Part NCC Stuff
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someflyer, it's a shame that you had to make those comments, you could have emailed my ex colleague who sent you the information if you wanted to discuss further. We felt from your response that you had some kind of pull higher up with the FAA ?
The emails from the MEP are just the start and other action is progressing, but I think it best left now to the pilots who appreciate our efforts. Good luck to all.
The emails from the MEP are just the start and other action is progressing, but I think it best left now to the pilots who appreciate our efforts. Good luck to all.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: On top of the world
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaver,
It's apparent that you have not read the first line of my post : "Don't shoot the messenger". I think I have raised a point which does have some implications and deserves an answer.
I'm truly sorry that you take it so personally. No one and certainly not me had any intention of having a go at you or your colleagues, On the contrary, I do admire the fact that you are so passionate about an issue that affects so many of us, However I think my point is valid and reading the
communications between you and the MEP is question, I still see a reason for skepticism.
My remark on the CAA is not based only on my own dealings (in fact, dealings with several CAA's and not only the UK one) but also of friends and colleagues which are in need to conduct their business with the authorities.
I did raised this matter with officials in the FAA and still waiting for them to come back but the general impression that I got is that they are confused as we are about the matter and it will take precious time until the FAA will be able to act upon the response it gets from EASA.
I will be looking for job outside Europe because I still need to feed my family and I need a job which doesn't have a sword hanging above it. I see no reason to apologise for that!
I do wish you and your friends the best of luck and from my little corner I will try to support the cause as much as I can (I will PM you any new info that may be transferred to me).
As I said, please take things as been written in a genuine concern and never in an attempt to undermine what you, or your friends are doing.
Happy flying
It's apparent that you have not read the first line of my post : "Don't shoot the messenger". I think I have raised a point which does have some implications and deserves an answer.
I'm truly sorry that you take it so personally. No one and certainly not me had any intention of having a go at you or your colleagues, On the contrary, I do admire the fact that you are so passionate about an issue that affects so many of us, However I think my point is valid and reading the
communications between you and the MEP is question, I still see a reason for skepticism.
My remark on the CAA is not based only on my own dealings (in fact, dealings with several CAA's and not only the UK one) but also of friends and colleagues which are in need to conduct their business with the authorities.
I did raised this matter with officials in the FAA and still waiting for them to come back but the general impression that I got is that they are confused as we are about the matter and it will take precious time until the FAA will be able to act upon the response it gets from EASA.
I will be looking for job outside Europe because I still need to feed my family and I need a job which doesn't have a sword hanging above it. I see no reason to apologise for that!
I do wish you and your friends the best of luck and from my little corner I will try to support the cause as much as I can (I will PM you any new info that may be transferred to me).
As I said, please take things as been written in a genuine concern and never in an attempt to undermine what you, or your friends are doing.
Happy flying
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
1 Post
Forgive me if I have missed something in the thread but I cannot see this aspect covered. I can see and already understand that FAA part 91 is completely different to having an AOC. This thread covers what I see is aimed at corporate aircraft be they operated privately or commercially.
How does this NCC stuff affect the likes of US ferry flight companies, of which there are many, and who are entrusted to be the operator by the aircraft owner or lease company to move their asset from A to B ?
As an example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA and has no offices or staff in EASA land. The lease company, lets say based in France and the aircraft owner has their office registered in USA. The aircraft, lets assume it's an A320, is US registered now that it has been de-registered from it's previous operator registry. The crew hold FAA licences, medicals etc and are based in EASA land or at least that is where they live. The aircraft is not on anyone's AOC and is operated under FAA Part 91 and a FAA ferry permit for the trip A to B, crew only on board.
Another example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA with no staff or offices in EASA land. Lease company based in France, owner of the aircraft also in France. The aircraft is French registered and keeps the same registry for the ferry flight from A to B. The same crew as above, also hold EASA licences, medical etc and obviously still live in EASA land. The ferry flight is operated under non AOC conditions because it is no longer on the previous operators ops spec so is being flown EASA equivalent of FAA Part 91 and a French ferry permit.
For the sake of ease lets say A and B are locations both inside EASA land.
Oh and if anyone has any EASA links that covers the above, please share so as to keep the answer simple.
How does this NCC stuff affect the likes of US ferry flight companies, of which there are many, and who are entrusted to be the operator by the aircraft owner or lease company to move their asset from A to B ?
As an example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA and has no offices or staff in EASA land. The lease company, lets say based in France and the aircraft owner has their office registered in USA. The aircraft, lets assume it's an A320, is US registered now that it has been de-registered from it's previous operator registry. The crew hold FAA licences, medicals etc and are based in EASA land or at least that is where they live. The aircraft is not on anyone's AOC and is operated under FAA Part 91 and a FAA ferry permit for the trip A to B, crew only on board.
