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
Last edited by Pace; 11th Apr 2016 at 07:37.