€urocrap
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
the Regulation will become law on 1 April 2012
Oh, I get it now. All this EASA nonsense is just an elaborate April fool. You guys nearly had me!
the Regulation will become law on 1 April 2012
Oh, I get it now. All this EASA nonsense is just an elaborate April fool. You guys nearly had me!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For close followers of The Crooked Agency, nothing terribly unexpected in there.
It's worth noting that the IR still requires the audiogram in each ear separately on the initial medical, despite me having been told by Eric Sivel (EASA's then head of rulemaking) that the initial v. renewal dictinction will be ended by EASA.
This ridiculously gold plated and arbitrary piece of initial medical crap stops quite a lot of older people doing the European IR.
This is the normal pattern of EASA behaviour: tell different things to different people.
It's worth noting that the IR still requires the audiogram in each ear separately on the initial medical, despite me having been told by Eric Sivel (EASA's then head of rulemaking) that the initial v. renewal dictinction will be ended by EASA.
This ridiculously gold plated and arbitrary piece of initial medical crap stops quite a lot of older people doing the European IR.
This is the normal pattern of EASA behaviour: tell different things to different people.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For close followers of The Crooked Agency, nothing terribly unexpected in there.
It's worth noting that the IR still requires the audiogram in each ear separately on the initial medical, despite me having been told by Eric Sivel (EASA's then head of rulemaking) that the initial v. renewal dictinction will be ended by EASA.
This ridiculously gold plated and arbitrary piece of initial medical crap stops quite a lot of older people doing the European IR.
This is the normal pattern of EASA behaviour: tell different things to different people.
It's worth noting that the IR still requires the audiogram in each ear separately on the initial medical, despite me having been told by Eric Sivel (EASA's then head of rulemaking) that the initial v. renewal dictinction will be ended by EASA.
This ridiculously gold plated and arbitrary piece of initial medical crap stops quite a lot of older people doing the European IR.
This is the normal pattern of EASA behaviour: tell different things to different people.
€urocrap
The Manual of €urocrap, otherwise known as the 'Aircrew Regulation' has now been published at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...11:FULL:EN:PDF
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. That's quite a piece of work.
I've taken a quick look through it and one thing that strikes me as good is that they seem to have left out the triple negatives that seem to be required in the ANO. And I also noticed some questionable details, but I'm not going to list them here.
Instead, one question: Can somebody who is more intimately familiar with the inner workings of the EU/EASA, put this document in the legislative context? In other words "Is This It?" Is this going to be the law as applicable in the EU effective April 2012? Or is this still some intermediate/draft/proposal document, or an explanation of another document, or something else that should be put into context before starting to read it?
I've taken a quick look through it and one thing that strikes me as good is that they seem to have left out the triple negatives that seem to be required in the ANO. And I also noticed some questionable details, but I'm not going to list them here.
Instead, one question: Can somebody who is more intimately familiar with the inner workings of the EU/EASA, put this document in the legislative context? In other words "Is This It?" Is this going to be the law as applicable in the EU effective April 2012? Or is this still some intermediate/draft/proposal document, or an explanation of another document, or something else that should be put into context before starting to read it?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words "Is This It?"
PS: one little detail just really shows what kind of system we have to deal with in the EUssR: there is no index.....
Yes, this is IT. Having now been published in the Official Journal, the Regulation will become law on 8 April 2012 and the Annexes (Part-FCL, conversion of national licences, validation of third country licences and Part-MED) will be adopted in the UK from 1 July 2012. The associated AMCs and Guidance Material have yet to be published and will, presumably, appear on the EASA website in due course. However, since these are not legally binding, they are arguably of less importance. There is also the small matter of Parts-ORA and -ARA, which are due to be published 'early next year', meaning that the picture is not yet quite complete.
Despite the time that this process has taken, there are still a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Annexes that will have to be addressed before implementation. However, this can be done by issuing an exemption under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation, which will not materially affect the Aircrew Regulation as published.
Despite the time that this process has taken, there are still a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Annexes that will have to be addressed before implementation. However, this can be done by issuing an exemption under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation, which will not materially affect the Aircrew Regulation as published.
Last edited by BillieBob; 25th Nov 2011 at 12:24. Reason: Corrected Freudian slip with date of Regulation coming into force
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods, any chance this thread can become a sticky for the next six months or so? (And fattonys post time corrected to restore any semblance of sequence to the posts?) I've got the feeling we're going to refer to this thread in the next few months quite regularly as the implementation date draws near.
(And at the same time, the thread about "traveling to the US under the VWP" may go away, AFAIC. If you and/or your travel agent/airline haven't heard about ESTA by now, then that thread is certainly not going to help anymore...
)
(And at the same time, the thread about "traveling to the US under the VWP" may go away, AFAIC. If you and/or your travel agent/airline haven't heard about ESTA by now, then that thread is certainly not going to help anymore...
)
Reply to MIKECR's post #13
Any organisation that seeks to provide flight training in EASA aircraft (aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes or balloons) will need to be approved by the 'competent authority'. The criteria for approval will be published in EASA Part-ORA 'early in 2012' although the content will, I understand, not differ significantly from that in Opinion 03/2011 available here.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: europe
Age: 49
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the sake of a simpleton like me, could someone outline how this will effect an operation such as ours, and I suspect many private corporate operators
We operate an M reg (not EASA) jet which is operated for private flights and owned by a company incorporated in the Isle of Man (which is not in the EU).
The a/c is based inside the EU and flown by four pilots, two with JAR licences, and two with FAA licences validated by Isle of Man.
One of the FAA licenced pilots is a resident outside the EU, and one lives in it.
What, if anything, effects us as a third country operator?
