N Reg Ops EU domiciled pilots
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno
Surely it would be simpler and more effective if they just agreed to mutual recognition of licences and, at the same time, adopted the FAA IR syllabus, currency and test requirements. That would clear away the administrative mess they have created, enhance flight safety and save the administration and the pilots a bundle of money as well as a lot of wasted time.
Surely it would be simpler and more effective if they just agreed to mutual recognition of licences and, at the same time, adopted the FAA IR syllabus, currency and test requirements. That would clear away the administrative mess they have created, enhance flight safety and save the administration and the pilots a bundle of money as well as a lot of wasted time.
Simpler
Effective
Enhance flight safety
Save administration
Save money
Wasted time
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno
It all comes back to self interest. EASA were originally almost disbanded by the Commission for trying to reinvent the wheel.
These are again government job creation with huge benefits to those employed in EASA.
Great pension allowances and expenses allowances and salaries. Who pays for it all?
Re Writing the rule books suited EASA not aviation or the economy of the EU
The simple and practical idea of taking the biggest regulatory system used world wide didn't suit EASAs self interest
Aviation has no boundaries its a world wide occupation with thousand of jets flying into and from Europe worldwide every day so it makes every sense that a common regulatory system is used world wide from a practical sense and a safety sense so we are all trained and fly to roughly the same regulations and no confusion.
In the future it will also be more important for free movement of pilots to work with as least hassle and cost between countries and continents.
There is no sense to EASA or its existence in the size and form it is other than self interest.
To create spiteful regulations requiring dual licensing and licensing which requires expensive and time consuming licenses to be held which hold no validity on the aircraft being flown is pure madness and a complete NON SENSE
But the above is a good reflection of the bureaucracy well known in the EU and all thats wrong with the EU which is made up of numerous self interest pressure groups
Pace
It all comes back to self interest. EASA were originally almost disbanded by the Commission for trying to reinvent the wheel.
These are again government job creation with huge benefits to those employed in EASA.
Great pension allowances and expenses allowances and salaries. Who pays for it all?
Re Writing the rule books suited EASA not aviation or the economy of the EU
The simple and practical idea of taking the biggest regulatory system used world wide didn't suit EASAs self interest
Aviation has no boundaries its a world wide occupation with thousand of jets flying into and from Europe worldwide every day so it makes every sense that a common regulatory system is used world wide from a practical sense and a safety sense so we are all trained and fly to roughly the same regulations and no confusion.
In the future it will also be more important for free movement of pilots to work with as least hassle and cost between countries and continents.
There is no sense to EASA or its existence in the size and form it is other than self interest.
To create spiteful regulations requiring dual licensing and licensing which requires expensive and time consuming licenses to be held which hold no validity on the aircraft being flown is pure madness and a complete NON SENSE
But the above is a good reflection of the bureaucracy well known in the EU and all thats wrong with the EU which is made up of numerous self interest pressure groups
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not see the EASA as bad per se, definitely not. Especially since Patrick Ky is steering, I do see a lot of good things happening and I honor a lot of respect to the really challenging setup. In the end, there are quite a number of rather idiotic systems to combine into one system and there is progress, slowly, but it finally moves.
Ok, it is not sufficient for the more global minded, and pilots are per education much more geoflexible compared to the rest of the crowd, but there are a lot of ground based obstacles to identify, circumnavigate und to be bombed as well.
I even do see some logics in the political efforts to get a more forceful weapon against their own people, but I do not support the thinking behind. I also believe they will not succeed in creating a working regulation the way they do it now, because I strongly believe we need a global system, not another local minded one. First step for inside EU is not that bad and much better then before, but there is at least some common base inside EU.
Btw: dual licensing is only necessary for the "wrongly" domiciled pilots, so one movement to seriously consider is moving your home to the country of your license. If you frequently fly a N-reg aircraft and do hold a FAA PPL, why not move completely to the US and pay your taxes there? If more pilots would plan and do this, guess how fast regs will change ...
Ok, it is not sufficient for the more global minded, and pilots are per education much more geoflexible compared to the rest of the crowd, but there are a lot of ground based obstacles to identify, circumnavigate und to be bombed as well.
I even do see some logics in the political efforts to get a more forceful weapon against their own people, but I do not support the thinking behind. I also believe they will not succeed in creating a working regulation the way they do it now, because I strongly believe we need a global system, not another local minded one. First step for inside EU is not that bad and much better then before, but there is at least some common base inside EU.
Btw: dual licensing is only necessary for the "wrongly" domiciled pilots, so one movement to seriously consider is moving your home to the country of your license. If you frequently fly a N-reg aircraft and do hold a FAA PPL, why not move completely to the US and pay your taxes there? If more pilots would plan and do this, guess how fast regs will change ...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Btw: dual licensing is only necessary for the "wrongly" domiciled pilots, so one movement to seriously consider is moving your home to the country of your license. If you frequently fly a N-reg aircraft and do hold a FAA PPL, why not move completely to the US and pay your taxes there? If more pilots would plan and do this, guess how fast regs will change ..
