that is of no concern and yes I would qualify for an EASA ATP.

You have to remember that we as FAA licensed pilots are the victims. N reg is not a new thing having been accepted practice with Europe for far longer than the EU has been in existence. Surely there must be some moral obligation to maintain those pilots rights to continue their work.

Mad Jock
Which is what I think one of the counter arguments would be if it ever goes to court.
No that would not be an argument as EC law covers Europe and people rights to employment in Europe not outer Mongolia :)

The sad thing is that some of the biggest opponent to FAA Licences are people who have never sat 14 exams and who obtained their JAA licences by jumping through loopholes with FAA licences in the past!

Pace

Aware

20th Apr 2012, 11:45

About the exams. I resat the JAR ATPLS to get a rating which due to the recession meant I really didnt use them, but they came in handy converting my hybrid CAA JAR CPL to a full JAR CPL. I have sat the old UK 14 CPL exams and the old CAA ATPL exams, which were really tough. The JAR ones in comparison are as total piece of p@@@. Not sure what EASA will be like, but I here they are not that bad.

10 years ago on PPRUNE there were loads of posts relating to CAA exams because they were so tough, you rarely see those posts anymore. With the question bank and experience an experienced pilot would breeze them, probably in about 6 - 8 weeks, I am now getting quite involved with groundschool so am willing to help anybody if they need.

Most of you experienced guys would probably get 60 -70% without study, its the odd tricky question they put in that makes it slightly difficult, you have no partial pass rules anymore either - Yes a lot of info you will never use, but a whole lot you will already know and hence will not find difficult.

It may not be as big a hurdle as you all feel - it really isnt anymore. Im no brain box either if your wondering just normal Joe Blogs with a few O levels.

And I am really willing to help anybody. I am an Independent Financial Adviser by trade and have just had to take a load more exams to stay doing what I have been doing for 20 years, so I understand the emotion of doing exams to keep doing what you have been doing - hence I have to let pursuit of flying anything larger go, but Im remaining a GA Instructor Examiner and Ground Instructor, part time. So PM me if you wish for a chat.

Pace

20th Apr 2012, 12:34

Aware

Thanks for your kind offer which I may still take up :) As stated if I was 40 it would be a no brainer and after the June meeting it still maybe a no brainer if there is no positive movement to a Bi Lat.
A lot with me is the principal which should be for experienced and current jet Captains a straight differences exam and flight test.

Pace

chubbychopper

20th Apr 2012, 21:25

Pace, sorry mate but that just is NOT going to happen, EVER!! Your bar confidant is leading you up the garden path, so do yourself a big favour and take the exams...it aint rocket science, and if you have even 100 hours of jet time you will p1ss them in one take.

You keep banging on about the hardship of taking exams...what about the poor sods who can't pass the medical? Did you ever bother to think of them? Probably not huh? You were too busy banging on about the difficulty of passing exams which, I presume, you decided to avoid earlier in your career.

Swallow the pill.....the rights and wrongs of this issue relate to a period that is well gone and as hard as you may wish it to be undone it just is NOT going to happen!

I disagree with all of it too, but hey ho that's the way it goes!

Pace

20th Apr 2012, 22:09

ChubbyChopper

No I very much do think of the poor sods who wont pass a EASA class I initial.
With all my scuba diving I have done I worry about the audio gram myself :{ and have an African friend who went FAA because of his eyesight.
Post June and no bilateral in sight and I will take your advice.
Wish I had jumped through the Irish and other loopholes like many here years ago and exchanged my shiny FAA for an over the counter JAA.

Pace

S-Works

21st Apr 2012, 06:37

Wish I had jumped through the Irish and other loopholes like many here years ago and exchanged my shiny FAA for an over the counter JAA.

Well you didn't, which really just shows a history of shortsightedness.... :p

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 06:46

The audio exam for already licensed pilots is actually very hard to fail especially if you have any rotary time.

Even if you do fail it with a doc all you need to do is get and examinor or line training Captain to chat to you on an intercom and if you can hear him he signs you off and thats it done.

Pace

21st Apr 2012, 08:37

MadJock

What did you say cant hear a bloody thing ;)
No hearing not bad just one ear not as hot as the other due scuba diving with a cold :ugh:

One thing I have clarified which is causing major concern and also a misconception concerns Derogation!
Derogation concerns flight crew licencing and EASA licences.
It has nothing to do with dual licence requirements which has been moved to 2014 plus one year dispensation for those on a conversion course.

You are not flying illegally into some countries NOW!

EASA did move to 2014 for the sole reason of gaining a Bi Lateral with the USA remember the USA have a Bi Lateral with transport Canada a system fairly similar to our own.

There is a high powered meeting in June with both sides motivated.
This will not mean little Joe will be able to sidestep EASA by gaining an FAA Licence but it may mean ATP holders with certain experience and hours will have an easier route.

Pace

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 08:59

4000 hours of Garrett engines droning away is whats done for mine. Not that 15 years working with grinders etc in oil yards etc did me much good before that.

Although the seat change did mean that instead of having one ****e ear the other one is now also ****e. Although I am told I have good hearing for a TP driver. The 737 boys tend to have bad hearing as well especially if they go onto speaker in the cruise or have one muff off.

They honestly arn't that fussy with the hearing, I presume it was so all the RAF mates could get a civi medical. Some of the ex rotary boys blow your head off if you don't sort the station box out before you plug in.

Pace

21st Apr 2012, 09:32

Mad Jock

So I can bring my hearing aids along to the test? Both Victorian and shaped like trumpets ;)

Pace

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 09:44

I think if you had a hearing dog they might cause a bit of a fuss.

Should be ok taking your strumpet along.

421C

21st Apr 2012, 11:11

This will not mean little Joe will be able to sidestep EASA by gaining an FAA
Licence but it may mean ATP holders with certain experience and hours will have
an easier route
Well that's a relief for us "little Joe's" in this Private Aviation forum. Of course our own N-reg flying may be crushed but it is a great consolation to know "ATP holders with certain experience and hours will have an easier route":)

Pace

21st Apr 2012, 11:50

No I was not talking about PPL and IRs which could well be brought closer together but addressing an argument regarding EASA not doing anything which would allow a commercial pilot wannabe a route to sidetrack EASAs own training structure.

Pace

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 12:08

They always have had a quick route for experenced commercial pilots.

But always the issue has been the differences in the theoretical knowledge requirements. The JAr boys find it a piece of piss to get a FAA and the other way round there is lots of moaning thats its a pain in the arse doing the exams.

To be honest the FAA isn't quite enough theory in my opinion of working with FAA pilots. But then again the JAR stuff is to much and not actually focused to the stuff you really need.

I quite agree with Peter and PAce that alot of it is only included because some auld fud with prostate problems ex navigator thinks that pilots need to know certain things. Then some old guff engineers had an input as well then the WX man got his input etc etc.

But to be fair the longer I fly and to more different destinations the more of it I use.

Its this one set of theory must cover everything from puddle jumpers to ULH airbuses and boeings that needs sorted. But the problems is that the license and IR rating really does allow you to fly worldwide.

