EASA Lic for N Reg pilots domiciled EU.

[Above The Clouds]

TN8B
Ask the IOM how many M reg aircraft are now based in USA.....startling number actually

I think if you look closely in to their operation they are not "based" in the USA but operate to/from staying in the US for long periods, their actual official base will be elsewhere, what they have do is leave the country for a very short period even a day to show on customs paperwork this also happens in Europe and Russia, I know as I fly an M reg.

TN8B
ATC....are you serious....the EU are trying to protect the rights of EU citizens with their interference in the third country licensing "thing"????? What a joke....! It's just more from yet another European group, interfering to try and justify the expense they make the EU incur......Brexit? Damned straight!!!!!

No, it was just my thoughts/reasoning why they maybe doing such a thing. I for one will be at the front of the queue when voting to leave Europe starts and mine will also be Brexit.

You all seem to be using the argument that someone is suggesting the holder of an FAA ATP is less safe than the holder of an EASA ATPL, who in authority has stated this ?

[Pace]

I would like to ask any of those who support the EASA position on 3rd country FCL What they would have against a RESTRICTED ATP being issued on completing the AIR LAW exam to protect pilots working on PRIVATE N reg Jets in the EU.

Most like the post above do not want a back door entry to work AOC Public transport and a Restricted ATP would be a win win all around wouldn't it?

I don't want to fly public transport and am not at a stage in my career where its worth taking that route. Maybe if I was forty!!! so why do I need to achieve licenses which I don't want or need for Private jets only.

Should those who Held a Restricted ATP decided they want AOC Public transport then they complete the remaining requirements to upgrade to a full ATP

We do have a right to carry on with our work and income from flying N reg in Europe a Historical and previously legal occupation and this move would seem sensible all around and would fall into the category of "reasonable" in the EU courts of human rights which I am informed the present requirements would not should someone have the money to challenge

ATC we can go around and around arguing every little point the facts are the United States of America with their own government have tight immigration laws which as stated are not specific to Aviation

Europe is not comparable! We are not the United States of Europe with one Government but a mix of independent countries.
The Big difference is we are talking about the working rights of EU citizens not Americans wanting to work here. The fact that there are 8000 FAA pilots who are EU citizens has been allowed to develop to something called established practice so the authorities have a moral and legal obligation to make any transition to a change as easy and cost effective as possible for those pilots commercial or private. Its not the pilots fault so why should they pay financially and in their time and loss of work for the whims of others ?

Pace

[this is my username]

Hmmmm .... isn't the colloquial name for a "restricted ATP" which allows private work but not acting as a captain on multi-crew PT flights a "CPL"? You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights .....

[BillieBob]

You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights

That is true - but, under EASA, you do need to have passed the ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations to obtain a type rating on a multi-pilot aircraft.

[Pace]

Hmmmm .... isn't the colloquial name for a "restricted ATP" which allows private work but not acting as a captain on multi-crew PT flights a "CPL"? You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights

I fly as a Captain on a multi crew jet and hold the licenses and current type rating to do so it just happens to be FAA Hence the suggestion of a restricted ATP so that any conversion is not seen as a back door EASA ATP. there would have to be a certain amount of Grandfathering rights in achieving this but it would be easy for EASA to do

Pace

[Beaver100]

The endgame should be to get the whole of this mess of legislation permanently shelved. I don't want or need an EASA licence restricted or otherwise. It has no relevance to me or plenty of others on a daily basis.

[Journey Man]

Originally Posted by Beaver100

The endgame should be to get the whole of this mess of legislation permanently shelved. I don't want or need an EASA licence restricted or otherwise. It has no relevance to me or plenty of others on a daily basis.

I wholeheartedly agree. Operators registered outside of Europe should be relieved of this entire mess, and then usual time limits should apply to how long they are based in Europe without needing to import the aircraft. For European registered operators, the aircraft should be transferred to a European registry. Solves the whole issue.

[Pace]

Beaver

Hopefully that will be the case! But as in aviation always have a plan B or even C
There is a plan B if anyone is interested but will fill you in not quite just yet

Pace

[this is my username]

I fly as a Captain on a multi crew jet and hold the licenses and current type rating to do so it just happens to be FAA Hence the suggestion of a restricted ATP so that any conversion is not seen as a back door EASA ATP. there would have to be a certain amount of Grandfathering rights in achieving this but it would be easy for EASA to do

Pace, you missed my point - if the rules come in to play and you are required to have an EASA licence what you would need is to be transferred / grandfathered on to a "restricted CPL" not a "restricted ATP".

I'm just commenting on what is required in terms of licencing and what might be politically easier to achieve rather than on the rights and wrongs of the situation. You don't need an ATPL or an ATP for the type of flying you do so why suggest that it is the solution rather than a CPL?

[Beaver100]

Thanks for the information Pace, would be interested to hear plan B

[Hawker 800]

An off the shelf non EU company that you are director of?

[Pace]

An off the shelf non EU company that you are director of?

NO Much more diplomatic and the right way first

Pace

[DirtyProp]

Go straight to Easa and tell them to pull their heads out of their @@@, banging on the table...?

[Pace]

Go straight to Easa and tell them to pull their heads out of their @@@, banging on the table...?

EASA are a waste of time they do not approve regulations only write them so NO

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Oh....here we go....registry prejudice again! Why stop foreign registry's from operating in EU/limit their time here ATC??? "My jet" is operated from outside the EU. The owners core business is actually in Russia, but HE lives in London....pays all his local taxes etc (and big chunks too on his UK companies) and simply did, with ownership, what most Bizjet owners do and, effectively kept the ownership offshore to save the tax liability. Nothing to do with registry....how many owners of EASA registered jets are paying the VAT and not claiming it back....or not paying tax at all....or operating them as "available to charter" and claiming all kinds of costs back and yet, NOT actually doing any charter (cleverly pricing them out of the market for example?).

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Brilliant idea DirtyProp....sign me up!

[Journey Man]

Oh....here we go....registry prejudice again! Why stop foreign registry's from operating in EU/limit their time here ATC???

Regulatory oversight?

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Originally Posted by this is my username

Pace, you missed my point - if the rules come in to play and you are required to have an EASA licence what you would need is to be transferred / grandfathered on to a "restricted CPL" not a "restricted ATP".

I'm just commenting on what is required in terms of licencing and what might be politically easier to achieve rather than on the rights and wrongs of the situation. You don't need an ATPL or an ATP for the type of flying you do so why suggest that it is the solution rather than a CPL?

Because then you would need to add a restricted IR to the restricted CPL wouldn't you and, also, to be a pilot in command (on the validation at least), they require not only an ATP from the ICAO nation....but ALSO, they want you to have 1500 hours multi crew and 500 hours on type (lmfao.....re the validation, because if you had done the EASA licence, that requirement doesn't exist??? One rule for one....etc etc)

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Originally Posted by this is my username

Hmmmm .... isn't the colloquial name for a "restricted ATP" which allows private work but not acting as a captain on multi-crew PT flights a "CPL"? You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights .....

.....you could also argue then, that if it was your own private jet, a multi PPL/IR would do...?

We are talking private business with the pilots being paid to fly it. NOT a Commercial Op

[Journey Man]

TN8B

Aviation is a regulated industry. This is the part of aviation that entrepreneurs and UHNWIs, like many of our clients (whether we're CAT or Private), forget and struggle to grasp.

Incidentally, I've gone through a type conversion meeting those requirements (500/1500), and it was shambolic. I do understand the frustrations vented here. If there was a clear path forward, regardless of the path, then that would be something.