13th Apr 2012, 16:39
Just trying to make sense of the rule changes.
It appears an EU resident flying on a FAA license in their FAA N registered aircraft will have to get an EASA license. So will they hire a pilot with an EASA license to fly them around? What is the range on N registered aircraft in the EU , is it from C-172 to G550? Are there corporations using FAA licensed pilots with N registered aircraft?
So will there be an increase in demand for EASA licensed pilots who have experience (3000 hours or more) to fly N registered aircraft?
13th Apr 2012, 16:54
I doubt it. Aircraft owners tend to focus vast resources on doing whatever they want, not on what some rule making weasel thinks they should do.
My bet is that they will continue this tradition. Google "Larry Ellison vs San Jose Airport" or today's news regarding China and EUTS.
I've read all the self serving comments about "Getting rid of cheap N reg pilots and aircraft, but I bet it would HELP all the EU pilots if all of us could fly everything...
13th Apr 2012, 17:18
With nearly all of the national CAAs in the EU having ignored the EASA FCL regs so far, particularly the derogation options, I suspect most N-reg owners will do the same.
The position of FTOs is interesting. In the face of it, they should all be thinking "hey, this is great, we will now have thousands of FAA PPL/IRs and CPL/IRs coming to us to sit the 7/14 exams and do the conversion training (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/)". But in reality most of them have had this opportunity for many years and most have ignored it. When I was contacting FTOs around Europe, early last year, I found just a well known few that do conversions and the rest would go bust before they would touch e.g. a customer with his own aircraft. I think most FTOs are just too stuck up to depart from the ATPL cadet sausage machine. Even on the ground school, most do just the 14 exams and not the 7 for the IR conversion.
And they have clearly lobbied very hard under the table to get EASA to qualify the conversion route to the new CBM IR with a requirement to have 100hrs of instrument time as PIC. Obviously this was done to stop many ATPL wannabees doing a CPL/IR in the USA and then converting here, with the CBM IR used as the standard IR portion of the CPL/IR, but very few private pilots will meet that requirement. With 1400+hrs TT and 10 years' flying I only just meet it, because my training was not as PIC (IMCR, FAA IR, JAA IR). This means the current IR conversion route (all 7 exams plus 15+hrs dual) is the way to go. And the FTOs have sabotaged a business opportunity, to protect their traditional business.
Anyway, if the way this pans out is that all the N-reg owners have to do the EASA papers, then I am sure most will go to Spain or Greece, not to the N European FTOs. The only reason most don't do it now is that nobody down there seems to support N-reg aircraft, so you have to do it in a beaten up FTO Seneca or whatever.
13th Apr 2012, 17:26
The only opportunities that will be created will be for careers in this huge mysterious behemoth organisation. For we pilots it is merely yet another brutal sodomising...
It is a crazy world! FAA JAA? is one better or safer than the other? No!
There are no statistics to back up that JAA/EASA oversight regulation increases safety.
JAA/EASA Licences hold no validity on FAA reg aircraft so why should pilots who happen to live in Europe have to go to the huge cost in time and expense of holding licences on aircraft they are fully qualified to fly purely on the basis of discrimination and some sort of misguided protectionism?
JAA Ops are heavily controlled and regulated yet do not meet the safety standards of private corporate jets.
It was that oversight that EASA claimed was their reason for requiring oversight on private ops especially N reg.
In fact statistically the JAA Ops do not meet the safety statistics per million hours shown by privately operated corporate jets.
The whole thing is a disgusting nonsense.
I think many of us FAA or JAA are fed up by the Burocratic interference and over regulation to suit the interests of the regulators and not the industry.
Far better to chase EASAs proclaimed intention of fighting for a EASA / FAA Bilateral agreement on FCL so that Pilots holding either licence can easily convert one to the other.
14th Apr 2012, 14:54
Quote: JAA/EASA Licences hold no validity on FAA reg aircraft
Please see the article, it looks like one would need an EASA licence to fly a N reg aircraft in the EU.
Pilot und Flugzeug - Aktuelles - Dear International Pilots, You Are <u>Not Welcome</u> In Europe (http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2012-04-07/EASA_Part_FCL_and_foreign_pilots)
:) I am fully aware of that! I am fully aware that EASA have legal problems in instigating that with European residents in current employment flying N reg in Europe as what they are intending contravenes existing EU laws.
The Only reason put forward by EASA for extending the deadline from 2012 to 2014 was for the purpose of adding FCL to a Bilateral agreement with the FAA.
EASA stated that it was their intention to get a bi lateral FCL agreement with the USA and with that in mind they extended to 2014.
My comment re EASA Licences not having any validity on N reg aircraft is true.
It may be an intention to require pilots in Europe who are resident in Europe to hold equivalent EASA licences but those licences in themselves have NO relevance or validity in flying an FAA reg aircraft.
There is no possible safety based reason for this move other than some clever legal guy looking at a way of stopping the profusion of N reg based in Europe flown by FAA licenced pilots. As for N reg in Europe they have been here longer that the EU has been in existance and many have established a livelyhood flying these aircraft.