Pace

21st Apr 2012, 12:47

MadJock

Thought that was called experience which you cannot learn in the classroom ;) I am fully aware that you are an EASA supporter and me an FAA. We just hold different views.
The old hand thing! One sees a palm the other sees the back of the hand while they both see a hand they have a different picture.
Statistically while both systems are different FAA and JAA they both churn out equal quality ATPs.
I can understand your view that residents of a country should bide by the licencing in that country/state but then you have to beg the question of why there are so many N reg in Europe!
In a free society if you want to compete with another product you produce something which is cheaper, more attractive and better!
If EASA did that then N reg would have dissolved years ago.
There have been numerous studies made to prove the case for removing N reg on safety grounds but none have been found.
The problem we have in Europe is Burocracy and an unhealthy level of government produced jobs especially in the regulatory sense.
That is fine in one way but it strangles industry, loads cost and complexity as the end user has to pay for it all.
The FAA system works at far less cost to the end user.
Of course safety is paramount and we should regulate to plug shown safety holes but that is it.
I think as a relatively experienced Jet pilot and Captain I should not be required to sit and take 14 odd exams to do what I already do?
Okay Air Law or a differences exam but there is no rhyme or reason why I should be treated like an 18 year old wannabe pilot who knows nothing. That is wrong.
If I had things my way I would have a worldwide standard and recognition of licences so that pilots can move freely.
There is no sense to anything less and at sometime that has to come.
We also need to cut away all the rubbish which chokes our industry from regulators who regulate for their own jobs sake.
I agree with you that years back you could literally buy anything and the FAA system was a doddle but that has changed.

Pace

421C

21st Apr 2012, 12:48

Fair enough Pace, I was only kidding. I wrote something which my browser deleted, didn't have time to retype and wrote that instead!

My point was on

One thing I have clarified which is causing major concern and also a misconception concerns Derogation!
Derogation concerns flight crew licencing and EASA licences.
It has nothing to do with dual licence requirements which has been moved to 2014 plus one year dispensation for those on a conversion course.

You are not flying illegally into some countries NOW!

This isn't right. Derogation is nothing specific to FCL. It's a general EU term for a provision within binding EU regulations that permits a Member State to delay/amend implementation. The EASA Aircrew Regulation is now binding on Member States so the only means for them to continue to permit EU residents to operate 3rd country aircraft on the basis of 3rd country licences is through the derogation to this effect until April 2014, or through the 'horizontal' derogation delaying the implementation of all Aircrew Regulation until April 2013 (after which they'd need the 3rd country derogation)

This technical point aside, I agree with your comment that it is unlikely as a practical matter that EU resident N-reg operators are illegal today, since it is likely most countries will implement one or both derogations. However, I personally would want my NAA to state the situation as clearly as the UK CAA have done.

On the BASA, I was personally somewhat sceptical and thought this might be a way EASA and the EC were brushing off the concerns of the N-reg community in Europe during the critical period they were trying to get Part FCL through the European Parliament. I have heard (but not first hand) some very encouraging signals that there is a real will to conclude this by 2014. Of course, one can't be sure that the BASA will provide terms for licence conversion that are quite as sensible as the US-Canada ones, for example.

The other problem is one of timing and risk. Of course, a knowledgeable guy like you is quite entitled to make his choices and take a risk accordingly. One would always hope the EU/EASA would find a sensible way to bridge things, but there is always the risk that
1."Good intention X" gets implemented in EU regs a few months later than "Derogation Y" expires
2. It takes a further 6 months for NAAs and ATOs to implement various new exams or whatever
3. There is then a bottleneck in training resources as hundreds of people try and qualify

I tend to think that via various means (BASA and FCL008) the outcome for an FAA pilot in Europe will be less onerous than the present conversion outcomes. But one takes a risk on all this working out and the timing working out etc etc.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 13:08

I am not actually.

I can understand your view that residents of a country should bide by the licencing in that country/state but then you have to beg the question of why there are so many N reg in Europe!

That is actually my view and its nothing to do with the relative merits between the tow systems.

There are so many because there is a loophole which people have used, pure and simple.

Yes of course the price is cheaper because the US tax payer funds it for you. In the EU the end user pays for it. So you have the advantage you don't pay US tax's but you use there system and you don't pay for the infrastructure in europe.

I do feel for you, but there has been set a minimum theory knowledge base requirement for the EASA license which you have to prove. The fact that you have survived without it (:p) for the last gawd knows how many years is neither here nor there.

As previous posters have mentioned its actually not that hard. It wasn't when I did them and that was when JAR first started and there wasn't any question banks. I did the whole lot in 5 months from PPL and a background in Engineering. With all your experence it should take alot less.

As for expense it will be all tax deductable and no doudt you can get the VAT back as well. With Sim check your looking at less than 4k.

Pace

21st Apr 2012, 13:18

421C

I too held the same view that EASA was using the idea of a Bi Lateral as a smokescreen.
Now I know for fact that they are genuine. This does not mean that the whole thing will not hit a brick wall but it is encouraging that something maybe achieved on FCL which is only right!
Advice given to me by my contact in the negotiating team who could easily have said" Knuckle down and do the 14 exams was "do nothing".
So that is what I will probably do until the end of this year or if things become clearer.

It wasn't when I did them and that was when JAR first started and there wasn't any question banks

Mad Jock you dont think a bit of a lift here and a tuck there and maybe some sunglasses and removal of some hair would work? Must be worth at least 10 pints :E You can borrow my passport!

Pace

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 13:27

The problem is the teams are sometimes all part of the smoke and mirrors game.

They don't actually give the teams the full cunning plan otherwise that can produce fall out. And I might add thats a ploy of both sides.

And even if they do come to agreement they have to get it past the red neck senators who will not like the idea of changing anything just because someone else would like it.

421C

21st Apr 2012, 13:27

There are so many because there is a loophole which people have used, pure
and simple.
It's not a loophole. It's entirely consistent with the ICAO system and the treaties all the countries in Europe signed up to in the 1940s.

So you have the advantage you don't pay US tax's but you use there system and
you don't pay for the infrastructure in europe
In what way? An EU resident 3rd country operator pays their taxes in Europe. They pay all the Eurocontrol fees, Nav fees, Landing fees etc for all the infrastructure they use.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 13:39

Can you own your aircraft personally not using a construct under N reg?

If not and you use one through a trust its a loophole.

Nobody cares if a US passport holding pilot flys a N reg. Which is the spirit that the ICAO system was put in place for.

The US tax payers fund the FAA.

In europe the end users fund thier NAA, the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people that could improve things.

And pace bugger off I don't have alot of hair left as it is. And I suspect it would be a bit more of a lift and a tuck and loosing half a foot of bone out of my legs is going to nip a bit. :p

421C

21st Apr 2012, 14:29

If not and you use one through a trust its a loophole.
No it isn't. It's a legitimate method the US seem happy with because it gives them ultimate sanction and control over the a/c. It's no more a "loophole" than saying a pilot's licence is a loophole for flying an aircraft.
In europe the end users fund thier NAASays who? I think they are mainly taxpayer funded with the exception of the UK CAA.

the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that
do. And the less money they have to do thier job which means they don't do them
as well or can provide suitable conditions to attract suitable qualified people
that could improve things.
Firstly, how is it that small countries can possible have an NAA? The workload is scaled to the adminstrative volume of tasks - the fixed costs should be small and they are anyway an obligation the State has for which, believe me, N-reg operators pay a decent share of the burden of taxation.

Secondly, the amusing irony in your point is as follows. It is indeed the model in the UK that users fund the CAA. The taxpayer funds the NAAs of most European countries. Why do you think Ryanair jets are all EI and Netjets are all CS? Now, under the EASA system, EU residents will have much more flexibility to choose whichever country they want for pilot licensing than under JAR-FCL. Nothing to stop every UK pilot, instructor and examiner using, say, Portugal as their state of licence issue. Let's see how that helps your concern that "the less people use the NAA's the more expensive it becomes for the ones that do"

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 14:39

Its currently a legit loophole I will agree but its now being shut.

The US regulations state you have to be a US citizen to own a N reg, if you are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of changing things.

Even if the NAA's are funded partly by the local tax payer your still not paying the money into your local one. You are getting all your oversight for free from the US tax payer. Of course things are cheaper for you with Uncle sam footing the bill.