We operate an M reg (not EASA) jet which is operated for private flights and owned by a company incorporated in the Isle of Man (which is not in the EU).
The a/c is based inside the EU and flown by four pilots, two with JAR licences, and two with FAA licences validated by Isle of Man.
One of the FAA licenced pilots is a resident outside the EU, and one lives in it.
What, if anything, effects us as a third country operator?
Reply to IO540's post #17
Is there any indication of what extra costs an ATO will have to pay out in order to do IT training?
Proposed annual re-approval fees are £1156 per module and £1676 for renewal of the FNPT II qualification.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can anyone explain to me if it is possible to fly with a than NEW EASA PPL in the whole of EASA land a N/reg airplane?
The FAA has repeatedly ruled that FAR 61.3 is to be interpreted strictly on the word "issued". There are two Chief Counsel rulings on this.
That means that the present situation:
currently I can only fly with a JAR-FCL PPL an N reg airplane in that country the licence is issued.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see prune is back to its buggy behaviour whereby postings have the wrong dates assigned to them, so they are displayed out of order.
Is there any indication of what extra costs an ATO will have to pay out in order to do IT training?
I am interested in seeing whether the FTO to ATO change will result in any better (geographical) availability of facilities for training private pilots for the IR. Currently, probably the majority of UK PPLs are looking at hotel residence to do an IR.
Is there any indication of what extra costs an ATO will have to pay out in order to do IT training?
I am interested in seeing whether the FTO to ATO change will result in any better (geographical) availability of facilities for training private pilots for the IR. Currently, probably the majority of UK PPLs are looking at hotel residence to do an IR.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the sake of a simpleton like me, could someone outline how this will effect an operation such as ours, and I suspect many private corporate operators
We operate an M reg (not EASA) jet which is operated for private flights and owned by a company incorporated in the Isle of Man (which is not in the EU).
The a/c is based inside the EU and flown by four pilots, two with JAR licences, and two with FAA licences validated by Isle of Man.
One of the FAA licenced pilots is a resident outside the EU, and one lives in it.
What, if anything, effects us as a third country operator?
We operate an M reg (not EASA) jet which is operated for private flights and owned by a company incorporated in the Isle of Man (which is not in the EU).
The a/c is based inside the EU and flown by four pilots, two with JAR licences, and two with FAA licences validated by Isle of Man.
One of the FAA licenced pilots is a resident outside the EU, and one lives in it.
What, if anything, effects us as a third country operator?
As with most things in aviation, there are two aspects to this: (1) policing and enforcement, and (2) insurance implications.
I find it incredible that there will be general policing. There is no "certificate of EU residence/nonresidence" that a pilot can carry, and there are so many grey areas (such as yours) where the pilot could easily carry paper evidence of a non EU base. I am not a lawyer but I really cannot see how this will be policed - except very sporadically where some country's police or CAA wants to p1ss off N-reg owners (which does happen, here and there). The policing framework simply doesn't exist.
Insurance is going to be the key. And it is insurance which drives compliance with most aviation regs, because the policy normally has a general requirement to be "legal". So you ought to ask your insurer what they think of it. IMHO, and I am not a lawyer (just a businessman of 33 years), if you make a full disclosure to them and they are OK with your operator EU nonresidence status or whatever, then they can hardly walk away from a payout.
It has been argued that the operator is whoever has the decision power on where the plane flies, and it doesn't take a PhD to realise that he could be outside the EU. The people who would get caught up by this EASA business
are the small people like me who are owner pilots and obviously live in the EU. But if you move about, perhaps have non EU tax residence, you are back to the grey areas.The residence of the pilots is unimportant, unless some of them could be seen as "operators".
It's a stupid regulation - a typically brain dead "finger up to the USA" political decree from the EU. I have some notes here, with links to the regs. Whether you will be any wiser, I doubt.
I am pretty sure that a straight aircraft owner living on the IOM will not be affected by this stuff, because the IOM is not in the EC (for this purpose). And same if he lends/rents the plane to somebody else, living anywhere at all. He must just remain the operator i.e. retain direct control of what the plane does. Again, it doesn't take a PhD that if he sets up a booking website...... get my drift? It's all booollox when you look at it in any detail.
The plus side of this EASA reg is that there is now no long term parking control on foreign reg planes in the EU. This does away with the sporadic attempts to p1ss off N-reg owners living in Denmark and, I gather, 1 or 2 other places in Europe. Long term parking limits are inherently unnforceable so policing will always be sporadic. France abandoned such a proposal in 2004, the UK did same in 2005, Iceland abandoned it very recently too.
(Interesting that prune does correct datestamps for some people's posts but not for others).
Last edited by IO540; 26th Nov 2011 at 09:57.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no difference in the approval fees charged for an ATO as opposed to an FTO. For the modular IR, the proposed initial approval fee for 2012/2013 is £1294 per module (BIFM & PIFM) with an extra £647 if the course is to include synthetic flight training. The current fee for initial approval of the 'old' modular IR course is £1269 (+£634 for the addition of synthetic flight training) so splitting the course into 2 modules appears to result in the initial approval fee more than doubling. This does not, of course, include the fee for qualifying the FSTD (£7431 for initial qualification of an FNPT II).
Proposed annual re-approval fees are £1156 per module and £1676 for renewal of the FNPT II qualification.
Proposed annual re-approval fees are £1156 per module and £1676 for renewal of the FNPT II qualification.
I did wonder about the sim approval costs. They are big, but hard to avoid since most customers are not aircraft owners and sim time is thus cheaper than flying.
One could argue that private owner-pilots may generate new revenue and I would guess most of the SE owners would choose not to use a sim (as I have done) but I don't see this as a vast new market. Especially with the 2014 derogation on FAA to EASA IR conversions, which may be extended again as necessary.