Another example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA with no staff or offices in EASA land. Lease company based in France, owner of the aircraft also in France. The aircraft is French registered and keeps the same registry for the ferry flight from A to B. The same crew as above, also hold EASA licences, medical etc and obviously still live in EASA land. The ferry flight is operated under non AOC conditions because it is no longer on the previous operators ops spec so is being flown EASA equivalent of FAA Part 91 and a French ferry permit.
For the sake of ease lets say A and B are locations both inside EASA land.
Oh and if anyone has any EASA links that covers the above, please share so as to keep the answer simple.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official EASA worded rule is operator based or residing in the EU
UK CAA rule is wrongly interpreted to include third country operators with aircraft based in the UK (even temporarily) however they haven't corrected this yet.
Other EU countries also interpret it wrongly to include pilots based / living in their EU country.
Finally, if you fly N reg in the EU you are in a legal mess. The new regs would essentially leave you without a valid licence, FAA or EASA.
The EASA licence is only valid to fly N reg in the EU country that it is issued, so you would need a separate EASA licence from every other EU country you fly into. (See FAA legal decision below)
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf
And of course EASA / individual CAA's are trying to restrict FAA licence holders in the same way, even though their licence is from the legal state of registry
UK CAA rule is wrongly interpreted to include third country operators with aircraft based in the UK (even temporarily) however they haven't corrected this yet.
Other EU countries also interpret it wrongly to include pilots based / living in their EU country.
Finally, if you fly N reg in the EU you are in a legal mess. The new regs would essentially leave you without a valid licence, FAA or EASA.
The EASA licence is only valid to fly N reg in the EU country that it is issued, so you would need a separate EASA licence from every other EU country you fly into. (See FAA legal decision below)
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf
And of course EASA / individual CAA's are trying to restrict FAA licence holders in the same way, even though their licence is from the legal state of registry
Last edited by Beaver100; 10th Jun 2016 at 16:57. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Beaver for the document.
But it states that you can fly a N in a European country with an Easa licence issued in the same country.
Most a us are worried about a N plane in EU with a FAA licence.
But it states that you can fly a N in a European country with an Easa licence issued in the same country.
Most a us are worried about a N plane in EU with a FAA licence.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Marlon I know this is the worry but how on earth can EASA force FAA licensed pilots flying N reg in Europe to get an EASA licence or validation when,
A. The EASA licence or CAA EASA validation is useless to fly N reg outside of the U.K. or other national airspace as confirmed above by FAA legal. You would need a separate EASA licence from every member state CAA
B. EASA are stipulating that FAA licences are also only valid in national airspace to fly N reg even though the FAA licence is the correct one from the state of registry
It essentially leaves the pilot with two licences that can't be used to fly N reg. Does anyone else see the problem here, and also that therefore EASA or individual CAA's cannot possibly enforce this.
A. The EASA licence or CAA EASA validation is useless to fly N reg outside of the U.K. or other national airspace as confirmed above by FAA legal. You would need a separate EASA licence from every member state CAA
B. EASA are stipulating that FAA licences are also only valid in national airspace to fly N reg even though the FAA licence is the correct one from the state of registry
It essentially leaves the pilot with two licences that can't be used to fly N reg. Does anyone else see the problem here, and also that therefore EASA or individual CAA's cannot possibly enforce this.
Forgive me if I have missed something in the thread but I cannot see this aspect covered. I can see and already understand that FAA part 91 is completely different to having an AOC. This thread covers what I see is aimed at corporate aircraft be they operated privately or commercially.
How does this NCC stuff affect the likes of US ferry flight companies, of which there are many, and who are entrusted to be the operator by the aircraft owner or lease company to move their asset from A to B ?
As an example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA and has no offices or staff in EASA land. The lease company, lets say based in France and the aircraft owner has their office registered in USA. The aircraft, lets assume it's an A320, is US registered now that it has been de-registered from it's previous operator registry. The crew hold FAA licences, medicals etc and are based in EASA land or at least that is where they live. The aircraft is not on anyone's AOC and is operated under FAA Part 91 and a FAA ferry permit for the trip A to B, crew only on board.
Another example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA with no staff or offices in EASA land. Lease company based in France, owner of the aircraft also in France. The aircraft is French registered and keeps the same registry for the ferry flight from A to B. The same crew as above, also hold EASA licences, medical etc and obviously still live in EASA land. The ferry flight is operated under non AOC conditions because it is no longer on the previous operators ops spec so is being flown EASA equivalent of FAA Part 91 and a French ferry permit.
For the sake of ease lets say A and B are locations both inside EASA land.
Oh and if anyone has any EASA links that covers the above, please share so as to keep the answer simple.
How does this NCC stuff affect the likes of US ferry flight companies, of which there are many, and who are entrusted to be the operator by the aircraft owner or lease company to move their asset from A to B ?
As an example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA and has no offices or staff in EASA land. The lease company, lets say based in France and the aircraft owner has their office registered in USA. The aircraft, lets assume it's an A320, is US registered now that it has been de-registered from it's previous operator registry. The crew hold FAA licences, medicals etc and are based in EASA land or at least that is where they live. The aircraft is not on anyone's AOC and is operated under FAA Part 91 and a FAA ferry permit for the trip A to B, crew only on board.