There is under both JAR and EASA a requiment for you to move your oversight NAA with your residency. BUt alot of people don't bother and nobody seems to bother about it mainly. Its one of the things that might kick off with ryan air and forcing all there pilots onto the Irish CAA.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 14:58

well green card then. Its still a loophole and a fiddle for a EU resident to "own" one.

And I know in the great scheme of things its no burden what so ever having a few thousand extras tagged on to the FAA with the number of home grown that they look after.

BUt the numbers in Europe now are more than likely more than some countrys have in pilots full stop.

S-Works

21st Apr 2012, 15:27

It's nothing compared to the tax dollars spent to make up for Europe's lack of military, defending sea lanes etc.

Wouldn't be needed if the US did not keep declaring war on everyone and there dog and dragging us into it......

:ok:

421C

21st Apr 2012, 16:46

Its currently a legit loophole I will agree but its now being shut. No it's not. Absolutely nothing changes about the ability of a EU citizen to be the trust beneficiary owner of an N-register airplane, based in Europe and maintained and modified to US standards.

The US regulations state you have to be a US citizen to own a N reg, if you
are not its a fiddle. I will admit its a well known about fiddle and one that
nobody cares about but it is still circumventing the law. If the trust loophole
wasn't there you we wouldn't have to go through all this bloody torture of
changing things. Yawn. I won't bother arguing about words, fiddle away. You'll have to protest to the FAA and EASA, because, as I mentioned, nothing changes about who may own an N-register airplane.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 19:38

And nothing changes you are still working the fiddle to get around US law.

You may continue using the fiddle but now you will have to have an EU ticket to continue. If you have a heavier than 5700kg aircraft you will also have to do both maint provisions and have the ticket unless of course you are a resident of the US.

Nothing needs to change about the owner of a N reg aircraft and why should it? Its a perfectly acceptable law. The application of it may need some looking at mind.

Thomascl605

21st Apr 2012, 20:23

And where have your wild predictions led MJ ? No one arrested to my knowledge as they are not 'breaking the law'. So quick are you not to jump to conclusions about what will or won't happen. Scaremongering is what you love best on these forums.

The advice given by my national CAA is to continue flying as normal, and that a simplified transition will be worked on over the coming months, which won't include taking 14 exams.

If this doesn't occur then my few grand is chucked in the pot along with many many others to take this to the ECHR on the grounds of discrimination, breaking local employment laws and the law of precedent.

But I am hopeful that common sense prevails with a simple transfer of licence to continue flying.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 20:28

Its early days yet thomas, the wheels were slow to get in motion but will eventually reach there destination have no doudt in this matter.

And to be honest as long as you fly within you NAA airspace you will be fine. Outside that its the roll of a dice. And if you have a prang will the insurance pay up? Who knows? Has anyone bothered checking?

Thomascl605

21st Apr 2012, 20:38

You've had a few pints, haven't you ? Either that or a poor education. Do you really know anything about aircraft insurance ? A likely further spouting of your lack of knowledge and poor spelling. I had actually written a detailed response in relation to aircraft insurance but deleted it as it would be lost on you.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 21:04

Sorry I have just done the insurance experence list for our fleet.

You are talking pish you need to be legal to be insured, it does actually state that all crew need to be legally licensed to fly the aircraft in the state of registery and area of operation. It also states that if we operate outside our area of AOC operation apart from emergency diverts we ain't insured either.

If your resorting to taking the piss out of my speeling and graamer which I am more than happy to admit are ****e and always have been after spending 10 years in remedial classes at school crack on . You can take the piss out of folk in wheel chairs as well next time you see one. But still I passed the ATPL theory first time and found it a piece of piss.

Never found my spelling and grammer have had any effect on flying a plane though.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 21:41

To be honest that really doesn't bother me as long as its time is spent in the EU as a transit. Ie its truely international which is what the ICAO rules where intended for.

Its the sitting and operating for years never once leaving the area I think is wrong.

Thomascl605

21st Apr 2012, 21:46

And why exactly ? What's is got to do with someone like you flying for pleb airways who openly and admittedly abuses junior FO's with you golden b*lled assumed authority.

mad_jock

21st Apr 2012, 22:00

How have I admitted abusing FO's?

Not that it doesn't happen occasionally when required or responding to a dig in my direction.

If it was the FO saying to me "sign the paper work bitch" which in my book is perfectly acceptable banter for a FO to say to the Captain after reading a thread about a flybe incident which he had mentioned.

Pelb airways :D will have to use that one. Keep the standards up even though we don't have as nice hardware as yourself.

Thomascl605

21st Apr 2012, 22:40

Your short term memory is playing up again. What was it you said about your 200 or so hour new FO that you are flying with next week ? Please read your posts again, your memory loss is very worrying. Having says all that your poor FO is going to have his work cut our with HRH Captain W*nkstain.

mad_jock

22nd Apr 2012, 06:16

Err that I was starting line training him. Or was it the breaking in fresh meat that you object to?

And he won't have a prob, he will work hard and enjoy himself and learn heaps.

HRH Captain W*nkstain

I will also add that I would also class being called that by the FO as banter, in fact its positively tame compare to what the Scottish and Irish FO's come out with. But next time they call me Capt Bawbag I will insist they put the HRH in first.

cessnapete

22nd Apr 2012, 07:23

Visited Aero 2012 at Friedrichshafen yesterday in a private N Reg Uk based turboprop single. We picked another pax in Germany en route.
I came across an EASA Stand in one of the exhibition halls and made a visit,
I asked one of the half a dozen or so suited gentlemen for some advice and information on the pilot license changes with reference to Third country licensing.
I was given a one page handout pretty much the same as received from our CAA.
I asked him as I had flown through France Belgium Germany en route ,which countries had delayed implementation of the Regulation on Aircrew. All he would confirm was that Gemany had delayed for one year but did not know about the other countries and if I was legal or not!! Information would be published in the coming months. I commented that was no help to me flying today, but was fobbed of with a smile and apologies that his English was not so good.
Lots of glossy brochures, one about fallout from Volcanic clouds but no concrete information from the masters of this mess.

chubbychopper

22nd Apr 2012, 11:23

The EASA web site offers a QandA section on the implication of the new regs....very helpful you would assume.

The section related to Third Country Operators is "under construction."

The contact us feature is useless, simply because they do not, or will not answer answer emails. (They do have an automated acknowledgement service).

Might I suggest that all those with reasonable questions contact EASA through their web site and DEMAND answers.

421C

22nd Apr 2012, 11:54

Going back to the original post from Peter, the article linked to has been slightly revised:
PPL/IR Europe - EASA Part FCL and Foreign-Registered Aircraft (FRA) (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=615)

Main changes seem to be comment on the "horizontal" derogation and the process of states applying the various derogations.

brgds
421C

bookworm

22nd Apr 2012, 14:32

The section related to Third Country Operators is "under construction."

Third Country Operators (TCO) (http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/npa_tco.html) is about regulation of non-EU-based commercial air transport operators who fly into the EU. The regulation is at the CRD (http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/crd/2011/CRD%202011-05.pdf) stage. It has nothing to do with N-reg based in the EU.

Fuji Abound

22nd Apr 2012, 16:08

I commented that was no help to me flying today, but was fobbed of with a smile and apologies that his English was not so good.

Ah yes, that would be open and transparent then. A bit like this thread, the best aviation minds and not one of us really has any idea whats going on!

peterh337

22nd Apr 2012, 17:58

Gosh... been away for a few days and what do I find? Mad Jock spouting diatribe which is astonishing even by his normal standards :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

He claims to have 4000 hours (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/482087-n-reg-situation-update-9.html#post7147511) on turboprops of some sort. I feel sorry for the poor bastards who were forced to share a cockpit with this aggressive, bitter, jealous and poorly informed "pilot" who no doubt spouts the same bollox in the cockpit as he does here (people never really change).