Simply cost and time to achieve licenses for working people who may have family or heavy work commitments.
It has been shown that the N reg pilots with IRs are safer than those trying to fly VFR in minimal conditions
So again its the market place argument
Had EASA offered a practical cost effective PPL IR in the first place there would not be so many N reg in Europe
This is a failing in the European system not the pilots who moved to N reg which was perfectly legal for them to do.
Why should they have to meet the huge costs in time and money for something they are innocent of ?
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a real global view, the concept of "domiciled" can be questioned at all! We did vote for a system we are not stopping to do that crap. We did let our politicians built walls and fences. We did let local political systems grow beyond fears. We did let them take the individual freedom to move. We did let them fight each other to justify their existence. We did allow the cancerous political systems to evolve from sole administration to take over all of our life. Who is innocent?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly4business
This is going off topic somewhat but I am a prolific poster in the Jet Blast forum on the EU vote as a Brexit supporter.
I am pro a European Union but totally against a European centralised government and a move towards that as being good for the UK.
i cannot see any area in EU government which has been anything but a disaster area the policy on ex EU immigration an example of a problem the EU have created which will cost us heavily for decades to come.
That is one example but I find it hard to point to anything which the EU has determined which has lead me to believe that further integration and power to Brussels can be beneficial to the UK.
Hence I will vote Out not to leave the EU but to pull control back from an out of control EU to our elected parliament.
We each under a democracy have a vote but in relation to EASA even if every pilot voted one way it would have made no difference to the outcomes of national votes as will be my rantings in the EU topics in the Jet Blast forum.
N reg in Europe has been around longer that the Common Market and longer than the EU or EASA has been in existence. Many PPLs motivated to N reg as did Jet owners and operated perfectly legally for decades.
Some Commercial pilots went the FAA way because the majority of private jets were N or third country registered in the EU and have built business serving that section of the market.
Without huge allowances being made to those pilots to keep operating many will loose their incomes and livelihoods
We cannot say to our employers sorry not available for 6 months as we do a full time course to study and complete 14 exams or dig into our pockets to finance that and the expensive flight side requirements
its bad enough paying for recurrence which have escalated to nearly $10,000 all in to keep current and get back through employment and endure further financial loading on top just to keep EASA happy
My rants in the Jet blast forum will not make a scrap of difference to the outcome of a misworded vote and the same with all PPLs their votes will not make a scrap of difference on where things go with EASA
We have been taken up the garden path for 6 years since these stupid regulation s were put into place and deferred every year since by the Commission. It getting beyond a joke and unfair to the pilots who don't know where they are or how to plan for the future and itself may have created human right issues in the EU courts
Even April 8 has come and gone with no directives WHAT A SHAMBOLIC LOT THEY ARE
Pace
This is going off topic somewhat but I am a prolific poster in the Jet Blast forum on the EU vote as a Brexit supporter.
I am pro a European Union but totally against a European centralised government and a move towards that as being good for the UK.
i cannot see any area in EU government which has been anything but a disaster area the policy on ex EU immigration an example of a problem the EU have created which will cost us heavily for decades to come.
That is one example but I find it hard to point to anything which the EU has determined which has lead me to believe that further integration and power to Brussels can be beneficial to the UK.
Hence I will vote Out not to leave the EU but to pull control back from an out of control EU to our elected parliament.
We each under a democracy have a vote but in relation to EASA even if every pilot voted one way it would have made no difference to the outcomes of national votes as will be my rantings in the EU topics in the Jet Blast forum.
N reg in Europe has been around longer that the Common Market and longer than the EU or EASA has been in existence. Many PPLs motivated to N reg as did Jet owners and operated perfectly legally for decades.
Some Commercial pilots went the FAA way because the majority of private jets were N or third country registered in the EU and have built business serving that section of the market.
Without huge allowances being made to those pilots to keep operating many will loose their incomes and livelihoods
We cannot say to our employers sorry not available for 6 months as we do a full time course to study and complete 14 exams or dig into our pockets to finance that and the expensive flight side requirements
its bad enough paying for recurrence which have escalated to nearly $10,000 all in to keep current and get back through employment and endure further financial loading on top just to keep EASA happy
My rants in the Jet blast forum will not make a scrap of difference to the outcome of a misworded vote and the same with all PPLs their votes will not make a scrap of difference on where things go with EASA
We have been taken up the garden path for 6 years since these stupid regulation s were put into place and deferred every year since by the Commission. It getting beyond a joke and unfair to the pilots who don't know where they are or how to plan for the future and itself may have created human right issues in the EU courts
Even April 8 has come and gone with no directives WHAT A SHAMBOLIC LOT THEY ARE
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Apr 2016 at 11:39.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I agree with you about a single regulatory framework and body to oversee it.
What we need to come up with is something that is International in scope, covers Civil Aviation and is Organised.
All we need is a catchy acronym for it ......
I agree with you about a single regulatory framework and body to oversee it.
What we need to come up with is something that is International in scope, covers Civil Aviation and is Organised.
All we need is a catchy acronym for it ......