Another example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA with no staff or offices in EASA land. Lease company based in France, owner of the aircraft also in France. The aircraft is French registered and keeps the same registry for the ferry flight from A to B. The same crew as above, also hold EASA licences, medical etc and obviously still live in EASA land. The ferry flight is operated under non AOC conditions because it is no longer on the previous operators ops spec so is being flown EASA equivalent of FAA Part 91 and a French ferry permit.
For the sake of ease lets say A and B are locations both inside EASA land.
Oh and if anyone has any EASA links that covers the above, please share so as to keep the answer simple.
dc9-32
Thanks. I raised the question because I am not too familiar with the US regulations and I recently read that about Part 125:
"§125.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.registered
civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum
payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved."
Thanks. I raised the question because I am not too familiar with the US regulations and I recently read that about Part 125:
"§125.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.registered
civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum
payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved."
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dc9-32
Interesting thoughts.
Part NCC actually seems to have nothing to do with the aircraft or pilot but where the “Operator” is based and as like everything in EASA land it has a certain amount of vagueness.
The EU regulations define the principal place of business as “the head office or registered office of the organization within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities are exercised.” This definition leaves room for interpretation .
Sticking my head above the parapet I don’t think it matters whether the aircraft is Part 91 or 125. In the first example the Operator (operational control and Financial functions) is clearly outside EASA land, hence Part NCC shouldn't apply.
In the second case, again the Operator is outside EASA land, however, the aircraft is French registered. At this point I go blank as my understanding was that any complex aircraft registered in the EU would have to comply with Part NCC. I’m not clear and just cannot find a reference at the moment.
This could be a question for a regulator - but good luck getting an answer.
These are just my thoughts so others may know differently.
M.E.
Interesting thoughts.
Part NCC actually seems to have nothing to do with the aircraft or pilot but where the “Operator” is based and as like everything in EASA land it has a certain amount of vagueness.
The EU regulations define the principal place of business as “the head office or registered office of the organization within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities are exercised.” This definition leaves room for interpretation .
Sticking my head above the parapet I don’t think it matters whether the aircraft is Part 91 or 125. In the first example the Operator (operational control and Financial functions) is clearly outside EASA land, hence Part NCC shouldn't apply.
In the second case, again the Operator is outside EASA land, however, the aircraft is French registered. At this point I go blank as my understanding was that any complex aircraft registered in the EU would have to comply with Part NCC. I’m not clear and just cannot find a reference at the moment.
This could be a question for a regulator - but good luck getting an answer.
These are just my thoughts so others may know differently.
M.E.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Various at the moment
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
1 Post
Mike Echo
Well I managed to contact a regulator and according to the UK CAA, if the operator is based outside the EU and has it's principal business activity outside the EU, Part NCC does not apply to them regardless of where the aircraft is registered. Having tried to ask EASA the same question, they didn't even reply but I guess there's no surprise in that.
Well I managed to contact a regulator and according to the UK CAA, if the operator is based outside the EU and has it's principal business activity outside the EU, Part NCC does not apply to them regardless of where the aircraft is registered. Having tried to ask EASA the same question, they didn't even reply but I guess there's no surprise in that.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the CAA have confirmed the above dc9-32 which does make sense of these useless regulations. However, their information notice of 3rd May should also be the same as above but instead states, 'All Third Country Operators, with aircraft based within the United Kingdom' and this is clearly wrong and should only apply to Operators based in the EU. It has yet to be changed though but clearly can be ignored as it isn't following the garbage they released from EASA earlier in April this year
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well aware of that TIMU, but the UK CAA have confirmed that they are directly relating IN1171 to the part NCC date of 25 August (as in their own words they think it's a good idea, but it has no legislative basis) They are the only aviation authority that I know who having taken the full yearly derogation to have given a 25 Aug cut off date for paid pilots of non commercial ops, totally against what has been released by EASA. Further to this they are trying to include third country operators within IN1171 (3rd may release) so it is likely that perhaps they will try to do the same for part NCC which would also be incorrect of them
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, how is everyone getting on with part NCC implementation? Are you finding it a struggle or easy? How are your third country licence guys getting on with conversions?
Did the CAA offer you any assistance?
Did the CAA offer you any assistance?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company that I fly for has been assessed as a complex operator due the number of staff/aircraft (M reg). We have effectively had to comply with the same requirements as an AOC holder, including SMS and FTL scheme. This process has been going on for the last couple of years and has involved employing specialist staff who have liaised with the various authorities. I am not sure how much help we have received from them as it's not my department. A condition of employment for pilots is that they have an EASA licence and medical regardless of any other licences that they may hold.
I understand that smaller operators may have less strenuous regulatory hoops to jump through but that the aircrew licensing rules are the same?
AP
I understand that smaller operators may have less strenuous regulatory hoops to jump through but that the aircrew licensing rules are the same?
AP