One would have hoped that CRM would have weeded out those types not long after this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548). That's probably why he spends so much time on here.

Visited Aero 2012 at Friedrichshafen yesterday in a private N Reg Uk based turboprop single. We picked another pax in Germany en route.
I came across an EASA Stand in one of the exhibition halls and made a visit,
I asked one of the half a dozen or so suited gentlemen for some advice and information on the pilot license changes with reference to Third country licensing.
I was given a one page handout pretty much the same as received from our CAA.
I asked him as I had flown through France Belgium Germany en route ,which countries had delayed implementation of the Regulation on Aircrew. All he would confirm was that Gemany had delayed for one year but did not know about the other countries and if I was legal or not!! Information would be published in the coming months. I commented that was no help to me flying today, but was fobbed of with a smile and apologies that his English was not so good.
Lots of glossy brochures, one about fallout from Volcanic clouds but no concrete information from the masters of this mess.

That made me smile. I've just got back from there (FL200 most of the way and dodging buildups at -34C; takes me 40 mins to get there :) ) and yes EASA had a right bunch of pillocks on their stand. Young (mostly) and looking extremely smart. I walked up to one of them and suggested that they have the word "safety" everywhere but actually EASA is nothing to do with safety, it has done close to NOTHING for GA, and all we have got here is a politically motivated agenda run as a private project of a few individuals. The chap agreed (what else; that is always the correct procedure anyway) but the others looked pretty alarmed. They are obviously well aware of the comments which they had to listen to many times during the show. This chap suggested that the problem is really caused by EASA having pushed this into law but without any implementing rules having been worked out. Well, that's true for sure... It stinks.

You've had a few pints, haven't you ? Either that or a poor education. Do you really know anything about aircraft insurance ? A likely further spouting of your lack of knowledge and poor spelling. I had actually written a detailed response in relation to aircraft insurance but deleted it as it would be lost on you.

Actually I think all of the above is close to the mark. No wonder the man is so bitter over those who have done more than he has.

mad_jock

22nd Apr 2012, 19:12

yes yes everyone is bitter and twisted if they don't agree that N reg should be allowed to continue, how dare we say that it is a problem that needed solving years ago.

And of course I am aggressive because I argue back and say things you don't want hear.

And if I don't back down you slag off my professional standards because I am obviously some sort of nutter because I don't agree with you.

Funny enough there arn't huge arguments about N reg on EU national reg aircraft. It really isn't a CRM issue.

No wonder the powers that be are determined to put a stop to it. And no doudt years to come the bitching will continue.

Its pots and kettles with aggressive behaviour and attempts at bullying folk into agreeing with you.

M-ONGO

22nd Apr 2012, 19:20

Remember people...

Speaking as a tp/jet pilot that has been licenced for 20 years both CAA and FAA (with other validations) there is no difference between an experienced FAA pilot or an experienced JAA/CAA pilot. It's the lower timed FAA pilots that lack the knowledge of the JAA but perhaps they would not be in the seats of foreign reg TP's or Bizjets in the first place without a fair few hours of experience. Low timed JAA pilots with 200 hours are driving electric jets (you know, the ones MJ is too old to operate and never will which may explain his hang up why he's stuck on a light aircraft such as a jetstream :)) every day safely, the FAA writtens lack the in depth detail that European exams do but generally experience makes up for that by the time the pilots get to serious machinery. I feel so much safer in the knowledge that my weather radar operates at 9.375 ghz and DME utilises PON though. Hyperbolic navigation has really stood me in good stead, as has the properties of Mercator charts and other shyte.

MJ, I understand where your coming from with your FD banter. That does not make it unprofessional or unsafe, I do believe you may relax some newbie FO's with it, infact. I however also believe you are not making your point very well here.

mad_jock

22nd Apr 2012, 20:02

I however also believe you are not making your point very well here.

That is very true. But it wouldn't matter how you make the point, it will be still shouted down and you will castigated for not agreeing with the pilots that use the FAA system in europe.

Its as if they think that if they can silence any one saying well actually I can see why it needs to be done and why the NAA's want it done. They will be able to say nobody wants it get lost.

When in fact there has been lobbying for years. And obviously alot of planning into getting it through. I wouldn't mind betting already there is lobbying going on in the US to ensure it doesn't go through whatever they decide at the conference even if they do actually agree for a 1 to 1 swap which I don't think will happen.

Personally I think they will get the engineering sorted out for bi-lateral with out grandfather rights on current kit and the FCL stuff will be left in limbo.

Jodelman

22nd Apr 2012, 21:27

they have the word "safety" everywhere but actually EASA is nothing to do with safety,.

Yes, I challenged them on this too and I don't suppose I was the only one. I found out later that they have NO safety statistics at all and are making decisions based on "That's a good idea".

Definitely an organisation which is not fit for purpose.

peterh337

23rd Apr 2012, 05:35

Years ago, the DfT (in one of its sporadic anti-N-reg drives which some ex Oxford arts graduate there would kick off every so often) asked the CAA to come up with safety data showing N-regs to be less safe. The CAA famously replied that the accident data does not show that at all :) Which is completely unsuprising to anybody who periodically reads the AAIB reports.

The EASA initiative is purely political. But it is multi faceted and it isn't just a form of say MJ's pure-envy kind of thing. There is that, but very few people in EASA are pilots (Sivel for example told me he has a PPL and rents the odd PA28) and probably none use GA for anything serious. They pushed this through to have something to beat the FAA around the head with on other matters which I gather concern airline stuff.

mad_jock

23rd Apr 2012, 06:11

Peter its not envy, N reg in europe has absolutely no effect on my life whats so ever.

In fact the majority of people who are working towards the changes it doesn't effect either.

Can you not understand that they can't allow pilots and aircraft to remain outside there oversight if they are based in a country or in a group of collective oversight countries. They just can't accept residents opting out from what they have legislated because they want to for whatever reason.

There will be people pushing it through for stated reasons

There will also be people pushing it through for political reasons.

I don't think many of them truely believe that its a bargining tool for negotiations with the US. Do you really think the US cares what happens to less than 5000 pilots and aircraft owners in the EU getting screwed over by thier own goverments.

peterh337

23rd Apr 2012, 14:56

I have updated my writeup here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/index.html), near the end, with a translation of a French statement which suggests that France has gone for the 2 year derogation.

I still have yet not seen a translated German statement but I hear they have gone for a 1 year one (though that might have been a confusion with the 1 year horizontal derogation which is a separate thing).

achimha

23rd Apr 2012, 15:04

The German LBA is English proficient. In fact, they are a higher authority in matters concerning the English language than the FAA, having refused to accept my FAA proficiency rating...

Here's their English announcement (http://www.lba.de/EN/AviationPersonnel/Licensing/opt_out.html?nn=30628).

The Annexes I to VII of the regulation (such as Part-FCL,...) are applicable from 8 April 2012.

That's a translation error, the German original (http://www.lba.de/DE/Luftfahrtpersonal/Rechtsgrundlagen/Teil_FCL/Einfuehrung_Teil_FCL.html?nn=20280) says "... will only apply from 2013. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany will opt-out of certain annexes beyond 2013."

peterh337

23rd Apr 2012, 15:16

Isn't there a confusion there between the two types of derogation?

Which of the two is Germany going for?

The horizontal one is for one year, AIUI, always. The original one can be anywhere from zero to 2 years.

mm_flynn

23rd Apr 2012, 15:31

... I wouldn't mind betting already there is lobbying going on in the US to ensure it doesn't go through whatever they decide at the conference even if they do actually agree for a 1 to 1 swap which I don't think will happen.