Please note http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...6R0539&from=EN :
(3) paragraph 4 of Article 12 is replaced by the following:
‘4.By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2017 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Member States shall make those decisions publicly available.’
(3) paragraph 4 of Article 12 is replaced by the following:
‘4.By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2017 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Member States shall make those decisions publicly available.’
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Member States shall make those decisions publicly available.’
Non commercial means not public transport AOC work it doesn't mean being paid to fly a private aircraft that was CAA clarified and ok with a commercial license
This is the Private Flying forum, isn't it?
Hence my post referred to private operation of N-reg aircraft, rather than flag-of-convenience commercial operation.
Hence my post referred to private operation of N-reg aircraft, rather than flag-of-convenience commercial operation.
EU OK!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle I take your point but its Ok for a wealthy CJ1 private single pilot to post here but if he pays another pilot to fly it for him thats not OK.
If It was an N reg single Saratoga would that be more acceptable ?
We have two threads running one in this forum the other in the Biz jet forum and both covering much the same subject with both overlapping
If its flag of convenience then I ask why is a European reg a flag of inconvenience ?
Apologies for the thread drift
Pace
If It was an N reg single Saratoga would that be more acceptable ?
We have two threads running one in this forum the other in the Biz jet forum and both covering much the same subject with both overlapping
If its flag of convenience then I ask why is a European reg a flag of inconvenience ?
Apologies for the thread drift
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Apr 2016 at 15:33.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a remark to the term "private", which is hurting discussions on General Aviation in Europe for a long time. Movement statistics is usually based on the registration of the aircraft, not the purpose of the flight. I hope EASA will introduce a mechanism to at least estimate the percentage of business flights sometimes. Until then, all business related flights are not counted as such, but be put in the public bucket of rich dad boys fun flights.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all business related flights are not counted as such, but be put in the public bucket of rich dad boys fun flights.
Not for him a status symbol but a needed work tool plain and simple.
While there is also the Rich kids using Dads Money I have never seen that other than the closest with a motor racing team where again it was needed transport but with the status and extra touches appreciated
Most of the Rich kids probably just rent an AOC aircraft for that weekend skiing
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve got to wonder how the average third country operator is supposed to pick up on CAA notices unless they actively monitor them? I've got a RSS feed from the CAA but it didn't pick this up and send it.
M.E.
M.E.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an EU administrative blunder and the CAA has no choice but to add this temporary extension I only hope the others have followed suit until the permanent extension is in place as there will be flights merrily flying over Europe today/tomorrow unaware.
The CAA always do their best and hats off to them as they can only deal with what they have but to put the CAA and pilots in this situation is really not good enough As another poster said how on earth are pilots meant to find out all this stuff.
If an aircraft unknowingly landed in a EU country which was lax in applying the same as the CAA what would the insurance situation be? An aircraft bursting a tyre on landing and having an accident? Would insurance still be valid I don't know the answer?
I could see a strong case for pilots or operators caught up in this EU mess suing the authorities for any losses incurred
The CAA always do their best and hats off to them as they can only deal with what they have but to put the CAA and pilots in this situation is really not good enough As another poster said how on earth are pilots meant to find out all this stuff.
If an aircraft unknowingly landed in a EU country which was lax in applying the same as the CAA what would the insurance situation be? An aircraft bursting a tyre on landing and having an accident? Would insurance still be valid I don't know the answer?
I could see a strong case for pilots or operators caught up in this EU mess suing the authorities for any losses incurred
The exemptions outlined at 2.1 and 2.2 above are restricted to UK airspace. Individuals and operators are responsible for ensuring that, if a flight will enter non-UK airspace, the competent authority for that airspace has enacted provisions which ensure that the flight will be legal. The Exemption is published as part of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Official Record Series 4, “UK Licence Validation Requirements for Holders of ICAO Annex 1 Flight Crew Licences”, dated 8 April 2016.
Last edited by Pace; 8th Apr 2016 at 09:00.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I don't see any difference from the previous year's extensions, and it hasn't caused any problems with flights. You are probably right though they do need suing. If you knew the background of the people creating this mess in the commission I think you would find it interesting, ie non aviation personnel currently a team of 5
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaver
I agree in the past extensions some countries never enacted the extensions mainly through ignorance and incompetency and it was business as usual
But a major accident with a large insurance claim may have the insurance companies looking for a way out.
As the EASA Licenses hold no validity on an FAA aircraft and subject to all the licensing being correct on the FAA aircraft I cannot see that it would be any more than a technical infringement and not an insurance issue but I don't know
I am far from an insurance expert
Maybe these threads are cross wiring and this should be in the Biz Jet forum?
Pace
I agree in the past extensions some countries never enacted the extensions mainly through ignorance and incompetency and it was business as usual
But a major accident with a large insurance claim may have the insurance companies looking for a way out.
As the EASA Licenses hold no validity on an FAA aircraft and subject to all the licensing being correct on the FAA aircraft I cannot see that it would be any more than a technical infringement and not an insurance issue but I don't know
I am far from an insurance expertMaybe these threads are cross wiring and this should be in the Biz Jet forum?
Pace