MJ,

Why do you believe the FAA does not want an FCL bilateral agreement? The current JAA->FAA process is pretty simple and the Canadian bilateral seems even more straight forward. The previous Congress was very protectionist in certain areas, but the FAA (who needs to do the agreeing of any annex) had come up with a sensible BASA. Which was approved as soon as a more pro business Congress came into power. The issue of FCL has very little downside from the FAA perspective.

I can understand why Europe might want a complex process as they seem to have an economically uncompetitive training environment and protection rather than reform could logically be the strategy of choice.

Pace

23rd Apr 2012, 17:09

One thing I am sure of is that what we have on the plate now will not be what we have on the plate by 2014.
Reasons for that?

One my contact on the EASA negotiating team advices me to do nothing re licence conversion.

The FAA are putting Big names into negotiations in June and both sides are active in adding a FCL Bi Lateral to the existing Bi lateral signed up months back.

What will that Bi Lateral Be? I am equally sure it will NOT be give me your licence here is mine ;(

Should all that hit a brick wall EASA are still faced with Laws which they know are flawed (fact)and will not take testing in the EC courts.

If they still want the existing to work they will have to make some pretty big allowances or scrap the whole dual licencing thing.

The sad fact is that EASA had a chance of bringing both systems much closer than they are now but inisted on clinging onto a complex and expensive way.
They could have copied the FAA system with a few changes and saved the tax payers a fortune but instead have regulated to strangle the industry.
There is No evidence that Pilots trained in Europe are any better than those trained under the FAA system so why?
Partly the eastern influence of control and wanting people to fly in people carriers not GA. That part AOC OPS have missed EASA are not their friend either.

But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they really are true to their word before part 2 the courts!

Pace

maxred

23rd Apr 2012, 17:37

MJ I generally like your posts, and you are highly experienced, obviously, but I agree with Peter here and I believe you are way off beam on this one.

Individuals do not flock to the FAA system to dodge rules or manoeuvre a safety issue. My experience is the opposite where I have encountered more safety related issues under EASA/CAA, than I have ever under FAR.

The FAA system, whilst not perfect, is logical, structured, user friendly, and most importantly of all, customer focused. My recent experience.

The current shift change at EASA is utter bollox. You know it, we all know it. Digging at N reg is not helpful, clever, not warranted.

My view on it.

mad_jock

23rd Apr 2012, 18:54

max at no point recently have I had a dig at N reg for either mait standards or pilot quality. There are just as many crap JAR pilots as there are FAA percentage wise.

And I don't have a problem at all with a bi-lateral 1 for 1 agreement on the FCL side of things. But with 12 month IR checks on multi engined aircraft.

The thing I argue about is that it is going to happen whatever people think and say about legal cases etc etc.

The reason why I don't think any thing will happen is two fold. They won't want to give a 1 to 1 with the licenses. And that will be very hard to get a compromise.

The second reason if they do compromise is that all the changes are going to be lumped in with a deal on annex 7 rights. Now even if they do get this sort once it gets into the realms of senate and the like the american lobbyists will have already kicked into gear. The none transatlantic airlines will not want annnex 7 rights for european carriers or for that matter any none american carrier and will try and scupper it.

If they did a seperate FCL/Engineering bi-lateral they might have a chance of getting it through, but only a small chance if the shall we say more nationalistic politicians don't get a wiff that america had to compromise in any shape or form. If they do it will crash as well. Add in annex 7 and its going to have a very rough trip through senate which I don't think it will survive. The FAA and EASA may be both all in favour with the deal but it won't get past.

To be honest there is nothing in it for the amercians to keep the european N scene going. Why should they compromise?

PS I might have got my annex 7 and annex 9 muddled up.

bookworm

23rd Apr 2012, 19:01

The FAA and EASA may be both all in favour with the deal but it won't get past.

The BASA is there, ratified, and the politicians have had their say (which is why it took so long). It's now up to the FAA and EASA to agree an Annex on licensing.

mad_jock

23rd Apr 2012, 19:13

Is that in both Eu and the US bookworm or does it still have to be ratified in the US?

To change the FAR's which would be required for the deal to go through wouldn't it have to go through both houses in the US?

peterh337

23rd Apr 2012, 19:18

The BASA is there, ratified, and the politicians have had their say (which is why it took so long). It's now up to the FAA and EASA to agree an Annex on licensing.

... with "input" from vested interests on both sides :)

As already mentioned, the FAA has little to lose by supporting this. The USA already has a very good system, and it allows anybody to fly an N-reg plane, worldwide, on any foreign license/rating, so long as it was issued by the owner of the airspace (FAR 61.3). It also allows all foreign training, in any certified aircraft, with any correctly rated instructor, towards any US license or a rating, right up to the ATP (with some trivial exceptions). This is an extremely generous policy which has made it much easier for non-US pilots to get US papers because their European training has been fully utilised.

But Europe has a lot to lose. The pilot training and component / airframe / modification certifications systems hang largely on protectionist and job-creating practices. The FTOs are scared of hordes of highly cost-sensitive ATP cadets clearing off to do FAA CPL/IRs in the USA. So it is at this end one can expect big trouble.

I could be wrong, but only if the EU gets a big enough prize elsewhere. But I can't see any prize to be had in these areas.

If we do get a bilateral agreement then, as I've said before, it won't be anything like a straight paper swap. It may be stuff like acceptance of US training logbook entries...

mad_jock

23rd Apr 2012, 19:36

frac

23rd Apr 2012, 19:54

To change the FAR's which would be required for the deal to go through wouldn't it have to go through both houses in the US?

There is no need to change 14 CFR, it is already ready for a FCL BASA

§ 61.71 Graduates of an approved training program other than under this part: Special rules.
...

(c) A person who holds a foreign pilot license and is applying for an equivalent U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement and associated Implementation Procedures for Licensing is considered to have met the applicable aeronautical experience, aeronautical knowledge, and areas of operation requirements of this part.

Regards,

Frac

Pace

23rd Apr 2012, 20:09

But Europe has a lot to lose. The pilot training and component / airframe / modification certifications systems hang largely on protectionist and job-creating practices. The FTOs are scared of hordes of highly cost-sensitive ATP cadets clearing off to do FAA CPL/IRs in the USA. So it is at this end one can expect big trouble.

Peter

I dont disagree with you on much but you are wrong here it has already happened!!!

Our most famous flight school at Oxford no longer flight trains it pilots they all go to Arizona and have done for some time.

Cranfield has gone bust!!

All that happens now in the UK is ground and sim training and sim is mostly US owned.
We have already priced ourselves out of the market! Dead, Capput GONE!!!

They do JAA and or FAA in the states.
Even sims are based on good old dollar price structures

Pace

mm_flynn

23rd Apr 2012, 20:45

yes your right Peter especially as the US has absolutely no reason to compromise in regards to FCL. And why should it?

The EU negotiating team may think they are in a good position because they have a huge remit to offer but if the US says thanks but no thanks we are quite happy with things as they are they are stumped. And they can't go back if they haven't actually recieved any compromise in return because they will be accused of taking one where the sun don't shine from uncle sam yet again.
What is the 'painfull' compromise on FCL the US needs to make?

If the deal in the EU negotiators mind is - We will let your pilots get our licences if you let our airlines provide domestic US service, then I would agree. But that is a much much broader negotiation than an FCL Annex (and quite a pish take as well).

peterh337

23rd Apr 2012, 20:56

Pace

You can build hours in the USA and you can train the CPL out there too, but you cannot train any of the 55+hrs (or whatever it actually takes under the CBM IR, if that ever comes) towards the IR in the USA. This prevents one doing the full ATPL package out there.

Cabair going bust is not relevant because it won't reduce the demand. The extra students (plus those who can recover from having lost 5 figures to the shysters) will go to other FTOs who are obviously rubbing their hands.

Silvaire1

I agree that the FAA holds the high ground, and I ask myself why they even bother talking to EASA. Well that's very true :)

But I think the FAA does need to talk to EASA.

One reason is that while the FAA has happily sat there for decades, looking after the domestic US scene, and implicitly exporting its regime around the world, EASA has been very busy selling its gold plated job-creating system all over the place, to some far away places which are now adopting Part M (believe it or not).

I was at a Eurocontrol seminar a few years ago and the speaker cleared off very quickly afterwards, for 2 reasons: 1) to avoid answering questions and 2) because he was off the Venezuela to "show them how to do it". I have no idea if he was successful but clearly the Eurocrats are nibbling around the edges of the traditional FAA territory.

mm_flynn

If the deal in the EU negotiators mind is - We will let your pilots get our licences if you let our airlines provide domestic US service, then I would agree. But that is a much much broader negotiation than an FCL Annex (and quite a pish take as well). I reckon it is something like that... a bit like the "Saddam Hussein extra mile" :) EASA will ensure that the FAA cannot agree to it, and they can then pretend to claim the moral high ground and shaft everybody.

Like I keep saying, just looking at the politics (forget aviation) I cannot see EASA giving up the present gold plated system unless they can get a massive prize in return and I can't see what that might be, and still fall within what can be stuffed into the current BASA annex.

bookworm

23rd Apr 2012, 22:42

I could be wrong,

You are collecting those oil filters for subsequent ingestion, Peter, right? You need a choice of filter. I'd want it to be a clean one with no serious particulates. Metal chips and teeth just don't mix. ;)

flybymike

23rd Apr 2012, 23:22

But ok if wrapped in Pink Underpants...;)

peterh337

24th Apr 2012, 07:03

My oil filters are spotless.

I have my own proper tool for cutting them open and I do it myself. Never seen a single particle of metal - not even ally :)

I know you are privy to a certain level of inside info, bookworm, but we shall see :)

Pace

24th Apr 2012, 07:37

Peter

Bookworm Has more inside info than me but I have some:O
We both appear to be singing roughly the same tune!
But as they say the show is not over till the fat lady sings and there is plenty of singing still to go !
My advice do nothing on conversion yet !
If it all goes Pear shaped there is always a solid option of a legal challenge but I don't think it will ever have to come to that !

Pace

bookworm

24th Apr 2012, 07:55

Bookworm Has more inside info than me

I have no "inside info" at all. I know that the FAA and EASA are in discussion on the topic, and I know there's the 2012 US/Europe International Aviation Safety Conference in June. I suspect we'll find out more after that.

peterh337

24th Apr 2012, 07:56

My advice do nothing on conversion yet !Given that the 15hr conversion route does not appear to be disappearing now, or (in the UK) after July, I would concur.

The factors which would make me suggest people buy their anti-EASA insurance sooner would be

1) Ending of the 15hr conversion route

2) New exam TK with no QB :eek: :eek: :eek:

3) Some other nasty like a ban on IR training or IRTs in an N-reg (possible currently only in the UK and, I gather, in Belgium, from vague memory of some very recent info). There are multiple scenarios here which I won't go into (don't want to give the usual idiots any ideas) but suffice to say it would result in every owner simply going to Spain or Greece, which is probably a sufficient regulatory disincentive :)

Currently we have known derogations (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/index.html) in UK (2yrs), Germany (1yr), France (2yrs) and the Netherlands one I am waiting for a "CAA" URL on.

Fuji Abound

24th Apr 2012, 14:11

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

Potentially the next few months will prove interesting in terms of seeing just how this mess unfolds. If I were to make a prediction it would only be that I dont think we will see an end any time soon - yet more evidence that the whole process is terribly flawed.

peterh337

24th Apr 2012, 14:43

Germany (http://www.lba.de/EN/AviationPersonnel/Licensing/opt_out.html?nn=30628) seems to have gone for the 1-year horizontal derogation for all of EASA FCL and MED.

That takes care of perhaps the majority of European "higher end" (i.e. potentially N-reg) GA community.

I dont think we will see an end any time soon

or much later for that matter, IMHO. The structural issue is not easily solved.

bookworm

24th Apr 2012, 16:55

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

I assure you that you can't squeeze a piece of paper between my and C421's thoughts on the issue, let alone a fence. :)

peterh337

24th Apr 2012, 17:10

And what are they?

Are we all going to get arrested at 0915Z tomorrow?

421C

24th Apr 2012, 17:44

Fuji, could you tell me what my prediction is that puts me on whatever side of the fence you say I am on?
421C

bookworm

24th Apr 2012, 18:18

Are we all going to get arrested at 0915Z tomorrow?

For eating an oil filter? No, it's a bit weird but AFAIK it's not against the law. ;)

Thomascl605

25th Apr 2012, 03:08

So, the legal stance seems to be this.

1. Check with your local CAA as to what they specify in terms of the regs, conversion procedures or grandfather rights. You will need this in writing from them.

2. As per point 1 if they are not giving a straightforward conversion FAA to EASA such as a one time differences exam, then you need to work out your loss of earnings for the rest of your career.

3. When financial loss is calculated you would apparantly have a very strong case to take forwards to the ECHR, especially if you have been working for many years on a non european licence (law of precedent )

I would suggest if this is the case then we should get as many affected Pilots / Businesses involved as possible. Let's work together and win !

mm_flynn

25th Apr 2012, 06:29

Thomas,

It is a little early for that, given no NAA seems to know what is going on for the medium term and more generally, the NAA's have until several months into the future to decide if they have or have not implementing any of these now. So it is impossible to know the law of the land applicable Today in most EU countries (with respect to this specific subject).

In a few months we will have a much clearer picture of who is doing what, when and may well have some visible progress/or lack of progress on resolving some of the many loose ends.

IANAL, but with regard to loss in any damages case you need to take action to mitigate the loss. For the vast majority of pilots this can 'easily' be done simply through the expenditure of less than several 10s of thousands of Euros and a year or two of training and testing.

Pace

25th Apr 2012, 07:33

I have rarely known such heartfelt predictions to be made on PPRuNe with Pace and perhaps Bookie and Peterh337 on one side of the fence, BoseX and 421C on the other.

I believe strongly in licence recognition as nothing else makes any sense.
Aviation knows no boundaries and pilots should be able to work freely worldwide.
It is absolute madness that I can fly across Europe as a Captain in a jet at present but all of a sudden because of some regulators who are not regulating to their mandate of safety I would be required to hold licences which have no bearing or relevance to the aircraft I am flying.
This is protectionism of the worst kind and should have no bearing in a modern world.

Licence recognition HAS to come and the only way that can happen is by convergence of licencing standards.

Hear EASA have failed our industry massively as they had the opportunity of regulating to bringing European standards in line with the FAA but instead went off trying to reinvent the wheel.
Mad Jock inadvertently hit on a point that it was not right that so many foreign registered aircraft should be Europe based yet controlled from 2000 miles away!
That point has some merit!

In a free market society which we are supposed to be although I am starting to doubt that! The normal way to compete is to offer something which is more attractive than your competitor.
There are reasons why so many N reg are Europe based.

EASA could have got rid of N reg by putting something equally or more attractive in place.

This is nothing I know but a bi lateral could be dual control over 3rd country aircraft which are foreign based.

The FAA could give EASA control rights over foreign based aircraft which in itself would negate the need for dual licences.

I wonder if a Bi Lateral may be something along those lines rather than licence convergence and acceptance.

Sadly licence convergence and acceptance should be the way forward but EASA have missed their chance unless there is some real give and take with the FAA.

As for a legal challenge should all fail I would imagine this would be brought by AOPA and not financed by an individual.

Pace

S-Works

25th Apr 2012, 08:14

As for a legal challenge should all fail I would imagine this would be brought by AOPA and not financed by an individual.

As an AOPA member I would be veyr unhappy if my membership fees were used to fight a court case on behalf of people who have had over five years to convert licences to meet the regulations of their home country and refuse to do so because it is inconvenient or to much like hard work.

I am dual licenced so happy to take over any of the job vacancies that will arise from those who refuse to comply.......:p:p:p

421C

25th Apr 2012, 08:20

What happened to the N-Flyers group: http://www.november.aero/ ?
No update on their site since Sep '11?

peterh337

25th Apr 2012, 08:30

EASA could have got rid of N reg by putting something equally or more attractive in place.Of course, but this has been known to everybody and their dog for much longer than EASA has been around.

JAA officials openly admitted (in presentations etc) that they knew this, and let's face it everybody knows this :ugh:

But protectionism rules in Europe, and that's the end of it. JAA never had any legal authority. EASA (via EU directives) does have the authority but they blew it (again, because of protectionism at various levels; not just FCL but certification) and instead brought in a weird vague legal framework which merely increases the FUD element which for all the preceeding years has been the principal lid on the expansion of the N-reg community.

FUD does work pretty well and costs very little. There is a blog out there of a Bonanza owner who went N-reg and started on the FAA IR, then read about the 2005 DfT proposal and got scared and blew away some 4 or 5 digits to go back on G and gave up on the IR. He could have had 7 years of priceless IFR mission capability and enhanced safety, with at least 2 more to go....

EASA (as every other EU agency) is carefully set up to resist traditional industry pressure (which is how they managed to bring in crap like ROHS, despite protests from multi billion electronics manufacturers) but it remains vulnerable lower down because all the committees are stuffed with the same people who run national CAAs and training operations. That's why I am pessimistic on the good stuff; it is vulnerable to sufficient gold plating to make it all but worthless.

Pace

25th Apr 2012, 08:31

As an AOPA member I would be veyr unhappy if my membership fees were used to fight a court case on behalf of people who have had over five years to convert licences to meet the regulations of their home country and refuse to do so because it is inconvenient or to much like hard work.

As an AOPA member with the same rights as you I maybe unhappy with my fees defending you in a court case should one ever arise :E
AOPA should defend the interests of all it members regardless of colour or creed.
We have NOT had five years to meet the regulations of this country.
Remember what is on the plate now is NOT EASAs preferred route and is only the route they threaten to take should a Bi Lateral fail.
I also repeat the regulations on the plate at present are legally flawed which EASA realise.
I am equally sure Bi Lateral or no Bi Lateral what will be on the plate in 2014 will not be whats on the plate now.

I am dual licenced so happy to take over any of the job vacancies that will arise from those who refuse to comply.......

Bose you maybe lucky enough to be dual licensed but did you do the conventional route to your European licences or jump through an existing loophole? I have nothing against that other than those people who did taking a holier than thou attitude!
I was so close to going through the Irish loophole which many did myself!

Pace

peterh337

25th Apr 2012, 08:33

Quite true; also some people don't have to work for a living since they got paid off from a nice IT project ;)

Pace

25th Apr 2012, 09:53

And by the way, stopping to Peter's tactics of trying to discredit and spread misinformation about people when they don't agree with you was something I always thought was beneath you......

Bose

I most certainly was not trying to discredit you and thanks for clearing that point up.
As stated even if you had jumped through a loophole which many have I have nothing against that neither would I have considered you a lesser pilot.
A lot with me is the principal which I do not agree with so it would be a bitter pill to chew getting licences which hold no practical relevance to the aircraft I fly and will add needless costs to me in money and time to do what I already do.
It maybe that by the end of this year I have to go the EASA way but the right way even if it does not happen now has to be global recognition and standardisation of licences and that is my principal.
EASA had a golden opportunity of doing just that while saving the industry a fortune and failed to do so.

Pace

S-Works

25th Apr 2012, 10:31

It maybe that by the end of this year I have to go the EASA way but the right way even if it does not happen now has to be global recognition and standardisation of licences and that is my principal.
EASA had a golden opportunity of doing just that while saving the industry a fortune and failed to do so.

But I think thats where the problem lies. Your principal is flawed in my humble opinion.

You chose what was perceived and easier and cheaper system. Cheaper because it is paid for by tax payers in another country. A system that you only take from. European philosophy is to protect its citizens and that includes the flight training and regulatory industry. So they are well within their rights to insist that as a European resident and tax payer you participate in the regime over here.

This is nothing to do with safety or recognition of licences, it is about protectionism. EASA are not saying that they don't recognise your licence, just that they want you to have one of theirs as well so that you have passed through the same system as everyone else. This is no different from what any other country does. Everywhere I have worked I have had to convert my licence to that countries. The complexity of conversion has been different every time. EASA have chosen to make it appear to be more difficult than it needs to be, but that is their choice and European law. So you are faced with either complying, leaving or giving up. Or if you really think your human rights are being abused take them to court. Personally I think you would only be able to claim that if you were prevented from working, which you are not, you are just being told to comply like the rest of us......

421C

25th Apr 2012, 10:47

European philosophy is to protect its citizens and that includes the flight training and regulatory industry. So they are well within their rights to insist that as a European resident and tax payer you participate in the regime over here.

There is an even more fundamental European philosophy, which is that we are a democracy and we are entitled to due process when decisions are made. If there had been a process to determine whether the interests of the "regulatory industry" and flight training outweighed those of the pilots, operators and thousands of people in the airport, aircraft, maintenance and parts industries who depend on FRA operators, and that process decided to ban FRA, then fair enough.

But there wasn't. You are just spouting some ex-post justification. I thought the purpose of regulations was to benefit flight safety. Isn't it a bit circular to argue that regulations should benefit the "regulatory industry"!

Thomascl605

25th Apr 2012, 11:14

I might have known that Bose would have put together an ill worded response such as taking the jobs of fellow European pilots who are no longer able to work. A four letter word springs to mind, beginning with s, ending in b and having ca in the middle. Do you get my drift ?

As for having 5 years to convert before this, then I find that comment absolutely ludicrous, I have never had 5 years before now in which to convert. As for trying to convert whilst working this is simply not possibly due to the demands of corporate flying. I would have to leave my job in order to convert my licence, upon passing the multi guess dross 14 written exams etc would find that my job has been taken by someone like Bose.

As for going to court, yes, I would. If it's alone then so be it at least I have had a go at the stupid legal system that now envelopes Europe. Maybe the next law from the EU will affect you Bose, perhaps you won't think it as funny then.

As I have a young family to support I do indeed believe that this would be against my human rights if enforced. Why, pray tell do I need an EASA licence to fly a plane with a big 'N' on the tail. I don't recall seeing that in the FAR's.

As for residency of operator/ pilot I also don't recall seeing that in the FAR's either. I am a legally licenced pilot that has been flying 'N' reg for years, law of precedent, and this is discrimination against european citizens at its worst.

Pace

25th Apr 2012, 11:15

Bose

The way you talk is as if N reg in Europe is something which has just been discovered and must be closed off.

N reg in Europe had grown and established itself as an industry in its own rights over decades.

In most walks of law established practice has legal rights of protection in itself.

N reg in Europe has been there legally for longer than the EU itself.
If all of a sudden EASA want to remove it in my eyes they have a moral obligation to protect those involved from financial hardship or loss of income and employment which THEIR legislation incurs on innocent European Citizens going about their legitimate business.
I think you will find that those protections are inherent in EU law.

Pace

S-Works

25th Apr 2012, 11:17

421, I AM NOT, Saying that at all. You of all people should know better.

I am saying the way it has happened. If you read what I have said constantly, I do not think that there is any benefit to this at all. It does not promote flight safety in any way.

I am just saying it as it stands at the moment and I why I think we are where we are now.

Do you really think I would not jump on the chance for EASA to just vanish and the FAA system fill the void. Lets put it in perspective on how I and the company would benefit by that.

FTO/TRTO Approvals just over £3k every time they are issued. Don't even start me on our CAMO and Part M approvals.

My own approvals. FI(A) requires renewing by test and seminar. CRI SE & ME now have to be renewed by test. My IRI needs renewing by test. My Examiner Approval needs renewing by test. I have turbine type and class ratings required to be renewed annually and biannually by test, my IR and MEP need an annual test.

Have you any idea how much that lot costs? It's all a complete crock.

However, it is where we are. If we are such a democracy, how did we get here in the first place? It is all about protectionism, pure and simple.

S-Works

25th Apr 2012, 11:21

Thomascl605

25th Apr 2012, 11:33

It's your current attitude Bose towards fellow European Pilots that I find troubling. It's sad that you think there would be more jobs available so that you could just walk into them. It won't be the case, that I can promise.

In fact we will be looking for a freelancer over the next few months, FAA Certs only, resident in Europe please.........

mad_jock

25th Apr 2012, 11:42

Neither me or Bose have any problems with fellow european pilots.

We are just telling you something that you don't want to hear.

Having a personal attack on everyone that tells you the bad news isn't going to change the situation.

It really doesn't matter who you employ and what tickets they have. Its not going to change the politics of whats going to happen.

S-Works

25th Apr 2012, 11:44

Thomas, I think you have misread what I wrote. I am not wishing anyone out of a job, I merely pointing out the facts. My original post about filling the gap which seems have vanished did have THREE raspberries after it indicating it was meant to be tongue in cheek humour.....

I don't need your job by the way, I have enough to do with my own....

FAA commercial pilots are not being denied a living, they are just being told they ALSO have to comply with EASA rules. That does not deny them the right to feed there children, it just means they have hoops to jump through.

This is no different from an EASA pilot wanting to go and work in the USA. You have to convert and I see nothing wrong with that.

I think the conversion path is more onerous under EASA than it needs to be and thats something that seems constantly being failed to be addressed but even so for a current commercial pilot especially a type rated one its not insurmountable.

Pace

25th Apr 2012, 11:48

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system that is costing our industry so dear instead of fighting the results of that system N reg.
Take away N reg and the system does not go away.

It really doesn't matter who you employ and what tickets they have. Its not going to change the politics of whats going to happen

Mad Jock what exactly is going to happen I am glad you know!!!

Pace

421C

25th Apr 2012, 11:48

421, I AM NOT, Saying that at all. You of all people should know better

Sorry bose, I should have directed that differently. You have written your understaning of why we are where we are. I agree with it as an explanation but I feel obliged to push back on it whenever I see it written, if only because people writing it often enough (even as an explanation, as you have done) has a way of "normalising" it and making it seem "OK". I fully accept that you think it is a bad thing.

421C

25th Apr 2012, 11:57

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system that
is costing our industry so dear
If I may say, knowing Bose in real life, he does his bit and more. You may not like his prose or his opinions at times, but I'd confine the discussion to that. He is highly experienced, highly and legitimately qualified (including his UK CAA Examiner approvals) and is a contributor to the GA community in his flying/teaching/examining and AOPA work well beyond the typical private or working pilot.

mad_jock

25th Apr 2012, 11:59

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system

We have better things to fight for like the IMC and maybe we realise that you don't go into battle when you know your going to loose everything and for that matter there is great potential for making things worse in a system that we are fully intergrated into.

What is going to happen?

I think they will by hook, crook and what ever means they require, make EU residents and resident aircraft comply with local oversight and thier way of doing things.

Thomascl605

25th Apr 2012, 12:13

Thanks Bose, for clearing that up.

I do disagree though that your comparison of a European pilot working in the US and converting doesn't quite stack up.

We are talking about two completely different things.

I am a European Pilot / Citizen who chooses to fly 'N' reg aircraft which happen to be in Europe. I have made a living like this for many years. I did not require a European licence to fly before and the FAR's do not state that a European licence is required to fly 'N' reg aircraft.

It's like the FAA specifying that you need an FAA licence to fly a European aircraft on say the German D register, that happens to be based in the US (even though you have a European licence) This of course wouldn't happen.

S-Works

25th Apr 2012, 12:18

If that is the case then why dont you fight the system that is costing our industry so dear instead of fighting the results of that system N reg.
Take away N reg and the system does not go away.

Because I don't have the time or inclination to enter into a bun fight of that scale. It was easier for me to comply. ;)

It's like the FAA specifying that you need an FAA licence to fly a European aircraft on say the German D register, that happens to be based in the US (even though you have a European licence) This of course wouldn't happen.

Maybe, but that does not stop them owners of the airspace defining there own rules and that is where we are now. Although as far as I am aware the US do not allow you to operate a foreign reg on US soil long term.

Fuji Abound

25th Apr 2012, 12:19

Bose

There is a significant dichotomy in your posts:

On the one hand you say:

You chose what was perceived and easier and cheaper system. Cheaper becauseit is paid for by tax payers in another country. A system that you only takefrom.

but then:

Do you really think I would not jump on the chance for EASA to just vanish
and the FAA system fill the void. Lets put it in perspective on how I and thecompany would benefit by that.

By implication you decry those who have taken the FAA route for the reasonsyou give, and with the next breath wish the same system was adopted.

I can understand a state or union wanting "control" of itscitizens. I also understand that in reality aviation operates on essentiallytwo levels - with inevitably some grey in the middle. There are thoseoperations that are truly international, essentially limited to the commercialoperators or upper echelons of the business jet market and the private operatorwho will spend their life within the bounds of Europe.It would be a farce to inhibit international operators and EASA has essentiallynot done so.

Where I part company with EASA is that as laudable as it maybe to exerciseregulatory control over your citizens you cannot ignore practices which havebeen endemic in Europe for almost as long asaviation. The CAA has time and again recognised the concept of"grandfathering" and EASA should do the same and in a way that givesfull and meaningful recognition to those that are already operating within thesystem. Inevitably as those grandfathered retire or fall by the way side the"new" system applies to all, and during the transition you have keptthe majority happy.

Whether the "new" system is better than others system is anentirely different argument. There are many of us who have thought for a verylong time Europe's approach to instrument rating private pilots is contrary toany claimed aspirations of creating safer pilots but that is another story.

Equally endemic in all of these discussions are those who take some delight in telling us "well, we do warn you, we told you it was coming". Yes, but do we need constantly reminding? And is their a slightly hollow ring when the same people plead they dont favour the new system on the one hand, but embrace it on the other. := I also am dual licensed so it really doesnt matter one wit to me, but actually it does, because I dont agree with what has taken place for the reasons set out. For that reason I will support Pace and everyone else on his side of the fence till the cows eventually come home and taken no pleasure at all for the hoops he may have to jump through to preserve the right to carry on doing what he has always done.

I will also never accept that EASA has embarked on an open and transparent process as suggested time and again by 421C. I maintain the process is flawed and I think more and more of the flaws are being revealed. Politicians have become terribly good at playing the cards in such a way that they are able to claim there has been consultation and that they have "listened" to the responses received, but in reality have had little or no intention of changing their original agenda. It is terribly easy to be taken in and not surprising given how well their techniques have been perfected - after all our friends in Europe have become particularly good at doing so. Fortunately the cracks are beginning to appear, and not just in so far as EASA is concerned. When times are good people will accept just about anything if you dress it up and make it look pretty, when times are not so good they tend to want to look underneath before they committ, or even after they have committed.